It has been posited that participation in outdoor recreation activities increases awareness of environmental issues and support for environmental conservation. Studies have shown that different outdoor recreationists may have different environmental orientations. For example, because of their utility orientation toward land, consumptive recreationists may be less likely than non-consumptive recreationists to protect their land from development. Hence, using a United States household survey, this paper examines whether people participating in consumptive outdoor recreation activities differ from those who participate in non-consumptive recreation in their willingness to place their lands into conservation easements. Results indicate people who participate in land-based consumptive recreation are less likely to place their lands in conservation easements than people who participate in land-based non-consumptive recreation.

Conservation easement, environmental concerns or awareness, natural resources, open space, outdoor recreation participation

It has been posited that participation in outdoor recreation activities increases awareness of environmental issues, enhances pro-environmental attitudes, and increases likelihood of supporting environmental conservation (Tarrant and Green 1999; Theodori et al. 1998). However, empirical findings concerning this issue are mixed and inconclusive. While the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and environmental attitudes or behavior has been shown to exist in regard to local environmental issues, such as concern for local forests or other natural resources, evidence of this relationship weakens when the environmental issues are broad scale, such as environmental pollution (Porter and Bright 2003).

Outdoor recreationists can interact with natural settings in a variety of ways as they engage in recreation activities. For example, bird watchers may seek out quiet, undisturbed places, while off-highway riders may seek the opposite. It is thus reasonable to expect some differences among recreationists in terms of their interactions with and attitudes toward natural settings. Because of goal differences, one might expect participants in consumptive recreation (e.g., hunting or fishing) to differ from non-consumptive recreation participants (e.g., wildlife watchers or hikers) in regards to their environmental orientations (Dunlap and Heffernan 1975; Jackson 1986). However, research on environmental behaviors of outdoor recreationists has not adequately explored whether participants who choose different recreation activities have different interests and ways of engaging in environmental protective activities. An example of such an activity is for a person to place their land into a conservation easement. A conservation easement is a voluntary and legal agreement between a landowner and an easement holder to protect its conservation values. Participating into an easement agreement may also give financial benefits to the landowners (e.g., federal tax benefits of qualified donations in the United States).

Some studies have shown that consumptive recreationists are more utility oriented (Dunlap and Heffernan 1975; Theodori et al. 1998), and, hence, place less emphasis on the public good aspect of land conservation easements. To shed more light on the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and environmental orientations, this study analyzed data from a United States household survey in which respondents were asked about their outdoor recreation activities and whether they own any category of land (e.g., agricultural land, forestland, wetland, or other open space) and, if so, whether they have placed their lands under a conservation easement.

Examining the relationship between recreation participation and willingness to place land into a conservation easement is relevant for various reasons. Availability of places for outdoor recreation, such as public parks and open space has a significant role in helping people remain physically active and healthy (Physical Activity Council 2013). However, because of urbanization and population growth, demand for places for outdoor recreation is increasing, while the supply is relatively restricted in scope. One solution to this demand-supply imbalance is to increase open space through conservation easements on private land. In this regard, findings of this study could be useful in efforts to expand land area under such easements and also to help increase open space for outdoor recreation.

Participation in outdoor recreation seems to be associated with people’s pro-environmental attitudes. For instance, literature provides three arguments for this association. First, participation in outdoor recreation increases direct experiences with the natural environment and can also increase participants’ attachment to areas where they recreate. Increased contact and attachment may help people become more aware of the values of nature, of associated environmental issues, and provide them with greater inspiration to conserve the environment (Porter and Bright 2003; Thapa and Graefe 2003). Direct contact may also help shape people’s environmental attitudes or behaviors because personal experience often leads to greater understanding and appreciation of natural resources (Tarrant and Green 1999). Second, outdoor recreation participation can offer learning opportunities that are likely to influence recreationists’ environmental attitudes or behaviors (Thapa 2000). Examples of such opportunities may include interpretative messages and information on kiosks in areas where people recreate. This information can help recreationists become more familiar with local environmental issues. Finally, outdoor recreation participation can be thought of as a pathway to and a marker of sub-cultural membership. For instance, outdoor recreationists can be recruited for involvement with conservation organizations through membership and other forms of support (Teisl and O’Brien 2003).

It has been argued that choice of and participation in different recreation activities are influenced by individuals’ environmental values or attitudes (Bjerke et al. 2006; Jackson 1986). People participating in different types of outdoor recreation may have different value orientations toward or concerning environmental conservation (Peterson et al. 2008; Theodori et al. 1998). One distinction between types of outdoor recreation is consumptive versus non-consumptive activities. Consumptive activities typically involve a mode of participation in which participants physically take something directly from the recreation setting. Consumptive activities are often seen as having a ‘utilitarian’ orientation. In contrast, non-consumptive activities are those in which enjoyment of the natural environment is often accomplished without removing anything (Dunlap and Heffernan 1975). However, depending on which consumptive or non-consumptive activities are being considered, both types of activities can alter by varying degrees the natural condition of the setting.

According to Vaske et al. (1982), there are two important goal oriented differences between participation in consumptive versus non-consumptive activities. First, consumptive activities are dominated by one clear, specific, and observable goal, which is, acquisition or harvesting of the natural product of interest. For instance, hunters seek to harvest game, and fishers want to catch fish. In contrast, the goals of non-consumptive recreationists are more general and less well-defined. Second, consumptive recreationists may have less control in achieving the defining goal of their activities than do non-consumptive recreationists. Backpackers or campers, for instance, may be motivated to experience nature, test their skills, experience solitude, and/or to be with friends. While these goals can be achieved throughout the entire experience, they do not depend on acquiring a specific product, and are more easily substituted, if one goal is not satisfied. Some research has asserted that because consumptive recreationists extract resources from the environment, they have different environmental orientations than non-consumptive recreationists. This assertion has been examined and re-examined over decades, with mixed and inconclusive results.

Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) tested three hypotheses regarding outdoor recreation participation and environmental concern, which were: involvement in outdoor recreation is positively associated with environmental concern; involvement in non-consumptive outdoor recreation is more strongly associated with environmental concern than involvement in consumptive outdoor recreation; and the association between outdoor recreation involvement and protecting those aspects of the environment necessary for pursuing such activities is stronger than the association between outdoor recreation and other environmental issues, such as air and water pollution. However, Dunlap and Heffernan found weak support for their first hypothesis, modest support for their second hypothesis, and somewhat stronger support for their third hypothesis. In other words, the authors found non-consumptive recreationists expressed greater environmental concern than did consumptive recreationists. In subsequent studies, Pinhey and Grimes (1979) and Jackson (1986) also found support for Dunlap and Heffernan’s hypotheses. In contrast, Geisler et al. (1977) and Van Liere and Noe (1981) found weak-to-no support for these hypotheses.

Because of these goal oriented differences, we hypothesized that consumptive recreationists have a different sensitivity to environmental issues, and, hence differ from non-consumptive recreationists in their support for and participation in conservation easement programs. Hence, building upon previous studies, we examined the hypothesis that consumptive recreationists are less likely to place their lands under easements, compared to their non-consumptive counterparts.

Table 4 summarizes our findings. The model was statistically significant, as indicated by Wald chi2. The coefficient for the variable land-based consumptive recreation was negative and statistically significant at the five percent level. The predicted probability of placing land under easement was 0.064 smaller for the individual who participated in land-based consumptive activities compared to those who participated in land-based non-consumptive activities. In contrast, the coefficient for the variable water-based consumptive recreation was positive, but was not statistically significant at a conventional level. This finding suggests individuals who participated in land-based consumptive recreation, such as hunting, are less likely to place their lands in conservation easements than their non-consumptive counterparts. However, this relationship does not hold for water-based consumptive recreation, such as fishing. Hence, outdoor recreationists participating in different types of activities may have different environmental orientations and those environmental orientations may vary between clusters of consumptive activities, such as between hunting and fishing. The potential differences in environmental orientation between fishers and hunters could be due to the character of resource consumption involved, and/or there may be different goal orientations between fishers and hunters. Hunting can be viewed as a resource-intensive activity where harvesting game is the primary goal. The degree of catch consumption associated with fishing has been found to vary, depending upon the values and attitudes of different fishers (Dunlap and Heffernan 1975; Theodori et al. 1998). Further, there is some evidence that some recreational fishers placed less emphasis on catching and removing fish and more emphasis on resource preservation (Bryan 1977).

Despite the finding that land-based consumptive recreationists (e.g., hunters) are less likely than their non-consumptive counterparts to supply lands for easements, conservation movements in the United States have benefited greatly from direct and indirect contributions by hunters. Conservation organizations, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, and Wild Turkey Federation have been supported by contributions from hunters. Many of these organizations raise their primary funds from banquets (e.g., hunting heritage superfund banquets, big game banquets, and other annual banquets), where members and volunteers gather for social purpose while purchasing firearms and other merchandise that are exclusive to banquet attendees. These firearms and other merchandise are subject to the Pittman-Robertson excise tax, which is distributed to state wildlife agencies for research and habitat conservation activities. In some cases, hunters have also supported these organizations in conservation and outreach projects through donations. However, most of the donations or funds are likely to come from non-hunters. According to a recent survey, about 13.7 million Americans hunt (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2014), whereas nearly 90 million people are gun-owners in the United States (Gallup Inc 2013), suggesting that hunters compose a relatively small proportion of all contributors to the Pittman-Robertson Fund. Hunters have also supported wildlife habitat protection through the purchase of Duck Stamps in the United States. The Duck Stamps are adhesive stamp required by the United States government for hunting migratory waterfowl (please visit http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Info/Stamps/stampinfo.htm to know more about the Duck Stamps.). Funds from the Duck Stamp are used to purchase and maintain waterfowl habitat and hunting areas through land acquisition and easements. However, a very small proportion of land (about 3%) in the National Wildlife Refuge System was purchased with funds from the Duck Stamp (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2012). Hence, overall, contributions of hunters for environmental conservation and habitat protection are relatively small compared to the non-hunting population. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that consumptive recreationists are less likely to support environmental conservation compared to their non-consumptive counterparts.

Contrary to previous findings that females are more pro-environmental than males regarding a number of environmental issues (Wolkomir et al. 1997; Zelezny et al. 2000), this study found males to be more likely to place their lands in conservation easements than females. The predicted probability of placing land under easement was 0.075 greater for males than for females. This finding may reflect a male dominated land ownership pattern (forest and non-forest lands) in the United States (Butler 2008). Since placing lands under easements is a way to control land use in the future, males in traditional households often are in the role of making major decisions regarding uses of property. Further, placing lands under easements may represent a different type of environmental behavior than was considered in previous studies, such as reading environmental magazines, using recyclable grocery bags or voting for candidates with pro-environmental agendas (e.g., Baldassare and Katz 1992; Wolkomir et al. 1997; Zelezny et al. 2000). Decisions regarding the uses of household property or assets could have relatively longer-term impacts on household resource allocations, while reading environmental literature or using recyclable grocery bags is less likely to have such a lasting impact on household resources.

Consistent with environmental values and awareness literature, income was positively significant suggesting that individuals with higher income are more likely to participate in conservation easements. The predicted probability of placing land under easement was 0.059 greater for individuals with annual income greater than $50,000 than those whose annual income was less than $50,000. Also, there was a nonlinear relationship between age and the probability of placing lands under easements. As one might expect, the probability of placing lands under easements decreases at an increasing rate as people get older. This finding is consistent with the environmental value or awareness literature (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). However, the marginal effect of age was not statistically significant at a conventional level. As per conservation easement literature, the findings show having a larger number of parcels of land is positively associated with the probability of placing lands under easements. The marginal effects suggest one additional increase in parcel of landholding increases the predicted probability of placing land under easement by 0.002 although the parcel sizes could vary across landholders.

As per conservation easement literature, the variable gross returns per acre and median housing value are significant, implying that land with higher yield is more likely to be placed under easement and land with higher property price is less likely to be placed under easement. A $100 increase in gross returns per acre increases the predicted probability of placing land under easement by 0.072. In contrast, a one percent increase in housing value decreases the predicted probability of placing land under easement by 0.095. This result most likely reflects a higher opportunity cost of placing lands in easements in counties where land prices are higher. Regarding the geographic regions, the dummies for North and Pacific regions were positively significant, suggesting that individuals in these regions were more likely to place their lands in easements, compared to the South. The predicted probability of placing land under easement was 0.096 greater for individuals in the Northern states and was 0.137 greater for individuals in the Pacific states, compared to the Southern states. This difference may be because of a greater availability of land resources and also land trust organizations in the Pacific and Northern regions, compared to the Southern region (Land Trust Alliance 2014). The variables ethnicity, education, years of land tenure, residency location, family size, area of forest owned, and distance from a major city were not significant in helping to explain the probability of placing lands under an easement.

Consistent with literature and the notion that consumptive recreationists may differ in their sensitivity to environmental issues, this study found empirical evidence to support that land-based consumptive recreationists are less likely than their non-consumptive counterparts to place their land under easements. This finding could be interpreted to suggest that consumptive recreationists, in general, seem less likely to contribute resources for the general environmental or public good purposes, such as restricting the use of land, or the disposition of natural resources on the land compared to their non-consumptive counterparts.

Since this study concerns outdoor recreation participation of the general population and their decisions regarding placement of their lands under easements in the United States, findings of this study should be taken within that context. These results may not be generalizable to all landowners, who may have different environmental orientations and outdoor recreation activity preferences. We recommend that future studies of conservation easement participation should account for the potential link between landowners’ outdoor recreation and their decision regarding easements. Additionally, econometric analyses used in this study evaluate the intention/behavior of a group in general, but may fail to reveal the underlying variations in attitudes/behavior among sub-segments therein. Hence, the results may not be generalizable to specific individuals.

Despite these limitations, the factors identified by this study could be useful to help further understand factors affecting landowners’ decisions to place their lands into an easement, particularly the finding that the type of outdoor recreation they participate in can be directly related to their participation in conservation easements. Findings of this study can also be useful for local governments, or land trusts in designing and implementing their easement programs.