ORCID Profile
0000-0002-8845-7966
Current Organisation
RMIT University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Environment Policy | Social and Cultural Geography | Conservation and Biodiversity | Human Geography
Institutional Arrangements for Environmental Protection | Land Stewardship | Remnant Vegetation and Protected Conservation Areas in Farmland, Arable Cropland and Permanent Cropland Environments |
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-2021
DOI: 10.1111/EMR.12484
Abstract: In 2021, as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the world’s nations will meet to determine bio ersity targets for this decade, including area‐based protection targets. Conservation tenders (a form of market‐based instrument) have been used in several countries for the protection and restoration of bio ersity and ecosystem services within a defined area, mostly on private land. Conservation tenders are promoted as delivering cost‐effective and targeted investment/outcomes in the context of limited funding for conservation. Despite the significant investment in the approach, the resultant bio ersity conservation outcomes from these tenders have received relatively little research attention. Key questions on the efficacy of conservation tenders for achieving bio ersity conservation outcomes are discussed, to inform policy makers, programme managers and researchers. Questions include the following: (i) What are the conservation objectives that conservation tenders seek to address that other mechanisms cannot?, (ii) What have been the bio ersity outcomes realised as they relate to ecosystem/habitat representation or ecosystem services?, (iii) How do policy makers plan to realise bio ersity values beyond the term of the agreement given no publicly stated strategy on securing long‐term outcomes?, (iv) Is reporting of activities and results sufficient to judge changed bio ersity condition or delivery of expected outcomes at the end of the agreement, and are there efforts lans/aims to follow up on outcomes post the agreement term?, (v) What proportion of successful tenderers have a protective conservation covenant in place prior to signing a tender or as a result of signing a tender agreement?, (vi) What do we know about the intentions and capacity of landholders beyond the term of the agreement and what has been the fate of agreements (and conservation outcomes) if they have changed hands during the course of the agreement?, (vii) Is the confidential nature of bidding in many conservation tenders missing the opportunity for collective or collaborative conservation efforts that can sustain learning and enthusiasm post‐tender?, and (viii) Is the information on ecological values (ecosystem type, quality, landscape context etc) presented or made available in a way to landholders that maximises likely bidding to ensure a large pool and thus programme efficiency?
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 20-08-2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 27-08-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-08-2019
DOI: 10.1002/PAN3.10043
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 23-02-2023
Publisher: Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Date: 2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 07-03-2022
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 18-10-2022
DOI: 10.1177/25148486221129418
Abstract: Imaginaries of protected areas as state-based fortresses have been challenged by expansion of the global nature conservation estate on non-government lands, notably in contexts such as Australia where neoliberal reform has been strong. Little is known about the implications of this change for the meanings, purposes and practices of nature conservation. Images are central to public understandings of nature conservation. We thus investigate the visual communication of environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs) involved in private protected areas in Australia, with particular focus on Bush Heritage Australia (BHA). We employ a three-part design encompassing quantitative and qualitative methods to study the visual imaginaries underlying nature conservation in BHA's magazines and the web homepages of it and four other ENGOs over 2004–2020. We find that visual imaginaries changed across time, as ENGOs went through an organisational process of professionalisation comprising three dynamics: legitimising, marketising, and differentiating. An imaginary of dedicated Western volunteer groups protecting scenic wilderness was replaced by the spectacle of uplifting and intimate in idual encounters with native nature. Amenable to working within rather than transforming dominant political-economic structures, the new imaginary empowers professional ENGOs and their partners as primary carers of nature. It advertises a mediated access to spectacular nature that promises positive emotions and redemption for environmental wrongs to financial supporters of ENGOs. These findings reveal the role of non-government actors under neoliberal conditions in the use of visual representations to shift the meanings, purposes and practices of nature conservation.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-05-2016
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 26-04-2018
DOI: 10.1017/AEE.2018.18
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-04-2018
DOI: 10.1111/EMR.12308
Publisher: Unpublished
Date: 2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2015
Publisher: Medknow
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.4103/CS.CS_100_21
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 05-08-2016
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 13-08-2018
DOI: 10.3390/LAND7030096
Abstract: There is a growing recognition of the contribution that privately-owned land makes to conservation efforts, and governments are increasingly counting privately protected areas (PPAs) towards their international conservation commitments. The public availability of spatial data on countries’ conservation estates is important for broad-scale conservation planning and monitoring and for evaluating progress towards targets. Yet there has been limited consideration of how PPA data is reported to national and international protected area databases, particularly whether such reporting is transparent and fair (i.e., equitable) to the landholders involved. Here we consider PPA reporting procedures from three countries with high numbers of PPAs—Australia, South Africa, and the United States—illustrating the ersity within and between countries regarding what data is reported and the transparency with which it is reported. Noting a potential tension between landholder preferences for privacy and security of their property information and the benefit of sharing this information for broader conservation efforts, we identify the need to consider equity in PPA reporting processes. Unpacking potential considerations and tensions into distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of equity, we propose a series of broad principles to foster transparent and fair reporting. Our approach for navigating the complexity and context-dependency of equity considerations will help strengthen PPA reporting and facilitate the transparent integration of PPAs into broader conservation efforts.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 31-03-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-05-2018
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 05-2012
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2020
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-2012
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 02-04-2020
Start Date: 2018
End Date: 2020
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 05-2018
End Date: 12-2023
Amount: $338,609.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity