IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0004996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Growth of Easements as a Conservation Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Isla S Fishburn
  • Peter Kareiva
  • Kevin J Gaston
  • Paul R Armsworth

Abstract

Background: The numerous studies examining where efforts to conserve biodiversity should be targeted are not matched by comparable research efforts addressing how conservation investments should be structured and what balance of conservation approaches works best in what contexts. An obvious starting point is to examine the past allocation of effort among conservation approaches and how this has evolved. Methodology/Principal Findings: We examine the past allocation of conservation investment between conservation easements and fee simple acquisitions using the largest land trust in operation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), as a case study. We analyse the balance of investments across the whole of the US and in individual states when measured in terms of the area protected and upfront cost of protecting land. Conclusions/Significance: Across the US as a whole, the proportion of conservation investment allocated to easements is growing exponentially. Already 70% of the area of land protected in a given year, and half of all the financial investment in land conservation, is allocated to easements. The growth rate of conservation easements varies by a factor of two across states when measured in terms of the area protected and by a factor of three in terms of financial expenditure. Yet, we were unable to find consistent predictors that explained this variation. Our results underscore the urgency of implementing best practice guidelines for designing easements and of initiating a wider discussion of what balance of conservation approaches is desirable.

Suggested Citation

  • Isla S Fishburn & Peter Kareiva & Kevin J Gaston & Paul R Armsworth, 2009. "The Growth of Easements as a Conservation Tool," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-6, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0004996
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004996
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004996&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0004996?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lennox, Gareth D. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2011. "Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2856-2866.
    2. Vercammen, James, 2014. "The Welfare Impacts of a Conservation Easement," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169813, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Bond, Anthelia J. & O’Connor, Patrick J. & Cavagnaro, Timothy R., 2018. "Who participates in conservation incentive programs? Absentee and group landholders are in the mix," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 410-419.
    4. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. Zhanwen Que & Md. Ziaul Islam, 2024. "How to Conserve the Biodiversity on Collective Land in National Park: Conservation Easements in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Karimi, Azadeh & Adams, Vanessa M., 2019. "Planning for the future: Combining spatially-explicit public preferences with tenure policies to support land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 497-508.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0004996. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.