Research Article |
Corresponding author: Ramesh Ghimire ( ghimire@uga.edu ) Academic editor: Irene Ring
© 2014 Ramesh Ghimire, Gary Green, Neelam Poudyal, H. Ken Cordell.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Ghimire R, Green G, Poudyal N, Cordell H (2014) Do outdoor recreation participants place their lands in conservation easements? Nature Conservation 9: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.9.7981
|
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 (
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 (
Some studies have shown that consumptive recreationists are more utility oriented (
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 (
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 (
It has been argued that choice of and participation in different recreation activities are influenced by individuals’ environmental values or attitudes (
According to
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.
Conservation easements are an important tool employed widely across the United States to protect ecological, historical, or scenic resources. Through this agreement, the landowners accept permanent restrictions on the way their property can be used. The easements provide landowners with a legal mean of protecting their properties’ conservation values while retaining ownership, and being allowed certain complementary uses (
Previous studies have analyzed factors affecting individuals’ decisions to place their land in a conservation easement (e.g.,
Since undeveloped lands near a city, highway, or other developed areas have higher net returns from converting these lands through development, they are less likely to be placed under easements (
Research on the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and placing land into a conservation easement is limited. However, some studies have examined the relationship between recreation participation and environmental attitudes or behaviors. Generally, it appears that participation in outdoor recreation is associated with pro-environmental attitudes. Hence, knowing a person’s environmental attitudes may help understanding of how outdoor recreation participation may affect landowners’ decisions to place their lands under conservation easements.
Individual socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, such as income, education, age, gender, and household size are also important determinants of environmental attitudes or behaviors (
Additionally, younger people are more likely to be sensitive to environmental issues and also be pro-environmental because they have grown up in a time in which environmental concerns have been a salient issue at some level (
In summary, reviewed literature indicates that participation in outdoor recreation activities is associated with pro-environmental attitudes and that pro-environmental attitudes may motivate people to participate in environmental conservation programs, such as land conservation easements. Thus, this study aims to explore whether there is an extension of this relationship in that participation in different types of outdoor recreation is associated with participation in conservation easement programs.
We modeled the probability of placing lands under conservation easements (CEs) as a function of type of outdoor recreation activity participation (R). We identified two groups based on the types of recreation they participated in (i.e., consumptive or non-consumptive activities). Literature on recreation participation has shown some key differences in the determinants of demand for land-based consumptive activities, like hunting, and water-based activities, such as fishing (
CEs = f (R, I, C, G) (1)
Since the dependent variable (CEs) is binary (equals one if an individual had placed their land in a conservation easement, and zero otherwise), a probit model was used in preference over an ordinary least square (OLS) model for two reasons. First, probit regression ensures the probability range is between zero and one. In contrast, the OLS model does not ensure the probability estimate will be between zero and one. Second, since the dependent variable is binary, the constant variance (homoscedasticity) assumption of the OLS is violated, whereas the probit regression accommodates it (
This study used outdoor recreation participation and private land ownership data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). The NSRE is a long-term data collection project of the United States Forest Service, Southern Research Station in collaboration with the University of Tennessee and is conducted regularly to see outdoor recreation participation trends across the United States. The NSRE is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey of individuals living in U.S. households. It employs a stratified random sample, based on urban/rural/near-urban geographic locations (
The NSRE used in this study was conducted in 2005. The 2005 NSRE consisted of four modules or sets of questions related to outdoor recreation activity participation, constraints to participate in wilderness related activities, private land ownership, and migration. In the outdoor recreation participation module, people were asked about their participation in recreation activities over the last 12 months (
Groups | Outdoor recreation activities |
---|---|
Water-based | Consumptive: Freshwater fishing; fishing in cold water such as mountain rivers, lakes, or streams for trout; fishing in warm water rivers, lakes or streams for bass, bream, catfish, pike, crappie or perch; saltwater fishing; fishing for ocean-to-freshwater migratory fish such as salmon, shad, or steelhead trout. |
Non-consumptive: Sailing; canoeing; kayaking; rowing; motor-boating; waterskiing; boating using a personal watercraft such as jet skis or wave runners; rafting, tubing or any other type of floating on rivers or other flowing water; sailboarding or windsurfing; surfing; swimming, snorkeling, scuba diving or visit a beach or other waterside area; swimming in an outdoor pool; swimming in streams, lakes, ponds or the ocean; snorkeling; scuba diving; visit beaches for any outdoor recreation activities; visit a waterside other than a beach for recreation activities. | |
Land-based | Consumptive: Gather mushrooms, berries, firewood or other natural products; hunting – hunt big game, hunt small game, hunt waterfowl such as ducks or geese. |
Non-consumptive: Picnicking; gathering of family or friends in an outdoor area away from a home; visit an outdoor nature center, a nature trail, a visitor center or a zoo; visit prehistoric structures or archaeological sites; visit any historic sites, buildings or monuments; attend outdoor concerts, plays or other outdoor performances; attend outdoor sports events; walking for exercise or pleasure; day hiking; orienteering; visit a farm or other agricultural setting for recreation; camp at developed sites with facilities such as tables and toilets; camp at a primitive site without facilities; mountain climbing; rock climbing; caving; visit a wilderness or other primitive, road-less area; home gardening or landscaping for pleasure; view, identify or photograph birds; view, identify or photograph wildlife besides birds; view, identify or photograph salt or freshwater fish; view, identify or photograph wildflowers, trees or other natural vegetation; view or photograph natural scenery; sightseeing; driving for pleasure on country roads or in a park, forest or other natural setting; drive offroad for recreation using a 4-wheel drive, ATV or motorcycle. |
Data for community characteristics included gross returns per acre (in US $) collected from the
Variables | Descriptions |
a. Conservation easements; participated = 1 | A binary variable that equals one if respondent participated in conservation easements, and zero otherwise |
b. Outdoor recreations participation | |
· Land-based consumptive recreations; participated = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent participated in consumptive recreations and both (consumptive and non-consumptive) that was land-based, and zero otherwise |
· Water-based consumptive recreations; participated = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent participated in consumptive recreations and both (consumptive and non-consumptive) that was water-based, and zero otherwise |
c. Individual characteristics | |
· Gender; male = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent was male, and zero otherwise |
· Income; income > $50,000 | A dummy that equals one if respondent had annual income greater than $50,000 a year, and zero otherwise |
· Education; college graduated = 1 | A dummy that equal one if respondent had at least college degree, and zero otherwise |
· Ethnicity; ethnic minorities = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent belonged to ethnic minorities, such as African-American, Hispanic, and Asian, and zero otherwise |
· Age | Age (in year) of respondent |
· Parcel of landholding | Total parcel of land (any category) owned that was greater than 5 acres in rural areas, outside town or city limits |
· Area of forest holding | Total area of forest owned |
· Year of land tenure | Years of land holding |
· Family size | Total number of family |
d. Community characteristics | |
· Gross returns per acre | Gross Crop revenue (in US $) divided by crop acreage at county level |
· Median housing value | Median value (in US $) of specified owner-occupied housing units – one-family houses on less than 10 acres without a business or medical office on the property |
· Residency location; urban = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent belonged to metro area, and zero otherwise |
· Distance from major city | Average distance (in mile) to the county from major city |
e. Geographic regions (base category = South) | |
· Geographic region; Rocky Mountain = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent belonged to Rocky Mountain region, and zero otherwise |
· Geographic region; North = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent belonged to Northern region and, zero otherwise |
· Geographic region; Pacific = 1 | A dummy that equals one if respondent belonged to Pacific region and, zero otherwise |
Total Sample (N = 352) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
Conservation easements; participated = 1 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0 | 1 |
Land-based consumptive recreations; participated = 1 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
Water-based consumptive recreations; participated = 1 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Gender; male = 1 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Ethnicity; ethnic minority = 1 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0 | 1 |
Age | 48.58 | 13.77 | 18 | 87 |
Income; income > $50,000 = 1 | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0 | 1 |
Education; college graduated = 1 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
Parcel of land holding | 4.28 | 10.66 | 1 | 85 |
Area of forest holding (in acre) | 33.30 | 242.35 | 0 | 4500 |
Years of land tenure | 15.09 | 16.57 | 1 | 200 |
Family size | 2.64 | 1.38 | 1 | 7 |
Gross returns per acre (in $) | 26.72 | 41.55 | 2.36 | 540.81 |
Median housing value (in $ ‘000) | 92.50 | 41.42 | 32.7 | 293 |
Residency; urban = 1 | 0.37 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
Distance from major city (in mile) | 61.70 | 54.23 | 0.44 | 397.58 |
Geographic region; Rocky mountain = 1 | 0.11 | 0.30 | 0 | 1 |
Geographic region; North = 1 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0 | 1 |
Geographic region; Pacific = 1 | 0.11 | 0.30 | 0 | 1 |
Geographic region, South = 1 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
Table
VARIABLES | Coefficients | Marginal effects |
---|---|---|
Land-based consumptive recreation, participated = 1 | -0.3968** | -0.0642** |
(0.2097) | (0.0341) | |
Water-based consumptive recreation, participated = 1 | 0.2935 | 0.0474 |
(0.2214) | (0.0356) | |
Gender, male = 1 | 0.4631** | 0.0750** |
(0.2025) | (0.0324) | |
Ethnicity, nonwhites = 1 | 0.0980 | 0.0158 |
(0.4678) | (0.0756) | |
Ln(age) | -13.7558*** | 0.0130 |
(5.2154) | (0.0723) | |
Ln(age) square | 1.8160*** | |
(0.7040) | ||
Income, income > $50,000 = 1 | 0.3708* | 0.0599* |
(0.2229) | (0.0354) | |
Education, college graduate=1 | 0.0964 | 0.0156 |
(0.2015) | (0.0326) | |
Residency location, urban = 1 | -0.2906 | -0.0469 |
(0.2270) | (0.0370) | |
Family size | 0.0460 | 0.0073 |
(0.0790) | (0.0128) | |
Area of forest owned | -0.0000 | -0.0000 |
(0.0000) | (0.0000) | |
Parcel of land owned | 0.0152* | 0.0024* |
(0.0088) | (0.0012) | |
Year of land tenure | -0.0042 | -0.0006 |
(0.0075) | (0.0010) | |
Gross returns per acre | 0.0044** | 0.0007* |
(0.0022) | (0.0003) | |
Ln(median housing value) | -0.5906* | -0.0955* |
(0.3675) | (0.0597) | |
Ln(distance from major city) | 0.0841 | 0.0136 |
(0.1219) | (0.0195) | |
Geographic region; Rocky Mountain = 1 | -0.2051 | -0.0332 |
(0.4099) | (0.0659) | |
Geographic region; North = 1 | 0.5986** | 0.0968** |
(0.2347) | (0.0384) | |
Geographic region; Pacific = 1 | 0.8501** | 0.1377** |
(0.3939) | (0.0642) | |
Constant | 29.9630*** | |
(9.7270) | ||
Log likelihood | -101.80 | |
Wald chi2 | 35.55 | |
Prob>chi2 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R2 | 0.148 | |
Observations | 352 |
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 (
Contrary to previous findings that females are more pro-environmental than males regarding a number of environmental issues (
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 (
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 (
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.