Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Management in the Peri-urban Region: Psychological and Contextual Factors Influencing Private Land Conservation Actions

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Peri-urban areas, defined as the region between urban and rural settlements, are heterogeneous, dynamic regions experiencing rapid land use change in cities around the world. Ongoing development and land use change has resulted in the fragmentation, degradation and loss of natural assets, threatening biodiversity, and ecosystems within the peri-urban region. With much of this land privately owned, the actions of landholders have considerable opportunity to deliver environmental outcomes, yet an understanding of this diverse group of landholders is challenging. Through a survey of landholders (N = 184) in Australian peri-urban regions we sought to understand motivations and barriers to engagement in environmental management. Factors influencing willingness to engage in environmental management included perceived personal capacity to act, feeling that actions were helpful, and community participation. We discuss how engagement strategies could incorporate these findings by focussing on improving capacity and environmental knowledge with hands on, face-to-face extension activities, encouraging simple actions, and fostering greater community interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams VM, Pressey RL, Stoeckl N (2014) Estimating landholders’ probability of participating in a stewardship program, and the implications for spatial conservation priorities. PLoS ONE 9(6):e97941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

  • Ajzen I (1988) Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbolino R, De Simone L, Carlucci F, Yigitcanlar T, Ioppolo G (2018) Towards a sustainable industrial ecology: Implementation of a novel approach in the performance evaluation of Italian regions. J Clean Prod 178:220–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of a minimal intervention to reduce fat intake. Soc Sci Med 52(10):1517–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00265-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage CJ, Talibudeen L (2010) Test of brief theory of planned behaviour-based intervention to promote adolescent safe sex intentions.(Report). Br J Psychol 101(1):155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). 2016 National Regional Profile. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Government. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Bandura A, Locke EA (2003) Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J Appl Psychol 88(1):87–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beedell J, Rehman T (2000) Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. J Rural Stud 16(1):117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00043-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekessy SA, White M, Gordon A, Moilanen A, McCarthy MA, Wintle BA (2012) Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe. Landsc Urban Plan 108(2-4):140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett N, Whitty T, Finkbeiner E, Pittman J, Bassett H, Gelcich S, Allison E (2018) Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ Manag 61(4):597–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore L, Doole GJ (2013) Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs for Australian biodiversity conservation. Environ Sci Policy 33:143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bockarjova M, Steg L (2014) Can Protection Motivation Theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Glob Environ Change 28(1):276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnley IH, Murphy PA (1995) Exurban development in Australia and the United States: through a glass darkly. J Plan Educ Res 14(4):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxton M (2014) The expanding urban fringe: impacts on peri-urban areas, Melbourne, Australia The Security of Water, Food, Energy and Liveability of Cities (55–70). Springer, Dordrecht

  • Buxton M, Choy DL (2007) Change in peri-urban Australia: implications for land use policies. In Paper from the state of Australian cities conference

  • Buxton M, Tieman G, Bekessy S, Budge T, Mercer D, Coote M, Morcombe J (2006) Change and continuity in peri-urban Australia, state of the peri-urban regions: a review of the literature monograph 1. RMIT University, Melbourne

  • Cary J, Wilkinson R (1997) Perceived profitability and farmer’s conservation behaviour. J Agric Econ 48(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1997.tb01127.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton S, Litchfield C, Geller ES (2013) Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability. Front Ecol Environ 11(7):377–382. https://doi.org/10.1890/120351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough P (2000) Encouraging Private Biodiversity-Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation on Private Land. New Zealand Treasury Working Paper, New Zealand Government, The Treasury

  • Darbas T, MacLeod N, Kearney F, Smith TF, Grounds S (2010) Peri-urbanisation, Social Heterogeneity and Ecological Simplification. Retrieved from

  • Dean AJ, Barnett AG, Wilson KA, Turrell G (2019) Beyond the ‘extinction of experience’–Novel pathways between nature experience and support for nature conservation. Glob Environ Change 55:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Church EK, Loder J, Fielding KS, Wilson KA (2018) How do marine and coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement? J Environ Manag 213:409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Fielding KS, Lindsay J, Newton FJ, Ross H (2016a) How social capital influences community support for alternative water sources. Sustain Cities Soc 27:457–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Lindsay J, Fielding KS, Smith LDG (2016b) Fostering water sensitive citizenship – Community profiles of engagement in water- related issues. Environ Sci Policy 55:238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia (DPTISA) (2010) The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Government of South Australia, Adelaide

  • Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007) Australia’s Native Vegetation: A summary of Australia’s Major Vegetation Groups, 2007. Australian Government, Canberra, ACT

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolnicar S, Hurlimann A, Grün B (2011) What affects public acceptance of recycled and desalinated water? Water Res 45(2):933–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.09.030

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker S, Thompson L, Kancans R, Stenekes N, Mallawaarachchi T (2012) Drivers of practice change in land management in Australian agriculture. ABARES report prepared for Sustainable Resource Management Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards RW (2004) Information paper: measuring social capital: an Australian framework and indicators, 2004. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • European Social Survey (2014) ESS-1 2002 documentation report. Edition 6.4. European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding KS, McDonald R, Louis WR (2008) Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. J Environ Psychol 28(4):318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons J (2015) Private protected areas in Australia: current status and future directions. Nat Conserv 10:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour J, Beilin R, Sysak T (2011) Biosecurity risk and peri‐urban landholders – using a stakeholder consultative approach to build a risk communication strategy. J Risk Res 14(3):281–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.528560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooden J, Grenyer R (2019) The psychological appeal of owning private land for conservation. Conserv Biol 33(2):339–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R (2015) Motivations and attitudes influence farmers’ willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts. Agric Syst 137:154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman B, Choy DL (2011) Perspectives on tradable development rights for ecosystem service protection: lessons from an Australian peri-urban region. J Environ Plan Manag 54(5):617–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.526405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York, NY, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollier C, Reid M (2007) Small lifestyle farms: improving delivery mechanisms for sustainable land management: a report for the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton, A.C.T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horng J-S, Hu M-LM, Teng C-CC, Lin L (2014) Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction Behaviors in Tourism - A Perception Study of Asian Visitors from a Protection Motivation Theory Perspective. Asia Pac J Tour Res 19(6):721–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.797002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamal S, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Brown G (2015) Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J Environ Plan Manag 58(4):576–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.875463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keshavarz M, Karami E (2016) Farmers’ pro-environmental behavior under drought: application of protection motivation theory. J Arid Environ 127:128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothe E. Ling M. Berne RD, Russell-Head I, Mullan B (2019) Protection Motivation Theory and intention to reduce fossil fuel consumption in response to climate change. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s9nt3

  • Lavelle MJ, Rau H, Fahy F (2015) Different shades of green? unpacking habitual and occasional pro-environmental behavior. 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.021

  • Liu Z, Robinson GM (2016) Residential development in the peri- urban fringe: the example of Adelaide, South Australia. Land Use Policy 57:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke EA, Latham GP (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychologist 57(9):705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y, Ruan D, Lai G (2013) Social capital and economic integration of migrants in urban China. Soc Netw 35(3):357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheshwari B, Singh VP, Thoradeniya B (2016) Balanced urban development: options and strategies for liveable cities. Springer, Cham

  • Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC, Laterra P, Linklater WL, Milfont TL (2014) Psycho‐social factors influencing forest conservation intentions on the agricultural frontier. Conserv Lett 7(2):103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland P (2015) The Peri-urban Land- Use Planning Tangle: An Australian Perspective. Int Plan Stud 20(3):161–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2014.965250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie F (1997) Growth Management or Encouragement? A Critical Review Of Land Use Policies Affecting Australia’s Major Exurban Regions. Urban Policy Res 15(2):83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111149708551508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendham E, Curtis A (2010) Taking over the reins: trends and impacts of changes in rural property ownership. Soc Nat Resour 23(7):653–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801998893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller E, Buys L (2008) The impact of social capital on residential water-affecting behaviors in a drought-prone Australian Community. Soc Nat Resour 21(3):244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701818258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minato W, Curtis A, Allan C (2010) Social norms and natural resource management in a changing rural community. J Environ Policy Plan 12(4):381–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Cocklin C (2011a) A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs. Conserv Biol: J Soc Conserv Biol 25(3):493–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01639.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Cocklin C (2011b) Participation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. J Rural Stud 27(3):331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore HE, Rutherfurd ID, Peel MC (2018) Excluding stock from riverbanks for environmental restoration: the influence of social norms, drought, and off-farm income on landholder behaviour. J Rural Stud 62:116–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson K, Pauleit S, Bell S, Aalbers C, Nielsen TAS (2013) Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe. Springer, Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Norris P (2002) The bridging and bonding role of online communities. Harv Int J Press/Politics 7(3):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X0200700301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onyx J, Bullen P (2000) Measuring social capital in five communities. J Appl Behav Sci 36(1):23–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886300361002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osbaldiston R, Schott JP (2012) Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ Behav 44(2):257–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter MA, Paxton P (2014) Checkbooks in the Heartland: change over time in voluntary association membership. Sociological Forum 29(2):408–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Wilkinson R (2009) Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial “lifestyle” rural landholders. Ecol Econ 68(10):2679–2687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parbery, P, Wilkinson, R, Karunaratne, K (2008) Square Pegs in Green Wedges: Landholders and Natural Resource Management in Melbourne’s Rural Hinterland. Summary Report: Department of Primary Industries, Victoria

  • Poortinga W (2012) Community resilience and health: The role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health Place 18(2):286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Dev 29(2):209–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS, Carlton JS, Arbuckle JG, Haigh T, Lemos MC, Mase AS, Power R (2015) Extension′s role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States. Climatic Change 130(2):261–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1339-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J, Fertner C, Nielsen TS (2013) The Dynamics of Peri-urbanization. Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe (pp. 13-44): Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol 91(1):93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell A, Ridoutt B, Page G, Bellotti W (2016) Direct and indirect land-use change as prospective climate change indicators for peri-urban development transitions. J Environ Plan Manag 59(4):643–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selinske MJ, Howard N, Fitzsimons JA, Hardy MJ, Smillie K, Forbes J, Knight AT (2019) Monitoring and evaluating the social and psychological dimensions that contribute to privately protected area program effectiveness. Biol Conserv 229:170–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selman P (2001) Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning. Plan Theory Pract 2(1):13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350122850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(40): 16083–16088

  • Simmons BA, Archibald CL, Wilson KA, Dean AJ (2020) Program awareness, social capital, and perceptions of trees influence participation in private land conservation programs in Queensland, Australia. Environ Manag https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01321-5

  • Simmons BA, Wilson KA, Dean AJ (2021) Psychosocial drivers of land management behaviour: how threats, norms, and context influence deforestation intentions. Ambio, 1–14

  • Smith GPE, Doret G (2006) The Contribution of Biodiversity Conservation on Private Land to Australian Cityscapes. ISoCaRP

  • Sorice MG, Kreuter UP, Wilcox BP, Fox WE (2014) Changing landowners, changing ecosystem? Land-ownership motivations as drivers of land management practices. J Environ Manag 133:144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spry S, Annett S, McGuinness S, Thuan S (2016) Engaging Peri-Urban Landholders in Natural Resources Management. In: Maheshwari B, Singh VP, Thoradeniya B (Eds.) Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities. Springer International Publishing, Cham, p 171–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sydney Peri-Urban Network of Councils (SPUN) (2015) Sydney Peri-Urban Network Action Plan. Wollondilly Shire Council, New South Wales

  • Terry DJ, Hogg MA (1996) Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 22(8):776–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari S, Lane M, Alam K (2019) Do social networking sites build and maintain social capital online in rural communities? J Rural Stud 66:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2018) World Urbanization Prospects. The 2017 Revision. New York. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/pdf/WUP2017_Highlights.pdf

  • Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace C, Vincent K, Luguzan C, Townsend L, Beel D (2017) Information technology and social cohesion: a tale of two villages. J Rural Stud 54(C):426–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandl, A, Magoni, M (2017) Sustainable Planning of Peri-Urban Areas: Introduction to the Special Issue. Planning, practice & research, 32(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2017.1264191

  • Wossen T, Berger T, Di Falco S (2015) Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia. Agric Econ 46(1):81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yencken D, Wilkinson D (2001) Resetting the Compass: Australia’s Journey Towards Sustainability. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED). Konrad Uebel was financially supported by a UQ HDR Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Konrad Uebel & Jonathan Rhodes

  2. School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Kerrie A. Wilson & Angela J. Dean

  3. Centre for the Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Kerrie A. Wilson & Angela J. Dean

  4. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Angela J. Dean

Authors
  1. Konrad Uebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Rhodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerrie A. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela J. Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konrad Uebel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uebel, K., Rhodes, J., Wilson, K.A. et al. Environmental Management in the Peri-urban Region: Psychological and Contextual Factors Influencing Private Land Conservation Actions. Environmental Management 68, 184–197 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01487-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01487-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation