Trends in private land conservation: Increasing complexity, shifting conservation purposes and allowable private land uses

被引:43
|
作者
Owley, Jessica [1 ]
Rissman, Adena R. [2 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Buffalo, Sch Law, 722 OBrian Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, 1630 Linden Dr,Room 111, Madison, WI 53706 USA
关键词
Conservation easement; Land trust; Nonprofit organization; Private-land conservation; Property rights; EASEMENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.026
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The terrain of private-land conservation dealmaking is shifting. As the area of private land protected for conservation increases, it is time to understand trends in private-land conservation agreements. We examined 269 conservation easements and conducted 73 interviews with land conservation organizations to investigate changes in private-land conservation in the United States. We hypothesized that since 2000, conservation easements have become more complex but less restrictive. Our analysis reveals shifts in what it means for private land to be "conserved." We found that conservation easements have indeed become more complex, with more purposes and terms after 2000 compared to conservation easements recorded before 2000. However, changes in restrictiveness of conservation easements varied by land use. Mining and waste dumping were less likely to be allowed after 2000, but new residences and structures were twice as likely to be allowed. We found a shift toward allowing some bounded timber harvest and grazing and a decline in terms that entirely allow or prohibit these working land uses. Interviews revealed staff perceptions of reasons for these changes. Our analysis suggests that "used" landscapes are increasingly important for conservation but that conserving these properties stretches the limits of simple, perpetual policy tools and requires increasingly complex and contingent agreements. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:76 / 84
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Private Landowners, Voluntary Conservation Programs, and Implementation of Conservation Friendly Land Management Practices
    Farmer, James R.
    Ma, Zhao
    Drescher, Michael
    Knackmuhs, Eric G.
    Dickinson, Stephanie L.
    [J]. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2017, 10 (01): : 58 - 66
  • [32] Quantifying population-level conservation impacts for a perpetual conservation program on private land
    Kemink, Kaylan M.
    Pressey, Robert L.
    Adams, Vanessa M.
    Olimb, Sarah K.
    Healey, Aidan M.
    Liu, Boyan
    Frerichs, Todd
    Renner, Randy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2023, 345
  • [33] Public access to spatial data on private-land conservation
    Rissman, Adena R.
    Owley, Jessica
    L'Roe, Andrew W.
    Morris, Amy Wilson
    Wardropper, Chloe B.
    [J]. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2017, 22 (02):
  • [34] Reconciling Norm Conflict in Endangered Species Conservation on Private Land
    Olive, Andrea
    Raymond, Leigh
    [J]. NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL, 2010, 50 (02) : 431 - 454
  • [35] Money and motives: an organizational ecology perspective on private land conservation
    Clements, Hayley S.
    Baum, Julia
    Cumming, Graeme S.
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2016, 197 : 108 - 115
  • [36] "Performing Developability:" Generating threat and value in private land conservation
    Kay, Kelly
    [J]. GEOFORUM, 2022, 128 : 37 - 45
  • [37] A review of critical perspectives on private land conservation in academic literature
    Gooden, Jennifer
    't Sas-Rolfes, Michael
    [J]. AMBIO, 2020, 49 (05) : 1019 - 1034
  • [38] Evaluating Private Land Conservation in the Cape Lowlands, South Africa
    Von Hase, Amrei
    Rouget, Mathieu
    Cowling, Richard M.
    [J]. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2010, 24 (05) : 1182 - 1189
  • [39] A public trust argument for public access to private conservation land
    Smith, SC
    [J]. DUKE LAW JOURNAL, 2002, 52 (03) : 629 - 650
  • [40] A review of critical perspectives on private land conservation in academic literature
    Jennifer Gooden
    Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes
    [J]. Ambio, 2020, 49 : 1019 - 1034