The social construction of landscape scale conservation projects as delivered by The Wildlife Trusts in England
Year: 2017
Type: dissertation
Abstract: Wildlife conservation in England is in transition because nature reserve based \nconservation has three weaknesses. They have not reversed biodiversity \ndecline, nor do they provide the means for species to move across the landscape \nin response to climate change, and most reserves are too small to be part of an \necosystem approach to conservation. Landscape scale conservation (LSC) \naddresses these deficiencies. Therefore, the purpose of my thesis was to \nunderstand the meaning of LSC as implemented in the Living Landscapes \nschemes of The Wildlife Trusts (TWT) movement in England. My research also \nexamined the governance and management of these schemes. \nI used a constructivist approach to investigate the institutions and discourses of \nLiving Landscapes. To do this, I conducted an email survey of the 36 Trusts in \nEngland and then studied the available documentation that describes Living \nLandscapes. Then I carried out a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders \nassociated with five Wildlife Trusts. The purpose of these interviews was to \nunderstand what their Living Landscape schemes meant to these stakeholders. \nThe email survey and subsequent document study revealed the range and type of \nLiving Landscapes across England. LSC is complex, suggesting that ecosystem \nservices are too intricate a typography to assign to these schemes. I developed \nan understanding of what is meant by LSC through the lens of stakeholders in \nLiving Landscapes. I examined TWT’s LSC vision which revealed the discourses \nand formal and informal institutions of Living Landscapes. I also examined \nLockwood’s framework for LSC governance, one of LSC’s institutions. \nMy research examined the Wildlife Trust movement’s approach to delivering \nLSC. Two types of institutions are evident, informal institutions define the \nphysical attributes of Living Landscapes, whilst formal institutions are \ncharacteristic of their governance and management. Its key discourses of \nconservation, education and community engagement define Living Landscapes, \nwhilst ecosystem services emerged as a new discourse to reflect the multifaceted \ncultural and historical elements in the landscape. TWT’s once insular approach to governance is in transition to a pluralistic model that encourages \ngreater community involvement. Therefore, if LSC is to be a template for \nsuccessful conservation it must embrace a wider definition of both conservation \nand governance.
Author: Stephen G. Pritchard
Language: English
Subfield: Nature and Landscape Conservation
Field: Environmental Science
Domain: Physical Sciences
SDG: Life on land
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2808175559