Analysis of trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon farming and agricultural development in northern Australia reveals the benefits of strategic planning

Australia's northern savannas are one of the few remaining large and mostly intact natural areas on Earth. However, their biodiversity and ecosystem values could be threatened if proposed agricultural development proceeds. Through land-use change scenarios, we explored trade-offs and synergies among biodiversity conservation, carbon farming and agriculture production in northern Australia. We found that if all suitable soils were converted to agriculture, habitat at unique recorded locations of three species would disappear and 40 species and vegetation communities could lose more than 50% of their current distributions. Yet, strategically considering agriculture and biodiversity outcomes leads to zoning options that could yield >56,000 km2 of agricultural development with a significantly lower impact on biodiversity values and carbon farming. Our analysis provides a template for policy-makers and planners to identify areas of conflict between competing land-uses, places to protect in advance of impacts, and planning options that balance agricultural and conservation needs.

Framing the private land conservation conversation: Strategic framing of the benefits of conservation participation could increase landholder engagement

How conservation messages are framed will impact the success of our efforts to engage people in conservation action. This is highly relevant in the private land conservation (PLC) sector given the low participation rates of landholders. Using a case study of PLC schemes targeted at Australian landholders, we present the first systematic analysis of communication strategies used by organisations and government departments delivering those schemes to engage the public. We develop a novel approach for analysing the framing of conservation messages that codes the stated benefits of schemes according to value orientation. We categorised the benefits as flowing to either the landholder, to society, or to the environment, corresponding to the egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations that have been shown to influence human behaviour. We find that messages are biased towards environmental benefits. Surprisingly, this is the case even for market-based schemes that have the explicit objective of appealing to production-focussed landholders and those who are not already involved in conservation. The risk is that PLC schemes framed in this way will fail to engage more egoistically oriented landholders and are only likely to appeal to those likely to already be conservation-minded. By understanding the frame in which PLC benefits are communicated, we can begin to understand the types of people who may be engaged by these messages, and who may not be. Results suggest that the framing of the communications for many schemes could be broadened to appeal to a more diverse group (and thus ultimately to a larger group) of landholders.