Literature DB >> 23784713

Land management restrictions and options for change in perpetual conservation easements.

Adena Rissman1, Menka Bihari, Christopher Hamilton, Christina Locke, David Lowenstein, Melissa Motew, Jessica Price, Robert Smail.   

Abstract

Conservation organizations rely on conservation easements for diverse purposes, including protection of species and natural communities, working forests, and open space. This research investigated how perpetual conservation easements incorporated property rights, responsibilities, and options for change over time in land management. We compared 34 conservation easements held by one federal, three state, and four nonprofit organizations in Wisconsin. They incorporated six mechanisms for ongoing land management decision-making: management plans (74 %), modifications to permitted landowner uses with discretionary consent (65 %), amendment clauses (53 %), easement holder rights to conduct land management (50 %), reference to laws or policies as compliance terms (47 %), and conditional use permits (12 %). Easements with purposes to protect species and natural communities had more ecological monitoring rights, organizational control over land management, and mechanisms for change than easements with general open space purposes. Forestry purposes were associated with mechanisms for change but not necessarily with ecological monitoring rights or organizational control over land management. The Natural Resources Conservation Service-Wetland Reserve Program had a particularly consistent approach with high control over land use and some discretion to modify uses through permits. Conservation staff perceived a need to respond to changing social and ecological conditions but were divided on whether climate change was likely to negatively impact their conservation easements. Many conservation easements involved significant constraints on easement holders' options for altering land management to achieve conservation purposes over time. This study suggests the need for greater attention to easement drafting, monitoring, and ongoing decision processes to ensure the public benefits of land conservation in changing landscapes.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23784713     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-013-0091-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  8 in total

1.  Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent?

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems.

Authors:  Per Olsson; Carl Folke; Fikret Berkes
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2004-06-23       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Conservation easements: biodiversity protection and private use.

Authors:  Adena R Rissman; Lynn Lozier; Tosha Comendant; Peter Kareiva; Joseph M Kiesecker; M Rebecca Shaw; Adina M Merenlender
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 6.560

4.  Diversity in current ecological thinking: implications for environmental management.

Authors:  Susan A Moore; Tabatha J Wallington; Richard J Hobbs; Paul R Ehrlich; C S Holling; Simon Levin; David Lindenmayer; Claudia Pahl-Wostl; Hugh Possingham; Monica G Turner; Mark Westoby
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2008-08-16       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Oak conservation and restoration on private forestlands: negotiating a social-ecological landscape.

Authors:  Tricia G Knoot; Lisa A Schulte; Mark Rickenbach
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Adaptive Management: Promises and Pitfalls

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Adaptive Management for Sound Ecosystem Management

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.266

8.  U.S. natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management adaptation.

Authors:  Jordan M West; Susan H Julius; Peter Kareiva; Carolyn Enquist; Joshua J Lawler; Brian Petersen; Ayana E Johnson; M Rebecca Shaw
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.266

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  Landowner Satisfaction with the Wetland Reserve Program in Texas: A Mixed-Methods Analysis.

Authors:  Dianne Stroman; Urs P Kreuter
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 3.266

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.