Rural regions once dominated by productive agriculture in many post-industrial nations are experiencing an increasing transition towards non-productive land use. This transition has raised community and academic concern over potential environmental impacts to rural land. However, strong interest in conservation issues amongst rural-amenity in-migrants has supported a counter narrative of positive ecological implications. I argue there is a gap in this debate on the ecological implications of rural-amenity migration; limited attention has been paid to how amenity in-migrants actually practice land management on their property. To address this gap, the key question of my research is ‘How do social and landscape interactions shape the practices and outcomes of land management in rural-amenity landscapes?’ This work has implications for environmental policy amidst the changing land use and social dynamics of rural-amenity landscapes. This is particularly important in the face of increasing policy attention to conservation issues on private land. I concentrate on the growing political emphasis on voluntary conservation initiatives, addressing the limited understanding of how these programs are actually operationalised by landholders on the ground. To investigate the primary research question, an ethnographically-inspired case study project was undertaken in the hinterland regions of Melbourne, Australia. Narrative interviews and property-walks comprised the primary data collection methods. Interviews with staff involved in conservation policy, and reviews of policy documents provided supporting material. Landholders involved in three different voluntary conservation schemes (representing three distinct policy approaches) were targeted, as well as a non-participant cohort. My research found that the strong amenity values held by participants underscored individualised, property-centric management aspirations. This resulted in preferred channels for knowledge generation that favoured experiential learning and communities of practice. Little knowledge for informing management was shared between neighbours in an effort to avoid neighbourly conflict. Over time, this knowledge settled into a durable disposition for stewardship that reflected a prevailing tendency for either ‘active’ or ‘passive’ management. Dynamic ecologies were being created on private land as landholders navigated the tensions between their diverse aspirations for management and land use. This dynamism was seen in the way ecologies were spatially and temporally enacted; boundaries around the home were created through ornamental nature plantings, while the ‘bring back’ of indigenous nature through revegetation was mediated by non-conservation amenity values. In adopting voluntary conservation schemes, landholders were pursuing creative conservation outcomes that accord with existing practices and ecologies, often departing from the biodiversity-centric objectives of the schemes. Of key interest was the adoption of market-based schemes to enhance regulatory protection for vegetation, rather than for financial reward. In exposing landholders’ desires for social and ecological outcomes through program participation, I suggest the need for a more humanistic approach to conservation policy in rural-amenity landscapes. Overall, my research shows how the ecologies of rural-amenity landscapes embody a negotiation of amenity values and stewardship, as landholders come to establish a new rural lifestyle. Advancing nature conservation policy in this context requires consideration of the diverse and multiple ways in which landholders create and value these ecologies
