No 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.

As wildfires affect more residential areas across the United States, the need for collaboration between land managers, federal agencies, neighbours, and local governments has become more pressing especially in the context of the wildland-urban interface. Previous research has not focused much on land-use planners’ role in wildfire mitigation. This paper provides information on how land-use planners can assist communities in learning to live with wildfire risk through planning, preparedness, and mitigation efforts in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Based on interviews with land-use planners, forest planners, and local emergency management officials, we identified a range of tools that could be used for improving wildfire preparedness and mitigation initiatives in the WUI, but also found that planners felt that they lacked the regulatory authority to use these tenaciously. The paper also identifies a range of possible actions that would contribute towards safer building practices in the interface communities.

No abstract

No abstract