Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Extensive clearing of native vegetation on rural properties throughout Australia over the last century has generated significant damage to biodiversity. Conservation tenders have been broadly used to reduce the detrimental impact of such widespread clearance. To date, Australian conservation tender research has largely been limited to program evaluations and landholder surveys. This analysis differs by comparing and contrasting the views of non-landholders involved with these programs with those of participant landholders. The non-landholder group consists of individuals with involvement in conservation tenders across Australia. By contrast, the landholder group consists of individuals with participation experience in a series of Victorian tender initiatives. Each group is surveyed to investigate the drivers of cost-effectiveness within tender programs and landholder participation. This analysis explores these two perspectives, revealing important convergences and divergences in opinion. Both practitioners and landholders indicate that programs supported by close agency-landholder relationships and offering flexibility to landholders are most likely to succeed, particularly where landholders perceive the tender instrument to be fair. Whilst practitioners emphasise the role of transaction costs issues and program characteristics in achieving cost-effective biodiversity outcomes, landholders indicate that these factors are less important to participation rates. This research is important to guide future implementation of tender programs both in Australia and internationally. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2033-2052
    JournalBiodiversity and Conservation
    Volume23
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    biodiversity
    program evaluation
    cost effectiveness
    vegetation
    transaction cost
    cost
    programme
    divergence
    damage
    participation
    analysis
    opinion
    science
    evaluation
    rate

    Cite this

    @article{6504b0fd79a04b74bfcde1d2c5ca60dd,
    title = "Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders",
    abstract = "Extensive clearing of native vegetation on rural properties throughout Australia over the last century has generated significant damage to biodiversity. Conservation tenders have been broadly used to reduce the detrimental impact of such widespread clearance. To date, Australian conservation tender research has largely been limited to program evaluations and landholder surveys. This analysis differs by comparing and contrasting the views of non-landholders involved with these programs with those of participant landholders. The non-landholder group consists of individuals with involvement in conservation tenders across Australia. By contrast, the landholder group consists of individuals with participation experience in a series of Victorian tender initiatives. Each group is surveyed to investigate the drivers of cost-effectiveness within tender programs and landholder participation. This analysis explores these two perspectives, revealing important convergences and divergences in opinion. Both practitioners and landholders indicate that programs supported by close agency-landholder relationships and offering flexibility to landholders are most likely to succeed, particularly where landholders perceive the tender instrument to be fair. Whilst practitioners emphasise the role of transaction costs issues and program characteristics in achieving cost-effective biodiversity outcomes, landholders indicate that these factors are less important to participation rates. This research is important to guide future implementation of tender programs both in Australia and internationally. {\circledC} 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.",
    author = "Louise Blackmore and Graeme Doole and Steven Schilizzi",
    year = "2014",
    doi = "10.1007/s10531-014-0702-x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "23",
    pages = "2033--2052",
    journal = "Biodiversity and Conservation",
    issn = "0960-3115",
    publisher = "Springer",
    number = "8",

    }

    Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders. / Blackmore, Louise; Doole, Graeme; Schilizzi, Steven.

    In: Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 23, No. 8, 2014, p. 2033-2052.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Practitioner versus participant perspectives on conservation tenders

    AU - Blackmore, Louise

    AU - Doole, Graeme

    AU - Schilizzi, Steven

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - Extensive clearing of native vegetation on rural properties throughout Australia over the last century has generated significant damage to biodiversity. Conservation tenders have been broadly used to reduce the detrimental impact of such widespread clearance. To date, Australian conservation tender research has largely been limited to program evaluations and landholder surveys. This analysis differs by comparing and contrasting the views of non-landholders involved with these programs with those of participant landholders. The non-landholder group consists of individuals with involvement in conservation tenders across Australia. By contrast, the landholder group consists of individuals with participation experience in a series of Victorian tender initiatives. Each group is surveyed to investigate the drivers of cost-effectiveness within tender programs and landholder participation. This analysis explores these two perspectives, revealing important convergences and divergences in opinion. Both practitioners and landholders indicate that programs supported by close agency-landholder relationships and offering flexibility to landholders are most likely to succeed, particularly where landholders perceive the tender instrument to be fair. Whilst practitioners emphasise the role of transaction costs issues and program characteristics in achieving cost-effective biodiversity outcomes, landholders indicate that these factors are less important to participation rates. This research is important to guide future implementation of tender programs both in Australia and internationally. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

    AB - Extensive clearing of native vegetation on rural properties throughout Australia over the last century has generated significant damage to biodiversity. Conservation tenders have been broadly used to reduce the detrimental impact of such widespread clearance. To date, Australian conservation tender research has largely been limited to program evaluations and landholder surveys. This analysis differs by comparing and contrasting the views of non-landholders involved with these programs with those of participant landholders. The non-landholder group consists of individuals with involvement in conservation tenders across Australia. By contrast, the landholder group consists of individuals with participation experience in a series of Victorian tender initiatives. Each group is surveyed to investigate the drivers of cost-effectiveness within tender programs and landholder participation. This analysis explores these two perspectives, revealing important convergences and divergences in opinion. Both practitioners and landholders indicate that programs supported by close agency-landholder relationships and offering flexibility to landholders are most likely to succeed, particularly where landholders perceive the tender instrument to be fair. Whilst practitioners emphasise the role of transaction costs issues and program characteristics in achieving cost-effective biodiversity outcomes, landholders indicate that these factors are less important to participation rates. This research is important to guide future implementation of tender programs both in Australia and internationally. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

    U2 - 10.1007/s10531-014-0702-x

    DO - 10.1007/s10531-014-0702-x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 23

    SP - 2033

    EP - 2052

    JO - Biodiversity and Conservation

    JF - Biodiversity and Conservation

    SN - 0960-3115

    IS - 8

    ER -