Using landholder perspectives to evaluate and improve recovery planning for Toolibin Lake in the West Australian wheatbelt

Summary Over the last two decades, recovery plans have emerged as one of the most widespread policy and management responses for endangered species. Often these plans include public and private lands, and the associated government departments and private landholders. Toolibin Lake, in the West Australian (WA) wheatbelt, is a case in point, with a recovery plan focused on an internationally recognized wetland on public land within a predominantly privately owned, agricultural catchment. This paper draws on recent questionnaire and interview‐based research with landholders, to evaluate the influence of the recovery plan on conservation activities. Almost all landholders in the Catchment (93%) are involved in revegetation activities, with the availability of subsidies from the WA Government playing a strong role in adoption and its extent. The main constraints to adopting conservation actions, such as revegetation and fencing remnant vegetation, were cost and logistics. Correspondingly, the greatest incentive was financial inducement. Strengths of the recovery plan were identified as increasing awareness, demonstrating government effectiveness, and making funding available to landholders. The communication efforts by the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), the agency leading the recovery process, were lauded while at the same time the need for improved liaison was noted. Weaknesses were the lack of information and direction from CALM, bureaucracy, limited funding for CALM, and variable adoption across the Catchment. Recovery planning in this Catchment and other similar settings could be improved by a continuing commitment to two‐way communication between all those involved, ongoing recognition of the complexities of the government–community interface in recovery planning, and continuing subsidies for conservation actions on private lands where high biodiversity values are at stake.     

Trends and values of ‘Land for Wildlife’ programs for private land conservation

The Land for Wildlife program started in Victoria in 1981 as a voluntary program with the broad aim of supporting landholders in providing habitat for wildlife on their property. The program has since spread across Australia and is implemented in a range of guises, through a variety of governance approaches. This research collected qualitative and quantitative data on Land for Wildlife programs across Australia to conduct the first national review. Data were gathered on changes in program membership to assess different participation trends. In addition, phone interviews with Land for Wildlife coordinators throughout Australia were conducted to explore how the programs are positioned in delivering biodiversity outcomes in a range of different regions. Over 14,000 properties covering 2.3 million ha are currently registered under Land for Wildlife programs. with at least 500,000 ha of habitat managed for conservation. Limited resources present a large challenge faced by a number of programs, with generally low funding and staffing resulting in restricted biodiversity focus and conservation outcomes. We suggest options to enhance the programs and propose future research directions.     

Landholder perceptions of revegetation on the Atherton Tablelands,far North Queensland

The need to expand areas of native vegetation is clear to ecologists and governments; however, the privately owned nature of most cleared land means landholder support is critical. To improve landholder engagement in revegetation programmes, insight is needed into the information and attitudes being shared in landholder communities, especially by landholders with experience of participation in revegetation initiatives. Using a grounded theory framework, a content analysis was conducted on data gathered from semi‐structured interviews with 20 landholders who have undertaken revegetation on their properties. Three dominant themes emerged from the analysis of reasons for engaging with revegetation programmes, relating to perceived ‘environmental’, ‘personal’ or ‘agricultural’ benefits. Some unexpected impacts of the planting were also identified, both positive and negative. Suggested ways to improve landholder participation included increased funding and support; improved information regarding funding already available; and clearer communication about vegetation management laws.