How does the social and economic context influence conservation decisions? The case

of the Daly Catchment

Vanessa AdamsS c h oo l o f B i o l og ica l S c i e n ces

Un i ve rs i ty o f Q u e e n s lan d

Conservation opportunity

• Conservation occurs in complex social-ecological systems

• We think of conservation opportunity as a function of:– Conservation value

– Conservation threats

– Feasibility of conservation solutions

– Economic costs

– Social dimensions

– Willingness to act/support for solution

Thinking about opportunity in the context of systematic planning

• What are the costs of different conservation solutions?

• What is the willingness to support solutions?

• What are stakeholder values and preferences?

– and how can we align plan objectives with these values?

• What are the impacts of plans taking into account these values/preferences?

Daly Catchment, Northern Territory• High conservation values

– One of Northern Australia’s largest rivers– Riparian strips, extensive rainforest gallery– Endemic species

• Land use– Predominantly cattle grazing – Properties very large– High acquisition cost– Further establishment of national reserves difficult

• Protecting native vegetation and ecosystems– Questions around clearing laws (guidelines have max 20%

clearing, but their future as law is uncertain)– Ecosystems threatened by altering fire regimes and increased

invasive species– Active management of ecosystems is needed

Planning context

• 7.2 million ha: 50% pastoral, 29% aboriginal, 21% government (primarily national parks)

• Likely carbon funding for Indigenous burning regimes, possible stewardship program funding for pastoral properties, maybe additional parks (but less likely)

• Total of 450 pastoral property owners with properties >10 ha

• ~10% of pastoral property owners hold 90% of pastoral land area

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00%

<50

50-100

101 - 1000

1000 - 5000

5000 - 10000

>10000

% of surveyed properties

Size

pro

pe

rty

(ha)

Estimating costs and participation of private conservation in the Daly

• What drives management costs in the Daly catchment?

• How much will stewardship programs cost in the Daly catchment?

• What level of participation do we expect?

Estimating management costs

• Surveyed landholders

• Use land management costs as a surrogate for conservation costs

• Estimate ‘additional’ costs of conservation based on subset of survey responses

• Management cost model allows us to predict costs per property of base land management

• Conservation costs are, on average, a 17% increase on base land management costs (n=14)

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

log

(man

age

me

nt

cost

pe

r h

a, $

ha

-1)

log (property area, ha)

Model log (management cost per ha, $ ha-1)

Independent Variable Coefficient

Intercept 2.96

log (property area, ha) -0.598

Fire management (with weed removal) 0.0343

Weed management (with fire) -0.18

Unauthorized access -0.32

Years on property -0.0124

n=56, Overall r2

= 0.742

Estimating management costs

Stewardship program costs

• Total reported expenditures of $1.5 million (for 1 million ha)

• Estimated private expenditures for full catchment $6 million

• Stewardship program designed to cover ‘additional’ costs of conservation assuming 100% participation would cost $1,000,000 per annum

Predicting the probability of participation

What is the likelihood of participation in conservation covenants or conservation management agreements?

Imagine that the government would like you to set aside two more ‘patches’ of land on your

property for conservation purposes. This would change the configuration of your land

From:

where there is one small patch set aside for

conservation

To:

where there are several patches set

aside for conservation

Would you choose to

Payment (as a % of

Total Costs)Choice

Accept a Conservation covenant, that would require

you to pay for the survey costs, and then spend 1-2

days per month ‘managing’ the extra conservation areas

and receive

compensation for 50%

of all costsOr

Accept a Conservation management agreement, that

would require you to purchase some extra supplies (e.g.

fencing) and labour (to put the fences in) and that

would require you to spend an extra 1-2 days per

month ‘managing’ the areas

and receive

compensation for 50%

of all costs

Or

Sell your entire property at market value Market value

Choice Modeling

Configuration

Payment level

Predicting the probability of participation

Choice model results

Probability of participating in program based on 2 scenarios:

When CC, CMA payment are 100% and configuration is no patches to several

Alternative Probability

Conservation covenant 27.88Conservation management agreement 42.72

Sell 29.4

When CC payment is 150%, CMA payment is 100% and configuration is no patches to several

Alternative Probability

Conservation covenant 42.16Conservation management agreement 34.26

Sell 23.58

Concluding recommendations

• Trial one year payment program– High level of stewardship in region

• ~$6 million in private land management expenditures

– Cost effective • $0.24 per ha for stewardship program

• $2.25 per ha for national park management

– Budget of $100,000 - $400,000 would support a competitive bidding program (budgets in line with VIC and WA programs)• Expect ~70% of landholders to submit bids

• Allow ~10-40% of landholders to participate

Multiple objective planning in the Daly

• How do we plan for development and conservation simultaneously?

• What is the context of the conservation and development plans?

• How do we align plan objectives with

resident wellbeing

What government wanted in the plan

Conservation

Water management

based on water allocation plans

Development/economic activities

Community support

Funding vehicles

What the plan could influence, examples

• Clearing• Areas for no clearing• Areas ok for some clearing

• Conservation investment• Covenants• Payments for ecosystem services

• Development• Roads• Schools

• Land Management• Fire• Weed control

Problem definition

Objective setting

Final land use scenario

Implement

Monitor

Systematic planning and assessment

Visioning/Future scenarios

(1) DRMAC plan objectives

(2) Resident well-being factors

(4) Resident preferences for well-being and changes in catchment

(3) Design future scenarios

(5) Assess scenarios with Daly water MSE (from TRaCK)

(a) (b)

Planning and engagement process

What do catchment residents value?

• Used lens of subjective well-being to explore what’s important to residents

• Asked respondents to rate their life satisfaction (out of 10) as well as importance and satisfaction with 19 different aspects of life in the catchment

• Asked respondents to state satisfaction with changes in aspects of life in the catchment (e.g. land clearing, amount of infrastructure)

Survey responses: how important is each well-being factor to you?0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. It is important to keep the area in good condition for future…

3. A place where the river flows naturally and there are no dams

4. A place for natural heritage (e.g. important National Parks and…

14. A place for research, teaching and learning

1. The river provides habitat for iconic species (like barramundi,…

18. Swimming, camping, boating, being on country

12. A place that supports families and communities

16. Even if I could never visit ANY part of the Daly, I would still…

2. The catchment provides habitat to a variety of plants and animals

13. A place to preserve traditional (e.g. Indigenous) cultural values

11. A place that is relatively free from congestion and major…

17. Fishing and hunting for fun

19. Fishing and hunting for fresh food

6. The tourism industry in the catchment provides jobs and income

7. The agricultural industry in the catchment provides jobs and…

9. The cattle industry in the catchment provides jobs and income

10. The forestry industry in the catchment provides jobs and income

5. A place for development and intensified production

8. The mining industry in the catchment provides jobs and income

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Biodiversity Commercial Social-Cultural Recreational

Agriculture

Indigenous

Total

Survey responses: how important are different factors to you?

What factors should management focus on?• Index of dis-satisfaction (IDS) ratings

Satisfaction with changes

Problem definition

Objective setting

Final land use scenario

Implement

Monitor

Systematic planning and assessment

Visioning/Future scenarios

(1) DRMAC plan objectives

(2) Resident well-being factors

(4) Resident preferences for well-being and changes in catchment

(3) Design future scenarios

(5) Assess scenarios with Daly water MSE (from TRaCK)

(a) (b)

Planning and engagement process

• Biodiversity– 100% of sites of conservation significance

– 17% of vegetation types

• Recreational– Maintain target fish populations (protect 17% of

habitat)

• Socio-Cultural– Build critical mass to encourage industry investment

(restrict clearing to precincts)

• Commercial– 100% of highly suitable land cleared with a maximum of

20% of catchment area cleared

Objectives/Well-being factors

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Agriculture

Indigenous

Total

Survey responses: how satisfied would you be with clearing across catchment

Land use scenarios• Four sets of objectives:

– Examine 2 clearing target levels (10% and 20%)

– Constrain development to precincts to encourage industry investment/critical mass (with and without clearing precincts)

• Design optimal land use scenarios using Marxan with Zones and quantitative targets set with DRMAC (both conservation and development).

Scenario analysis• Evaluate land use scenarios based on:

– Conservation objectives met

– Adherence to existing policy (clearing policy limits)

– Social indicators (stakeholder preferences for change in social, economic and environmental indicators)

Satisfaction metrics for scenarios(a) 10% maximum clearing

scenarios

(b) 20% maximum clearing

scenarios

Catchment changes

associated with land-use

scenarios

Total Indigenous Agriculture Total Indigenous Agriculture

One and a half times as many

people in the catchment - - -

Twice as many people in the

catchment- - -

Twice the infrastructure ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Twice as much clearing - - +

Four times as much clearing - -- +

Twice as much agriculture - -- +

Four times as much

agriculture- -- ++

Water level dropped in the

Daly (dry season)-- -- -- -- -- --

Three quarters as many fish - - -

Half as many fish -- -- --

Scenario evaluation

• All scenarios met conservation objectives

• 10% scenarios adhered to the existing clearing guidelines with only marginal exceedances of limits

• 20% scenarios had small number of major exceedances for clearing limits

• 20% scenarios had larger negative impacts on stakeholder preferences

• We recommend based on this 10% clearing scenarios

Conclusions• There are feasible conservation solutions such as

private protection and carbon offsets to achieve conservation targets

• Scenarios with maximum of 10% clearing in the catchment perform best across evaluation metrics– 10% clearing minimizes environmental impacts and

associated negative changes in social and cultural indicators

– Balances differences in preferences across key stakeholder groups

• Selecting a final land-use plan to guide land use decisions in the catchment should involve further engagement with stakeholders with scenario maps and indicators as discussion points

This research is part of the National Environmental Research Program Northern Australia Hub. For more information about the Northern

Australia Hub go to www.nerpnorthern.edu.auThe research is supported by funding from the Australian Government’s

National Environmental Research Program www.environment.gov.au/nerp

CONTACT DETAILS

Vanessa AdamsResearch FellowUniversity of Queensland

Email: v.adams@uq.edu.au

• Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L. and Stoeckl, N., 2012. Estimating land and conservation management costs: the first step in designing a stewardship program for the Northern Territory. Biological Conservation 148: 44–53.

• Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L. and Stoeckl, N., 2014. Estimating landholders' probability of participating in a stewardship program, and the implications for spatial conservation priorities. PLoS ONE 9: e97941.

• Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L. and Stoeckl, N., 2014. Navigating trade-offs in land-use planning: Integrating human well-being into objective setting. Ecology and Society 19: 53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07168-190453.

• Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L. and Álvarez-Romero, J. G., In review. Optimal land use planning for development and conservation: using scenarios to assess tradeoffs between conservation, development, and social values. PLoS ONE