What Are Landowners Looking for in
Conservation Easements? Results of
a Landowner Survey
Christopher T. Bastian, Donald M. McLeod, University of
Wyoming, Graham McGaffin, Wyoming Stockgrowers
Agricultural Land Trust, Catherine M. Keske, Dana L. Hoag,
Colorado State University
2011 Conservation Easement Conference, University Of Wyoming
Rural Law Center, June 2.
THANK YOU TO USDA CSREES NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE
COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM FOR PROJECT FUNDING
GRANT # 2005-35401-16008
Overall Research Objectives
 Understand the Market for Conservation Easement
Transactions
 Landowner
Issues Regarding Conservation Easements
• 7 focus groups conducted at Wyoming Stockgrowers,
Colorado Cattlemens, and Colorado Farm Bureau meetings to
identify potential issues
 Landowner
Preferences for Conservation Easements
• Identify determinants of landowners’ willingness to enter into
Conservation Easements
 “Wyoming & Colorado Landowner Survey”
 Approximately 2,300 responses (46% response rate)
**Survey constructed from focus group responses
Focus Group Results
 Perfect Conservation Easement
 Landowner concerns about perpetuity
 “Forever is a long time” was heard repeatedly
 Most participants were concerned about being locked in to
perpetuity and expressed interest in term easements.
 Concerns about management flexibility
 Many had second hand stories about people that couldn’t
make changes to their ag operations or enterprises due to
easement restrictions
 Payment beyond tax benefits
 Most participants wanted compensation beyond tax benefits
for giving up development rights in an easement
Focus Group Results
 Top two attributes you would like to preserve
 Wildlife habitat
 Landowners concerned about keeping wildlife on their
property
 Most participants viewed provision of wildlife habitat as very
important.
 Keeping land in agricultural production was important to
majority
 Open Space – most enjoyed not seeing development nearby.
They felt this was not only a benefit to them but their
neighbors and local communities
Focus Group Results
 Things to avoid when entering into a conservation
easement
 Public
access – many felt public access was a deal breaker
 Loss of management control –Landowners felt they knew
best how to conserve and take care of their land, so only
thing that should be given up is the development right.
Focus Group Results – Some Other Observations
 Many landowners had stories regarding loss of
management flexibility, or restrictions from land
trusts
 A number of participants did not “trust” the “trusts”
 Need for education on what easements are, what
trusts do, what are the trusts’ objectives, and what
are potential opportunities or issues to consider
when entering into an easement
Survey - Landowner Preferences
 Understand the emerging market of conservation
easements (CE)

Identify variables from survey data that significantly
influence landowner decisions regarding CE acceptance

Use variables to identify CE attributes and/or landowner
beliefs/experiences/characteristics that influence a
landowner’s decision to choose a CE
Landowner Preferences: Impetus for Analyses
 Survey Response Analysis Results:
27% of Colorado landowners chose a CE, 60% did not
 20% of Wyoming landowners chose a CE, 71% did not

 Questions?

Why are the majority of landowners not choosing a CE?
 Statistical analysis of the data may help explain the
reluctance landowners display toward Conservation
Easements?
Landowner Preferences: Statistical Results
 Seven variables were identified to negatively
influence landowner acceptance of a Conservation
Easement
Public Access (-) WY & CO
 Limited Term (20-25 years) Contract Length (-) WY & CO
 Gross Ag Sales (-) WY only
 Oil/Gas/Minerals (-) WY only
 Productive capacity of the land (-) CO only
 Relinquished managerial control (-) CO only
 Years lived in state (-) CO only

Part I - Landowner Preferences: Statistical Results
 Seven variables were identified to positively
influence landowner acceptance of a Conservation
Easement
Conservation Easement Purchase Price (+) WY & CO
 Belief that lands within the community need protection from
conversion to other uses (+) WY & CO
 Off farm/ranch employment (+) WY only
 Income % from Ag (+) CO only
 Contact by Conservation Org. (+) CO only
 Completed formal education level (+) CO only
 Citizen utility-oriented variable (+) CO only

Landowner Preferences: Implications
 Policy makers and/or conservation organizations
seeking to increase the number of CEs may
 Increase
payments to landowners
 Abandon or relax the public access attribute
 Not attempt to acquire term (20-25 year) easements
 Increase awareness that CEs will protect lands within the
community from conversion to other uses

50% of landowners believe in need for protection…but only 27%
(CO) and 20% (WY) chose a stated choice CE
Part I - Landowner Preferences: Implications
 Policy makers and/or conservation organizations
seeking to increase the number of CEs may
Abandon or relax the stipulation that landowners have to
relinquish managerial control
 Increase contact with landowners
 Focus efforts to acquire CEs from shorter-term residents
 Market CEs as beneficial to the community

Implications
 Sense of place attachment
(+ for landowners)


land trusts preserve
attributes that preserve sense
of place
increase landowners trust
in land trusts
 Heterogeneity and
segmentation of land trusts
suggest potential for
increased matching
problems when landowners
searching for “right” land
trust
Implications
 Those working with
landowners on CE
agreements will likely
need to address concerns
related to payment and
tax benefits, managerial
control, and public
access.
 Issues with trusting land
trusts may need to be
addressed