An Analysis of Social Arrangements that Sustain Open Space

An Analysis of Social Arrangements that Sustain Open Space Lisa Blake; Ava Goodale; Caroline Krassen; Johnathan Licitra; Elizabeth Ochoa Ntres 331: Environmental Governance 2005 Policy Brief In general, the trend of the evidence indicates that in land, just as in the human body, the symptoms may lie in one organ and the cause in another. The practices we now call conservation are, to a large extent, local alleviations of biotic pain. They are necessary, but they must not be confused with cures. The art of land doctoring is being practiced with vigor, but the science of land health is yet to be born. Aldo Leopold, Wilderness

Introduction: Throughout time, civilizations have valued protecting land from further human degradation (Hughes, 1996). These land parcels can be classified in many ways sanctuaries, reserves, parks, multiple use but are collectively categorized as open space. Garrett Hardin s (1968) principles (state or market) and fears (community) make up the mainstream institutional open space agenda in the US. Contemporarily, open space establishment occurs at many scales and by various institutions (CQ Researcher, 1999). The institutions of state, market, and community have separately and collectively created different property rights and access restrictions for various intents. The National Park Service (NPS), National Forest Service (NFS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and local land trusts all take a different approach to achieving the same goal. By comparing and contrasting these approaches, we seek to determine the most effective social arrangement to protecting open space. In order to organize our insights, we use the discourse analysis developed by Dryzek (1997). National Park Service (NPS): NPS represents a top down command-and-control institution. According to Harry Butowsky (2005), a National Park Service historian, the NPS was designed to preserve the best in America. It preserves both cultural and natural resources. Two important pieces of legislation, which were crucial in preserving open space, were The Antiquities Act of 1906 and The Historic Sites Act of 1935. The Antiquities Act gave the president power to establish national monuments and federal lands while the Historic Sites Act allowed for the preservation of cultural resources. Unlike the NFS, NPS land is, used in a way compatible to preserve the significance of the resource (Butowsky, 2005). He explained that users of NPS land will

not damage the resource. NPS land is used for recreation by the public. It is an open access resource that does not have withdrawal rights. However, it can be considered an excludable good since user fees are sometimes charged. While the NPS is effective in preserving land, there are problems. First, there is visitor congestion in a few parks, including Yosemite Valley, and the South rim of the Grand Canyon. Also, the creation of expensive parks to generate local economies, known as park barreling, results in an unequal allocation of funds. Parks that need money the most don t receive it, and therefore continue to deteriorate. This problem falls into a more general issue of funding shortages. Congressional leaders want funding to be used for purposes that have greatest political importance. Putting money into parks that really need it, therefore, is not at the top of political agendas. Last, parks are expensive to upkeep. There are solutions to these problems. Parks could charge user fees. While some parks already do this, the fees could be increased, and more parks that currently do not charge, could begin to charge. Also, parks could vary the fees depending on the popularity of the park. In theory, this could result in popular parks becoming less congested. Last, a change in political climate could result in increased federal funding. Figure 1 outlines the characteristics of NPS using Dryzek s framework. The National Forest Service (NFS): NFS was established by Congress in 1905 through the Transfer Act, to ensure quality water and an ample supply of timber for the Nation s benefit (NFS, 2005). Today, it is housed under the U.S Department of Agriculture and is in charge of 191 million acres of land, including both forests and grasslands (NFS, 2005). Its official mission is to, sustain the health, diversity and

productivity of the Nation s Forest and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations (NFS, 2005). Basically, this advocates for the position of conservation, meaning using resources wisely. Consequentially, outside companies are contracted to cut down a percentage of the forest annually using the latest forestry methods. For example, in White Mountain National Forest, 1/2% of the forest is harvested every year for improving recreation, to create trails and to provide lumber (NFS, 2005). However, in keeping with the conservation theme of using the land efficiently, the land is also used for wildlife habitat and has open access (Ostrom, 2000) to the public for recreational activities such as backpacking in remote wilderness areas, driving all terrain vehicles over trails, fishing, hunting and enjoying scenic views (NFS, 2005). Thus, while the land is being used to meet national needs, it is being done as efficiently as possible with a wide variety of people in mind. Historically, the NFS has been able to do as they wanted since it was mostly local people that interacted with the forests (Dravnieks, 1997). However, with the passage of The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, NFS was required to conduct analyses of the proposed action s consequences and to do so in a way that involved the public (Dravnieks, 1997). As a result, people across the nation began having input in local decisions, whereas in the past it had been only local people (Dravnieks, 1997). This, combined with a shifting priority of wildlife, wilderness, recreation and increasing concern about environmental issues, has led to both local and non-local people voicing opposition about way the agency conducts its practices (Dravnieks, 1997). It also has left NFS in a difficult position of trying to meet the needs of a diverse constituency with varying perspectives on forest management (Sachet, 2005).

To appease people and foster sustainability, The NFS has engaged in the practice of stewardship (Sachet, 2005). For example, if NFS assess a forest to be worth half a million dollars, after the forest has been cut down if the price of lumber has increased, the half a million goes to the lumber companies but the rest of the money goes towards local restorations projects such as implementing salmon-safe damns (Sachet, 2005). Using the organizational structure provided by Dryzek, key points about NFS are summarized in Figure 2. Public Sector Governance: Both the NFS and the NPS represent the characteristics of Mazmanian and Kraft s (1999) Epoch I, as they are state-run programs. However, they employ divergent strategies within the public sector. NPS is run on the philosophy of preservation to safeguard cultural and ecological features. These areas are to be protected from people and be kept as they are. On the other hand, NFS advocates for the theme of conservation or using resources wisely. In action this theme has allowed for open access rights with regards to recreational activities but has also allowed for withdrawal rights in the cases of hunting, fishing, mining and logging. The implications of the preservation and conservation approach are twofold. Because NFS allows for the extraction of resources, they are intimately linked to the private sector through markets and industry. Additionally, the process of extraction requires management plans, which vary by forest. Extraction efforts also involve a great deal of local and national stakeholders. On the other hand, NPS lands are managed in a more uniform manner and are not linked to the private sector, simplifying the debate amongst constituencies.

While many would like to see all land preserved, it is unrealistic because people and communities do rely on the income generated, and the natural resources are needed. At the same time, lands managed for preservation fulfill desires to experience pristine areas. Also, if all of this land were put into parks, people would start to question the necessity for it. Similar to the problems associated with strict restrictions in Epoch I, the public could become frustrated, causing some forests to be lost completely. Conservation Easements: Because 60% of land in the US is not owned federally, land protection in the private sector is essential. An alternative method of open space conservation is through easements on private land. A conservation easement is a voluntary legal document held between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that limits development in perpetuity. Landowners are given flexibility as to which rights shall be relinquished, tailor-fitting easements to meet the objectives of the landowner (Merenlender, 2005). There are many motives for individuals to participate in easements, including aesthetic beauty, long-term protection, and economic incentives (LTA, 2005). Incentives are an essential component to creating a market for conservation, as they structure conservation to be in the best interest of the landowners (Edwards, 33). Although these efforts are applied in the private sector, the role of government is important in the improvement of market institutions (165). Easements create many benefits including recreational, extractive, educational, cultural, and aesthetic (19). These benefits are directly felt by individual landowners and only indirectly for the general public. Additional drawbacks include easement violation, costly enforcement (61), and disproportionate rewards for the wealthy (TNC 2005). TNC and local land trusts represent two different

approaches to conservation on private lands. Information summarizing the mechanisms of easements is organized in Figure 3. The Nature Conservancy (TNC): TNC is an international, non-profit organization devoted to protecting the earth s natural diversity by working with landowners, NGOs, corporations, and the federal government to protect the habitats that support this diversity. TNC uses land easements as tools to protect open space, contracting with landowners all over the world in the pursuit of wilderness conservation. TNC does not contract with landowners except under very specific terms; the land must have a high conservation potential, along with local resources available for its purchase and maintenance. According to James King (2005), TNC west Texas programs manager: [The Nature Conservancy] rarely purchases conservation easements in Texas TNC uses a methodology of looking at a portfolio of sites within an ecoregion that represent the biodiversity within that ecoregion, then we do specific Conservation Area Plans to determine specific strategies to abate threats. TNC is contracting with ranchers in west Texas to preserve historic ranches in the Devils River area. So far, TNC has accrued easements on eight ranches, some of which were purchased directly by TNC and are being sold through a private Texas company, land/water/sky. Dealing with private, local companies supports the local economy and helps transform an international non-profit organization into something like the way a local land trust works. When asked if there was a difference between TNC s easements program and local land trusts, King responded, Not much except that we are an international organization with domestic programs operated by state Chapters. The ranches in west Texas have been targeted by TNC for their intrinsic historical and ecological value. The

Devils River runs through or near all of the ranches under contract, and has been designated by TNC a crucial contributor of water in west Texas. Preserving the Devils River and the historic ranches that flank it is of high ecological value, however, the program is not without its flaws. One of the main problems with the program is that tax benefits are proportional to the value of the rights surrendered, but in order for landowners to take advantage of these breaks, he/she needs to have another significant source of income. High quality, biologically significant land owned by nonwealthy landowners has higher economic value by exploiting the rights to develop and/or subdivide the land. Easements lower the property value, which is an economic burden that can be borne by landowners with significant wealth. Because of this, King argues, This is why we need to support and grow a PDR program to provide financial incentives to nonwealthy landowners who own biologically significant lands. Local Land Trusts: Land trusts are non-profit organizations that are responsible for regulating conservation easements. There are 1,500 land trusts in the US, protecting over nine million acres. Over 1,000 of these land trusts are members of The Land Trust Alliance, which is a national advisory group that provides resources for and creates linkages between land trusts. LTA holds a set of standards and practices that seek to streamline protocols and provide guidelines for standard operations. After adoption, which is voluntary, a land trust must submit and make available certain documents. This national effort helps create transparency and accountability (LTA, 2005). Unifying under LTA has resulted in lower transaction costs for many land trusts (Edwards, 56). Private Sector Governance: Despite King s (2005) claim, after investigating two approaches to conservation on private lands, it is clear that both the TNC and land trusts

fill certain niches (Figure 4). TNC has a very specific focus on protecting biodiversity, whereas a land trust s focus is dependent on the needs of the local community. For this reason, land trusts more closely reflect the values of the local community, while TNC reflects the values of an international community. Through extensive research and inventory, TNC is able to target priority areas, resulting in a proactive approach. In contrast, most land trusts respond to threatened areas, resulting in a reactionary approach (Edwards, 49). TNC has strong leverage on national policy issues of relevance. For example, in April 2005 TNC created a set of legislative proposals to strengthen the accountability of conservation easements (TNC, 2005). Although individual land trusts are not able to act on the national level, they have a great deal of local leverage. Land trusts tend to have strong ties to the community and local government officials as well as an intimate knowledge of local politics and family dynamics (Naegal, 2005). Over half of land trusts rely entirely on volunteers (Edwards, 48) who are embedded in the community. Alternatively, TNC s leadership is based on a large amount of staff members with expertise in a variety of fields (Naegal, 2005). From this analysis, it is clear that both approaches employ different methods associated with different areas of success. In order for conservation on private land to be strengthened, both approaches are necessary. For example, both approaches offer options for the landowner as to which organization they are most comfortable working with. In reality, TNC and land trusts are collaborative partners (Naegal, 2005, Darlington, 2005), optimizing individual strengths. Conclusion: An analysis of each of the institutional open space case studies reveal stark similarities and differences in their form and function at protecting natural resources. Figure 5 represents a summary of the findings related to the NPS, NFS, and easements

(TNC and land trusts). This chart shows that there are major differences between these four institutional regimes related to the basic entities recognized and the assumptions about natural relationships. Public lands are more prevalent in the western US and easements are more common in the eastern US. Furthermore, the public land system reserves areas of national significance. In contrast, easements protect open space that is of local or personal significance. As noted earlier, the NPS and NFS are defining cases of Epoch I (Mazmanian and Kraft 1999). However, the NFS is more influenced by market forces thus moving towards Epoch II. Easements are characteristic of Epoch II, as they use market strategies. One manifestation of different Epochs is that acquisition via easements is voluntary, whereas non-voluntary for federal land. Figure 6 uses a synthesis of Kettl (2001) and Mazmanian & Kraft s (1999) ideas of institutions which possess drivers for sustainability or Epoch III. All of these indicators are present in at least one institutional framework but none alone excel at meeting all of the drivers. Moreover, when put into the context of the previous Figure 5, a conclusion is reached that each institution fulfills its own niche. There does not appear to be any one best instructional open space regime; collectively the case studies point to institutional plurality and complementarity. In terms of sustainable development, we discover that the overall open space movement is not necessarily leaving Epoch I or Epoch II strategies. Rather, these two institutions are interacting, and even partnering at times, towards Epoch III. Ostrom (1990) affirms this idea of complementarity and plurality in stating public and private institutions frequently are intermeshed and depend on one another, rather then existing in isolated worlds (1990).

Using both social arrangements exhibits and brings forth idea of Epoch III and coherence of environmental governance. In response to the original query (what institutional open space regime employs the most coherence for social and environmental goals?), we have found that coherence is dependent on the inclusiveness of all institutions. All of the institutions fulfill their own unique open space protection strategy; thereby partnering and relying on each other to collectively meet society s endeavors. The land is a mosaic and we need a variety of approaches to match a diversity of needs. Annette Naegel (2005) of Georges River Land Trust summarizes this idea of diversity of needs and approaches by saying that The beauty of having a variety of tools makes the job of land conservation easier.

Literature Cited: Annette Naegel. Georges River Land Trust Conservation Project Manager. 12 April 2005. Personal Communication. Betsy Darlington. Director of Land Protection. Finger Lakes Land Trust. 11 April 2005. Personal Communication. Butowsky, Harry A. National Park Service Historian. 5 April 2005. Personal Communication. CQ Researcher. 1999. Saving Open Spaces: Are Land-Conservation Efforts in the Public Interest? Congressional Quarterly 9(42): 953-976. Dravnieks, D. 1997. Changing Social and Legal Forces Affecting The Management of National Forests, < http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/social-legalforces.pdf> Date last accessed: April 14, 2005. Dryzek, J. 1997. The Politics of the Earth. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Edwards, V. 1995. Dealing in Diversity: America s Market for Nature Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243-1248. Kettl, D. 2001 Introduction: Environmental Governance: A Report on the Next generation of Environmental Policy, Brookings Institute. King, J. TNC West Texas Programs Manager. 3 April 2005. Personal Communication. Land Trust Alliance. 2005. About LTA, <http://lta.org/aboutlta/index.html>. Date last accessed 1 May 2005. Mazmanian, D. A. and M. Kraft, (M&K) (eds.) (1999). Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy. Cambridge, The MIT Press. Merenlender, A., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G., and Fairfax, S. 2004. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology 18: 65-75. The National Forest Service. 2005. USDA Forest Service- Caring For the Land and Serving People. <http://www.fs.fed.us>. Date last accessed: April 15, 2005. National Park Service. 2005. Untitled, <http://www.nps.gov>. Date last accessed 1 May 2005.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E. 2000. Private and Common Property Rights, <http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~gdegeest/2000book.pdf> (pp. 332-352). Date last accessed 1 May 2005. O Toole, R. 1998. Problems in Paradise: Following the Money, <http://www.ti.org/npsprobs1.html>. Date last accessed 1 May 2005. Sachet, Glen. Mt. Hood National Forest Public Relations Officer. April 17, 2005. Personal Communication. The Nature Conservancy. 2005. How we work: Conservation Methods, http://www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/conservationmethods/privatelands/cons ervationeasements/about/myths.html. Date last accessed 1 May 2005.

FIGURES: Discourse Analysis of National Park Service Basic Entities Assumptions about Recognized or Natural Constructed Relationships o Global Limits o Preservation government Figure 1: Through a Dryzekian analysis, we summarize that the National Park Service is characterized by the Preservationist discourse. Discourse Analysis of the National Forest Service Basic Entities Assumptions about Recognized or Natural Constructed Relationships o Global limits o Need for resources o Social, economic and political structures o Hierarchy of humans over everything else o Nature as brute matter Agents and their Motives o Federal Government o Market/Industries o Experts motivated by public opinion and NGOs Figure 2: Through the analytical framework established by Dryzek, it is clear that he conservationist discourse is dominant within the National Forest Service. Discourse Analysis of Conservation Easements Basic Entities Assumptions about Recognized or Natural Constructed Relationships o Markets o Tax incentives o Private property o Limited development o Whole landscapes o Nature equal to people o Nature is valuable o Controlled land use Agents and their Motives o Experts o Local, state, and federal Agents and their Motives o Landowners o Community/NGOs Figure 3: Using the framework established by Dryzek (1999), our conclusions about conservation easements are organized. The market for conservation on private land is used as a tool for governing land use. Landowners and Community/NGOs are primary agents, as they are the main decision makers (Edwards, 31).

Comparison of approaches to conservation easements TNC Land Trust Staff Highly staffed with great expertise Few staff with many local volunteers Level of influence National/political leverage Local leverage Scale regional County or ecosystem Organizational structure Decentralized from an international office to state Independent bodies coordinated through LTA offices Focus Protecting biodiversity Fitted to the values of the community Approach Proactive Reactive Figure 4: An investigation of two different approaches to conservation easements reveals that each serves a valuable and necessary role. Comparison of Social Arrangements involved in open space conservation NPS NFS Easements Entities recognized Preservation Conservation Preservation and/or conservation Assumptions about Natural relationships Nature not subordinate to humans Nature as brute matter The landscape is a vital resource and entity. Agents Government Government/market Community, market Access rights Public recreation Extraction, public recreation Resources Protected Natural Resources, Natural Resources, cultural/historic economic resources resources No public access (usually) Natural Resources, economic resources Scale Generally larger Generally larger Generally smaller Geography More prevalent in western US More prevalent in western US More prevalent in eastern US Transparency/ accountability Public comment Public comment TNC- partnerships, public reputation Land Trusts: LTA Acquisition Non-voluntary Non-voluntary Voluntary Other Protects areas of national significance Protects areas of national significance Protects areas of local significance Figure 5: By comparing several agents of open space conservation, distinct differences and points of overlap are illuminated. From this table, we conclude that no single approach is satisfactory to achieve the goal of open space protection in entirety.

Comparison of Social Arrangements involved in open space conservation NPS NFS TNC Land Trust Performance based + + Information rich + + + + Flexible accountable + + Technology spurring + Regulatory system (synergy) + + + + Figure 6: Using the framework developed by Kettl (2001), we analyze four approaches to open space protection. No single approach fulfills all five indicators of a coherent governance system.