IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v154y2025ics0264837725001139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation easement adoption among forest landowners in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Sun, Changyou
  • Kline, Jeffry D.
  • Li, Xiaofei

Abstract

Conservation easements have become a prevalent method for conserving forestland in the United States in the face of housing and other development. In this study, we used data from the National Woodland Owner Survey conducted by the USDA Forest Service in 2017–2018 to examine patterns and determinants of conservation easement adoption on individual forestland parcels. A total of 9349 landowners are included in the analysis, covering all 50 states. We used a spatial binary probit model to consider potential spatial dependence in conservation decisions among adjacent landowners. Our results reveal that significant spatial dependence exists, suggesting that about 30 % of the total effect of an explanatory variable on easement adoption comes from an indirect spatial effect. Landowners' degree of awareness of conservation easements has the most significant positive effect. Easement adoption is also higher among landowners possessing non-commodity ownership objectives, such as wildlife protection, while adoption is lower among landowners with primarily timber and investment objectives. Demand for conserving forestland has increased in areas experiencing more remarkable population growth or household income. States adopting statutory conservation easement laws earlier tend to have higher rates of easement adoption. Policy implications of these findings are discussed for conservation entities and government agencies to promote conservation easements in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Sun, Changyou & Kline, Jeffry D. & Li, Xiaofei, 2025. "Conservation easement adoption among forest landowners in the United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:154:y:2025:i:c:s0264837725001139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837725001139
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107579?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    2. repec:cup:jagaec:v:40:y:2008:i:1:p:267-285_20 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. LeVert, Michael & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, Dave, 2009. "Willingness-to-sell conservation easements: A case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 261-275, December.
    4. Cropper, Eric D. & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & Hoag, Dana L. & Cross, Jennifer E., 2012. "Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16.
    5. Keith Wiebe & Abebayehu Tegene & Betsey Kuhn, 1997. "Managing Public And Private Land Through Partial Interests," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(2), pages 35-43, April.
    6. Sun, Changyou, 2006. "A roll call analysis of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and constituent interests in fire policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 126-138, November.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2012. "Revealed payments for biodiversity protection in Swedish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-62.
    2. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    5. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    6. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Markowski-Lindsay, Marla & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, David B. & Butler, Brett J. & Catanzaro, Paul & Dickinson, Brenton J., 2011. "Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-190.
    10. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    11. Nilgen, Marco & Rode, Julian & Vorlaufer, Tobias & Vollan, Björn, 2024. "Measuring non-use values to proxy conservation preferences and policy impacts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Liu, Zhongyuan & Dorfman, Jeffrey H. & Bergstrom, John C. & Chen, Huiguang, 2018. "Income, Belonging and Economic Value of Environmental Amenities: Evidence from Migrant Workers in China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274008, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M. & Kukielka, Jessica B., 2008. "Optimizing Farmland Preservation Choices Across Communities and Jurisdictional Scales: To What Extent are Amenity Values and Selection Criteria Transferable?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6243, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Thijs Dekker & Roy Brouwer & Marjan Hofkes & Klaus Moeltner, 2011. "The Effect of Risk Context on the Value of a Statistical Life: a Bayesian Meta-model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 597-624, August.
    16. Gautam, Tej K. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Guidry, Kurt M., 2017. "Willingness To Pay For Irrigation Water In Louisiana," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252821, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Hansen, Kristiana & Duke, Esther & Bond, Craig & Purcell, Melanie & Paige, Ginger, 2018. "Rancher Preferences for a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in Southwestern Wyoming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 240-249.
    18. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    19. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Benefit Transfer and Commodity Measurement Scales: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," Working Papers 2018-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:154:y:2025:i:c:s0264837725001139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.