Fairness and Transparency Are Required for the Inclusion of Privately Protected Areas in Publicly Accessible Conservation Databases

Hayley S. Clements, Matthew J. Selinske, Carla L. Archibald, Benjamin Cooke, James A. Fitzsimons, Julie E. Groce, Nooshin Torabi and Mathew J. Hardy
Additional contact information
Hayley S. Clements: Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa
Matthew J. Selinske: Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
Carla L. Archibald: Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
Benjamin Cooke: Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
James A. Fitzsimons: The Nature Conservancy, P.O. Box 57, Carlton South, VIC 3053, Australia
Julie E. Groce: School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
Nooshin Torabi: Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
Mathew J. Hardy: Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia

Land, 2018, vol. 7, issue 3, 1-13

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 diversity 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.

Keywords: Convention on Biological Diversity; Aichi Target 11; conservation planning; protected area reporting; equity framework; private land conservation; privacy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/3/96/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/3/96/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:3:p:96-:d:163523

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().