Rethinking property rights: comparative analysis of conservation easements for wildlife conservation

被引:34
|
作者
Rissman, Adena R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Forest & Wildlife Ecol, Madison, WI 53706 USA
关键词
conservation easements; conservation covenants; development; land conservation; land trusts; private lands; property concepts; property rights; wildlife habitat; urbanization; LAND; FRAGMENTATION; BIODIVERSITY; POLICY;
D O I
10.1017/S0376892913000015
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Conservation easements (or conservation covenants) are commonly conceptualized as acquisitions of sticks in a 'bundle of rights' and are increasingly implemented for wildlife conservation on private lands. This research asks: (1) What are the possibilities and limitations of the conservation easement approach to wildlife conservation in contrasting rural and periurban regions? and (2) How does analysis of conservation easements differ when examining property as a bundle of rights or alternative metaphors? These questions were addressed through document analysis, interviews and GIS mapping in two regions where The Nature Conservancy deployed conservation easements for wildlife habitat: rural Lassen Foothills and periurban Tenaja Corridor, USA. Splitting the bundle allowed for site and region-specific easements with differences in permitted housing densities, land management and hunting. Easements focused on restricted rights rather than affirmative duties. The challenges of habitat connectivity in the fragmented Tenaja Corridor revealed the limits of parcel-based acquisition. Analysts and conservation practitioners should rethink the bundle of rights concept of property, considering a bundle of duties, powers and owners within a broader web of social and ecological interests, to understand the role of conservation acquisitions in contrasting landscape contexts.
引用
收藏
页码:222 / 230
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Encumbering harvest rights to protect marine environments: a model of marine conservation easements
    Deacon, Robert T.
    Parker, Dominic P.
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2009, 53 (01) : 37 - 58
  • [22] ENHANCING CONSERVATION OPTIONS: AN ARGUMENT FOR STATUTORY RECOGNITION OF OPTIONS TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (OPCES)
    Cheever, Federico
    Owley, Jessica
    HARVARD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW, 2016, 40 (01) : 1 - 45
  • [23] CREDIBLE COMMITMENTS, ADAPTABILITY, & CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
    Morriss, Andrew P.
    NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL, 2024, 64 (01)
  • [24] Motivations for Using Conservation Easements as a Land Protection Mechanism: a Mixed Methods Analysis
    Farmer, James R.
    Chancellor, Charles
    Fischer, Burnell C.
    NATURAL AREAS JOURNAL, 2011, 31 (01) : 80 - 87
  • [25] The role of farmers' property rights in soil ecosystem services conservation
    Foudi, Sebastien
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2012, 83 : 90 - 96
  • [26] Capitalized Costs of Habitat Conservation Easements
    Lawley, Chad
    Towe, Charles
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2014, 96 (03) : 657 - 672
  • [27] Motivations Influencing the Adoption of Conservation Easements
    Farmer, James R.
    Knapp, Doug
    Meretsky, Vicky J.
    Chancellor, Charles
    Fischer, Burnell C.
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2011, 25 (04) : 827 - 834
  • [28] Willingness-to-sell conservation easements: A case study
    LeVert, Michael
    Stevens, Thomas
    Kittredge, Dave
    JOURNAL OF FOREST ECONOMICS, 2009, 15 (04) : 261 - 275
  • [29] Effectiveness of conservation easements in agricultural regions
    Braza, Mark
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2017, 31 (04) : 848 - 859
  • [30] Wildlife conservation and management in Mexico
    Valdez, Raul
    Guzman-Aranda, Juan C.
    Abarca, Francisco J.
    Tarango-Arambula, Luis A.
    Sanchez, Fernando Clemente
    WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN, 2006, 34 (02): : 270 - 282