Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: Socio-economic, behavioral, and spatial dimensions Christopher M. Raymond a, * , Gregory Brown b,1 a Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia and Enviroconnect Pty Ltd, PO Box 190, Stirling, SA 5152, Australia b School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, St. Lucia Campus, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia article info Article history: Received 16 November 2010 Received in revised form 28 March 2011 Accepted 13 May 2011 Available online xxx Keywords: Conservation opportunity Conservation priority Socio-demographic factors Economic factors Conservation behavior Native vegetation conservation abstract This study presents a method for assessing conservation opportunity on private land based on landholders’ socio-economic, behavioral, and farm characteristics. These characteristics include age, gender, education, level of off-farm income, farm size, proportion of remnant native vegetation on-farm, and ecological value of native vegetation on-farm. A sample of landholders who own greater than 2 ha of land in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin region were sent a mail-based survey about their values and preferences for environmental management (N ¼ 659, 52% response). Cross-tabulations and ANOVA statistical analysis techniques were used to compare the socio-economic attributes across three landholder classes: dis- engaged, moderatelyengaged, and highly engaged in native vegetationplanting. Results indicate that highly engaged landholders were more likely to be female, formally educated, hobby farmers who managed small parcels of land and have high off-farm incomes, whereas disengaged landholders held significantly stronger farming connections (more farming experience, family have lived on the farm for more generations). Spatial analysis revealed area-specific differences in conservation opportunity and conservation priority. In some areas, properties of high ecological value were managed by highly engaged landholders, but nearby prop- erties of high value were managed by moderately engaged or disengaged landholders. Environmental managers therefore cannot assume areas of high conservationpriority will be areas of high conservation opportunity. At the regional scale, the potential for revegetation seems most promising within the moderately engaged landholder group considering the vast amount of land managed by this group in areas of high ecological value, particularly within the less represented Mallee and Coorong and Rangelands sub- regions. We suggest that incentive schemes which purchase conservation need to be targeted at disengaged landholders; mentoring schemes led by commercial farmers highly engaged in native vegetation planting should be directed at moderately engaged landholders, and; awards programs which acknowledge conservation successes should be targeted at highly engaged landholders. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Spatially explicit techniques to identify and prioritise conserva- tion areas have received considerable attention in the environmental management literature over recent years. Priorities for environ- mental management have been based on biophysical data, including values for biodiversity and land assets (e.g., Crossman and Bryan, 2009; Magurran, 2004; Prendergast et al., 1999), as well as economic data on cost-effectiveness of reserve allocations (Naidoo et al., 2006). Whilst these tools, among others, provide a systematic means of prioritising conservation areas, they are rarely translated into practice (Carpenter et al., 2009; Knight et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2003). Knight et al. (2010a) notes: “we need to know, not only where most valued nature is located, but also, where willing and capacitated people and institutions are located” (p. 7). To address this concern, recent studies have focussed on the social-ecological context of conservation assessment, such as the mapping of social values for ecosystem services (Bryan et al., 2010a,b; Raymond et al., 2009) and the spatial assessment of conservation opportunity (Knight et al., 2010b). Unlike conservation priority which identifies where areas should be allocated to conservation, conservation opportunity examines the factors that contribute to effective actions (Knight and Cowling, 2007). In the broader environmental management literature, numerous theoretical and applied frameworks have been developed to under- stand conservation opportunity, in terms of why farmers adopt on- farm conservation practices. Decisions to adopt conservation * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 423 299 986. E-mail addresses: chris.raymond@enviroconnect.com.au (C.M. Raymond), greg.brown@uq.edu.au (G. Brown). 1 Tel.: þ61 7 336 56654. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman 0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.015 Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2011) 1e11 Please cite this article in press as: Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: Socio-economic, behavioral, and spatial dimensions, Journal of Environmental Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.015