Unpacking conservation easements' assessed land use designations and their implications for realizing biodiversity protection

被引:0
作者
Dyckman, Caitlin S. [1 ]
McMahan, Chris [2 ]
Overby, Anna Treado [3 ]
Fouch, Nakisha [4 ]
Ogletree, Scott [5 ]
Self, Stella W. [6 ]
White, David L. [7 ]
Lauria, Mickey [1 ]
Baldwin, Robert F. [4 ]
机构
[1] Clemson Univ, Sch Architecture, City & Reg Planning Program, Lee Hall 2-319, Clemson, SC 29634 USA
[2] Clemson Univ, Sch Math & Stat Sci, Clemson, SC 29634 USA
[3] US Forest Serv, USDA Forest Serv, Southern Res Stn, Forest Econ & Policy,USDA, Res Triangle Pk, NC USA
[4] Clemson Univ, Dept Forestry & Environm Conservat, Clemson, SC 29634 USA
[5] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh Coll Art, OPENspace Res Ctr, Edinburgh, Scotland
[6] Univ South Carolina, Arnold Sch Publ Hlth, Columbia, SC USA
[7] Clemson Univ, Dept Pk Recreat & Tourism, Clemson, SC 29634 USA
关键词
agriculture; assessed land use designations; biological protection; conservation easements; exurban; open space preservation; residential; TRUSTS; POLICY;
D O I
10.1111/csp2.13130
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Native ecosystem and biodiversity loss from land use conversion into human-modified landscapes are evident in the United States and globally. In addition to public land conservation, there is an increase in private land conservation through conservation easements (CEs) across exurban landscapes. Not every CE was established strictly for biodiversity protection and permitted land uses can increase human modification. No research of which we are aware has examined the actual tax assessor's land use designations (LUDs) through time. We constructed granular CE datasets (GCED) of CEs and their parcels' tax assessment LUDs for 1997-2008/2009, based on original data from 12 counties in six US states. Using the GCED, we examined patterns in the LUDs, with implications for land uses that could impact CE biological outcomes. We show that LUDs on exurban private conservation lands were predominately residential and agricultural, with increased residential over time. Critically, the LUDs lack a biological conservation exempt designation/category. There is no consistent trend in association between the primary CE reason and its parcel's LUD, suggesting that they coincide in some circumstances but in others, the CE may be a response to contravene the LUD. The majority of the first CE reasons are focused on open space preservation, except in some counties where agricultural land uses and agricultural CEs are associated. The economically and human-focused LUD is one of many social factors that should be considered in a classification system for private land conservation and CEs more specifically. These results prompt the land conservation, conservation biology, and environmental planning communities to explore assessed land uses' impact on biodiversity conservation objectives. The economically and human-focused tax assessor's land use designation (LUD) on a parcel may affect a conservation easement's (CE) intent, either coinciding with or contravening it. The LUD lacks a biological conservation exempt designation/category and is one of many social factors that should be considered in a classification system for private land conservation. We must further explore assessed land uses' impact on biodiversity conservation objectives. image
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2016, National Land Trust Census
  • [2] [Anonymous], NATL C COMMISSIONERS
  • [3] Bailey R.G., 1995, DESCRIPTION ECOREGIO, V2nd
  • [4] Landowner and land trust agent preferences for conservation easements: Implications for sustainable land uses and landscapes
    Bastian, Christopher T.
    Keske, Catherine M. H.
    McLeod, Donald M.
    Hoag, Dana L.
    [J]. LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2017, 157 : 1 - 13
  • [5] Brandt N., 2014, OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism, V17, DOI [DOI 10.1787/5JZ5PZW9MWZN-EN, 10.1787/5k44t7j62qg1-en, DOI 10.1787/5K44T7J62QG1-EN, 10.1787/5JZ5PZW9MWZN-EN]
  • [6] Effectiveness of conservation easements in agricultural regions
    Braza, Mark
    [J]. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2017, 31 (04) : 848 - 859
  • [7] Land use determines interest in conservation easements among private landowners
    Brenner, Jacob C.
    Lavallato, Stephanie
    Cherry, Marin
    Hileman, Emma
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2013, 35 : 24 - 32
  • [8] Ranching as a conservation strategy: Can old ranchers save the new west?
    Brunson, Mark W.
    Huntsinger, Lynn
    [J]. RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, 2008, 61 (02) : 137 - 147
  • [9] Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines
    Butchart, Stuart H. M.
    Walpole, Matt
    Collen, Ben
    van Strien, Arco
    Scharlemann, Joern P. W.
    Almond, Rosamunde E. A.
    Baillie, Jonathan E. M.
    Bomhard, Bastian
    Brown, Claire
    Bruno, John
    Carpenter, Kent E.
    Carr, Genevieve M.
    Chanson, Janice
    Chenery, Anna M.
    Csirke, Jorge
    Davidson, Nick C.
    Dentener, Frank
    Foster, Matt
    Galli, Alessandro
    Galloway, James N.
    Genovesi, Piero
    Gregory, Richard D.
    Hockings, Marc
    Kapos, Valerie
    Lamarque, Jean-Francois
    Leverington, Fiona
    Loh, Jonathan
    McGeoch, Melodie A.
    McRae, Louise
    Minasyan, Anahit
    Morcillo, Monica Hernandez
    Oldfield, Thomasina E. E.
    Pauly, Daniel
    Quader, Suhel
    Revenga, Carmen
    Sauer, John R.
    Skolnik, Benjamin
    Spear, Dian
    Stanwell-Smith, Damon
    Stuart, Simon N.
    Symes, Andy
    Tierney, Megan
    Tyrrell, Tristan D.
    Vie, Jean-Christophe
    Watson, Reg
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2010, 328 (5982) : 1164 - 1168
  • [10] California (CA) State Board of Equalization, 2002, ASS HDB SECT