motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements

Contributed Paper

Motivations Influencing the Adoption of ConservationEasementsJAMES R. FARMER,∗,‡ DOUG KNAPP,∗ VICKY J. MERETSKY,† CHARLES CHANCELLOR,∗

AND BURNELL C. FISCHER†∗School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Room 133, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 U.S.A.†School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 U.S.A.

Abstract: The use of conservation easements as a conservation mechanism for private land has increased

greatly in the past decade; conservation easements now protect over 15 million ha across the United States

from residential and commercial development. We used a mailed survey and in-depth telephone interviews to

determine factors that motivate private landowners in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin (U.S.A.) to

place conservation easements on their properties. The mailed survey asked about characteristics of landowners,

their properties, and their opinions on 9 factors related to the decision to place an easement. A follow-

up telephone interview was completed with 19 mail-survey participants to gain an in-depth understanding

of the action and to triangulate the results with the questionnaire. Place attachment, which is a measure of

personal connection to a location or property, was the greatest motivation for implementation of an easement.

Results of a principal components analysis suggested contributing to the public good underlaid several of the

strong motivational factors for participation. Financial reasons were the lowest ranked motivational factor;

however, financial concerns may facilitate placement of an easement that would otherwise not be realized.

We believe that our results may be transferable to places where land protected by easements is not dominated

by traditional farming (row crops, pastures, and hay), timber harvesting, or nonextractive uses (e.g., habitat

for wild animals, recreation, and protection of ecosystem services).

Keywords: anthropology, behavior, community-based conservation, land-use planning, private lands, protectedareas

Motivaciones que Influyen en la Adopcion de Contratos de Conservacion

Resumen: El uso de contratos de conservacion como mecanismo para tierras privadas ha incrementado

mucho en la ultima decada; contratos de conservacion ahora protegen del desarrollo residencial y comercial

a mas de 15 millones de ha en los Estados Unidos. Utilizamos una encuesta enviada por correo y entre-

vistas por telefono para determinar los factores que motivan a los propietarios privados en Iowa, Illinois,

Michigan, Ohio y Wisconsin (E. U. A.) a colocar contratos de conservacion en sus propiedades. La encuesta

por correo preguntaba sobre las caracterısticas de propietarios, sus propiedades y sus opiniones sobre 9

factores relacionados con la decision de colocar un contrato. Se realizo una entrevista por telefono con 19

participantes en la encuesta por correo para obtener un vision mas integral de la accion y triangular los

resultados con los del cuestionario. La adhesion al sitio, que es una medida de la conexion personal a una

localidad o propiedad, fue la mayor motivacion para la implementacion de un contrato, Los resultados de

un analisis de componentes principales sugirio que la contribucion a un bien publico subyacio en varios de

los factores motivacionales de la participacion. Las razones financieras fueron el factor motivacional mas

bajo; sin embargo, las preocupaciones economicas pueden facilitar la celebracion de un contrato que de otra

manera no se realizarıa. Consideramos que nuestros resultados pueden ser transferidos a lugares donde la

tierra protegida por contratos no esta dominada por la agricultura tradicional (cultivos, pastizales y paja),

‡Address for correspondence: Marshall University, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, 1 John Marshall Way, Huntington, WV

25755, U.S.A., email [email protected] submitted March 2, 2010; revised manuscript accepted January 6, 2011.

827Conservation Biology, Volume 25, No. 4, 827–834C©2011 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01686.x

828 Adopting Conservation Easements

explotacion maderera o usos no extractivos (e.g., habitat para animales silvestres, recreacion y proteccion de

los servicios del ecosistema).

Palabras Clave: antropologıa, areas protegidas, conducta, conservacion basada en comunidades, planificacionde uso de suelo, tierras privadas

Introduction

In the United States open space, including forests, na-tive and cultivated grasslands, agricultural land, wetlands,and riparian zones, is increasingly being developed forresidential and commercial use (Ernst & Wallace 2008).Open space at the rural–urban interface (exurbs) is be-ing developed the fastest. Development in exurban areasaffects ecosystem-management activities, including con-trol of fire regimes, eradication of non-native species, andmanagement of wild animals.

Land conservation organizations, particularly landtrusts, use conservation easements on private property asan expedited mechanism to prevent the residential andcommercial development of agricultural land, natural ar-eas, and other open spaces (Gustanski & Squires 2000).Conservation easements are now a primary tool for con-serving biological diversity on private land (Rissman et al.2007).

A conservation easement is a negotiated, legally bind-ing agreement between individuals who own propertyand a second-party organization (e.g., state agency ornongovernmental organization such as a land trust). Aconservation easement restricts specific activities on theproperty in order to meet the owner’s goals and the orga-nization’s conservation objectives (Gustanski & Squires2000). Although land trusts often buy land in fee sim-ple, decreased federal funding and increased develop-ment have prompted the increased use of conservationeasements (Merenlender et al. 2004). By 2004 conserva-tion easements on private land encompassed nearly 15million ha across the United States (Land Trust Alliance2005).

Although conservation easements have existed for overa century (Gustanki & Squires 2000), few studies ofthe motivations for their use, especially on nonagricul-tural land (Kabii & Horwitz 2006), have been published.Merenlender et al. (2004) suggests that a comprehensiveunderstanding of the individuals who sell or donate prop-erty rights in conjunction with a conservation easementwill contribute to the effectiveness of land conservation.

Miller et al. (2011) posited that landowners’ decisionsto adopt an easement are motivated by the desire to con-serve the habitat of wild animals, open space, agriculturalproduction, and the cultural and economic resources oftheir community. Miller et al.’s (2011) conclusions areconsistent with those of Kline and Wichelns’ (1994),who found that landowners’ depth of understanding ofland conservation issues affects the conservation mea-

sures they adopt on their property. Other motivationsfor conservation action on private property are altruism(McLeod et al. 1999), emotional connection to the land(de Haven-Smith 1988; Robinson 2004), environmentalvalues (Jacobson 2002; Ryan et al. 2003; Miller et al.2011), and protection of open space for social reasons(Miller et al. 2011).

Theoretically, place attachment also motivates conser-vation of private lands and the adoption of conservationeasements. Place attachment is a person’s commitmentto a particular place (i.e., positive “feelings about one’sproperty”) (Jorgensen & Stedman 2001). Although a bodyof research has considered place attachment within recre-ational and natural landscapes (Walker & Ryan 2008),little research has addressed whether place attachment af-fects preservation of rural landscapes (Jorgensen & Sted-man 2001, 2006; Kaltenborn & Bjerke 2002).We consid-ered the motivations of individuals to adopt conservationeasements.

Methods

We used a sequentially embedded, mixed-methods re-search design that had 3 phases (Creswell & Plano-Clark2007): literature review, survey mailed to 533 partici-pants, and telephone interviews of selected respondentsto the mailed survey.

Literature Review

We searched and analyzed the peer-reviewed literature toenumerate possible motivations for adoption of conserva-tion easements (Creswell 2007). We used the followingsearch engines: Academic Search (EBSCO), BioOne, JS-TOR, and Google Scholar. We searched for the terms con-

servation easement(s), private land conservation, land

conservation, land preservation, easement(s), farm-

land protection, forest protection, and land trusts. Weopen-coded motivations for adopting a conservation ease-ment that we identified in the literature. In open codingone identifies initial concepts, terms, and phrases of in-terest and placed them into distinct categories (Corbin& Strauss 2008), in our case motivational categories(Table 1). For example, habitat protection, ecosystem ser-vices, and wildlife corridor were coded and placed intothe environmental motivations category. We used the cat-egories to construct the survey’s motivational promptsfor section 1 (Motivational Prompts).

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 4, 2011

Farmer et al. 829

Table 1. Mean scores of responses to statements in a survey of landholders with conservation easements (n = 187) to examine motivations forplacing a conservation easement.

MeanMotivational category and prompt scorea Cronbach’s αb

Place attachment 4.67c 0.681I do not have a strong personal connection to the property I protected using a conservation

easement.4.64

I feel a strong sense of connection to the land I protected with a conservation easement. 4.70Environmental. 4.56c 0.710

Preserving nature was not a strong consideration in my decision to adopt a conservation easement. 4.65The protection of the natural environment/resources of my property was not a primary reason to

place a conservation easement on my property.4.49

Protecting the environment was an important factor in placing a conservation easement on myproperty.

4.57

Witnessing land development 4.13c 0.789My experience in seeing land developed, particularly land I had a special fondness for, affected

my decision to use a conservation easement.4.20

Witnessing the development of land to which I had a particular liking to, did not affect mydecision to use a conservation easement to protect my land.

4.05

Societal 3.93c 0.655The importance of my land in conjunction with society at large was not a significant factor in my

decision to grant a conservation easement on my property.3.72

I granted a conservation easement on my property because it was the right thing to do for societyas a whole.

4.13

Open-space protection 3.91c 0.815The decrease in open space in my community was one of the reasons I chose to grant a

conservation easement on my property.3.88

The loss of open space in my community did not affect my decision to place a conservationeasement on my property.

3.93

Family heritage or legacy 3.55c 0.743Preserving my family’s legacy by granting a conservation easement on my property was an

important consideration in my decision.3.66

My family’s history/heritage with the land I protected was not an important consideration for mein placing a conservation easement on my property.

3.43

Culture 3.45c 0.689The property I protected using a conservation easement symbolizes the specific culture for the

surrounding area and thus was an important factor in my decision to place a conservationeasement on its deed.

3.68

The cultural significance of my property had little effect on my granting a conservation easementto preserve it.

3.22

Community 3.31c 0.552The importance of my property to the local community was not an important consideration in

choosing to place a conservation easement on my property.3.31

I chose to use a conservation easement to preserve my land because it provides importantresources for the community.

3.32

Financial incentives 3.13c 0.819Financial incentives that I received from placing a conservation easement on my property were an

important motivation for me.3.06

Economic benefits received from granting a conservation easement were unimportant in mydecision to protect my land using a conservation easement.

3.19

aScale of mean score: 1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, neutral; 4, agree; 5, strongly agree.bReliability score for category.cMean score for category.

Mailed Survey

We mailed a survey to 533 individuals to gather data onmotivations for the adoption of conservation easements,land use, and demographics and to identify participantsfor follow-up telephone interviews. We contacted 21 landtrusts in 7 states (Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis-souri, Ohio, and Wisconsin [U.S.A.]) to solicit their as-sistance in recruiting survey participants. Fourteen land

trusts from all but Missouri and Minnesota assisted us inrecruiting participants who had adopted a conservationeasement in those states. We approached land trusts thatwere representative not only of these states, but also of 4land uses protected by easements (nonextractive [habitatfor wild animals, recreation, and protection of ecosystemservices], traditional farming [row crops, pastures, andhay], timber harvesting, and mixed use). We used a non-probability sampling approach to solicit participants. In


Volume 25, No. 4, 2011


some cases we provided the land trusts with prestampedand presealed envelopes that contained the survey andthey affixed mailing addresses and mailed the surveys toland-trust members (n = 356). In other cases (n = 177),land trusts provided us with the addresses and we mailedthem. We contacted potential survey participants onlyonce via the letter that contained the survey.

Using test–retest methods we tested the reliability andclarity of our survey on 10 individuals who had adoptedconservation easements. In a test–retest, a subject com-pletes a survey at different times and the results of the2 surveys are compared to determine consistency (Field2005). Originally, the first section of the survey had 24prompts that addressed motivations for adopting conser-vation easements. Study participants rated their level ofagreement with the prompts. Levels of agreement wereon a 1–5 Likert-style scale: 1, strongly disagree; 2, dis-agree; 3, neutral; 4, agree; and 5, strongly agree.

From the test–retest results we calculated a Cronbach’salpha score (Field 2005) for each prompt and for each mo-tivational category. We calculated the alpha score fromthe pre- and postassessment responses of each individ-ual to prompts in section 1 (Table 1) and then averagedthe scores across the group of prompts for each motiva-tional category. On the basis of Cronbach’s alpha values,we excluded 5 prompts with low reliability values. Thefinal version of section 1 (Motivational Prompts) of thesurvey had 19 prompts—2 for each of the 9 motivationalcategories, except the environmental category, whichhad 3 prompts to strengthen Cronbach’s alpha. Section2 (Land and Owner Characteristics) of the questionnaireincluded questions about land characteristics, land use,ownership characteristics, and the conservation ease-ment. Section 3 (Participant Demographics) containeddemographic questions (age, gender, income, educationlevel, ethnicity, religiosity, relationship status, residen-tial setting during childhood, residential setting today,whether one lives on or adjacent to property under ease-ment, and percentage of income derived from the land).

We averaged the values for the 2 or 3 survey promptsfor each of the 9 motivational categories to produce asingle score for each category. We conducted sign testson the differences between mean scores among the mo-tivational categories to compare their strengths. We didnot correct p values for experiment-wide error becausethis analysis was exploratory (Moran 2003); however,we conducted a sequential Bonferroni correction (Rice1989).

We simultaneously conducted Kaiser–Meyer–Olkinand Bartlett’s tests and principal component analyses(PCA). Results of these analyses indicated data for eachmotivational category were sufficiently correlated forPCA to be useful in reducing dimensionality. We con-ducted PCA on values from the 9 motivational categories.We used Bartlett’s test to confirm the significance of thefirst PCA axis and the broken-stick rule to determine

how many additional axes to interpret (Jackson 1993;Legendre & Legendre 1998). The broken-stick approachcan overestimate dimensionality (Peres-Neto et al. 2005);we chose to err in the direction of higher dimensionality.

We report partial correlations and communalities forthe single PCA axis. Partial correlations are the corre-lations between the PCA axis and the information thatwas unique to each motivational category. Communali-ties showed the proportion of variation in a category thatwas retained in the solution (in this case, the PCA axis).

Telephone Interviews

We collected additional data on factors contributing tothe placement of the conservation easement from infor-mal, in-depth interviews conducted over the telephonewith participants who were recruited on the basis of theirresponses to question 26 on the mailed survey. Question26 asked whether they would be willing to participatein a follow-up telephone interview. Individuals noting awillingness to participate were categorized by state andland-use type. We identified potential interview partic-ipants so that all 5 states and all 4 land-use categorieswould be represented. We then selected interview par-ticipants from this list of individuals based on order onthe list (top to bottom).

We made digital recordings of the interviews. The inter-view data presented in this article is only derived from thefirst interview question and its follow-up question. Wefirst asked participants, “Why did you decide to place aconservation easement on your property” (primary ques-tion)? We followed this question with “What other factorscontributed to the decision?”

We used a 3-step phenomenological analysis (Mous-takas 1994) to analyze interview data. We open-coded ini-tial concepts, terms, and phrases from participants’ inter-views into distinct categories (Corbin & Strauss 2008).Wechecked the coded words or phrases against their originalcontext in the transcript and then examined the clustersof words and phrases from the open-coded categories,analyzing each category for emergent themes. We thencompared the emergent themes with the original tran-scripts to check whether they correctly represented theideas in their original contexts. Finally, 2 of the authorschecked whether each phrase belonged in the delin-eated category to which it had been assigned. After 19interviews new themes ceased to emerge (saturation),so we discontinued interviews (Guest 2006). A full listof interview questions are available online (SupportingInformation).

Results

Literature Review

General motivational categories identified from the litera-ture included community, culture, environmental, family


Volume 25, No. 4, 2011

Farmer et al. 831

heritage or legacy, financial incentives, open-space pro-tection, place attachment, societal factors, and witness-ing land development (Table 1). We defined communitymotivations as a desire to maintain the economic, recre-ational, and aesthetic benefits of one’s community (Kline& Wichelns 1994; Keske et al. 2008; Farmer et al. 2011)and cultural motivations as a desire to preserve the ap-pearance and function of the land as it relates to theregional lifestyle and culture (Kline & Wichelns 1994;Farmer et al. 2011). We considered environmental mo-tivations a response to fragmentation or development(Elconin & Luzadis 1998; Jacobson 2002; Kabii & Horwitz2006). Family heritage or legacy motivations reflected anowner’s familial ties to property and long-term owner-ship of the land (Rilla 2002; McLaughlin 2004; Keskeet al. 2008). Open-space protection motivations were aresponse to rapidly decreasing proportion of undevel-oped land in the region (Kline & Wichelns 1994; Milleret al. 2011). Societal motivations were a desire to benefitsociety (Elconin & Luzadis 1998; McLeod et al. 1999).Some individuals were motivated by witnessing land de-velopment of land near their property or land for whichthey had a special fondness (Farmer et al. 2011).

Mailed Survey

We received 187 complete and useable surveys from thedirect mailing (35.1% response rate). Most of the partici-pants were residents of Ohio (73) and Michigan (60). Ofthe 187 respondents, 182 resided in the state in which theproperty with the conservation easement was located.All participants were the original conservation easementadopters. The population of respondents was 66% maleand 100% Caucasian; 87% had completed at minimuma bachelor’s degree, and 71% represented householdswith incomes >$60,000 in 2008. Participants who grewup on the property with the easement represented 25%of the sample. An additional 34% had a family tie to theproperty. Approximately 35% of participants attended re-ligious services 2 or more times per month; 44% did notattend religious services. A total of 73% of participants re-ported receiving no income from the property, whereas52% indicated their land use was farming or timber har-vesting that provided income.

The 187 participants had 7226 ha under conservationeasement. On average, participants held 38.4 ha (SE 3.6)under conservation easement and owned 79.7 ha (12.7).A total of 64.7% of participants lived on or adjacent to theproperty. For individuals whose land had passed throughmultiple family owners, average length of family owner-ship was 86 years (5.0), with a maximum of 203 years.A total of 160 of 162 respondents indicated their conser-vation easement was donated to a land trust rather thansold. A total of 97 individuals did not extract resourcesfrom their land, whereas 36 farmed, 12 harvested timber,and 42 used the land in multiple ways. Participants re-

ported the area of each type of land cover or land use.Tillable land accounted for 36% of area; forest 25%, grass-lands 11%, riparian zones 9%, wetlands 7%, pasture 6%,and other types or uses 6%.

Place attachment received the highest mean score(4.67) among motivational categories and was followedin decreasing level of importance by environmental(4.56), witnessing development (4.13), societal (3.93),open space (3.91), family legacy (3.55), cultural (3.45),community (3.31), and financial incentive (3.13). Thestrengths of many of the motivational categories weresignificantly different; only the pairings of societal andopen space, family and cultural, and community and fi-nancial were not significantly different (Table 2).

Bartlett’s test indicated that the first axis of the PCA wassignificant (χ2 = 307.5, df = 36, p < 0.001). No additionalaxis revealed sufficient variation in the data to merit in-terpretation. The single extractable axis accounted for30% of the variation in the data. The motivational cat-egories with highest partial correlation on the axis andthe highest proportion of communality were societal andenvironmental (Table 3), and these categories were fol-lowed in communality order by open space, cultural,community, and witnessing development. Family, placeattachment, and financial incentive had the lowest par-tial correlations and communalities. We believe that thesingle axis represented interest in contributing to societyand to the common good. The lowest weighted scoreswere in categories most closely linked to the subjects’personal lives.

Telephone Interview

We recruited 19 participants for in-depth interviews fromthe 119 individuals who agreed to a telephone interview.Individuals placed easements on land used for nonextrac-tive purposes (7), farming (4), timber harvesting (2), andmixed uses (6). Of the individuals interviewed, 2 werefrom Iowa, 4 from Illinois, 4 from Michigan, 7 from Ohio,and 2 from Wisconsin. A total of 80% (15) were male.Thirteen of 19 received no income from their property,5 received 1–25% of their income from the property,and 1 received 76–100% of his income from the prop-erty. In 2008 nearly half the participants had householdincomes>$90,000, 5 had incomes between $60,000 and$74,999; 3 between $45,000 and $59,999; 1 between$30,000 and $44,999; and 1 between $0 and $29,999.

The interviews revealed 3 themes and 5 coded sub-themes. Among the themes, place attachment had thehighest frequency of participant data coded to it (f = 29).Place attachment was followed in decreasing order by en-vironment (f = 24) and witnessing development (f = 18).Place attachment was discussed on 29 occasions by 18individuals. Place attachment had 3 subthemes: general,restoration activities, and family legacy. The environ-ment theme was mentioned 22 times by 16 participants.


Volume 25, No. 4, 2011


Table 2. Results of sign tests on paired differences between Cronbach’s alpha scores of landholders’(n = 187) motivations for placing aconservation easement.a

Environ- Witnessing land Open-space Financialmental development Societal protection Family Culture Community incentives

Place attachment 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Environmental – <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Witnessing land development – 0.001 0.013b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Societal – 0.675 0.003b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Open-space protection – 0.012b <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Family heritage or legacy – 0.316 0.023b 0.006b

Culture – 0.052 0.048b

Community – 0.817

aColumns and rows arranged from highest to lowest mean scores.bResults with test-wise significance at α = 0.05 that would not be significant under a serial Bonferroni correction for experiment-wise error.

Interviewees wanted to protect ecosystems or habitat forwild animals (12 participants) or the natural condition oftheir property (4 participants). Witnessing developmentwas discussed by 13 of the interview participants on 18occasions. In some cases, interviewees mentioned urbansprawl. They also mentioned an increasing number ofvacation homes.

Discussion

Understanding the motivations for conservation of pri-vate land is highly relevant in the United States, where65% of all land is privately held. Our results primarily re-flect responses from land owners in 2 U.S. states, whichmakes our results difficult to apply to other regions. Nei-ther can we compare attitudes between those who haveand have not adopted conservation easements. Never-theless, we have no reason to believe that motivationsof landowners in Michigan and Ohio vary in major waysfrom landowners in other nearby states.

Our response rate of 35% with a one-time mailing wasfairly high (Tyson et al. 1998; Brown 2005; Bernard 2006).Additionally, inferences can be made from a minimum of10 interviews (Creswell 2007).

Table 3. Partial correlations and communalities from Likert-scalevalues reflecting motivations related to the use of conservationeasements on the single axis extracted in the principal componentanalyses.

PartialMotivation correlation Communality

Societal 0.761 0.578Environmental 0.669 0.447Open-space protection 0.635 0.403Cultural 0.613 0.375Community 0.578 0.334Witnessing land development 0.561 0.315Family heritage or legacy 0.455 0.207Place attachment 0.186 0.035Financial incentives −0.023 0.001

Cronbach’s alpha score for the community motiva-tional prompts in section 1 (Motivational Prompts) ofthe questionnaire was low (0.552). Hair et al. (1998) sug-gest that 0.6 is an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha scorefor exploratory analyses. Because this set of prompts hadlow internal consistency, our ability to detect communitymotivation was weak. On the basis of Cronbach’s alphascores, the remaining motivational factors were bettersupported.

Motivations Affecting Use of Conservation Easements

We believe that our results can be generalized to humanpopulations in which the land protected by easementsis dominated neither by traditional farming, timber har-vesting, nor by habitat for wild animals, recreation, andprotection of ecosystem services. Place attachment re-ceived the highest score among the 9 motivational fac-tors we examined. Vaske and Korbin (2001) suggest placeattachment is composed of 2 primary constructs: placedependence and place identity. The majority of our par-ticipants were dependent on the land as a residence,whereas others used their properties, for example, foragriculture, habitat for wild animals, recreation, familymeetings, family burial sites, and environmental educa-tion programs (Farmer 2009). In contrast, place identityis defined as an emotional attachment (Presley 2003) frompersonal experiences (Nanzer2004). In our study, ecolog-ical restoration, family history, and miscellaneous activi-ties on the property likely contributed to place identity(Chawla 1992; van Loggerenberg 2007; Farmer 2009).

The PCA results indicated that a number of motiva-tions contributed jointly, under a societal-environmentaltheme, to the adoption of conservation easements. Thisresult is consistent with results of other studies thatshow social and environmental motivations are commonamong landowners adopting conservation measures,including conservation easements (Elconin & Luzadis1998; Keske et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2011). Whereaslandowners considering conservation mechanisms gen-erally have multiple motivations, we suggest that placeattachment be taken more seriously in targeting lands for


Volume 25, No. 4, 2011

Farmer et al. 833

conservation easement negotiations, in cultivating rela-tions with landowners, and in crafting easement lan-guage.

Although the financial-incentive motivation categorywas the lowest ranked, we do not think its effect onadoption of conservation easements should be dismissed.When survey participants were asked whether theywould have adopted the easement without financial in-centives, 71% of respondents said yes, 23% said no, and6% were unsure, which indicates potentially one-thirdless land under conservation easements without finan-cial incentives (Farmer 2009). Financial incentives mayfacilitate an action that would otherwise be untenable(Ernst & Wallace 2008).

Many questions remain unanswered in conservationeasement research. We suggest it would be helpful tostudy individuals who have considered but declined toadopt a conservation easement. Studies that explore mo-tivations among ethnic minorities and females, in regionswhere easements are less frequently adopted (such as thesoutheastern United States as defined by the Land TrustAlliance), of working with agencies other than land trusts(including species-specific conservation organizations),among individuals who have sold rather than donatedthe easement, and related to financial incentives wouldalso be beneficial.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the funding support of the Leisure Re-search Institute in the Department of Recreation, Park,and Tourism Studies at Indiana University and S. Bates,C. Keske, J. Bagby, C. Basman, J. Niese, and S. Farmer fortheir assistance on this project. We thank the survey andinterview subjects and the 14 land trusts that assisted usin the recruitment process. We are also grateful to the2 anonymous reviewers, A. Kolling, E. Main, R. Knight,S. Brechin, and E. Fleishman for their comments on themultiple versions of this manuscript.

Supporting Information

The full set of interview questions from phase 3 of thestudy (Appendix S1) are available online. The authors aresolely responsible for the content and functionality ofthese materials. Queries (other than the absence of mate-rial) should be directed to the corresponding author.

Literature Cited

Bernard, R. 2006. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative andquantitative approaches. 4th edition. Alta Mira Press, New York.

Brown, G. 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for nat-ural resource management: methods and applications. Society andNatural Resources: An International Journal 18:17–39.

Chawla, L. 1992. Childhood place attachments. in Low and Altman, ed-itors. Place attachment: human behavior and environment. PlenumPress, New York.

Corbin, J. M., and A. L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research:techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rdedition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choos-ing among five traditions.2nd edition. Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, California.

Creswell, J. W., and V.L. Plano-Clark. 2007. Designing and conductingmixed methods research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Cali-fornia.

deHaven-Smith, L. 1988. Environmental belief systems: public opin-ion on land use regulation in Florida. Environment and Behavior20:176–199.

Elconin, P., and V. Luzadis. 1998. Landowner satisfaction with conser-vation easements. Wild Earth 8:49–51.

Ernst, T., and G. W. Wallace. 2008. Characteristics, motivations,and management actions of landowners engaged in private landconservation in Larimer County Colorado. Natural Areas Journal28:109–120.

Farmer, J. R. 2009. Motivations for the adoption of a conserva-tion easement: a Midwestern perspective. Indiana University,Bloomington.

Farmer, J. R., C. Chancellor, and B. C. Fischer. 2011. Motivations forusing conservation easements as a land protection mechanism: amixed methods analysis. Natural Areas Journal 31:80–87.

Field, A. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2nd edition. Sage Pub-lications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Guest, G. 2006. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment withdata saturation and variability. Field Methods 18:59–82.

Gustanski, J. A., and R. H. Squires, editors. 2000. Protecting the land:conservation easements past, present, and future. Island Press,Washington, D.C.

Hair, J. F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998.Multivariate data analysis.5th edition. Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, New Jersey.

Jacobson, M. G. 2002. Factors affecting private forest landowner in-terest in ecosystem management: linking spatial and survey data.Environmental Management 30:577–583.

Jackson, D. A. 1993. Stopping rules in principal components analy-sis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology74:2204–2214.

Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2001. Sense of place as an atti-tude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 21:233–248.

Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2006. A comparative analysis ofpredictors of sense of place dimensions: attachment to, dependenceon, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environ-mental Management 79:316–27.

Kabii, T., and P. Horwitz. 2006. A review of landholder motivationsand determinants for participation in conservation covenanting pro-grammes. Environmental Conservation 33:11–20.

Kaltenborn, B. P., and T. Bjerke. 2002. Associations between environ-mental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape andUrban Planning 59:1–11.

Keske, C., S. Gripne, and L. Sherrod. 2008. Economic development re-port. Extension bulletin 234. Department of Agriculture and NaturalResource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Kline, J., and D. Wichelns. 1994. Using referendum data to characterizepublic support for purchasing development rights to farmland. LandEconomics 70:223–233.

Land Trust Alliance. 2005. National land trust census report. LandTrust Alliance, Washington D.C. Available from http://www.lta.org/census/2005_report.pdf (accessed September 2007).

Legendre, L., and P. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology. Developmentsin environmental modeling. 3rd edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.


Volume 25, No. 4, 2011


McLaughlin, N. 2004. Increasing the tax incentives for conservationeasement donations: a responsible approach. Ecology Law Quarterly31:1–115.

McLeod, D., J. Woirhaye, and D. Menkhaus. 1999. Factors influencingsupport for rural land use control: a case study. Agricultural andResource Economics Review 28:44–56.

Merenlender, A., M. L. Huntsinger, G. Guthey, and S. K. Fairfax. 2004.Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving whatfor whom? Conservation Biology 18:65–75.

Miller, A. D., C. T. Bastian, D. M. McLeod, C.M. Keske, and D. L. Hoag.2011. Factors impacting agricultural landowners’ willingness to en-ter into conservation easements: a case study. Society and NaturalResources: An International Journal 24:65–74.

Moran, M. D. 2003. Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroniin ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405.

Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publi-cations, Thousand Oaks, California.

Nanzer, B. 2004. Measuring sense of place: a scale for Michigan. Admin-istrative Theory and Praxis 26:362–382.

Peres-Neto, P. R., D. A. Jackson, and K. M. Somers. 2005. How manyprincipal components? Stopping rules for determining the numberof non-trivial axes revisited. Computational Statistics and Data Anal-ysis 49:974–997.

Presley, J. 2003. In praise of special places. Parks and RecreationJuly:22–29.

Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution43:223–225.

Rilla, E. 2002. Landowners, while pleased with agricultural easements,suggest improvements. California Agriculture 56:21–25.

Rissman, A., R. L. Lozier, T. Comendant, P. Kareiva, J. M. Kiesecker,M. R. Shaw, A. M. Merenlender. 2007. Conservation easements: bio-diversity protection and private use. Conservation Biology 21:709–718.

Robinson, J. R. 2004. Land use behavior of private landowners at theurban/rural fringe. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Ryan, R. L., D. L. Erickson, and R. deYoung. 2003. Farmers’ motivationsfor adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a Mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 46:19–37.

Tyson, C. B., S. H. Broderick, and L. B. Snyder. 1998. A social marketingapproach to landowner education. Journal of Forestry 96:34–40.

van Loggerenberg, N. 2007. An investigation into place attachment inNewton. Unpublished thesis. University of Pretoria, Johannesburg,South Africa.

Vaske, J. J., and K. C. Korbin. 2001. Place attachment and environ-mentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education32:16–21.

Walker, A. J., and R. L. Ryan. 2008. Place attachment and landscapepreservation in rural New England: a Maine case study. Landscapeand Urban Planning 86:141–152.


Volume 25, No. 4, 2011

motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements

Documents