1. 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 What Are Landowners Looking for in Conservation Easements? Results of a Landowner Survey

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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