IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v58y2016i2d10.1007_s00267-016-0713-3.html

Wildlife Conservation and Private Protected Areas: The Discrepancy Between Land Trust Mission Statements and Their Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Ashley A. Dayer

    (Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
    Cornell University, Human Dimensions Research Unit
    Virginia Tech, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation)

  • Amanda D. Rodewald

    (Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
    Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources)

  • Richard C. Stedman

    (Cornell University, Human Dimensions Research Unit
    Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources)

  • Emily A. Cosbar

    (Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
    Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources)

  • Eric M. Wood

    (Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
    California State University Los Angeles, Department of Biological Sciences)

Abstract

In 2010, land trusts in the U.S. had protected nearly 50 million acres of land, with much of it providing habitat for wildlife. However, the extent to which land trusts explicitly focus on wildlife conservation remains largely unknown. We used content analysis to assess land trust involvement in wildlife and habitat conservation, as reflected in their mission statements, and compared these findings with an organizational survey of land trusts. In our sample of 1358 mission statements, we found that only 17 % of land trusts mentioned “wildlife,” “animal,” or types of wildlife, and 35 % mentioned “habitat” or types. Mission statements contrasted sharply with results from a land trust survey, in which land trusts cited wildlife habitat as the most common and significant outcome of their protection efforts. Moreover, 77 % of land trusts reported that at least half of their acreage protected wildlife habitat, though these benefits are likely assumed. Importantly, mission statement content was not associated with the percentage of land reported to benefit wildlife. These inconsistencies suggest that benefits to wildlife habitat of protected land are recognized but may not be purposeful and strategic and, thus, potentially less useful in contributing toward regional wildlife conservation goals. We outline the implications of this disconnect, notably the potential omission of wildlife habitat in prioritization schema for land acquisition and potential missed opportunities to build community support for land trusts among wildlife enthusiasts and to develop partnerships with wildlife conservation organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashley A. Dayer & Amanda D. Rodewald & Richard C. Stedman & Emily A. Cosbar & Eric M. Wood, 2016. "Wildlife Conservation and Private Protected Areas: The Discrepancy Between Land Trust Mission Statements and Their Perceptions," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 359-364, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:58:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-016-0713-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s00267-016-0713-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-016-0713-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00267-016-0713-3?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
    ---><---

    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:spr:envman:v:58:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-016-0713-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.