Review of the Effects of Conservation Easements on Surrounding Property Values

Reeves, Tyler; Mei, Bin; Bettinger, Pete; Siry, Jacek P.

doi:10.1093/jofore/fvy046

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the context of VPLP, local spillovers are of concern as they can undermine the provision of spatially dependent ecosystem services (e.g., contiguous scenic landscapes or connected habitats). Empirical work has shown that protection increases sales val-ues of adjacent properties (Reeves, Mei, Bettinger, & Siry, 2018), and some scholars argue that this phenomenon can undermine the cost effectiveness of future protection efforts (Armsworth, Daily, Kareiva, & Sanchirico, 2006). Furthermore, if increased property values increased the likelihood of habitat loss, this could attenuate the net impacts of protection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary, permanent land protection reduces forest loss and development in a rural‐urban landscape

Nolte

Meyer²,

Sims

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voluntary, permanent land protection is a key conservation process in many countries. Concerns with the effectiveness of such decentralized processes exist due to the potential for (1) selection bias, that is, the protection of parcels whose land cover would have been conserved in the absence of protection, and (2) local spillover effects, that is, protection increasing the likelihood that adjacent parcels lose land cover due to additional conversion. We examine the validity of both concerns using a quasi‐experimental approach and a dataset of 220,187 parcels and 26 years of protection and land‐cover change in Massachusetts. We find that land acquisitions and conservation restrictions implemented by state, local, and nongovernmental actors reduced forest loss and conversion to developed uses without increasing either type of land‐cover change on adjacent parcels. Our results suggest that voluntary, permanent land protection can make significant contributions in protecting land cover in landscapes dominated by private ownership.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary, permanent land protection reduces forest loss and development in a rural‐urban landscape

Nolte

Meyer²,

Sims

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other side, private lands also can provide important ecological functions as corridors and buffer zones for larger protected areas (Willis et al 2012). In addition, the introduction of new social actors into conservation may increase potential for innovation and entrepreneurship and this can lead to better, more viable, and collaborative decisions (Kerr and Tindale 2004;Moon et al 2014;Gooden and Sas-Rolfes 2020), while simultaneously the proximity to conservation easements can increase nearby property economic values (Reeves et al 2018). However, private conservation initiatives may also be controversial, as can be argued that it is a form of privatization of protected areas or commodification of nature conservation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interdisciplinary assessment of private conservation areas in the Western United States

Quintas-Soriano

Gibson

Brandt

et al. 2020

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation easements are the fastest growing private conservation strategy in the United States. However, mechanisms to assess private land conservation as well as their support by the general public are not well understood. This study uses the ecosystem services framework for assessing existing private lands in Idaho and identifies areas for future conservation easements. Using conservation targets of the land trust as a guide for selecting ecosystem services, we (a) mapped the spatial delivery of conservation targets across public and private lands, (b) explored public awareness in terms of social importance and vulnerability, and (c) mapped future priority areas by characterizing conservation bundles. We found that public lands provided the highest levels of conservation targets, and we found no difference in conservation target provision between private areas and conservation easements. The spatial characterization of conservation target bundles identified potential future priority areas for conservation easements, which can guide planning of land trust conservation efforts.

show abstract

“…We found overall that protection boosted, rather than depressed, local economies. However, future work should also extend analysis to additional local indicators, most importantly property values and tax revenues (e.g., King & Anderson 2004;Heintzelman 2010;Reeves et al 2018), which are crucial for the delivery of local public goods. Future work should also combine analysis of economic and land-use change indicators to understand the interaction between development threat, conservation effectiveness, and the net economic impacts of protection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the local economic impacts of land protection

Sims

Thompson

Meyer

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land protection, whether public or private, is often controversial at the local level because residents worry about lost economic activity. We used panel data and a quasi‐experimental impact‐evaluation approach to determine how key economic indicators were related to the percentage of land protected. Specifically, we estimated the impacts of public and private land protection based on local area employment and housing permits data from 5 periods spanning 1990–2015 for all major towns and cities in New England. To generate rigorous impact estimates, we modeled economic outcomes as a function of the percentage of land protected in the prior period, conditional on town fixed effects, metro‐region trends, and controls for period and neighboring protection. Contrary to narratives that conservation depresses economic growth, land protection was associated with a modest increase in the number of people employed and in the labor force and did not affect new housing permits, population, or median income. Public and private protection led to different patterns of positive employment impacts at distances close to and far from cities, indicating the importance of investing in both types of land protection to increase local opportunities. The greatest magnitude of employment impacts was due to protection in more rural areas, where opportunities for both visitation and amenity‐related economic growth may be greatest. Overall, we provide novel evidence that land protection can be compatible with local economic growth and illustrate a method that can be broadly applied to assess the net economic impacts of protection.

show abstract

Review of the Effects of Conservation Easements on Surrounding Property Values

Cited by 9 publications

References 42 publications

Voluntary, permanent land protection reduces forest loss and development in a rural‐urban landscape

Voluntary, permanent land protection reduces forest loss and development in a rural‐urban landscape

An interdisciplinary assessment of private conservation areas in the Western United States

Assessing the local economic impacts of land protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About