Private Land Conservation and Public Policy: Land Trusts, Land Owners, and Conservation Easements

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 337-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic P. Parker ◽  
Walter N. Thurman

We highlight the extraordinary growth in private conservation via land trusts and conservation easements and describe the problems arising from the interplay of public finance and private decisions. We offer a framework for understanding the popularity of easements and land trusts and for evaluating policy reforms aimed at improving their performance. The framework, grounded in institutional and organizational economics in the tradition of Ronald Coase, Oliver Williamson, and Yoram Barzel, focuses on the measurement and monitoring costs faced by public and private stakeholders under current and prospective policy arrangements. We illustrate how the framework can be applied to contemporary debates about the appropriate tax treatment of donated easements, requirements that they be held in perpetuity, and the extent to which government should regulate private land trusts.

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. VILLAMAGNA ◽  
L. SCOTT ◽  
J. GILLESPIE

SUMMARYProtected areas remain the most commonly used tool forin situconservation; however growth in the USA's system of public lands has stagnated while private land conservation continues to expand. Easements can provide a range of ecosystem services (ESs), but it is unknown whether conservation easements maintain ES capacities equivalent to public protected areas. Evaluation of the capacity of seven ESs on federal and state protected areas and conservation easements in the USA using spatially-explicit ES models and publicly available data indicated that ES capacities in easements were equal to or greater than capacities within state or federal protected areas for six of seven services and, when bundled together, conservation easements protected greater focal ES capacity than other conservation areas. Economic incentive programmes and regulatory mechanisms may be used to stimulate capacity improvements for surface water regulation, riparian filtration, erosion control, and carbon storage on conservation easements, and landscape-level conservation efforts should (1) continue to protect natural and uninhabited areas that provide ecosystem and biological diversity, (2) expand private conservation efforts close to human population centres, and (3) limit future development to areas with high regulating service capacity that can sustain new population growth.


2020 ◽  
pp. 194277862096202
Author(s):  
Levi Van Sant ◽  
Dean Hardy ◽  
Bryan Nuse

Conservation easements, voluntary legal agreements whereby a landowner forfeits some of his or her land development rights in exchange for tax benefits, are an increasingly common strategy for protecting land from development in the United States today. For instance, from 2005 to 2015, private land under conservation easement in the United States increased by 175%, growing to more than 16 million acres held by land trusts, which are collectively endowed with more than $2.2 billion in funding. Recent critical analyses of this trend conceptualize conservation easements as a tool of neoliberal environmental governance, whereby nature is increasingly individuated and conservation is (at least partially) privatized. Conservation easements grew rapidly in the 1980s as the result of a compromise between mainstream environmental organizations and the Reagan administration’s anti-public lands agenda; thus, one interpretation is that they are the pragmatic “roll-out” of conservation efforts from a handcuffed liberal environmental movement. Yet, our historical and qualitative analysis of the politics of conservation easements in the coastal US South suggests that they were actually an elite white class project from the start, rather than a reaction to constraints on public lands protection. Thus, we argue that the environmental justice implications of conservation easements deserve more attention. Our efforts to develop a spatial-statistical assessment of the ways that their ecological benefits are distributed beyond parcel boundaries were limited by the privatization of data on conservation easements. Instead, we assess the distribution of easements themselves across the region, finding limited differences, but ones that we interpret as meaningful, between public and private conservation lands regarding racial composition and incomes of nearby populations. Importantly, this kind of mixed-methods analysis indicates how the exclusive control of data undergirds the exclusive control of land. Most broadly, we argue that Cheryl Harris’s theorization of “whiteness as property” remains an important resource for political ecologists because it helps specify the relationship between race, class, and nature under capitalism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Niall G. Clancy ◽  
John P. Draper ◽  
J. Marshall Wolf ◽  
Umarfarooq A. Abdulwahab ◽  
Maya C. Pendleton ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 10-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. N. Kaye ◽  
R. Schwindt ◽  
C. Menke

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Pavlacky ◽  
Christian A. Hagen ◽  
Anne M. Bartuszevige ◽  
Rich Iovanna ◽  
T. Luke George ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Yletyinen ◽  
G. L. W. Perry ◽  
P. Stahlmann-Brown ◽  
R. Pech ◽  
J. M. Tylianakis

AbstractUnderstanding the function of social networks can make a critical contribution to achieving desirable environmental outcomes. Social-ecological systems are complex, adaptive systems in which environmental decision makers adapt to a changing social and ecological context. However, it remains unclear how multiple social influences interact with environmental feedbacks to generate environmental outcomes. Based on national-scale survey data and a social-ecological agent-based model in the context of voluntary private land conservation, our results suggest that social influences can operate synergistically or antagonistically, thereby enabling behaviors to spread by two or more mechanisms that amplify each other’s effects. Furthermore, information through social networks may indirectly affect and respond to isolated individuals through environmental change. The interplay of social influences can, therefore, explain the success or failure of conservation outcomes emerging from collective behavior. To understand the capacity of social influence to generate environmental outcomes, social networks must not be seen as ‘closed systems’; rather, the outcomes of environmental interventions depend on feedbacks between the environment and different components of the social system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document