Assessing the Trends of a Network for Landscape Conservation

Abstract

Landscape conservation has grown in popularity over the past few decades and is widely recognized as essential for achieving conservation outcomes. However, there are many challenges to operating at the landscape scale, and little research assesses the trends of Landscape Conservation Initiatives (LCIs) within a network. To address this gap, we surveyed a nationwide sample of LCIs that are connected through the Network for Landscape Conservation in 2016 and in 2021. Our research presents findings on the focus of these initiatives (often wildlife habitat and watershed protection), the strategies and approaches employed to achieve goals (often coordinating community activities and networking/information sharing), the factors that support or challenge the LCI success (ranging from political support to trust/respect), and how LCIs perceive their biggest successes (often a combination of Collaborative, Ecological, and Human categories). The main findings highlight how some of these trends changed over a five-year period and with the age range of the LCI. These findings contribute to our greater understanding of unique aspects of LCIs and changing trends for LCIs within a network and have implications for emerging and established LCIs as they evolve over time.

1. Introduction

1.1. Landscape Conservation Initiatives

Landscape conservation has grown in popularity over the past few decades and is widely recognized as essential for achieving conservation outcomes [1,2,3,4,5,6] around the world [7,8,9,10,11,12]. For example, a study found 104 initiatives in 21 Latin American and Caribbean countries are applying an integrated landscape management approach to focus on challenges and opportunities of mutual focus areas. Additionally, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) formed a Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group and a Transboundary Conservation Specialist Group and created best practices for transboundary conservation [4]. The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) states that landscape conservation generally refers to “an approach that brings people together across geographies, sectors, and cultures to collaborate on conserving our important landscapes and the myriad ecological, cultural, and economic benefits they provide” [13] [para. 2] and can be interchangeable with terms like large landscape conservation and landscape-scale conservation. For this study, a landscape conservation initiative (LCI) refers to any organizational entity that is involved in or supports landscape conservation.

LCIs have proliferated as a response to the challenges of natural resource transboundary management, such as water, wildlife, and fire [1]. For example, a fragmented landscape can impact habitats and disrupt wildlife movements and natural processes [14]. Operating across boundaries and at large scales can support ecological diversity and processes ranging from species to system scale [4]. LCIs aim to address ecological threats and challenges that transcend scales and necessitate diverse stakeholder groups [3,15]. A landscape represents connectivity that encompasses structural (i.e., physical components such as topography and vegetative cover) and functional aspects (i.e., genetic diversity within a landscape, sustaining ecosystems, mitigating impacts of climate change and invasive species, watershed management, and wildlife corridors) [14].

A resilient system requires adaptive governance to respond to social–ecological changes and support the flexibility of outcomes and stakeholder engagement [16]. Increasing the scale of conservation initiatives coincides with increased complexity [2,3]. While there is recognition to manage at the landscape scale, many aspects related to governance and management occur locally and within specific jurisdictions and institutions [17]. Supporting sound governance in a landscape requires integration of diverse perspectives and policies when working across jurisdictions, disciplines, and scales [1]. LCIs are diverse in focus, activities, and scale [3]. For example, some initiatives coordinate conservation efforts within a country while others transcend state and country borders [1]. IUCN and WCPA define transboundary conservation as “a process of cooperation to achieve conservation goals across one or more international boundaries.” However, many of the guidelines for transboundary conservation across international borders also align with LCIs that operate within the boundaries of a state or country [4]. LCIs are designed to be collaborative in nature by connecting diverse groups; however, LCI entities vary depending on their membership (i.e., federal agencies vs. a combination of stakeholder groups), focus (i.e., general management vs. focus on specific species or issue), scale (i.e., multi-state vs. multi-country), and network association (i.e., part of a network vs. stand-alone entity). These different aspects can make it difficult to understand trends of LCIs, as often they are studied as single case studies; however, there is a need to assess how a discipline like landscape conservation is evolving over time and what influences these initiatives in achieving goals.

1.2. Successes and Challenges of LCIs

LCIs address a range of issues and topics that call for a variety of strategies and actions, so the success of conservation projects and initiatives can be interpreted and measured in numerous ways [18]. Operating at the landscape scale can make it increasingly difficult to assess attributes and outcomes of the initiatives and the system [15]. Consequently, the outputs and outcomes range from tangible to intangible and operate on short to long-term scales. Some LCIs empirically measure success through ecological metrics such as population numbers, habitat restoration, genetic diversity, or ecological connectivity [4], while others use metrics associated with organizational functionality and governance. For example, accountability, information sharing, stakeholder engagement, and valuing of diverse perspectives can all contribute to landscape-scale conservation and can be considered a successful outcome [3,19]. Furthermore, there can be economic and socio-cultural benefits (i.e., cost-effective strategies, improved stakeholder cooperation) of initiatives that are deemed a part of their success [4].

Despite the recognition that both social and ecological aspects of the system need to be acknowledged and evaluated, a limited understanding of how to assess these outcomes at the landscape scale exists due to the difficulty of assessing causal relationships [15]. Thomsen and Caplow [18] categorized the types of success for LCIs, which can range from more social-focused (i.e., relationship building, structured forums, planning and vision, and community benefits) to more environmentally focused (i.e., broad assessments, topic-specific projects, and environmental impacts). Additionally, the interpretation and definition of success by LCI stakeholders can vary over time depending on the organization’s life cycle stage [18]. However, there is a decline in long-term ecological and environmental studies (LTEES) [20] and limited studies looking at governance for more than a two-year period [21,22,23].

LCIs provide numerous opportunities for preserving and sustaining species and processes within a connected landscape; however, there are distinct challenges associated with operating at larger spatial and longer temporal scales [3,16,19]. Often, a disconnect in the governance of large landscapes or transboundary issues leads to diverse and complex challenges and unsuccessful initiatives [17,24]. Stakeholder complexity increases with scale, requiring both horizontal collaboration across political and institutional boundaries as well as vertical collaboration, including stakeholders from local to international scales [3,19]. The ability to adapt to change and uncertainty, coupled with difficult and lengthy processes of engaging with stakeholders, can make communicating and evaluating success another obstacle for LCIs [2,4]. Thus, networks can be a strategy to provide additional support for LCIs to achieve their goals.

1.3. Network for Landscape Conservation

Collaboration and adaptive governance through networks are critical to the success of LCIs [1,15,16]. LCIs are often part of nested networks across scales and systems [4] from regional, national, or global scales. Some of the main reasons for participating in a network include information and idea exchange, strengthening and expanding professional relationships, working towards a common goal, and addressing areas of conflict [1]. An existing body of literature suggests the importance of social capital in environmental management [25], and a network of LCIs can help leverage key dimensions of social capital to accomplish peer learning, science, and policy goals. While network governance can help overcome challenges facing the multiple spatial and temporal scales of LCIs [24], without effective structures and strategies that facilitate coordination within the social–ecological system, the LCIs are limited in capacity [26]. Understanding these challenges and associated strategies is integral to the long-term planning of LCIs [24].

The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) provides an ideal opportunity to better understand LCIs within a network and the trends of LCIs over time. The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) was initiated in 2011 and is currently led by a Coordinating Committee of conservation leaders in the US and Canada. By connecting private, public, non-profit, academic, and philanthropic practitioners, the NLC advances collaborative efforts to connect and protect nature, communities, and cultures. This alliance of hundreds of LCIs inspires innovation and ideas for professionals engaged in advocating, education, funding, leadership, management, policy framing, and research. The innovative strategies, programs, and practices produced at the NLC lead to the protection, restoration, and connection of landscape-scale systems for the benefit of people and nature. This advancement of connectivity across NLC partners has revealed the complexity of evolving LCI best practices, resources, science, and tools, but also exposed a lack of understanding of the rapidly expanding field.

Despite the acknowledgment of the importance of understanding networks and the challenges associated with effective governance in developing and maintaining LCIs to achieve short and long-term goals, there are many limitations in research studies. First, there are few studies that assess challenges and trends in governance across a multitude, or network, of conservation initiatives [23]. While there is a decline in LTEES that focus on long-term ecological studies [20], there is an overall dearth in studies focused on the social and governance dimensions of LCIs. Second, understanding the variety of types of outcomes that result from LCIs and potential linkages to aspects of governance is largely understudied [21,23]. Lastly, there is a lack of research assessing LCIs over a period of time, resulting in snapshots of understanding these initiatives but lacking an understanding of overall trends across a period longer than a couple of years [21,22].

1.4. Study Objectives

There is a need to better understand governance of LCIs through a network approach [15,17]. Despite the growth in LCIs and the recognition of their importance to conservation, they have largely been understudied, resulting in a limited understanding of the effectiveness of LCIs and the factors that influence their success. Additionally, there have been limited studies assessing how these LCIs change over time and how the age of the LCI influences their strategies, measures of success, and use of the network. To address these gaps, our study implements a survey of all participating LCIs in the NLC in 2016 and 2021 to investigate the following questions: (1) How are priority focus areas and strategies of LCIs different over a five-year period? (2) How are priority focus areas and strategies of LCIs different based on the age of the LCI? (3) How is success interpreted by LCIs, and how does this interpretation differ over a five-year period and based on the age of the LCI? (4) What are the factors influencing the success of LCIs?

2. Methods

To investigate focus areas, strategies, and interpretations of success of LCIs based on the age of the LCI and how these trends change over a five-year period, we implemented a survey in 2016 and 2021 via an email listserv of members involved in the NLC in 2016 and in 2021. The survey included a series of closed and open-ended questions that explored the key topics that LCIs focused their efforts on, the strategies and actions LCIs used to achieve their goals, and how LCIs interpret success. Questions were developed in partnership with the NLC and were piloted and refined before the final survey was implemented. Some of the questions of the survey differed between the 2016 and 2021 surveys; thus, only questions and responses that were included in both surveys were used in the analysis for this study to compare between the years.

When the survey was implemented, there were approximately 1632 individuals in the network. We analyzed a total of 366 surveys after data cleaning (152 responses and 113 usable surveys from 2016 and 678 responses and 253 usable surveys from 2021) with a 9.3% response rate in 2016 and a 41.5% response rate in 2021. Observations (usable surveys) were included in the analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) entered the organization name, (2) answered the first 7 questions, and (3) were not duplicates. Email and online surveys tend to have a smaller response rate than in-person or mail surveys, so while this is a limitation of the study, the response rate for both years when the survey was implemented falls within a reasonable range for email and online surveys. Among 2016 survey respondents, the founding year of LCIs ranged from 1914 to 2016 (with ages of LCIs ranging from 0 to 103 years old), while for 2021 respondents, founding years ranged from 1967 to 2021 (with ages of LCIs ranging from 0 to 55 years old). The mean age of LCIs in the 2016 and 2021 surveys was 11.5 and 11.3 years, respectively.

We evaluated how organizational priorities and strategies differed across survey years (2016 and 2021) and among organizations of different ages. For year-to-year comparisons, we calculated the number and proportion of organizations reporting each focus area, strategy, or measure of success in 2016 and 2021. To test whether these proportions differed significantly between years, we conducted two-sample tests of proportions (z-tests) using the number of organizations selecting versus not selecting each category.

To assess whether organizational age influenced responses, we tested each focus area, strategy, and measure of success separately. For each category, we constructed a 2 × K contingency table (selected vs. not selected, by age category) and applied chi-square tests of independence. This approach evaluates whether the likelihood of selecting a particular category differed among age groups. Because multiple age categories were evaluated within each survey dimension (focus, strategy, and success), we adjusted p-values for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction.

To explore trends across LCIs between the two survey years and by organizational age, we conducted a series of descriptive and comparative analyses of the survey data collected in 2016 and 2021. We analyzed responses from LCIs that participated in either or both survey years, focusing on shared questions related to priority focus areas, tools and strategies for achieving success, and perceptions of success. We included responses that were the same for each survey question to adequately compare responses between years. For each question, we summarized response frequencies and calculated the percentages of LCIs within each year. All questions evaluated were questions in which participants could select multiple answers; therefore, percentages are the percentage of participants who selected a topic within a survey year. We then evaluated the top 5 topics selected within each survey year. We then compared these percentages across survey years and across age categories of LCIs (less than 6 years (40%), 6–10 years (25.8%), 11–15 years (14.2%), and 16+ years (20%) to assess shifts in focus and strategy. Results are presented in tables and figures to highlight patterns in LCI priorities and success measures over time and by organizational maturity.

Open-ended questions were transcribed and analyzed using an open coding strategy to identify main themes [27] for perceived definitions of success and factors influencing success. We then used axial coding as second level of coding to further group the themes of perceived success [27] into three categories (Ecological, Social, or Collaborative). Representative quotes were also extracted from open-ended questions for context to support the themes from the survey.

3. Results

3.1. Focus Areas of LCIs

Eight shared priority focus areas were included on both the 2016 and 2021 surveys: Tourism, Cultural Heritage, Climate Mitigation & Adaptation, Open Space & Recreation, Sustainable Community Development, Working Lands, Watershed Protection & Restoration, and Wildlife Habitat. Table 1 displays the frequency and percentage for each of the eight focus areas in 2016 compared to 2021. Wildlife Habitat was the top-ranked focus area in both years, and Working Lands and Watershed Protection were included as top focus areas for both years of the survey. Sustainable Community Development and Climate Mitigation/Adaptation were only top priorities in the 2016 survey, while Cultural Heritage Protection and Open Space & Recreation emerged as top priorities in 2021. Two-sample tests of proportions (z-tests) were conducted to assess for significant differences in the proportion of each focus area between the two years. For all the focus areas, there were significant differences (p < 0.05), particularly high significant changes (decrease in more than 25%) in Sustainable Community Development and Climate Mitigation & Adaptation. Wildlife Habitat is the only focus area with much less variability between the two years and an increase in 2021. This funding suggests the importance or emphasis on focus areas may be changing over the five-year period.

Table 1. Top focus areas for LCIs by year of survey.

Focus Area	2016	2021	p-Value
Wildlife Habitat	(n = 102, 90%)	(n = 241, 96%)	0.04629
Watershed Protection & Restoration	(n = 87, 77%)	(n = 132, 54%)	0.00009
Working Lands	(n = 75, 66%)	(n = 130, 52%)	0.00849
Sustainable Community Development	(n = 88, 78%)	(n = 56, 22%)	8.485 × 10−24
Climate Mitigation & Adaptation	(n = 71, 63%)	(n = 52, 20%)	1.1520 × 10−15
Open Space & Recreation	(n = 59, 52%)	(n = 75, 30%)	0.00004
Tourism	(n = 43, 38%)	(n = 49, 19%)	0.00015
Cultural Heritage Protection	(n = 52, 20%)	(n = 71, 30%)	0.02713

Table 2 shows the focus areas of LCIs, grouped by organizational age categories. The table shows the number and percentage of LCIs within each age category (Less than 6 years, 6–10 years, 11–15 years, and 16+ years) that ranked each topic among their top five focus areas. Wildlife Habitat was consistently the highest-ranked priority across all age groups. No statistically significant associations with age were found across age and focus areas, with the small exception of Cultural Heritage Protection (p > 0.1).

Table 2. Top focus areas for LCIs by age of LCI.

Focus Area	<6 Years	6–10 Years	11–15 Years	16+ Years	Adjusted p-Value
Wildlife Habitat	(n = 131, 95%)	(n = 78, 78%)	(n = 49, 100%)	(n = 67, 97%)	0.12200
Watershed Protection and Restoration	(n = 84, 61%)	(n = 49, 56%)	(n = 30, 61%)	(n = 44, 64%)	0.81100
Working Lands	(n = 71, 51%)	(n = 49, 56%)	(n = 31, 63%)	(n = 43, 62%)	0.69600
Sustainable Community Development	(n = 51, 37%)	(n = 35, 40%)	(n = 22, 45%)	(n = 69, 41%)	0.81100
Climate Mitigation and Adaptation	(n = 45, 33%)	(n = 30, 34%)	(n = 20, 41%)	(n = 19, 28%)	0.80000
Open Space and Recreation	(n = 40, 29%)	(n = 36, 41%)	(n = 19, 39%)	(n = 33, 48%)	0.12200
Tourism	(n = 34, 25%)	(n = 20, 23%)	(n = 11, 22%)	(n = 21, 69%)	0.81100
Cultural Heritage Protection	(n = 33, 24%)	(n = 31, 36%)	(n = 10, 20%)	(n = 30, 43%)	0.06549

3.2. LCI Tools and Strategies to Achieve Goals

Ten tools and strategies used by LCIs to achieve their initiative’s goals were on both the 2016 and 2021 surveys: Distribute Funding, Targeted Community Engagement, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building, Data Collection and Analysis, Conflict Resolution and Facilitation, Conservation Easements and Land Acquisition, Legislative Policy and Advocacy, Land Use Planning, Network and Information Sharing, and Coordinating Community Activities.

Table 3 shows the tools and strategies used by LCIs in the 2016 and 2021 surveys. The table shows the number and percentage of respondents who ranked each strategy among their top five. In 2016, the most popular strategies included Legislative Policy and Advocacy, Coordinating Community Activities, and Conflict Resolution and Facilitation. In 2021, the most popular strategies included Network and Information Sharing, Coordinating Community Activities, and Conservation Easements and Land Acquisition. Two-sample tests of proportions (z-tests) were conducted to assess for significant differences in the proportion of each focus area between the two years. Three tools and strategies showed a statistically significant decrease from 2016 to 2021 of more than 50%: Conflict Resolution and Facilitation, Legislative Policy and Advocacy, and Land Use Planning. In contrast, Network and Information Sharing increased by 26% (p > 0.05) and Conservation Easements and Land Acquisitions remained nearly the same from 2016 to 2021 (p > 0.05).

Table 3. Tools/strategies for LCIs by year of survey.

Tool/Strategy	2016	2021	p-Values
Distribute Funding	(n = 43, 39%)	(n = 61, 24%)	0.00712
Targeted Community Engagement	(n = 48, 44%)	(n = 104, 41%)	0.65346
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building	(n = 53, 48%)	(n = 94, 37%)	0.04918
Data Collection and Analysis	(n = 58, 53%)	(n = 95, 38%)	0.00712
Conflict Resolution and Facilitation	(n = 94, 85%)	(n = 17, 7%)	1.28231 × 10−50
Conservation Easements and Land Acquisition	(n = 64, 58%)	(n = 144, 57%)	0.02154
Legislative Policy and Advocacy	(n = 104, 95%)	(n = 38, 15%)	3.44100 × 10−46
Land Use Planning	(n = 91, 83%)	(n = 68, 27%)	6.43200 × 10−23
Network and Information Sharing	(n = 60, 55%)	(n = 193, 76%)	0.00003
Coordinating Community Activities	(n = 101, 92%)	(n = 144, 57%)	6.83738 × 10−50

Table 4 shows the tools and strategies ranked by LCIs, grouped by organizational age. The table presents the number and percentage of LCIs in each age category (Less than 6 years, 6–10 years, 11–15 years, and 16+ years) that ranked each strategy among their top five. Networking and Information Sharing was the most popular strategy for LCIs less than 10 years old, while Coordinating Community Activities was most popular for LCIs aged 11–15 years old, and Conservation Easements and Land Acquisition was most popular for LCIs over 16 years old. Networking and Information Sharing and Coordinate Activities consistently appeared as top strategies across age groups. No statistically significant associations with age were found across age and tools and strategies, except for Conservation Easements and Land Acquisition (p > 0.05).

Table 4. Tools/strategies for LCIs by age of LCI.

Tool/Strategy	<6 Years	6–10 Years	11–15 Years	16+ Years	Adjusted p-Value
Distribute Funding	(n = 32, 24%)	(n = 24, 28%)	(n = 18, 37%)	(n = 21, 31%)	0.64300
Targeted Community Engagement	(n = 61, 45%)	(n = 35, 40%)	(n = 20, 41%)	(n = 28, 41%)	0.89800
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building	(n = 51, 38%)	(n = 36, 41%)	(n = 24, 49%)	(n = 32, 47%)	0.66900
Data Collection and Analysis	(n = 51, 38%)	(n = 34, 39%)	(n = 25, 51%)	(n = 32, 47%)	0.64300
Conflict Resolution and Facilitation	(n = 38, 28%)	(n = 28, 32%)	(n = 16, 33%)	(n = 19, 28%)	0.89800
Conservation Easements and Land Acquisition	(n = 57, 42%)	(n = 39, 45%)	(n = 24, 49%)	(n = 47, 69%)	0.00247
Legislative Policy and Advocacy	(n = 52, 38%)	(n = 35, 40%)	(n = 19, 39%)	(n = 23, 34%)	0.89800
Land Use Planning	(n = 60, 44%)	(n = 39, 45%)	(n = 24, 49%)	(n = 24, 35%)	0.66900
Network and Information Sharing	(n = 102, 75%)	(n = 65, 75%)	(n = 33, 67%)	(n = 38, 56%)	0.13600
Coordinating Community Activities	(n = 91, 67%)	(n = 62, 71%)	(n = 37, 76%)	(n = 41, 60%)	0.64300

3.3. LCI Successes

Respondents provided open-ended answers regarding their three greatest accomplishments or successes, summarized into nine themes. These responses were then coded into three broad categories: (1) Ecological; (2) Social/Human; and (3) Collaboration/Governance. Since respondents were asked to provide three of the greatest accomplishments or successes, the responses could each be coded to a single category or a combination of categories. Figure 1 and Table 5 show the categories of accomplishments and success reported by LCIs in the 2016 and 2021 surveys. The table presents the number and percentage of LCIs identifying each type of success, categorized by the various combinations of Ecological, Social, and/or Collaborative. In both years, the most frequently reported successes fell into the Collaborative only, Ecological only, and Ecological and Collaborative categories. There was no statistical significance between years for categories of perceived success.

Figure 1. Percentages of categories of perceived success by year of survey.

Table 5. Categories of perceived success by year of survey.

Year	Collab. Only	Soc. Only	Ecol. Only	Ecol. and Soc.	Soc. and Collab.	Collab. and Ecol.	Ecol., Soc. and Collab.
2016	(n = 28, 31%)	(n = 3, 3%)	(n = 21, 23%)	(n = 5, 6%)	(n = 4, 4%)	(n = 25, 27%)	(n = 5, 6%)
2021	(n = 53, 23%)	(n = 7, 3%)	(n = 48, 21%)	(n = 17, 7%)	(n = 12, 5%)	(n = 85; 37%)	(n = 7, 3%)
p-value	0.15700	0.91138	0.67795	0.53839	0.75450	0.10125	0.30045

Both Ecological-only and Collaborative-only categories of perceived success had statistically significant differences between age categories (p > 0.05). Table 6 shows that older LCIs (16+ years) were more likely to report ecological accomplishments, while younger LCIs emphasized collaborative successes. Across all age groups, a combination of Ecological and Collaborative successes was prevalent, indicating that types of collaborative success (planning, partnership, and funding) are an integral part of LCIs across age categories but may be especially important for younger LCIs.

Table 6. Categories of perceived success by age of LCI.

LCI Age	Collab. Only	Soc. Only	Ecol. Only	Ecol. and Soc.	Soc. and Collab.	Collab. and Ecol.	Ecol., Soc. and Collab.
<6 years	(n = 44, 35%)	(n = 2, 2%)	(n = 17, 13%)	(n = 7, 5%)	(n = 4, 3%)	(n = 48, 38%)	(n = 4, 3%)
6–10 years	(n = 19, 24%)	(n = 1, 1%)	(n = 15, 19%)	(n = 5, 6%)	(n = 7, 9%)	(n = 29, 37%)	(n = 2, 3%)
11–15 years	(n = 11, 23%)	(n = 4, 8%)	(n = 8, 17%)	(n = 4, 8%)	(n = 4, 6%)	(n = 14, 30%)	(n = 4, 8%)
16+ years	(n = 7, 10%)	(n = 3, 4%)	(n = 29, 43%)	(n = 6, 8%)	(n = 2, 3%)	(n = 19, 28%)	(n = 2, 3%)
adjusted p-value	0.00824	0.20627	0.00021	0.81779	0.41379	0.48080	0.81779

Table 7 includes representative quotes for each of the themes of perceived success from both years the survey was conducted. Ecological themes include restoration, land acquisition, policy, data collection/data synthesis for responses that emphasized the ecological aspects of conservation projects and did not include human dimensions. Social/Human themes include recreation access/public education and sustainable land use for responses that emphasized the human involvement or benefit related to conservation projects. Collaboration/Governance themes include planning, partnership, and funding for responses that emphasized these elements of the conservation project.

Table 7. Themes for LCI accomplishments or biggest successes.

Category of Success: Ecological
Theme	Example Quotes
Restoration	Several tidal wetland restoration projects (2016). Initiate 25,000 acres habitat restoration, with w/1000+ acres under construction or complete (2016). Protection and improved management of over 26,000 hectares of native habitat on private land, strategic management of invasive species over 120,000 hectares, and over 168,000 individual plantings, and a further 41,500 hectares of habitat restored (2016). Control of invasive species in private tallgrass prairie (2016). Planted 9100 agaves within key foraging areas; collected 385,000 native seeds; propagated and salvaged 7000 agave plants (2021). Reintroduction of an extirpated bird species and restoration of hundreds of thousands of acres of oak and pine woodlands (2021). Engage several National Heritage areas and their partners in pollinator habitat restoration (2021). Planting close to 700,000 trees to restore red spruce ecosystems in priority landscapes (2021).
Land Acquisition	Millions of acres of habitat permanently conserved through federal wetland grants (2016). Assisted refuge in protection of more than 6000 acres (2016). We have conserved 142,000 acres in conservation through 10 yr contracts and fee title land purchase (2016). Land acquisitions in key connectivity areas (2016). Have raised total nature preserve size to over 8000 acres in 24 preserves (2021). Facilitated the conservation of 4000 acres of forestland (2021). Over 22 K acres of targeted forested headwater lands protected to maintain water quality (2021). Increased number of acres in conservation to protect Wood Stork nesting habitat (2021). Permanently protected 1476 acres with land purchases and 2092 acres with conservation easements (2021). Acquisition of several key parcels for habitat/species conservation (2021).
Policy	Secured designation of first (on only) national Blueway (2016). Passage of local funding (Community Preservation Act) in roughly a third of the region (2016). Report with policy recommendations for implementing landscape conservation. Florida Wildlife Corridor Act passed and funded (2021). Highlands Conservation Reauthorization Act moving through Congress with important improvements (2021). After launching in 2020, the Private Forest Accord (a mediated agreement between 13 conservation/angling groups and 13 logging companies) reached a wide-ranging agreement for upgrades to Oregon’s private forest practice laws to better protect aquatic dependent species like salmon and steelhead (2021). House passed Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act in February 2021, which would add 191,000 acres to the Santa Monica Mountains NRA to include critical linkages between the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains (2021).
Data Collection/Data Synthesis	Research Products and Decision-Support Tools (2016). Transboundary databases, resources, and maps (2016). Fire and Invasive Assessment Tools (2016). Assembling and advancing foundational datasets as well as fostering development of partnership-driven decision support tools (2016). Largest dataset on invasive species distribution and spread over time (2016). Obtaining data on at-risk and listed species from private lands (2021). Large-scale research effort to develop spatially explicit maps to inform grazing management and monitoring for rangeland health and sage grouse habitat (2021). Standardized data collection, data-informed decision making, expansive library of statistically valid data points (2021). Tribally led initiative tribes advising researchers on climate modeling (2021). Modeling and mapping of wildlife corridors (2021). Placed ~1000 GPS transmitters on pronghorn (2021). Initiated new data collection measures to learn about presence of native bee species (2021). Adoption of standardized monitoring/survey methods for high-priority regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need, so data can be pooled and analyzed at a landscape scale (2021). Completing a cutting-edge climate adaptation project using genetic science (2021).
Category of Success: Social/Human
Recreation/Access/Public Education	New trails developed, tourism planning and training (2016). Volunteer Stewardship Program (2016). Established public access trail system through partnership with private landowner (2021). Offering over 50 miles of public hiking trails (2021). Initiation of public education opportunities to connect communities to the outdoors (2021). Advancing the 200-mile-long, multi-purpose greenway system (2021). Opened Bear Creek Redwoods preserve to the public (2021). Huge growth of visitation, education programs, internships, and community engagement (2021).
Sustainable Land Use	Changing the discourse of jobs vs. environment (2016). Delivery of more than 60 discrete community-led projects achieving protection and improved management of over 26,000 hectares of native habitat on private land (2016). Led to hundreds of landowners engaging two new large landscape activities, and acres conserved (2016). Developing habitat credit packages on four large ranches across three states; awarded a CIG grant to work with eight additional ranches (2016). Changing the local culture in terms of value of native habitat. Changing local culture in terms of acceptance of prescribed fire (2016). Developing grass-fed beef markets for producers, youth programs in regenerative agriculture, beginning soil regeneration programs, and holistic agriculture (2021). Gave 65 small grants to local community partners to prevent conflicts between bears and people (2021). We have hosted educational webinars to share knowledge about renewable energy and wildlife planning geared towards a multitude of stakeholders, including agency employees (2021). Currently, we are working on farmer-to-farmer networking to promote soil health and agroforestry. We have developed a series of case studies of farmers successfully implementing soil health practices and are now working on economic analysis tools to help landowners evaluate sustainable land management options (2021). Continued congenial land use balance among stakeholders: community (nature/dog walks), agric (hay/corn production), and conservationists (battling invasive species and limiting development via land trusts) (2021).
Category of Success: Collaboration/Governance
Planning	Early formation of steering committee of conservation leaders, developing mission and vision (2016). Identifying landscape-scale conservation priorities (2016). Use of systematic conservation planning to guide preserve design (2016). Regional climate resiliency plan focused on role(s) of green infrastructure. Completion of program documents to guide long-term program (2016). Convened stakeholders and developed action plan, developing social network analysis, and convene subgroup surrounding planning for wildlife habitat connectivity (2016). Have completed conservation plans for 3 different flagship species, as well as 9 state-based management guidance documents that prioritize management action on the highest priority marshes (2021). Created draft regional conservation plan and completed outreach and engagement plan (2021). Development of a climate impacts monitoring plan for first foods across the elevational gradient (2021). We have assisted local governments in incorporating conservation needs into all levels of land use planning (2021). Development of a new land Conservation Plan that focuses on 24 distinct landscapes totaling 76,000 acres of the county, which is 435,000 in size and home to 435,000 residents (2021).
Partnership	Annual partnership gatherings (2016). Partnerships with First Nations (2016). Bringing together network of large conservation initiatives and NGOs working on protected areas (2016). Coordination of 3 statewide conferences designed to build capacity of municipal partners (2016). Federal, State, and Local governments working together (2016). Community of practice establishment (2016). Bringing varied interests together to address concerns (ecological and economic), working on a landscape scale beyond project boundaries, working to expand collaboration to include as many stakeholders as possible (2016). Bringing staff from 6 localities and partner organizations together for the first time (2021). Reduced conflict and improved relationships, trust, communication, and coordination within and across numerous partners (2021). Maintaining a steady level of engagement and collaboration across land trusts, transportation, and land state agencies, conservation groups, planners, and watershed groups for over 5 years (2021). Supported establishment of the Buffalo Nations Grasslands Alliance, which unites the 15 Native Nations in the northern Great Plains in conservation action (2021). Currently executing a Florida Sentinel Landscapes MOU with 25 federal, state and NGO partners supporting and coordinating programs and activities on behalf of sentinel landscapes within Florida (2021). Helped launch the first Indigenous Guardians Network in the U.S. for southeast Alaska (2021).
Funding	Funding stability/commitment (2016). Secured new funding from Farm Bill (2016). Leveraging stewardship funding (2016). New funding and strategies (2016). Funding sources from outside partnership area (the state) provided millions of USD in funding for land protection for the first time. Multiple other funding sources added criteria for funding that specifically implement tie NH Wildlife Action Plan (2016). Bringing in USD 2 million for prescribed fire in South Atlantic region from DOI Wildland Fire Resilient Landscapes Program, supporting millions of USD in land acquisition grant funds from state DNRs, and helping National Fish and Wildlife Foundation prioritize fish and wildlife habitat in advance of major disasters (2016). Creating buy-in from outside funders to support the work. Increasing funding among partners each year (2021). Our focal landscape partners have organized 15 grant-funded projects and secured investments of over USD 5.06 million towards forest conservation, with at least one project awarded in each of our six focal landscapes (2021). Built a successful grant program (over USD 25 million awarded over 4 years, with nearly USD 75 million impact with matching funds) (2021). Secured grant to accelerate tree planting across region (2021). Brought in USD 3 million in public funds to support Indigenous-led conservation, with the majority of funds going to tribes and Indigenous organizations (2021). Developed a replicable water fund and secured significant new funding sources that would not otherwise be accessible to individual coalition partners (2021).

3.4. Factors Influencing Success

Initiatives were asked an open-ended question about the three most important factors contributing to their LCI’s overall success (see Table 8). The themes included staff/leadership, funding, common/clear goals, community relations, maps/data, continuing commitment, political support, diverse partnerships, and trust/respect. Because there was no axial coding to group the factors into broader categories, no quantitative analysis was conducted to compare frequencies by year or age of the LCI. Like the open-ended question on greatest success, respondents could include multiple responses for the factors influencing success, which were coded to individual themes. Table 8 provides example quotes for each of the themes from respondents in 2016 and 2021.

Table 8. Themes for important factors contributing to LCI success.

Theme	Example Quote
Coordinator/Staff/Leadership	Support from leadership (2016). Backbone organization to lead the initiative (2016). Human resources and technical support (2016). Quality staff working in communities (2016). Full-time project coordinator (2016). Dedicated and energetic staff (2016). An active and engaged steering committee (2021). Having a person serve as the connective tissue for network coordination (2021). Committed and fully engaged professional staff, as well as having board member/partner involvement in planning and executing conservation activities (2021).
Funding	Stable funding (2016). Collaborative leverage of funding resources (2016). Develop funding models to keep everyone at the table for a long period of time. (2016). Targeted funding towards priority projects (2016). The project is fully funded and is guided by an implementation plan. Full funding ensures that adequate staff time can be devoted to the project to see it through to completion (2021). Receiving the Network for Landscape Conservation’s Catalyst Fund has really moved us forward in articulating our conservation vision and building momentum around our conservation goals. It helped legitimize our need for capacity and administrative funding and attracted new and influential partners (2021). Funding is, of course, always imperative, and we could not accomplish anything without it (2021). Having the funding to support the long-term growth and conversations that need to happen in order to make the network exist (2021).
Common and Clear Goals	Clarity of goals and purpose of effort (2016). Focusing on common ground, acknowledging challenges, and bringing awareness of partner contributions to common goals (2016). Focused on the mission of creating/refining/implementing a blueprint for shared conservation action (2016). Focusing on what brings us together rather than what divides us (2021). Focusing on very clear, actionable goals that give people what they need to succeed. Clear, tangible vision (2021). Buy-in and participation from our conservation partners, which will allow us to work together better towards the common goals we share (2021). The ability to recognize the overlap in partner priorities to achieve outcomes that benefit multiple partners—motivation may be for different reasons, but the outcomes provide mutual and multiple benefits (2021).
Community Relations	Broad base of public support for sustainable management of wild salmon (2016). Strong on-ground support and commitment despite federal funding roadblocks (2016). Strong interest among local land trusts and town commissions to become part of something bigger (2016). Local community participation (2016). Productive relationships with private landowners in the region (2021). We have relied on a locally led approach to conservation, with our role being to facilitate the process of local stakeholders identifying priorities and setting goals for the landscape (2021). Greater engagement of a broader spectrum of people—especially youth (2021). The initiative has taken the time to build relationships with both communities and individuals. The trust that the community has in the organization has allowed us to move forward (2021). One of the largest factors driving the success of this CLI has been the engagement and support from the network of local groups and partners that compose the CLI—our roots. Without the dedication, passion, and commitment of the partner groups, the CLI would not function or succeed. The PFW CLI has pulled these partners together to coordinate their work, share successes, share challenges, and learn from each other to help us all succeed in conservation in this region (2021). Listening to and mobilizing learning from Indigenous Territory Owners (2021).
Maps/Data	Making good use of new information being developed (maps and models) (2016). Good basis of scientific information (2016). Leading-edge technology for data management and computer-aided decision support (2016). Documentation and sharing of institutional information to move forward with initiatives (2016). Extensive data sharing (2021). Improved technology (data available on network servers/overhaul of analysis + modeling software) (2021). It is management-decision focused and with the coproduction of science knowledge (2021). A unique combination of a biodiversity information network (natural heritage programs), standardized species occurrence data, cloud computing infrastructure, and web-based spatial collaboration tools (2021). Involvement of biologists and scientists at the field level (2021).
Continuing Commitment	Dedication of stakeholders (2016). Enthusiasm and interest among initial partners (2016). Perseverance (2016). Regional solidarity (2016). All partners are committed to shared success (2016). Willingness of partners to continue to participate in the partnership (2021). The formation of lasting working relationships among all Canadian and US federal, state, and provincial governments, tribes, and First Nations, and by being federal and state mostly, we continue the relationships and work across boundaries in lean as well as fat years for funding. No one is excluded because they do not have funding for a particular year. During the lean years or work changes, it does not disappear. We are a coalition of the “willing”. Steadfast participation and interest (2021). Highly motivated, dedicated individuals (2021). Dedication of partners toward collaborative work and a strong stable team (2021). Passion and dedication from long-term individuals from partner organizations passing knowledge to a new generation of active participants among partners organizations (2021).
Political Support	Policy support from all levels of government (2016). elected official support (2016). State leadership (2016). Government financial and logistical support (2016). Bi-partisan support (2016). National sustained support through U.S. Department of Interior (2016). Commitment of time by elected representatives and senior land management officials (2021). The most important factor has been the combined effort of conservation organizations and our sustained outreach to the Biden-Harris administration and Department of the Interior career staff (2021). The negotiation was spurred by the threat of a ballot initiative in 2020. The uncertainty of the ballot brought parties together that are usually in opposition. With the help of Oregon’s governor as a mediating force, we were able to modernize Oregon’s forest practice laws to bring us up to par with Washington and California (2021).
Diverse Partnerships	Long-standing relationships (2016). Relationships with partners rooted in successful track record (2016). Multi stakeholder engagement including all tribes in landscape (2016). Dynamic and flexible partnerships on projects (2016). The diversity of the members of our coalition has been a very important factor in our success (2021). Collaboration among diverse partners on nature-based solutions (2021). The consistent presence of core individuals who represent a diverse background of partners. These include but not limited to, NGOs, local and county governments, State and Federal Governments, but who all have a shared vision of collaboration, which has allowed for consistency of message (2021). I believe collaboration and coordination across a multitude of groups promoting this paradigm and independently working on related, coordinated initiatives has been a major factor contributing to our success (2021). Engaging diverse stakeholders from the inception of the project (2021). Good partners and partnering with the public and private sector in support of communities (2021).
Trust/Respect	Collaborative relationships and trust of partner orgs (2016). Build trust between outsider NGO and local stakeholders (2016). One of the most important factors which has contributed to our progress is the growth of trusted relationships with multiple local, state and federal partners. These relationships are mutually beneficial, reduce duplication of efforts, increase collective capacity and help our small non-profit access needed funds for planning and operations (not just implementation of projects) (2021). Trust (and friendship) development through patience, resource sharing, deep listening, and standing by mutual commitments (2021). The initiative has taken the time to build relationships with both communities and individuals. The trust that the community has for the organization has allowed us to move forward (2021). Trust among like-minded people who all see the landscape and long-term need for Initiative (2021). Highly collaborative and trusting network of professionals with shared values (2021). Trusting partners who communicate frequently and share resources, as well as larger learning opportunities with peer organizations through the Network for Landscape Conservation (2021). Building trust with local and indigenous communities (2021). Trust among partners and folks seeing and believing in the power of collaboration (2021). Valuable and strong relationships among partners coupled with intentional dialog, sharing knowledge and moving at the speed of trust with our Indigenous partners (2021). Trust! In the early days of WLCI, people would come to our meetings and were extremely skeptical of WLCI and what we were trying to do. So much so that they would not share information about what they were doing in front of other agencies. Presently, the working groups are functioning relatively smoothly; we now see people discussing projects with neighboring landowners to try to improve habitats across landownerships. It has been very interesting to watch the dynamics change (2021).

4. Discussion

4.1. LCI Focus Areas and Strategies

Identifying threats to landscapes and aligning corresponding focus areas for conservation initiatives is emphasized as critical to achieving conservation goals [7,8,10], yet there is limited understanding of how the focal topics for LCIs change over time and if focus topics differ by the age of the LCI. This study found that LCIs’ top focus areas of Wildlife Habitat conservation, connectivity through Working Lands, and Watershed Protection, which align with previous research as priority areas [28]. While there remains consistency over the five-year period for these three focus areas, there are significant differences between the proportions of each focus area between the two years (2016 and 2021) in which the survey was implemented. Some focus areas were more emphasized in certain years (e.g., Sustainable Community Development and Climate Mitigation/Adaptation were a higher priority in the 2016 survey, while Cultural Heritage Protection and Open Space and Recreation emerged as a higher priority in 2021). Some of these topics may go through ebbs and flows; for example, trends for how climate change is communicated in the media and focused on vary by country and are often influenced by societal and political changes [29]. Additionally, a recent report indicates that globally, there is a small percentage of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development goals showing progress despite advances that may be occurring at a more localized or regional scale [30]. The greater emphasis on open space and recreation may be attributed to the linkage between outdoor recreation and access to nature with mental and physical health benefits [31] and the overall growth and demand for outdoor recreation through open space [32]. These variations indicate the importance of monitoring focus areas over time and assessing how societal trends may influence focal topics for LCIs.

When assessing if the age of the LCI influences the focus area, Wildlife Habitat was present across all LCI age categories, but there were no significant differences, with the small exception of Cultural Heritage Protection (higher emphasis for older LCIs). This finding may suggest that certain topic areas may be influenced by the age of the LCI, when it was established, or that the shift to more integrated focus areas beyond traditional wildlife habitat protection or restoration may be a growing trend in the future. For example, Hoffmann [33] identified several challenges and opportunities to reaching biodiversity and sustainability goals while emphasizing the need for integrated and holistic approaches of social–ecological systems, which are still largely lacking. Older LCIs may have more experience in the integration of cultural aspects with ecological aspects due to their years of building relationships and working in a landscape to understand the complexity and importance of these interactions.

LCIs employ a variety of actions and strategies to address the threats facing their respective landscapes. There were highly significant differences between the strategies used by LCIs over time, with Legislative and Policy Advocacy, Conflict Resolution and Facilitation, and Land Use Planning emerging as top strategies in 2016; meanwhile, the 2021 results indicate a growth toward Networking and Information Sharing. This finding suggests that there may be a shift from emphasis at the formal, policy scale to gaining more support from partnerships and focusing on building meaningful community relations. In the realm of landscape-scale conservation, this may be reflective of a change from institutional and structural power approaches emphasizing policies and structure to more actor-centered and discursive power approaches emphasizing knowledge and relationships [34]. Additionally, the emphasis on networking and information sharing in 2021 may be reflective of the recognized importance of being part of a network, like the NLC, and the nestedness of networking within an LCI and among LCIs.

When assessing the influence of the LCI’s age on strategies, there were no significant differences except for Conservation Easement and Land Acquisition (greater emphasis in older LCIs). Social capital [35] and formal and informal networks [1] may be particularly important for LCIs to achieve short and long-term goals due to the complex interactions of scales. This finding may also reflect the need for established relationships to be in place for successful easement and land acquisition, requiring many years (i.e., older LCIs) of building trust and investing in relationships [36].

4.2. Interpreting LCI Success

Measuring success and efficacy at the landscape-scale can be particularly challenging for conservation initiatives due to the long temporal scales often needed to establish and sustain projects and the complexity of spatial scales, jurisdictions, and governance layers [37]. While our findings indicated that LCIs often focused on wildlife habitat and watershed protection, the perceived biggest successes of the LCIs were most often categorized as distinctly Collaboration or as a combination of both Collaboration/Ecological in both 2016 and 2021. Collaboration included many examples of developing plans and identifying priorities, forming and strengthening partnerships through formal and informal means, and gaining investment through grants and donors that sustain initiatives over time. For both years, only the Ecological metrics of success ranked third. While some of the Ecological successes were focused on restoration of habitats, others were related to protecting the land through acquisition and easements or policies that protected specific land and water areas or species. Data collection and synthesis were focused on ecological data for science, inventory, and monitoring purposes. It is important to note the presence of combinations of different categories in the responses, indicating that there is a recognition of the diverse and intangible forms of success beyond just ecological metrics.

Both Ecological-only and Collaborative-only categories of perceived success had statistically significant differences between age categories, with older LCIs (16+ years) more likely to report ecological accomplishments, while younger LCIs emphasized collaborative successes. Across all age groups, a combination of Ecological and Collaborative successes was prevalent, indicating that it is less common to see only Ecological categories of success for LCIs. Previous studies that found accountability, information sharing, stakeholder engagement, and valuing of diverse perspectives through partnerships as successful outcomes [3,19]. This may be particularly important for newer, younger LCIs that have to build a foundation of trust and relationships for successful governance before they can start to achieve their ecological outcomes. These various Social and Ecological categories of outcomes align with Thomsen and Caplow’s [18] study on large landscape initiatives that emphasized the importance of both governance/human-focused outcomes (i.e., relationship building, planning, and vision) and environmentally focused outcomes (i.e., broad assessments, topic-specific projects, and environmental impacts). There is still a limited understanding of how success is interpreted and measured for landscape conservation, considering the mosaic of cultures, land uses, jurisdictions, and ecosystems [38]. This study contributes to this gap by highlighting the three categories of success, the varied combinations of how success is interpreted, and how interpretations of success can vary with the age of the LCI, with solely Ecological successes being more prevalent in older LCIs. The emphasis on collaboration as a key aspect in success of LCIs may be an indicator of (1) a larger shift in conservation from the separation of humans to achieve conservation to integration of humans in a social–ecological system in tandem with (2) the recognition that meaningful and effective collaboration through participatory approaches is complex and difficult to achieve despite the necessity for sound governance.

4.3. Factors Influencing LCI Success

This study found the following themes to be critical to LCIs achieving their goals: staff/leadership, funding, common/clear goals, community relations, maps/data, continuing commitment, political support, diverse partnerships, and trust/respect. Our findings confirm previous research determined diverse and consistent funding contributes to the long-term resilience and sustainability of organizations [39,40,41,42], yet it remains an ongoing challenge for many LCIs, as often the governance of the LCI requires financial investment in addition to the financial support for the on-the-ground project work. In particular, the spatial and temporal scales of LCIs impose additional challenges to securing funding and can result in limited capacity of many initiatives. Lastly, as LCI efforts increase, they often compete for funding and membership [43,44].

Political and high-level support can influence an organization’s ability to function and sustain itself [45,46,47,48]. Our findings emphasize the need for this “support from all levels of government” from the local to international scales and across jurisdictions and borders, including “bi-partisan support”. When political or administrative changes occur, external support can easily shift towards or away from LCI efforts, inhibiting the ability of organizations to implement long-term planning [49]. Therefore, resilience to the changing political and economic landscape is critical for successful long-term resource management [39,40,50].

Within the social landscape, there is recognition that public support and relationships with communities, landowners, and diverse stakeholders are integral to conservation initiatives, yet many LCIs struggle to engage the public and create awareness of their efforts. Our findings emphasized “productive relationships with private landowners” and a “locally led approach” as important for public support. This has been an issue identified by previous research demonstrating that when organizations operate at larger spatial scales, it can become increasingly difficult to effectively engage and communicate with the entities despite necessity [40,50,51,52]. Having a nested organizational approach may be necessary for LCIs to develop and sustain the community relations within the broader landscape. For example, one respondent stated, “the trust that the community has for the organization has allowed us to move forward.”

Coupled with external challenges are the internal factors that influence the success of LCIs. Staff and leadership emerged as critical to the organizational capacity of LCIs, especially people described as “the backbone organization to lead initiative,” “engaged,” “energetic,” and the “connective tissue for network coordination.” Specifically, LCI leaders should clearly communicate external information to the group [53] and build relationships with influential groups [40]. The findings also support that the capacity of leadership to strategically and proactively adapt to change is necessary and remains a challenge for LCIs [4]. Additionally, many members or representatives of LCIs vary in their available time, skills, and financial resources, which influence their level of participation [47,54,55].

Having a clear vision and mission that is supported and known by members has been found to be influential for an organization’s success [49,56,57]. This study found that having a mission that is “actionable”, and providing “mutual benefits” can be challenging, but these factors make up an important foundation and are linked to commitment and trust. For example, conflicting stakeholder priorities and overcoming institutional barriers can be problematic [16]. Furthermore, prioritizing personal versus collective goals is common, especially as resources are restricted [44].

Maintaining member commitment was identified as a challenge to LCIs. Turnover can affect the capacity of an organization [49,56,57], and operating at larger spatial scales can increase the distance between members, limiting the frequency and type of interactions [58]. Strengthening members’ relationships to each other and to the group can translate to increased benevolence [59] and attitudinal organizational commitment [60]. These strong relationships strengthened their affective or attitudinal organizational commitment, which refers to emotional attachment and identification with the organization [53,61].

The importance of diverse partnerships was emphasized by respondents in 2016 and 2021; further trust and respect were particularly emphasized by 2021 respondents as critical to success. This can be essential when an LCI is operating on a topic or in a landscape with high levels of conflict or working with Indigenous or marginalized groups. Covey and Merrill [62] illuminate how moving at the “speed of trust” is an absolute element for the success of any initiative. Yet, many initiatives have deadlines and pressure to spring into action and obtain quick results, or establishing trust and relationships is not perceived as a valuable outcome of an initiative, despite its importance with respect to leading to other long-term conservation outcomes.

5. Conclusions

This study surveyed Landscape Conservation Initiatives that are connected through the Network for Landscape Conservation in 2016 and again in 2021. Our research presents findings on how the focus of these initiatives, the strategies and approaches employed to achieve goals, the factors that support or challenge the LCI’s success, and how LCIs perceive their biggest successes. The main findings highlight how some of these trends changed over a five-year period and with the age range of the LCI. LCIs implement a range of strategies, ranging from strategic and coordinated conservation planning to land and species protection. LCIs recognize many internal and external factors that can support or impede their success; however, LCIs are finding that collaborative-based strategies and network support can help them overcome these challenges. Lastly, success is defined and interpreted in diverse ways by LCIs that include a combination of Collaboration/Governance, Ecological, and Social/Human categories that interact with one another.

Despite the growth in LCIs and the recognition of their importance to conservation, they are largely understudied, resulting in a limited understanding of the effectiveness of LCIs and what factors influence their success. These findings contribute to our greater understanding of trends that have developed over the past several decades for LCIs within a network. The study serves as a foundation for in-depth research on the key themes/topics that emerged in this research.

The research study is limited by several factors and identifies needs for further research. First, the focus of the NLC is largely concentrated in the United States. The findings provide insight into LCIs and the NLC, though they are limited in the generalizability to other geographic locations. Second, the limited nature of the survey format limited the depth of understanding of topics and the ability to compare some of the data across years. Third, the respondents are reporting on the status of their LCIs, which limits our understanding of how specific LCIs transform over time. It is recommended that subsequent surveys be conducted within the NLC in the future to track these changes and trends, as these findings do not reflect the most current state of the network. Fourth, we were limited in our ability to assess the interactions of multiple variables of individual organizations. Lastly, the lower response rate of online and email surveys and the reduced number of usable surveys after data cleaning are limitations to the generalizability of the findings. A qualitative research study can complement the current survey work and provide a more in-depth analysis through a case study approach.

The global shift in implementing conservation efforts to operate at the landscape-scale is largely stifled by the lack of research and understanding of how LCIs function and the factors influencing their success. Networks are being created as a tool to coordinate and share lessons and information among initiatives, but there is a lack of systematic research on LCIs and networks to understand broader trends. This study fulfills this gap, provides insight into our understanding of a network of LCIs and key differences over a five-year period and across the age of the LCI, and can support future research in this field of study. As complexity increases with the scale of the initiative, it is critical that we investigate the functionality of LCIs to efficiently and effectively combat threats to our global landscapes and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of governance of these initiatives in the future.