Perpetual private land conservation: the case for outdoor recreation and functional leisure

As natural areas, agricultural lands, and open spaces continue to be developed at unprecedented rates, it is important for land conservation professionals to understand the individuals who might play a role in permanently protecting these lands and their ecological services. Many factors have been shown to influence land protection decisions among private owners, including land-use activities, demographic characteristics, and environmental intention and behavior. With the hypothesis that individuals already involved in land conservation programs would be candidates for permanent protection, we set out to model conservation easement decisions within a group of participants in southern Indiana’s Classified Forest and Wildlands Program (ICFWP). We used a mailed questionnaire to survey 500 landowners, garnering 308 responses, about their interest in conservation easements. Our results indicated significant positive relationships between interest in conservation easements with variables representing perception of landscape change, outdoor recreation behavior as an adult, and environmental organization membership. By better understanding the ways these factors promote permanent land-use decisions, land conservation professionals can better allocate limited resources through strategic investments in targeting and outreach.

Networking for conservation: social capital and perceptions of organizational success among land trust boards

As an important component in collaborative natural resource management and nonprofit governance, social capital is expected to be related to variations in the performance of land trusts. Land trusts are charitable organizations that work to conserve private land locally, regionally, or nationally. The purpose of this paper is to identify the level of structural and cognitive social capital among local land trusts, and how these two types of social capital relate to the perceived success of land trusts. The analysis integrates data for land trusts operating in the U.S. south-central Appalachian region, which includes western North Carolina, southwest Virginia, and east Tennessee. We use factor analysis to elicit different dimensions of cognitive social capital, including cooperation among board members, shared values, common norms, and communication effectiveness. Measures of structural social capital include the size and diversity of organizational networks of both land trusts and their board members. Finally, a hierarchical linear regression model is employed to estimate how cognitive and structural social capital measures, along with other organizational and individual-level attributes, relate to perceptions of land trust success, defined here as achievement of the land trusts’ mission, conservation, and financial goals. Results show that the diversity of organizational partnerships, cooperation, and shared values among land trust board members are associated with higher levels of perceived success. Organizational capacity, land trust accreditation, volunteerism, and financial support are also important factors influencing perceptions of success among local, nonprofit land trusts.

Limited resources? Let the habitat priority planner help!

In this time of scarce resources, coastal resource managers must find ways to prioritize conservation, land use, and restoration efforts. The Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) is a free geospatial tool created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Services Center that has received wide praise for its ease of use and broad applicability to conservation strategic planning, restoration, climate change scenarios, and other natural resource management actions. Not a geographic information system (GIS) user? Don’t worry―this tool was designed to be used in a team setting. One intermediate-level GIS user can push the buttons to show quick results while a roomful of resource managers and stakeholders provide input criteria that determine the results. The Habitat Priority Planner is a toolbar for ESRI’s ArcGIS platform that is composed of three modules: Habitat Classification, Habitat Analysis, and Data Explorer. The tool calculates basic ecological statistics that are used to examine how habitats function within a landscape. The tool pre‐packages several common landscape metrics into a user‐friendly interface for intermediate GIS users. In addition, HPP allows the user to build queries interactively using a graphical interface for demonstrating criteria selections quickly in a visual manner that is useful in stakeholder interactions. Tool advocates and users include land trusts, conservation alliances, nonprofit organizations, and select National Estuarine Research Reserves and refuges of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Participants in this session will learn the basic requirements for HPP use and the multiple ways the HPP has been applied to geographies nationwide. (PDF contains 5 pages)

Evaluation of the Conservation Lands of Maine Based on Presence of Habitat Suitable for Listed Species

“Conservation Lands” include both public and private lands that are devoted to the protection of wildlife and natural resources. “Listed Species” include federally and state endangered and threatened animals that are in danger of extermination in the state of Maine. The purpose of this study is to determine how well conservation lands are protecting the habitats of listed species. GAP data was used for 13 terrestrial vertebrate species indicating the presence or absence of suitable habitats. This data was compiled in GIS, generating a layer showing the number of listed species an area is suitable for. The areas that were suitable for at least one habitat were compared to answer three questions: (1) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on protected lands and lands that are not protected? (2) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on public lands managed by the state and the federal government and private land? (3) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on lands protected under easements and lands that are protected fee simple? We found significant differences between all three categories. Conservation lands, private lands, and lands held under easement protect the habitat of listed species most effectively. We believe that this is due to the large number of private land trusts in the state of Maine and the effective management strategies of state lands.

Australia

Describes the current state of private protected areas in Australia

Private protected areas in Australia: current status and future directions

Despite the recognised importance of private land for biodiversity conservation, there has been little research into systems of private protected areas at a country-wide level. Here I look at definitions, legislation, ownership, management approaches and effectiveness, distribution and incentives provided to private protected areas in Australia. The term 'private protected areas', although increasingly used, still suffers from a lack of a clear and concise definition in Australia. Australian states and territories have legislation enabling the application of conservation covenants over private land; covenants being the primary mechanism to secure conservation intent on the title of the land in perpetuity. If considering all 'in perpetuity' conservation covenants under a dedicated program to be private protected areas and land owned by non-government organisations and managed for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, there were approximately 5,000 terrestrial properties that could be considered private protected areas in Australia covering 8,913,000 ha as at September 2013. This comprises almost 4,900 conservation covenants covering over 4,450,000 ha and approximately 140 properties owned by private land trusts covering approximately 4,594,120 ha. Most conservation covenanting programs now seek to complement the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of the public reserve system, either stating so explicitly or by aiming to protect the highest priority ecosystems on private land. There are a range of incentives offered for private land conservation and requirements of owners of private protected areas to report on their activities vary in Australia. However, there are a number of key policy challenges that need to be addressed if private protected areas are to achieve their full potential in Australia, including managing broad-scale ecosystem processes, protection and tenure reform, improved financial incentives, and access to emerging ecosystem service markets.

Constructive trusts, illegal purpose and locus poenitentiae

Analyses the Family Division decision in Q v Q on the competing claims of a father and son to beneficial ownership of a house in which the father sought to on a secret agreement entered into with his sons when transferring the property into their joint names, intended to subvert the inheritance tax rules on lifetime gifts by retaining the right to have the property transferred back to him, and the son relied on a later agreement with his brother to transfer the house into his sole name, in reliance on which he and his wife had acted to their detriment by paying for its upkeep and renovation.

Private purpose trusts: a reform proposal

Argues for the introduction of statutory reform to enable valid private purpose trusts to be created by those wishing to make testamentary gifts for non-charitable purposes, with no human beneficiary. Examines the rationale employed in cases where the validity of a private purpose trust has been upheld despite the absence of a human beneficiary. Considers the approaches adopted by five offshore jurisdictions when introducing purpose trust legislation. Identifies key features to be included in any new purpose trust legislation introduced in the UK.

Oral agreements: estoppel, constructive trusts and restitution

Analyses the House of Lords judgment in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd in relation to claims by the prospective purchaser under an oral agreement for sale of a block of flats based on proprietary estoppel, a constructive trust and common law restitution brought against the owner of the property who sought to resile from the agreement after the purchaser had, at considerable expense, obtained planning permission to redevelop the property in reliance on assurances given by the owner that if permission was granted the sale would be honoured.

How can land and urban development make houses healthier?

Traditionally, the main focus of the professional community involved with indoor air quality has been indoor pollution sources, preventing or reducing their emissions, as well as lowering the impact of the sources by replacing the polluted indoor air with "fresh" outdoor air. However, urban outdoor air cannot often be considered "fresh", as it contains high concentrations of pollutants emitted from motor vehicles - the main outdoor pollution sources in cities. Evidence from epidemiological studies conducted worldwide demonstrates that outdoor air quality has considerable effects on human health, despite the fact that people spend the majority of their time indoors. This is because pollution from outdoors penetrates indoors and becomes a major constituent of indoor pollution. Urban land and transport development has significant impact on the overall air quality of the urban airshed as well as the pollution concentration in the vicinity of high-density traffic areas. Therefore, an overall improvement in indoor air quality would be achieved by lowering urban airshed pollution, as well as by lowering the impact of the hot spots on indoor air. This paper explores the elements of urban land and vehicle transport developments, their impact on global and local air quality, and how the science of outdoor pollution generation and transport in the air could be utilized in urban development towards lowering indoor air pollution.