Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Do conservation covenants consider the delivery of ecosystem services?

Carla L. Archibald a, b, *, Marie C. Dade c, Laura J. Sonter a, b, Justine Bell-James d,
Robyn Boldy a, b, Beatriz Cano a, b, Rachel S. Friedman a, b, Flavia Freire Siqueira e,
Jean Paul Metzger f, James A. Fitzsimons g, h, Jonathan R. Rhodes a, b
a
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
b
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
c
Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0B9, Canada
d
TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
e
The Federal University of Lavras, Av. Doutor Sylvio Menicucci, 1001 - Kennedy, Lavras - MG, 37200-000, Brazil
f
Departamento De Ecologia, Universidade De São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
g
The Nature Conservancy, Suite 2-01, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
h
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood VIC 3125, Australia

A B S T R A C T

Privately protected areas promote the conservation of biodiversity and have also been shown to conserve valuable ecosystem services. Legally binding instruments
like conservation covenants are important mechanisms to protect the natural environment on private land. However, the extent to which conservation covenants
either explicitly require or allow for the delivery of ecosystem services, and the specific ways through which they achieve this, are largely unexplored. We undertook
a content analysis of clauses in individual covenant documents, overarching legislative, and policy frameworks to examine this issue. We use a qualitative coding
framework to assess how clauses consider the supply and the flow of ecosystem services to covenantors and society. We found that the requirements of conservation
covenants did not widely consider the management ecosystem services. When covenant clauses focused on ecosystem services, they primarily considered the flow of
ecosystem services between areas of supply to areas of demand. Clauses primarily considered these ecosystem services flows to the covenantor, with only a small
number of clauses explicitly considering to ecosystem services flows to society more broadly. Finally, we found that regulating services, like erosion prevention, were
often positively associated with conservation covenants, whereas cultural and provisioning services, like nature-based recreation, were often negatively associated
with conservation covenants. Understanding how conservation covenants consider the delivery of ecosystem services is important if privately protected areas are to
both conserve biodiversity and promote ecosystem services co-benefits.

1. Introduction Assuming synergies between biodiversity and ecosystem services

Historical land use change is responsible for the loss of natural areas
across the globe, with these losses particularly evident on private land
tenures (Butchart et al., 2010; Evans, 2016). The deterioration of natural
areas not only jeopardizes the diversity and abundance of plants, ani­
mals and living organisms (henceforth, biodiversity) (Newbold et al.,
2015), but also the stocks of natural capital that provide human
well-being benefits to society, known as ecosystem services (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Policymakers can implement many types
of policies to protect natural values on private lands, with the most
secure form of protection being through privately protected areas
(PPAs). PPAs are spatially defined areas designated using legal in­
struments (or other effective mechanisms) like restrictive conservation
easements and covenants to achieve the long-term protection of biodi­
versity (Kamal and Brown, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2018).
(Harrison et al., 2014), we can suppose that PPAs conserving biodi­
versity may also play a crucial role in providing ecosystem services
(Mackey et al., 2015; Owley and Rissman, 2016). For example, positive
spatial relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services have
been found by researchers in the case of afforestation, as this process
can reduce runoff and provide greater water storage (Farley et al.,
2005). Likewise, the conservation of insectivorous birds can have a
positive effect on pest control (Koh, 2008). However, relationships
between biodiversity and ecosystem services are not always positive
and management may confront trade-offs between these objectives
(Ricketts et al., 2016). Negative relationships have been found between
the protection of animal species diversity and carbon storage (e.g.,
under certain climate futures, Reside et al., 2017). Understanding how
these relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services are
being considered by PPA policy and law is important to understand the

* Corresponding author at: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.
E-mail address: c.archibald@deakin.edu.au (C.L. Archibald).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.016
Received 24 March 2020; Received in revised form 3 July 2020; Accepted 26 August 2020
Available online 1 November 2020
1462-9011/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C.L. Archibald et al. Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107

extent to which PPAs are capable of delivering ecosystem services delivery.

co-benefits.
While the primary goal of PPAs is to conserve biodiversity (Dudley,
2008), policy acknowledges (e.g. Mitchell et al., 2018) and research
finds that they should and can also deliver ecosystem services. For
example, conservation easements in the United States of America (USA)
and private reserves in South Africa and Brazil have been found to
support cultural services by promoting recreation and supporting
tourism (Rissman and Merenlender, 2008; de Vasconcellos Pegas and
Castley, 2014; Clements and Cumming, 2017b). Conservation easements
in the USA also aid in the delivery of services like drinking water pro­
visioning through protecting catchment areas (Villamagna et al., 2015).
In Brazil, private reserves have been found to deliver carbon abatement
and sequestration services, through protecting vast areas of forest
(Metzger, 2001). Similarly, this has also been found in Australia through
the protection of native vegetation on private land, and through the
reintroduction of traditional fire management (Legge and Fleming,
2012; Walton and Fitzsimons, 2015). However, it is not clear whether
these ecosystem services co-benefits arise incidentally or through
explicit policy design.
Explicit consideration of ecosystem services within policy and law is
the first step towards ensuring the delivery of ecosystem services (Ruhl,
2015; Bell-James, 2019). Yet, ecosystem service management is complex
and incorporating specific considerations for ecosystem services de­
livery (e.g., management of supply and flows) into policy and law can be
challenging (Ruhl, 2015). Even in instances where positive relationships
are identified between biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services,
there is no guarantee this can also lead to an increase of benefits to
people due to restricted or uncertain ecosystem service flow, at least for
some services (Watson et al., 2019). While the consideration of
ecosystem services within PPA policy and law will not solely lead to the
successful delivery ecosystem services, as delivery also relies on appli­
cation and enforcement, consideration can improve the certainty to
which this occurs (Ruhl, 2015). If PPA policy, law and legal instruments
are designed in such a way to conserve certain ecosystem services then
they need to explicitly consider the complexities of ecosystem service
Here we aim to investigate the extent to which the legal and policy
documents underpinning conservation covenants in Australia seek to
explicitly influence the delivery of ecosystem services. We first outline a
conceptual model to link PPAs with ecosystem services, and use it to
qualitatively code and review major conservation covenant deed tem­
plates in Australia. We assess how these deeds reference the supply and
flow of ecosystem services to benefit two groups of people: private
landholders (henceforth covenantors) and broader society. We then
assess how cultural, regulating, and provisioning ecosystem services are
integrated into these policy documents. Understanding the extent to
which the conservation covenants consider ecosystem services remains
unexplored, but is critical for evaluating the intent and likely outcomes
of these forms of PPAs for ecosystem services.
1.1. Conceptualising the potential for privately protected areas to deliver
ecosystem services
We apply the ecosystem services supply chain framework (Tallis
et al., 2012) to conservation covenants to understand the potential of
PPAs to deliver ecosystem services (Fig. 1). In addition, we incorporate
elements of how ecosystem services are conceptualised spatially to help
consider how the provision of ecosystem services may be impacted by
conservation covenants (Tallis et al., 2012; Bagstad et al., 2013). Using
these frameworks, we conceptualise how conservation covenants
interact with the supply of ecosystem services and the flows of services
to different beneficiaries (Fig. 1).
The supply of an ecosystem service refers to the biophysical potential
for an ecosystem to provide services. Demand for an ecosystem service is
the level to which people require or rely on that ecosystem service. Flow
refers to the mechanisms by which areas of supply are connected to
areas of demand so that people and communities can benefit from
ecosystem services. These flows can be enabled through the movement
of people, species, or the flow, or capture of, matter. The mechanism
underpinning flows can include site access for recreation, diffusion of
gases in the atmosphere, or technology and knowledge sharing (see

Fig. 1. Components of the ecosystem services supply chain framework and how they relate spatially to private land and conservation covenants. The private property
in which the covenant is established on is represented by the brown area, and the conservation covenant extent is represented by the green circle. Covenant re­
strictions (highlighted by the green arrows and box) can affect the supply and flow of ecosystem services to covenantor (termed private benefit) who demand
ecosystem services and to society (termed public benefit) who demand ecosystem services. Interactions can also exist between public and private demand that can
influence broader legislation, as well as between broader legislation and the covenant itself through changing program goals.

100
C.L. Archibald et al.
Supplementary Material 1 for all definitions). Ecosystem service benefit
arises when supply of an ecosystem service flows to beneficiaries and
provides a well-being benefit (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005). In this paper, we assess how covenants may influence both the
supply and flow of services (e.g., through site access). We also comment
on the potential influence this may have on the well-being benefits (e.g.
benefit of accessing an area to recreate).
Legal instruments like conservation covenants work by changing
certain rights for private landholders in how they use their land. This
involves setting legal requirements, program goals and requirements,
and specific conservation covenant restrictions (see Fig. 1, Legislation
and covenant program) which can impact on the nature of property
rights (e.g., specifying conservation as the primary land use type), and/
or by the imposition of land use and activity restrictions (e.g., excluding
stock grazing as an activity) (Fig. 1, see conservation covenant extent).
Rearranging the property rights held by a private landholder can change
how ecosystem services are supplied by directly or indirectly managing
the supply of ecosystem services. This can also affect the benefits that
subsequently flow to beneficiaries by directly or indirectly managing the
flows of ecosystem services from areas of supply to private landholders
Table 1
Conservation covenant programs assessed in this study and objectives of legislation underpinning conservation covenant instruments in different states and intent of
conservation covenants as identified in the template deeds.
State/ Instrument Intent of conservation covenant template
territory deed
Western National Trust of The objective of National Trust of Australia
Australia Australia WA WA covenants is to protect natural values
covenants and bushland areas a,b.
South South Australian The objective of South Australian Heritage
Australia Heritage Agreement Program covenants is to protect
Agreements important cultural areasa, bushland areasa,b
and ecosystemsb.
New South Biodiversity The objective of Biodiversity Conservation
Wales Conservation Trust Trust covenants is to protect and restore
covenants biodiversity conservation valuesb and other
values created by interactions with humans
through traditional management practicesa
to ensure long-term integrity.
Queensland Queensland Nature The objective of the Queensland Nature
Refuges Refuge program covenants is to protect
land with significant biodiversity
conservation valuesb, while allowing
compatible and sustainable land uses to
continuea.
Victoria Trust for Nature The objective of Trust for Nature (Victoria)
(Victoria) conservation covenants is to permanently
conservation conserve and protect the naturala,b,
covenants cultural or scientific valuesa of the land.
Tasmania Private Property The objective of Private Property
Conservation Conservation Program covenants is to
Program covenants facilitate the sustainable managementa and
conservation of natural valuesa,b on private
land.
Note: More information on the legislation that was reviewed and Torrens title, can be found in S2.1 & S2.2 of the Supplementary Material.
a
Indicating a human-centred value focus which considers ecosystem services that areas of native vegetation provide.
b
Indicating a natural and ecological value focus which considers the management of native vegetation and ecosystems for conservation purposes.
Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107
or the public.
Within this framework, we assume that there is potentially demand
for an ecosystem services by both private (i.e., the covenant, see Fig. 1
private property) and public beneficiaries (e.g., neighbours, or broader
society). The people who benefit from ecosystem services are collec­
tively referred to as beneficiaries and rely on the flows of ecosystem
services to satisfy their levels of demand (e.g., Schirpke et al., 2014).
Management of the supply and the flow of ecosystem services at a
location has the potential to benefit people beyond the covenantor, such
as public beneficiaries (see Fig. 1, public benefit) (Sonter et al., 2017).
Therefore, the structure of a conservation covenant may influence the
ecosystem services benefits delivered to neighbouring landholders and
to society (Villamagna et al., 2017).
The potential of covenant to provide ecosystem service benefits can
also be influenced by the broader context and objectives of existing in­
stitutions, rules and regulations that govern natural resources on private
lands (the legal and policy context), as these conditions act as a baseline
for how ecosystem services are provided on private lands (henceforth
termed, private land baseline) (Hicks and Cinner 2014). The private land
baseline, in this case, represents how the rules and restrictions currently
Legislation Objectives of Legislation Legal
Protection
Mechanism
National Trust of Australia To establish the National Trust of Australia Recorded on
(WA) Act 1964 and; (WA) with the objective to permanently property title.
Transfer of Land Act 1893 conserve and protect the naturala,b,
culturala or scientific/educationala values
of the land in WA. Stimulate appreciation
and educate the public on the history of
places and things of national or local
importance. Where possible, strengthen
legal protections of land protected under
the Transfer of Land Act 1893.
Native Vegetation Act To provide incentives and assistance to Recorded on
1991 landowners in relation to the preservation property title.
and enhancement of native vegetationa,b; to
control the clearance of native vegetationa,b;
to repeal the Native Vegetation Management
Act 1985; to make consequential
amendments to the South Australian
Heritage Act 1978; and for other purposes.
Biodiversity Conservation To maintain a healthy, productive and Recorded on
Act 2016 resilient environmenta,b for the greatest property title.
well-being of the communitya, now and into
the future, consistent with the principles of
ecologically sustainable development.
Nature Conservation Act To conserve natureb while allowing for the Registered on
1992 and Nature involvement of indigenous people in the property title.
Conservation (Protected management of protected areas in which
Areas) Regulations 1994 they have an interest under Aboriginal
tradition or Island customa.
Victorian Conservation To establish the Victorian Conservation Recorded on
Trust Act 1972 Trust [now Trust for Nature] with the property title.
objective to permanently conserve and
manage the naturala,b, culturala or
scientifica values of the land in Victoria.
Nature Conservation Act To establish areas to protected and manage Recorded on
2002 and Land Titles Act lands, threatened species/communitiesb; property title.
1980 and to promote the sustainable
development of naturala,b and physical
resourcesa.
101
C.L. Archibald et al.
applied to private land tenure in Australia may affect ecosystem services
(e.g., vegetation management regulations restrict the clearance of
vegetation). This private land baseline land rights arrangement will be
considered in the methods below to highlight how the property-specific
legal instruments associated with conservation covenants may influence
the supply and flows of ecosystem services to people.
2. Methods
2.1. Conservation covenants in Australia
We focus our analysis within Australia, which has six states and two
territories. Conservation covenanting laws are generally developed at
the state level and most state jurisdictions have multiple pieces of
legislation under which conservation covenants can be created (Fitzsi­
mons, 2015). We analysed and compared conservation covenant deed
documents of six of the conservation covenant programs that Fitzsimons
(2015) has identified in Australia (specifically, Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia)
(Table 1) (see Supplementary Material 2 for more detail).
A conservation covenant is a legally binding agreement that creates
enforceable land use restrictions with the primary goal of conserving
biodiversity (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014). These restrictive conservation
covenants ‘run with the land’ (i.e. bind future purchasers/owners)
provided it is registered or recorded onto the land title (Table 1). A
conservation covenant deed outlines specific restrictions, as clauses,
associated with the requirements of the PPA. This deed may also contain
the broader legal obligations imposed on the landholder under relevant
legislation. Deed templates include many standard clauses which are
utilised in individual conservation covenant contracts.
Legislation and accompanying government policies set broad rules
and objectives surrounding the conservation of nature. To identify
whether the legislation or policy have bearing on whether or not
ecosystem services are incorporated into conservation covenant deed
templates, we reviewed and summarised the primary objectives of the
legislation and conservation covenant programs in tabular format based
on relevant documentation (Table 1).
2.2. Content analysis of conservation covenant deed templates
We identified whether there is explicit mention of ecosystem services
within conservation covenant deed templates in relation to the supply
and flow of ecosystem services. To do this we used a social science
content analysis approach which has previously been used in environ­
mental policy settings to understand differences between policy in­
struments (Ruhl, 2015; Liu et al., 2017; Bell-James, 2019) and is defined
as a systematic method that allows content to be qualitatively examined
through content-by-content encoding of semantic information (Kassar­
jian, 1977).
The data collection process used a draft coding framework that was
established inductively based on the research questions and the con­
ceptual framework (Fig. 1). The information elicited from deed tem­
plates was finalised through an iterative process until a final coding
framework was developed (see Supplementary Material 3). We first
identified any clauses within the deed templates that considered
ecosystem services. We delineated ecosystem services using The Eco­
nomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) framework (see Supple­
mentary Material 1 & 3), and focused on provisioning, regulating and
cultural services.
Determining whether clauses were associated with ecosystem ser­
vices was sometimes challenging, due to differing definitions of services
and variation in the specificity of clauses amongst jurisdictions. Thus,
we developed a three-point ‘ecosystems services association’ coding
system, similar to those developed by Ruhl (2015) and Bell-James
(2019):
102
Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107
1) No detected association: Clause has no explicitly stated association
with an ecosystem service, or of the indicators of the supply or flows
of an ecosystem service (see Supplementary Material 3).
2) Indirectly associated: Clause acknowledges an ecosystem service by
reference to the indicators of supply or flows of a service, yet does not
directly state, link or relate to the how the supply or flow of
ecosystem services would be managed;
3) Directly associated: Clause directly acknowledges an ecosystem ser­
vice by stating the ecosystem service or how the supply or flow of
ecosystem services would be managed. Additionally, the indicators
of supply and the flows of the ecosystem services in question can be
easily identified.
An example of a case when a clause would be coded as ‘no detected
association’ is when a clause refers to maintaining infrastructure or
restricting the use of pesticides, but it makes no mention of an ecosystem
service. A clause that includes terms like ‘wetlands’ and ‘riparian’, or
similarly includes terms that relate to recreation such as ‘biking’, was
considered to be ‘indirectly associated’ with regulating and cultural
ecosystem services, respectively. If the clause continues to also outline a
specific ecosystem service (for example to protect areas of riparian
vegetation to reduce erosion and reduce the sedimentation of water­
ways) or for the purpose of recreational use (e.g. trail bikes or any ve­
hicles), it was coded as ‘directly associated’.
We then determined how the clauses contained within a conserva­
tion covenant deed template potentially influence the supply and flow of
ecosystem services. Each clause-ecosystem service relationship was
assigned a direction of association based on how the clause may change
the relationship between supply from a private land tenure baseline. To
determine how clauses potentially influence the supply and flow of
ecosystem services, coders subjectively inferred what the potential dif­
ference may be between the supply and flow of ecosystem services on
private land tenure with and without a conservation covenant imple­
menting the clause:
▪ Positive: implementation of the clause is likely to be positively
associated with ecosystem services supply and/or flow
compared to the counterfactual.
▪ Negative: implementation of the clause is likely to be negatively
associated with ecosystem services supply and/or flow
compared to the counterfactual.
▪ No influence: implementation of the clause is not likely to
change the ecosystem services supply and/or flow compared to
the counterfactual.
We also assigned a certainty score to each clause around how each
likely influence of supply and flow of ecosystem services, as inferred
above:
▪ Certain: the coder is confident that the clause has the coded
association with supply and/or flow of ecosystem services
based on how the supply and flow indicators are identified by
the coder in the clause.
▪ Uncertain: the coder is not confident that the clause has the
coded association with supply and/or flow of ecosystem ser­
vices, based on how the supply and flow indicators are identi­
fied by the coder in the clause.
We employed a team coding process of the deed templates to miti­
gate implications of subjectivity during the qualitative coding and to
increase the quality of the data collected. Clauses were assigned: an
‘ecosystem service association’ code; the ecosystem service type based
on the TEEB classification; a code to represent how the clause may in­
fluence the supply of ecosystem services; and, for each beneficiary, a
code to represent how the clause may influence the flow of services (see
Supplementary Material 3). We also summarised how deed template
C.L. Archibald et al.
clauses mentioned ecosystem services with respect to managing supply
and/or flows of ecosystem services. These associations represent how
conservation covenant clauses can manage provisioning, regulating and
cultural services, for example by influencing only the supply, only the
flow, or perhaps both.
For intercoder reliability, the Queensland deed template was coded
by a team of four co-authors (three coders who developed the coding
framework (C. Archibald, R. Boldy, B. Cano), and one independent coder
for robustness (R. Friedman). To test intercoder reliability, we used a
standard test for agreeability; the Fleiss’ Kappa. The Fleiss’ Kappa
analysis was applied to these four coders and we determined that the
coders shared moderate agreement levels for the ecosystem services
description (Kappa = 0.539, p ≤ 0.001) and the ecosystem services
relevance score (Kappa = 0.513; p ≤ 0.001), with both of these agree­
ment scores being statistically significant (indicating that we coded
clauses at a higher level of agreement than by chance). One person
coded all clauses (C. Archibald) and two people coded half the policy
documents each (R. Boldy & B. Cano). This meant that all clauses were
coded at least twice. Any disagreements in clause encoding were
consensually coded (see Supplementary Material 3).
3. Results
Across all states, both natural (biodiversity) and human (ecosystem
services) values are incorporated into the legislation and the conserva­
tion covenant program objectives (Table 1). The legislation underpin­
ning conservation covenants across Australia refers to protecting
natural, cultural or scientific/educational values of the land and facili­
tating sustainable development, where compatible, and resilient envi­
ronments to improve human well-being. However, the scope of this
legislation varies widely in Australia, and often encompasses broader
aspects of environmental management. For example, in New South
Wales, Queensland and Tasmania the legislation encompasses nature
conservation broadly, while in South Australia, the legislation focuses
on managing native vegetation. In Western Australia, the legislation has
some natural value references, but predominantly focuses on built/
cultural values. In Victoria, the legislation establishes an organization
whose early purpose was land purchase for conservation (Table 1).
We coded 152 clauses from the owner’s duty section of the
Fig. 2. Number of clauses in conservation covenant deed templates which
related to the management of ecosystem services on the y-axis and the state
jurisdiction on the x-axis. States: Queensland (QLD), New South Wales (NSW),
Victoria (VIC), Tasmania (TAS), South Australia (SA) and Western Australia
(WA) (see Table 1 for program names). One clause may have multiple links to
ecosystem services, thus ecosystem services association scores, therefore this
graph displays the maximum number associated with the clause.
103
Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107
conservation covenant deed templates spanning six major conservation
covenanting programs within Australia. Of these clauses, 28% were
indirectly associated with ecosystem services, and 4% directly associ­
ated with ecosystem services. All remaining clauses were not coded to be
associated with ecosystem services. Deed templates in New South Wales,
Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia directly mentioned the
management of ecosystem service supply and/or flow in some way,
whilst South Australia and Tasmania made no direct reference to
ecosystem services (Fig. 2). The majority of the assessed clauses centred
around protecting natural habitat, rather than ecosystems and their
services directly or indirectly. Queensland (7 out of 27 clauses) and New
South Wales (1 out of 32 clauses) were the only two states with direct
positive links to ecosystem service supply within clauses (see Supple­
mentary Material 4).
We identified 13 different ecosystem services based on the TEEB
classification for ecosystem services that were associated with our six
conservation covenant deed templates (see Supplementary Material 4).
These included four cultural, three provisioning and six regulatory ser­
vices. Nature-based recreation (14 mentions) and food and raw mate­
rials provisioning (10 mentions) were the services most commonly
identified. Provisioning services in general (including food and water
provisioning services) were also consistently referred to across deed
templates in all states. Regulating services were referred to the least
across all covenanting documents; however, they were a focus of the
Nature Refuges deed template in Queensland. The clauses in this deed
template referenced carbon sequestration, erosion prevention, and
maintenance of soil structure and composition (through the protection
of wetland and riparian vegetation), moderation of local climate, air
quality and extreme events (through appropriate ecological burning).
3.1. How do conservation covenant deed templates consider ecosystem
services?
3.1.1. Consequence for ecosystem service supply
Generally, the deed templates did not explicitly mention the supply
of ecosystem services (Fig. 3, private landholder supply panel). The
Nature Refuge covenants in Queensland and the Biodiversity Conser­
vation Trust covenants in New South Wales were the only two covenants
with clear positive links to the supply of ecosystem services. For
example, covenants that protect areas of wetlands and riparian vegeta­
tion directly supply regulating services through reducing erosion and
sedimentation of waterways. All other clauses were either coded as
having uncertain positive links to the supply of ecosystem services, due
to a lack of clarity in the way in which ecosystem services flow to
beneficiaries; or coded as having no influence on the supply of an
ecosystem service. There were no cases in which the clauses were coded
with a negative link associated with ecosystem service supply.
3.1.2. Consequence for ecosystem service flows
The deed template clauses tended to have neutral or negative asso­
ciations with the flow of ecosystem services to the private beneficiary as
many restricted a land use type or action, yet had positive links to the
flow of ecosystem services to public beneficiaries. However, many of the
links between clauses and ecosystem service flows were coded as un­
certain (Fig. 3). This was due to the uncertainty around whether the
mechanisms necessary to facilitate flows were in place. For example, site
access (e.g., to recreate), information exchange (e.g., communication of
conservation benefits of culturally significant species), mobility of
native species to areas in need of pest control (e.g., native species to
control invasive/pest species abundance), or whether environmental
flow indicators are monitored (e.g., sediment load in water, local climate
conditions). This uncertainty was noted for positive flows of ecosystem
services to public beneficiaries and for negative flows to private bene­
ficiaries (see Fig. 3)
Only in Victoria and Western Australia were the deed template
clauses coded with a negative link to ecosystem service flows to public
C.L. Archibald et al.
Fig. 3. Associations between conservation covenant deed template clauses and ecosystem services supply and flow. The unit of analysis is the count of ecosystem
services to clauses. The certainty of associations is signified with bold for certain associations and plain text indicating uncertain associations on the y-axis.
beneficiaries. This was due to restrictions on the commercial sale of
timber and establishment of tourism ventures by landholders. On the
other hand, in Queensland, Tasmania, and Victoria the deed template
clauses were positively associated with flows of ecosystem services to
public beneficiaries through creating opportunities for recreation and
appreciating the natural beauty in the covenanted area, and by
enhancing water flows on the property.
3.2. Consideration of cultural, regulating and provisioning services
When clauses mentioned cultural services, they typically focused on
managing the flow of services to the covenantor and the public, rather
than its supply (Fig. 4). Further, the coded association was often negative,
as clauses tended to restrict the flow of cultural services to people, rather
than positively enhance it, which would ultimately cause a loss of ben­
efits across private and public beneficiaries alike. For a positive well-
being benefit to be achieved, rather than restricting flows to a service
(e.g., restricting site access) a clause would have to enhance the flow from
supply areas to the beneficiary.
Clauses tended to imply modifying the flow of food provisioning
services to people by restricting the access to the covenanted area for the
type of activities that generate the service, especially if this was at odds
with the primary purpose of the covenant (i.e., nature conservation),
rather than positively enhancing it (e.g., through sustainable grazing
programs) (Fig. 4). Food provisioning (specifically the grazing of stock)
has the potential to cause a loss of biodiversity and associated ecosystem
service benefits, across private and public beneficiaries. In some cases,
104
Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107
allowance for ecological grazing to replicate an ecosystem process is
allowed for, thus mitigating this trade-off in some instances by providing
a service (e.g., New South Wales Biodiversity Conservation Trust cove­
nants). Deed templates also typically focused on enhancing the supply of
water and raw materials (i.e., non-commercial firewood) provisioning to
private beneficiaries.
When deed templates mentioned regulating services, clauses typi­
cally focused on enhancing the supply of services (Fig. 4). This potential
association was coded as certain for clauses mentioning services related
to erosion prevention, carbon sequestration and regulation of local
climate. However, this association was coded as uncertain for biological
pest management, and was associated with managing the flow of
wastewater treatment services. The majority of clauses within deed
templates did not imply managing flow mechanisms to neighbours or
society with certainty.
4. Discussion
Privately protected areas, such as conservation covenants, are
considered important tools for protecting biodiversity and compatible
ecosystem services (Villamagna et al. 2015; Mitchell et al., 2018). In this
study, we identified that some conservation covenant clauses manage
for ecosystem services, but typically in an indirect way. As a result, there
may be no legal obligation to deliver ecosystem services to the extent
that may be expected by policymakers based upon the sentiment
expressed within PPA programs (Table 1). Ecosystem services benefits of
conservation covenants are more likely to be an incidental co-benefit of
C.L. Archibald et al. Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107

Fig. 4. Associations between conservation covenant clauses, and the supply and flow of cultural, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services. Matrix should be
read horizontally, with each row adding to a total of 100%. The values within each grid cell refers to the proportion of clauses which were coded with the respective
interaction between supply and flow. Colour gradient represents how many associations occur (as a percentage) between supply and flow for each service and
beneficiary (darker shades = higher %).

habitat protection, rather than an intentional benefit created within the
policy design process (Villamagna et al., 2015; Clements and Cumming,
2017). Conservation covenants can deliver ecosystem services benefits
beyond those that are realised solely by protecting habitat, by consid­
ering ecosystem services supply and flows within the policy design
process.
4.1. Extent to which conservation covenants consider ecosystem services
While the protection of ecosystem services is a prominent goal of the
broader legislation associated with conservation covenant mechanisms,
the specific term “ecosystem service” is rarely used in the deed templates
(see Table 1). When ecosystem services were mentioned, we primarily
coded these considerations as being indirectly associated with
ecosystem services. Indirect associations with ecosystem services is
likely underpinned by the assumption that reducing a threatening pro­
cess to biodiversity, like habitat loss, is also linked with the delivery of
ecosystem services co-benefits. Yet, this positive association may not
necessarily be the case for all ecosystem services if the flow of the service
(e.g., access) is being restricted (Villamagna et al., 2015; Ricketts et al.,
2016).
Clauses that focused on ecosystem services tended to focus on the
supply of regulating ecosystem services, perhaps because managing for
regulating services (e.g., by minimising disturbances to wetlands and
riparian areas) also provides opportunities to conserve nature (e.g.,
biodiversity associated with those ecosystems) which is the primary goal
of privately protected areas (Mitchell et al., 2018). However, synergies
between regulating services and biodiversity are not always guaranteed
(Hansson et al., 2005; Reside et al., 2017). Conservation covenants also
tended to focus on managing the flows of cultural and provisioning
services, such as restricting covenantors from accessing areas for certain
types of recreational activities, grazing and foraging. Conservation
covenants may focus on restricting access to certain cultural and pro­
visioning services as the delivery of these services can result in trade-offs
with regulating services and biodiversity conservation, which is the
primary focus of PPAs (Ament et al., 2017).
While we did not find ecosystem services to be commonly considered
within deed templates, this does not mean that ecosystem services are
not an overarching priority of conservation covenants (see Table 1). Nor
does this mean that covenants, or PPAs more broadly, do not contribute
towards ecosystem service objectives (Villamagna et al., 2015; Clements
and Cumming, 2017). Rather, our results suggest that conservation
covenants indirectly consider ecosystem services and typically manage
indicators of ecosystem services supply and/or flows, rather than
considering specific components of the ecosystem services framework
that may be influenced by PPAs. The results of this study could support

105
C.L. Archibald et al.
new and continued research for how outcome-based ecosystem services
payments for PPA programs might be used to complement biodiversity
outcomes (Jacka et al., 2008; Cooke and Corbo-Perkins, 2018; Leo et al.,
2019).
This study progresses knowledge on the extent to which conservation
covenants consider ecosystem services. Yet, a limitation to the approach
taken is that we only focused on basic conservation covenant deed
templates, not specific individual covenants or the additional manage­
ment agreements which often provide more specific details on the ob­
jectives of land management. Additionally, this analysis was a point-by-
point assessment of clauses rather than a study that identifies in­
teractions between clauses and the subsequent potential influence on
ecosystem service delivery.
4.2. Implications for covenantors and society
Managing ecosystem services supply and flow for the private bene­
ficiary (i.e., the covenantor) were a clear focus of conservation cove­
nants. For PPAs to access additional funding, and expand into ecosystem
services markets (e.g., carbon markets), it will become increasingly
important to outline how agreements like conservation covenants sup­
port ecosystem service benefits. For example, conservation covenants
may inhibit payments for ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration)
if covenants are considered to be already protected and not offering
additionality (Smith et al., 2016). Recognising these perverse outcomes
are important to ensure future PPA programs and deed templates are
adjusted to avoid covenants being excluded from future financial in­
centives. Because conservation covenants often restrict physical access
of private beneficiaries to much of the ecosystem services generated by
conservation covenants, it may also be important to ensure incentives
and compensation is available in other ways.
Conservation covenant deed templates tended to consider ecosystem
service supply and flows at the private property-level, which in some
cases were coded to be negatively associated with ecosystem services
benefits to covenantors. If covenantors do not benefit from the
ecosystem services, policymakers could recalibrate other policies that
might exclude covenants from payments for ecosystem services,
restructure covenants to ensure ecosystem services benefits are deliv­
ered, or provide additional incentives to covenantors (Smith et al.,
2016). Similarly, to overcome this perverse outcome we observed that
some conservation covenanting programs anticipated a negative impact
to private beneficiaries and restructured covenants to avoid the poten­
tial negative impacts to beneficiaries (e.g., the NSW Biodiversity Con­
servation Trust covenant). Identifying potential negative outcomes to
covenantors, is particularly important if ecosystem service benefits are
used by policymakers as a type of incentive to encourage landholders to
adopt PPAs (e.g., allowing landholders to market their ecotourism
venture as being within a protected area, see Clements and Cumming,
2017; de Vasconcellos Pegas and Castley, 2014).
Ecosystem service flows to public beneficiaries were not a clear focus
of the conservation covenant deed templates. Many clauses either did
not consider spatial differences in where ecosystem services provide
benefits (i.e. to the public), or it was unclear if the mechanisms needed
to facilitate the flow of services from areas of supply to areas of demand
were in place (with the exception of some regulating services). To in­
crease public benefits provided by conservation covenants, clauses could
be added, or organisational and institutional policies could be devel­
oped, to enhance pathways of flow to public beneficiaries (for example,
Watson et al., 2019). To do this, policymakers must identify what the
indicator/s of flow is (e.g., access to fresh water) for the ecosystem
services benefits (e.g., erosion control) they intend on delivering, and
focus management towards this indicator (e.g., riparian plantings).
Better designed policies regulating the flow of ecosystem services from
conservation covenants to the public beneficiary may improve the po­
tential for public ecosystem service benefits of covenanting programs.
106
Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107
4.3. Jurisdictional differences in how conservation covenants consider
ecosystem services
Conservation covenants show great promise and importance for the
protection of ecosystem services (Metzger et al., 2019), but under­
standing how benefits are distributed within and across jurisdictions is
important (Villamagna et al., 2015; Clements and Cumming, 2017;
Metzger et al., 2019). We observed that the proportion of deed template
clauses that focused on ecosystem services were similar across Austra­
lian states. Yet, there were differences in terms of which ecosystem
services were considered, how clauses addressed ecosystem services,
and who is likely to benefit from ecosystem services amongst jurisdic­
tions (see Supplementary Material 4).
The primary outliers in this study were the Nature Refuge covenants
in Queensland and the Biodiversity Conservation Trust covenants in
New South Wales. The Nature Refuge covenant deed templates focused
many clauses on the protection of koalas, which was coded in many
instances as being linked to cultural services (e.g., appreciation of koalas
as iconic Australian wildlife), as well as regulating services in wetland
and riparian areas. One focus of the Biodiversity Conservation Trust
covenants was on provisioning services, particularly using sustainable
grazing as a tool for ecological management, where appropriate, for
some ecosystems. These differences could reflect what is important in
different states and under different legislation, the varying scope of the
legislation conservation covenants are administered through (see
Table 1), the time at which the legislation was drafted, or differences in
levels of demand for ecosystem services (for example, Naidoo et al.,
2008).
5. Conclusions
Conservation covenants in Australia are currently configured to
conserve biodiversity, rather than ecosystem services. However, there
are multiple ways in which conservation covenants could be strength­
ened, for example considering flows and considering who the benefi­
ciaries are, to better ensure the protection of ecosystem services benefits.
There is rising pressure on natural capital and, in response, it is crucial
that governments across the globe develop policies to support the de­
livery and conservation of ecosystem services on private land. To ensure
PPAs, such as conservation covenants, support ecosystem services de­
livery that are complementary to their primary purpose of biodiversity
conservation, policymakers must begin to incorporate mechanisms of
flow into the way they design and support PPAs. The current uncertainty
around what ecosystem services benefits conservation covenants pro­
vide to private and public beneficiaries is a limitation in the way these
instruments are designed for ecosystem services delivery. The insight we
present here provides an opportunity for policymakers to better incor­
porate ecosystem services into PPAs in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Carla L. Archibald: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing. Marie C. Dade: Conceptualization, Methodology. Laura J.
Sonter: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing.
Justine Bell-James: Writing - review & editing. Robyn Boldy: Data
curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Beatriz Cano:
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Rachel S.
Friedman: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing.
Flavia Freire Siqueira: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Jean Paul Metzger: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
James A. Fitzsimons: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Jonathan R. Rhodes: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
C.L. Archibald et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper
Acknowledgements
This research received funding from Australian Research Council
Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CE11001000104)
and a UQ-FAPESP SPRINT grant. CA was supported by an Australian
Postgraduate Award.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.016.
References
Ament, J.M., Moore, C.A., Herbst, M., Cumming, G.S., 2017. Cultural ecosystem eervices
in protected areas: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv. Lett.
10, 439–449.
Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., Villa, F., 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem
service flows : a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst.
Serv. 4, 117–125.
Bell-James, J., 2019. Integrating the ecosystem services paradigm into environmental
law: A mechanism to protect mangrove ecosystems? J. Environ. Law 31 (2), 1–45.
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W.,
Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E.,
Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F.,
Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M.,
Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L.,
Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C.,
Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A.,
Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vié, J.C., Watson, R., 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators
of recent declines. Science 328 (5982), 1164–1168.
Clements, H.S., Cumming, G.S., 2017. Manager strategies and user demands:
determinants of cultural ecosystem service bundles on private protected areas.
Ecosyst. Serv. 28 (Part B), 228–237.
Cooke, B., Corbo-Perkins, G., 2018. Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for
private land conservation. Land Use Policy 70, 172–181.
de Vasconcellos Pegas, F., Castley, J.G., 2014. Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its
adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22,
604–625.
Dudley, N. (Ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.
IUCN., Gland, Switzerland.
Evans, M.C., 2016. Deforestation in Australia: drivers, trends and policy responses. Pac.
Conserv. Biol. 22 (2), 130–150.
Farley, K.A., Jobbagy, E.G., Jackson, R.B., 2005. Effects of afforestation on water yield:a
global synthesis with implications for policy. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1565–1576.
Fitzsimons, J.A., 2015. Private protected areas in Australia: current status and future
directions. Nat. Conserv. 10, 1–23.
Fitzsimons, J.A., Carr, C.B., 2014. Conservation covenants on private land: Issues with
measuring and achieving biodiversity outcomes in Australia. Environ. Manage. 54,
606–616.
Hansson, L.A., Brönmark, C., Nilsson, P.A., Åbjörnsson, K., 2005. Conflicting demands on
wetland ecosystem services: Nutrient retention, biodiversity or both? Freshwater
Biology 50, 705–714.
Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M.,
Dunford, R., Egoh, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Geamănă, N., 2014. Linkages between
biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 9,
191–203.
Hicks, C.C., Cinner, J.E., 2014. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediate
diverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111,
17791–17796.
Jacka, K.B., Kouskya, C., Sims, K.R.E., 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services:
lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (28), 9465–9470.
Kamal, S., Brown, G., 2014. Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies
with a proposed classification system. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 58, 576–597.
Kassarjian, H.H., 1977. Content analysis in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 4, 8–18.
107
Environmental Science and Policy 115 (2021) 99–107
Koh, L.P., 2008. Birds defend oil palms from herbivorous insects. Ecol. Appl. 18,
821–825.
Legge, S., Fleming, A., 2012. Fire management in the central Kimberley (EcoFire):
delivering measurable results by integrating science and land management in a cost-
effective model. In: Figgis, P., Fitzsimons, J., Irving, J. (Eds.), Innovation for 21st
Century Conservation. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney, pp. 124–135.
Leo, K.L., Gillies, C.L., Fitzsimons, J.A., Hale, L.Z., Beck, M.W., 2019. Coastal habitat
squeeze: a review of adaptation solutions for saltmarsh, mangrove and beach
habitats. Ocean Coast. Manag. 175, 180–190.
Liu, G., Yi, Z., Zhang, X., Shrestha, A., Martek, I., Wei, L., 2017. An evaluation of urban
renewal policies of Shenzhen, China. Sustainability 9, 1001.
Mackey, B., Figgis, P., Fitzsimons, J., Irving, J., Clarke, P., 2015. Key directions for
valuing ecosystem services and protected areas in Australia. In: Figgis, P.,
Mackey, B., Fitzsimons, J., Irving, J., Clarke, P. (Eds.), Valuing Nature: Protected
Areas and Ecosystem Services. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney,
pp. 130–137.
Metzger, J.P., 2001. Effects of deforestation pattern and private nature reserves on the
forest conservation in settlement areas of the Brazilian Amazon. Biota Neotrop. 1,
1–14.
Metzger, J.P., Bustamante, M.M.C., Ferreira, J., Fernandes, G.W., Librán-Embid, F.,
Pillar, V.D., Prist, P.R., Rodrigues, R.R., Vieira, I.C.G., Overbeck, G.E., 2019. Why
Brazil needs its legal reserves Jean paul metzger. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17 (3),
91–103.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC.
Mitchell, B.A., Stolton, S., Bezaury-Creel, J., Bingham, H.C., Cumming, T.L., Dudley, N.,
Fitzsimons, J.A., Malleret-King, D., Redford, K.H., Solano, P., 2018. Guidelines for
Privately Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 29.
IUCN., Gland, Switzerland.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R.,
Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation
priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9495–9500.
Newbold, T., Bennett, D.J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., Palma, A., De, Dı, S.,
Edgar, M.J., Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M.L.K., Alhusseini, T., Echeverria-
london, S., Ingram, D.J., Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp, V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M.,
Laginha, D., Correia, P., Martin, C.D., Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y., Phillips, H.R.
P., Purves, D.W., Robinson, A., Simpson, J., Tuck, S.L., Weiher, E., White, H.J.,
Ewers, R.M., Mace, G.M., 2015. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial
biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50.
Owley, J., Rissman, A.R., 2016. Trends in private land conservation: increasing
complexity, shifting conservation purposes and allowable private land uses. Land
Use Policy 51, 76–84.
Reside, A.E., VanDerWal, J., Moran, C., 2017. Trade-offs in carbon storage and
biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species. Biol.
Conserv. 207, 9–16.
Ricketts, T.H., Watson, K.B., Koh, I., Ellis, A.M., Nicholson, C.C., Posner, S.,
Richardson, L.L., Sonter, L.J., 2016. Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity
and ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 7, 13106.
Rissman, A.R., Merenlender, A., 2008. The conservation contributions of conservation
easements: analysis of the San Francisco Bay Area protected lands spatial database.
Ecol. Soc. 13, 40.
Ruhl, J.B., 2015. In defense of ecosystem services. Pace Environ. Law Rev. 32, 306–335.
Schirpke, U., Scolozzi, R., Marco, C., De & Tappeiner, U., 2014. Mapping beneficiaries of
ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 170–179.
Smith, F., Smillie, K., Fitzsimons, J., Lindsay, B., Wells, G., Marles, V., Hutchinson, J.,
O’Hara, B., Perrigo, T., Atkinson, I., 2016. Reforms required to the Australian tax
system to improve biodiversity conservation on private land. Environ. Plan. Law J.
33, 443–450.
Sonter, L.J., Johnson, J.A., Nicholson, C.C., Richardson, L.L., Watson, K.B., Ricketts, T.
H., 2017. Multi-site interactions: understanding the offsite impacts of land use
change on the use and supply of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 158–164.
Tallis, H., Andelman, S., Balvanera, P., Cramer, W., Polasky, S., Reyers, B., Ricketts, T.,
Running, S., Thonicke, K., Walz, A., 2012. A global system for monitoring ecosystem
service change. BioScience 62 (11), 977–986.
Villamagna, A., Scott, L., Gillespie, J., 2015. Collateral benefits from public and private
conservation lands: a comparison of ecosystem service capacities. Environ. Conserv.
42, 204–215.
Villamagna, A.M., Mogollón, B., Angermeier, P.L., 2017. Inequity in ecosystem service
delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network. Ecol. Soc.
22, 36.
Walton, N., Fitzsimons, J., 2015. Payment for ecosystem services in practice – savanna
burning and carbon abatement at Fish River, northern Australia. In: Figgis, P.,
Mackey, B., Fitzsimons, J., Irving, J., Clarke, P. (Eds.), Valuing Nature: Protected
Areas and Ecosystem Services. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney, pp. 78–83.
Watson, K.B., Galford, G.L., Sonter, L.J., Koh, I., Ricketts, T.H., 2019. Effects of human
demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conserv.
Biol. 33, 942–952.