Landowner conservation values and motivations

Overall, participants viewed the presence of rare species on their own land positively, consistent with Olive and McCune (Reference Olive and McCune2017). However, where Ontario landowners’ appreciation of nature coexisted with resistance to regulation, RLBR private landowners, although wary of consultation, mostly expected no land-use conflict. The main negative feeling was the worry expressed by government representatives and leaseholders that others might harm rare species, and that expressed by leaseholders that hosting them might restrict their use of the property. Such local perceptions matter because they shape whether landowners support, tolerate or resist conservation measures on their land (e.g., whether they permit surveys, adopt recommended management or enrol in stewardship programmes), and thus they carry social, ecological and governance consequences (Bennett Reference Bennett2016). Positive attitudes often reflect environmental values, whereas negative attitudes are more often driven by perceived financial risk and concerns over property rights (Vizek & Nielsen-Pincus Reference Vizek and Nielsen-Pincus2017). Feelings of pride and excitement may therefore support conservation engagement, although concerns about fairness in sharing conservation responsibilities were also noted.

The most valued conservation incentive was technical assistance from conservation experts, which is consistent with findings that landowners value expert guidance (Underwood et al. Reference Underwood, Ober, Miller and Munn2012). Funding ranked second, although some leaseholders and private landowners expressed distrust of ‘free money’; this reflected suspicion about hidden costs and where the funds come from, as participants asked whether they were simply paying for it through their own taxes. This indicates that funding is most effective when paired with transparency about its source and conditions and with explicit assurances against future land-use restrictions (Langpap Reference Langpap2004). In Saskatchewan, voluntary conservation easements (CEA 1996) can be structured to allow flexibility and, in some cases, withdrawal, which helps address concerns about permanent loss of autonomy (Government of Saskatchewan n.d.).

Public recognition was valued by non-profits and governments but seen as ineffective by most leaseholders and private landowners. Given the low awareness of rare species in the RLBR, low-cost educational tools (e.g., brochures with images of locally rare plants) and peer networks of landowners may be practical means of raising awareness and encouraging beneficial management, complementing rather than replacing formal incentives (Brown Reference Brown2019, Rust et al. Reference Rust, Stankovics, Jarvis, Morris-Trainor, de Vries and Ingram2022).

Challenges and constraints to conservation

The main challenge across landowners was not knowing which rare species were on their property, with even federal representatives citing limited time, funds and labour for inventories. A recent Canada-wide survey of practitioners indicated habitat loss, weak enforcement of protection laws and low public and landowner awareness as major barriers to the conservation and recovery of at-risk plants (McCune et al. Reference McCune, Baldwin, Bennett, Husband, Joly and Kraus2024). Because many landowners are unlikely to seek information independently, outreach should deliver it directly, such as through targeted mailings, species lists and identification brochures, site visits and messages routed via trusted non-environmental networks (e.g., rural municipality associations and the regional park board).

Participants were less aware of and less interested in rare plants than in birds. Rare plants were sometimes perceived as nuisances or ‘weeds’, contrasting with more favourable views of birds, a finding that is consistent with Brook et al. (Reference Brook, Zint and De Young2003). Awareness of legislation was limited: most had heard of SARA and TWA but could not describe their contents, echoing findings from Henderson et al. (Reference Henderson, Reed and Davis2014). Landowners cannot protect what they do not recognize, and they are unlikely to act on obligations that they are unaware of, which identifies awareness-raising and plant-focused education as priorities for conservation programming in the RLBR.

Stewardship of rare species

Private lands, mostly cropland in the transition zone, are where agriculture threatens rare plant persistence primarily by converting and fragmenting native habitat and, at the margins, through disturbance into the uncultivated remnants where these plants occur (Kricsfalusy Reference Kricsfalusy2023, Reference Kricsfalusy2026a,b). Despite these pressures, private agricultural lands remain important for conservation, as they support several rare species. Across Canada, approximately a third of at-risk plant species are documented primarily on private lands (McCune & Morrison Reference McCune and Morrison2020, McCune et al. Reference McCune, Baldwin, Bennett, Husband, Joly and Kraus2024).

Interviews indicate that private landowners hold positive attitudes towards conservation but limited knowledge of species and policy, and many are wary of external land-use regulation, echoing challenges in maximizing participation in voluntary conservation programmes reported elsewhere in Canada (Reiter et al. Reference Reiter, Pittman, Ayambire, Brown, Colla and Loewen2022). Because provincial legislation protects species but not habitats and imposes no duties on private owners, voluntary stewardship programmes are especially valuable here; such programmes have worked in the region, including Saskatchewan’s Rare Plant Rescue (Vinge-Mazer & Ranalli Reference Vinge-Mazer, Ranalli, Gibble, Combs and Reichard2012) and Alberta’s MULTISAR (MULTISAR n.d.), offering transferable models for the RLBR.

Leaseholder lands form a small part of the RLBR and had no recorded rare species, reflecting their limited area and intensive recreational use. Leaseholders expressed neutral to negative attitudes, tied to specific concerns: they must already consult the park authority, they were worried that rare species designations could further restrict recreation. and they felt unable to control neighbouring users. Engaging them will therefore depend less on new obligations than on reassurance, simplicity and a clear demonstration of benefit.

Provincial lands are large and diverse, spanning all three zones. They shield four of seven rare plant-richness micro-hotspots (Kricsfalusy Reference Kricsfalusy2026a) and hold the highest overall richness, and their representatives reported strong positive attitudes. Because these holdings span grazed Crown pastures, recreation sites and protected areas, rare plant protection can be built into existing multi-use management.

Non-profit lands supported 23 rare species and lie within or near the core and buffer zones. This probably reflects the fact that non-governmental organizations preferentially acquire parcels of known conservation value and manage them to maintain rare plant habitat, although outcomes depend on the legal, economic and institutional frameworks guiding management (Pasquini et al. Reference Pasquini, Fitzsimons, Cowell, Brandon and Wescott2011). Supporting and expanding non-profit acquisition and stewardship through funding, partnerships and secure tenure could therefore be one of the most effective levers for protecting rare plants.

Federal lands support the highest rare species density of any ownership category, despite being designated primarily for birds and other wildlife (Government of Saskatchewan n.d.). Their small extent limits overall richness, but the presence of rare species shows that federal designations can provide important rare plant habitat where conditions remain protected.

Government programmes that relied on the threat of regulation rather than incentives and collaboration have often bred distrust (Langpap Reference Langpap2004). Private lands therefore benefit from awareness and stewardship programmes and government lands from formal protection, monitoring and restoration, with targeted acquisition complementing, not replacing, voluntary stewardship. On Agricultural Crown Lands, results-based approaches, tax incentives, extension and adjusted grazing-lease conditions can promote multi-species conservation (Ayambire et al. Reference Ayambire, Pittman and Olive2021).

Our research suggests that putting these strategies into practice requires active engagement between incentive providers, including the Government of Saskatchewan, Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund and land managers. Effective strategies should combine protection, including acquisition where warranted, of high-value parcels with outreach, technical assistance and incentives that engage all landowners, and they can be strengthened by novel tools such as Important Plant Areas and other effective conservation measures (see also Kricsfalusy Reference Kricsfalusy2026a, Kricsfalusy et al. Reference Kricsfalusy, Enan, Jonson, Osei, Stittrich and Ulrich2026).

The contribution of the framework

We produced a novel framework for integrated conservation management that brings together ecological priority with social feasibility to inform an integrative understanding of conservation and to point to key actions that influence its effectiveness (Fig. 5). A key insight is that even within the same ecological region, the areas where species are rare or at risk may not be those where landowners are willing or able to act; hence, applying the same strategy everywhere is inefficient and ineffective.

Figure 5.

Integrated framework for maximizing stewardship effectiveness in mosaic landscapes.

The RLBR is a clear case with five different landownerships, where the regional flora is exceptionally rich, comprising 584 native taxa, of which 46 are rare (Kricsfalusy Reference Kricsfalusy2026b). Much of this threatened flora, however, lies outside the protected core and buffer zones, on agricultural lands where cultivation and land-use pressure are high (Kricsfalusy Reference Kricsfalusy2026a).

By applying the framework, we can see provincial lands gain greater scope to build habitat protection (Fig. 5). The Landowner Stewardship Perspective Analysis indicates high social feasibility: provincial lands, as the second-largest ownership group after private lands, give any initiative wide reach; their representatives reported strong positive attitudes towards conservation; and, because the land is held under the Crown, few acquisition barriers stand in the way. The Rare Species Assessment also indicates high ecological priority, as most rare species on provincial lands occur on Agricultural Crown Land, more than half of which is unprotected in the buffer zone of the RLBR. These lands have already been proposed as an Important Plant Area to protect the Redberry Lake Flats site, which supports 12 threatened plant species and sensitive habitats (Kricsfalusy et al. Reference Kricsfalusy, Enan, Jonson, Osei, Stittrich and Ulrich2026). Such protection can be reinforced by proper designation, technical assistance and incentive programmes for Crown Land managers and by outreach and recognition to sustain their engagement.

Figure 5 links the two evidence streams to integrated management actions. Conservation responses should vary with ecological priority and social feasibility (Fig. 6): high priority × high feasibility supports direct protection and management; high priority × low feasibility calls for building feasibility through education, technical assistance and incentives; low priority × high feasibility supports ecological assessment, restoration and voluntary stewardship; and low priority × low feasibility requires maintaining awareness and periodically reassessing ecological status and social feasibility to inform future management actions. Table S5 makes the decision logic explicit by summarizing the conservation actions that each combination implies. By evaluating ecological priority and social feasibility together for each type rather than in parallel, the framework moves beyond simply establishing that ecological and social evidence both matter to specifying decision-orientated tools for biodiversity conservation in mosaic landscapes.

Figure 6.

Management actions across typologies of ecological priority and social feasibility.