Search

Conserving threatened habitats on private lands requires policies that advance the interests of landowners and natural resource professionals alike. Through qualitative analysis of individual and focus-group interviews, we compared how family forest owners and natural resource professionals frame conservation of threatened habitat: the oak woodlands and savanna in Oregon. Applying constructionism to the analysis and design of specific policies, we explored policy options to facilitate cooperation and avert conflict between these stakeholders. Informants displayed three primary frames in discussions of oak conservation: the human-nature relationship, the rights and obligations of property ownership, and the role of policy in social change. Their motivations to conserve oak and preferences for conservation policy stemmed from their differing uses of these frames. Conservation easements, habitat mitigation banking, and voluntary grass-roots initiatives were three types of policy that seemed to accommodate the frames of both owners and natural resource professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Designing policies that harness the motivations of landowners is essential for conserving threatened habitats on private lands. Our goal was to understand how to apply ethnographic information about family-forest owners to the design of conservation policy for Oregon white oak in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (U.S.A.). We examined owners' knowledge, beliefs, values, and socioeconomic contexts through in-depth individual and focus-group interviews to understand their motivations to conserve oak. We then used Schneider and Ingram's (1990) policy analysis framework to compare owners' motivations to the logic of policy. Owners had complex motivations for conserving oak. Despite this complexity, all 5 categories of policy that Schneider and Ingram describe hold promise. Policies that use symbolism to inspire behavior and policies that build capacity can harness owners' stewardship ethics and moral obligations. Policies that offer tangible rewards can build on owners' utilitarian motives. Policies that permit and prohibit behavior can tap owners' concerns about rule violations. Policies that promote voluntary, collaborative efforts can accommodate owners' need for autonomy and flexibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]