“THE GEOGRAPHY OF LAND TRUSTS IN THE UNITED STATES”

By

Rachel Ralls

Research Paper Submitted to Dr. Pomeroy

Geography-Earth Science Department

SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY Shippensburg, Pennsylvania

August 1, 2013

1

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Land Trusts Defined................................................................................................................................... 3

Land Protection Methods .......................................................................................................................... 6

Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Staffing ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Question ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

Data and Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 13

Identifying land trust concentrations through number of land trusts and LQ results ............................ 13

Socio-Economic variables of Environmental Activism ............................................................................. 15

Statistical Tests ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 21

References .................................................................................................................................................. 22

2

Abstract

Land trusts have flourished in the United States over the last 50 years, with the highest

concentration in northeastern and western states. This research looks at the socio-economic

drivers of environmental activism to help explain the spatial distribution of land trusts in the

United States. Higher education, urban population, education sector jobs, per capita income,

and Democratic voters were tested through correlation and stepwise regression analysis to test

if they could accurately model the spatial distribution of U.S. land trusts. This study found that

there are significant correlations with these five variables and the prevalence of land trusts in a

given state. It could also be indicated that the Northeast and West have a greater

environmental activism then states in the Midwest and South leading to a similar trend in land

trusts numbers per state.

Introduction

Land trusts have grown dramatically and become increasingly dynamic in the last

several decades. They have emerged to play a leading role in land conservation across the

United States, and now protect over 1% of all land (Randolph 2004). That comes out to over 47

million acres – a not inconsequential share of land protection – with 10.2 million acres being

protected from 2005 to 2010 alone (Chang 2011). After a period of nearly exponential growth

over the last 50 years, it is only in the last five years has the growth in the number of land trusts

established slowed. Today there are over 1,700 land trusts of various sizes and operating at

many geographic scales. Land trusts play a large role in land conservation as well as activities

ranging from large landscape conservation to local land use planning and local outreach.

3

Regardless of this tremendous level of involvement in conservation, land protection,

and environmental management, land trusts have largely flown under the academic radar

screen. While geographers have paid attention to the where and why of environmental

activism (Wikle 1995) and innovation (Cidel 2009), specific attention to land trusts is lacking and

is troubling given the large presence that land trusts have in the fabric of environmental

management and protection. Witnessing the increasing number of trusts, the magnitude of

land protection, and the characteristics of the activism itself, a greater understanding of

consideration is certainly warranted. It is the purpose here to examine and identify the socio-

economic factors that explain the spatial distribution of land trusts in the United States.

Land Trusts Defined

There are many definitions of a land trust, none of which seem to capture the diversity

of land trusts’ missions and activities. Perhaps the most complete definition that can be found

is from the Land Trust Alliance (LTA), which states “A land trust is a nonprofit organization that,

as all or part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or

conservation easement acquisitions, or by its stewardship of such land or easements” (Chang

2011).

As of 2010, 1,723 land trusts in the United States operate at different levels and

geographic scales (Chang 2011). Generally two different levels of land trusts exist – national

land trusts and local land trusts. National land trusts have large geographic scales and broad

missions. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an example of a national land trust; it operates

globally by working in each state and in more than 30 countries. Only 24 land trusts are

categorized as national, and include The Trust for Public Lands, The Conservation Fund, and

4

North American Land Trust. The remaining 1,699 land trusts are referred to as local land trusts.

These make up the majority of land trusts and work on smaller scales within a more focused

geography. Since 2010, land trusts have protected 47 million acres in the United States, with

national land trusts protecting 31 million and local land trusts protecting an additional 16

million acres (Chang 2011).

Figure 1: Spatial location of land trusts over time from 1891 - 2005. Out of 1,667 land trusts only 1,340 reported the year they were established in the 2005 National Land Trust Census. (Hess 2010)

The Northeast has been home to the majority of land trusts since their inception, with

the number of land trusts growing quickly in the West starting in the 1990’s (Figure 1). The first

land trust was founded in 1891 in Massachusetts, and establishment rates slowly climbed for 60

5

years with about one forming every year. It wasn’t until the environmental movement of the

1960-1970’s that you see the first of two big land trust movements in history (Brewer 2003).

During that time landmark environmental legislation was passed such as the Endangered

Species Act, the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Wilderness Act.

The land trust movement grew along with the general rise of public awareness of the

environment with about 15 new land trusts forming per year. The second movement occurred

1985-2005 when Ronald Reagan significantly cut federal money and programs for conservation.

By the mid 80’s, with the public no longer feeling the government was able or willing to save

lands critical for conservation, the highest growth rate of land trusts occurred with 50 or more

forming per year. Since 2005 land trusts establishments have begun to plateau with a rate of

about 10 land trusts per year and continues to drop, indicating that new land trusts

establishment has hit its saturation point and existing land trusts broaden their missions and

improve their practices.

Figure 2: Total Acres Conserved by Local Land Trusts by Region, as of 2000, 2005, and 2010 (Chang 2011)

6

Though the establishment of new land trusts has slowed; land protection is still on the

rise (Figure 2). Throughout the last ten years there has been a steady increase of protected land

throughout all regions of the United States. The Northeast has the most land protected with

over 5 million acres, with the Midwest with the least at just fewer than 1 million acres. This

distribution of protected acres of land is similar to the pattern of the number of land trusts that

are established in those regions.

Land Protection Methods

Land trusts protect land throughout the United States using a variety of tools including

fee simple acquisitions, conservation easements, transfers, and assists. The simplest but most

costly approach is through fee simple acquisition, which is when the land trust takes full

ownership of the land. This is the best way to protect a special area of concern from any

impending threats, yet this is the most costly compared to other approaches because of the

increased purchase costs and ongoing land management obligations (Fishburn et al. March

2009).

Conservation easements restrict certain rights or uses of the land relevant to preserving

the conservation values of the land (Randolph 2003). The landowner can sell or donate these

rights. Land trusts will hold and monitor those rights in perpetuity, while landowners retain the

land and all other rights. These easement rights are recorded similar to a property deed,

providing permanent protection even if land is sold or transferred. This protection method is

appealing because it can give tax benefits to the landowners while retaining their property.

Starting in 1976, the Tax Reform Act granted the use of donated easement values as a

charitable tax deduction on federal income taxes. Since this act has been implemented,

7

easement records have dramatically increased (Fishburn et al. march 2009). Currently, tax

incentives for enhanced charitable deductions for conservation easement and fee donations

have been periodically re-authorized but not permanently included in the federal tax code.

Conservation easements are less expensive than a fee simple acquisition because only

some of the property rights are purchased, and the cost to manage them can be less depending

on the management requirements agreed upon in the easement deal. All Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) reported easements must be monitored annually to satisfy the tax benefit

obligations. According to Fishburn et al., local land trusts made 60 percent of their investments

in land protection using easements in 2000 (March 2009).

Transfers and assists are other ways in which land trusts work with other land trusts and

government agencies to protect land. A transfer occurs when a land trusts holds title of a

property, then conveys that property to another land trust or government agency. It is usually

easier for a land trust to quickly negotiate a land deal and protect the property than a

government agency that must go through a more lengthy bureaucracy to make a land purchase.

Holding large pieces of land requires a large operating fund and staff to maintain and manage

the property. Transferring the property to a government agency with land management

resources and staff saves the land trust money. Assists occur when a land trust helps fund or

support another organizations land protection project. Funds or staff expertise and time are

given from one land trust to another to help with that land protection project. The land trust

then is assisting in the project, but never takes title of the property.

8

Funding

In order for a land trust to operate and protect land it needs a substantial amount of

funding. One major source of funding for a project is through government grants. At the federal

level the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is one of the principal funding sources for

public land acquisitions providing more than $12.5 billion in grants, since its creation in 1965

(Randolph 2004). Roughly 70 percent of those funds have been used for 4.7 million acres of

federal public lands predominantly in California, Florida, Washington, Texas, Oregon, Nevada,

and Georgia during its establishment in 1965 (Randolph 2004). The other 30 percent has been

used for grants to match state and local monies for local projects totaling nearly 2.3 million

acres mostly funded in the 1970’s (Randolph 2004). Since the 1980’s very little funding has

been available from the LWCF. Open space ballot initiatives have been developed by state and

local government to compensate for the low federal funding. Funding varies across states

because of local tax laws that affect donations and support from local and state conservation

agencies.

Land trusts also raise funds through general membership dues as well as private,

corporate and foundation donations. The latest LTA Census report for 2010, shows that land

trusts have a total of almost 5 million members, however it also showed a 2 percent decline

from 2005 to2010 (Chang 2011). The drop in membership is concerning but not surprising due

to the overall economic recession that hit in 2008. Many people have stopped financially

supporting charities, but are rather donating their time and expertise in volunteer activities

proven by the overwhelming increase of 70 percent in volunteers during that same period of

time (Chang 2011). Though individual support might be on the decline, companies and

9

foundations are seeing the increased need for and benefit from supporting land trusts. This

new notion of natural capital can motivate industries to invest on a whole new level.

Staffing

Land trusts have a dedicated workforce of 12,360 full and part-time staff, 347,000

volunteers, and 15,660 board members (Chang 2011). Board members who are elected or

appointed jointly oversee and approve land protection projects and help with funding and

promoting the land trust have only increased by 5 percent, but still outnumber staff by roughly

3,000 people. Volunteers have increased by 70 percent over the last 5 years; while full- and

part-time staff, has only increased by 19 percent over the same 5 years (Chang 2011).

Regional differences in land trust staffing can be observed. In a study that was recently

completed in October 2012 on all volunteer run land trusts (AVLT), it was reported that nearly

60 percent of all land trusts are operated by very little to no staff. LTA defined an AVLT as

having no more than one part-time staff. These land trusts have protected just 1 percent of the

total 47 million acres protected by all land trusts that were reported in the 2010 National Land

Trust Census. Though their land protection is small, this group makes up the majority of land

trusts so it’s important to understand their geographic patterns. AVLTs are the majority of land

trusts in the Northeast, indicating an increased environmental awareness and activism (Table

1). All regions but the West show more volunteer based land trusts than staffed land trusts.

10

Table 1: Geographic Distribution of All Volunteer Land Trusts (source: LTA –AVLT Report October 2012,

Conservation Impact)

Question

It is clear that land trusts have exploded during the last 50 years with the majority of

them operating in the Northeast and West, but what explains this spatial distribution within the

United States? This research will examine some key environmental activism variables that have

been identified in previous work to see if they can also explain the location of land trusts.

Data and Methods

Land trust data for this study were obtained from the 2010 National Land Trust Census

compiled and produced by Land Trust Alliance (LTA). This national organization sets standards

and operating procedures, along with developing materials and information to help improve

and aid land trusts. Every five years LTA gathers data from all the LTs about their activities to

track trends and show progress in land conservation. Once the data is collected LTA produces a

report showing numbers, charts, and graphs of some of the current trends in land trusts, but

the data is not analyzed spatially. For this analysis all land trusts (national and local) were

tallied per states in which they protected land. Land trusts were counted in each state they

protect land. Headquarter location was not used in this analysis, instead the total number of

11

land trusts that were listed as protecting acreage in each state was used to determine the total

number for each state.

In order to normalize the number of land trusts by state, Location Quotients (LQ) were

used to show the concentration of land trusts per population by state with respect to the base

region of the United States. The following LQ equation was used: LQ = LTs/POPs / LTus/POPus,

Where LT = the number of Land Trusts, for local region (s) = state, and for the base region (us) =

United States. POP= the population, for local region (s) = state, and for the base region (us)

=United States. LQ was used on the number of land trusts per state. Simply, the percentage of

the activity in the local region (state) was divided by the percentage of the activity in the base

region (United States). Mapping the results of LQs can help display concentrations of certain

activities across a larger area.

Spatial distributions of socio-economic variables and land trusts were examined using

correlations and stepwise regression analyses that were run in a statistical program called SPSS.

The dependent variable was the LQ values per state, with the explanatory variables: Per capita

income, percentage of jobs in the educational service sector, percentage of people with

bachelor’s degrees or higher, percentage of urban population, and percentage of democratic

votes in the 2012 election, all obtained from the U.S. Census (www.census.gov), except for

election data compiled and published online by David Leip (2012).

Data tables from these sources were edited to display in Geographic Information

Systems (GIS). Data was calculated to the state level either using pivot tables or manually fixing

the table structure in order to have each state with its own record. The only spatial layer that

12

was used in this study was a shapefile of the state boundaries that was downloaded from Geo

Community (www.geocomm.com). All tables were joined to the spatial dataset in Esri ArcMap

10.1 using the state abbreviation field.

13

Results and Discussion

Identifying land trust concentrations through number of land trusts and LQ results

Figure 3: Number of all land trusts by state. Source: 2010 National Land Trust Census.

Figure 4: Location Quotients for the number of all land trusts per population by state. Classes manually defined: LQ above national average is greater than 1 and LQ below national average is less than 1. Source: 2010 National Land Trust Census.

14

When comparing the raw data of the number of land trusts (Figure 3) with the LQ

results (Figure 4) states that show low numbers of land trusts (North Dakota, South Dakota,

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming) rank above the nation average when normalized by population.

These states are showing that the number of land trusts per population in those states is higher

than the national average. Other states have the reverse affect such as (New York, Ohio,

Michigan, North Caronia, and California) all showing below the national average. The top six

states with the highest LQ values are located in the Northeast, while the lowest numbers show

a number of the southern and midwestern states (table 2). Figure 3, shows a cluster of states in

the Midwest with a low number of land trusts, and even normalizing with population data

those states still show up below average. However the cluster of northwest states of Idaho,

Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota can be explained by population numbers. As you

can see that these states have low population giving to above national averages meaning they

have more land trusts per person then the average person.

15

Table 2: Location Quotients for the number of all land trusts per population by state. Source: 2010 National Land Trust Census.

State LQ State LQ State LQ

Vermont 10.914 Colorado 1.33 Tennessee 0.769

Maine 10.387 Oregon 1.31 California 0.756

Rhode Island 7.018 Pennsylvania 1.218 Mississippi 0.751

Connecticut 5.771 South Carolina 1.115 New Jersey 0.745

New Hampshire 5.399 North Dakota 1.036 Ohio 0.689

Massachusetts 3.555 Washington 0.995 Arizona 0.676

Wyoming 3.462 Arkansas 0.908 Alabama 0.641

Montana 3.381 Utah 0.857 Georgia 0.604

Alaska 2.747 New York 0.841 Iowa 0.595

Delaware 2.173 Nebraska 0.839 Missouri 0.512

Idaho 1.867 Kentucky 0.835 Illinois 0.511

Wisconsin 1.642 Kansas 0.83 Minnesota 0.42

Maryland 1.617 Indiana 0.817 Oklahoma 0.372

Hawaii 1.434 Virginia 0.801 Louisiana 0.369

South Dakota 1.369 Michigan 0.79 Florida 0.334

New Mexico 1.354 North Carolina 0.789 Texas 0.249

West Virginia 1.354 Nevada 0.774

Socio-Economic variables of Environmental Activism

Wikle’s (1995) identified a number of variables that are associated with environmental

activism: higher education, higher incomes, grassroots support for environmental causes, older

populations, urban residents, political orientation, and recreation participation. Determining

concentrations of environmental organizations member locations per population average he

found high concentrations in the northeast, and a few western states as well.

Cidel (2009) looked at concentrations of green buildings, and LEED accredited

professionals throughout the United States and ran correlations using variables for average

household income, percentage of jobs in the service sector, and percentage of college

graduates. It was determined that green buildings commissioned for non-profits where highly

16

concentrated in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, and that all variables had a significant

correlation with total green buildings.

Figure 5: Spatial distributions of Socio-economic variables of higher education, Democratic voters, education job sector, urban population, and per capita income. Source: National Census Bureau and David Leip

17

Figure 5, shows the geographic patterns of some of the key socio-economic variables

that Wikle and Cidel identify as environmental activism drivers. The northeast is continually

showing high values for these drivers, and besides the education workforce the remaining four

drivers show an increase presence in the majority of western states. Lending to the finding that

areas of high environmental activism have led to larger numbers of land trusts. Areas in the

Midwest seem to show lower percentages of these variables confirming the lower number of

land trusts. To further verify that there is a signification relationship to these environmental

activism drivers and land trusts statistical analysis was conducted.

Statistical Tests

A correlation test shows that percentage of higher education, per capita income,

percentage of 65 and older, percentage of Democratic voters in the 2012 election, and a

percentage of jobs in the education sector significantly correlated with concentrations of land

trusts per population (Table 3). According to the test higher education had the highest

correlation, followed by older age group (which is highly correlated with higher education), and

then percentage of jobs in the education sector, with Democratic voters, and lastly per capita

income.

Table 3: Correlations results for land trusts and explanatory variables.

Correlations

Higher Education

Income 65 or Older

Democratic Voters

Educational Service Sector

Land Trusts LQ Correlation 0.657 0.506 0.58 0.53 0.565

Significance .000** .000* .000** .000** .000**

18

Knowing that these variables are all significantly correlated these same set of variables

were tested through a stepwise regression analysis to determine the best pairing of variables

that could predict the LQ concentration of land trusts within a state. In table 4, the best model

that could be produced was a model that had an adjusted R square value of .661, which is

significant when dealing with socio-economic data. The model identified three variables: higher

education, jobs in the education sector, and per capita income. The ANOVA test showed that

the F value is high above 20 meaning the model is significant. The model variables show that

the VIF values were below 7.5 meaning very little multicollinearity. Income had the lowest

significance to the model with a 0.048, higher education and educational job sector both had

high significance.

Table 4: Stepwise regression model results for land trusts and explanatory variables.

Model Summary

Adjusted R Square F Sig Regression Residual

0.661 32.899 0.000 82.329 38.371

Model Variables

VIF Beta t Sig.

Higher Education 1.05 0.557 6.54 0.000

Education Sector 1.329 0.383 3.996 0.000

Income 1.361 0.197 2.035 0.048

Figure 6, shows the standard deviation (STD) residual results of the stepwise test for

each state. The darker the blue the more the test under predicted the concentration of land

trusts for that states, and the darker the red the more the test over predicted the

concentration. As you can see that Maine and Connecticut are the two states that were given

19

much lower concentration numbers then what is actually true. Other factors could be at play

here that would help drive the model to be more accurate. Maine is an interesting case,

because it has a significant number of land trusts yet it has a smaller population then other high

level land trusts states. Minnesota shows the reverse results where the model has predicted a

higher concentration of land trusts then what is actually reported. This state has similar socio-

economic variables as Missouri yet shows less land trusts concentrations, so it makes sense that

the model would over predict. It is interesting that this state has 16 land trusts actively working,

very similar to its neighboring states and yet factoring population out of the model the

environmental activism variables can’t seem to explain the number of land trust. More research

is needed to examine the missing variable that would explain these few extreme states.

20

Figure 6: STD residual results from Stepwise Regression Model using percent higher education, percent per capita income, and percent education work sector to explain Location Quotients for the number of all land trusts per population by state. Number of all land trusts is labeled for each state.

What this model does show is that the variables do closely predict accurate land trust

values for light colored states ranked in the 0 – 1.5 + or - ranges. This means that socio-

economic factors of environmental activism, such as higher education, education job sector,

and per capita income explain land trust locations for the majority of the states, with the

exception of five states California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota which

seem to have other variables going on that are missing from the model.

21

Conclusion

Land trusts have been establishing throughout the United States at extraordinary rates

with a distinctive spatial distribution heavily concentrated in the Northeast and on the West

Coast. With land trust numbers finally slowing down in the last 5 years, it’s a good time to

examine the spatial patterns that exist and try to explain why certain states have such high

concentrations. This study showed that a number of socioeconomic variables are highly

correlated to the concentration numbers produced by the LQ analysis, such as: percentage of

higher education, per capita income, percentage of 65 years and older, percentage of

Democratic voters, and percentage of jobs in the education sector. It was further discovered in

a stepwise regression analysis that higher education, jobs in the education sector, and per

capita income produced the highest significant model with an R adjusted square value of 0.661.

The test showed that further research is needed to explain why Maine, Connecticut, California,

Massachusetts, and Minnesota scored at such extremes on the predictor model. It did show

that the majority of states could be explained by the three variables and further review of

spatial distribution of high numbers for the socio-economic variables show high numbers with

land trust concentrations. Finding that states show a greater and less environmental concern

and that higher income, educational learning, and increased education jobs lead to increased

land trusts in most states.

22

References

Alexander, L., and Hess, G. (2011). “Land Trust Evaluation of Progress toward Conservation Goals”

Conservation Biology, 26(1): 7-12.

Brewer, R. (2003). “Conservancy: The Land Trust Movement in America” University Press of New

England (NH): Hanover; 348p.

Chang, K. (2011). “2010 National Land Trust Census Report” Land Trust Alliance, www.lta.org/census,

20p.

Cidell, J. (2009). “Building Green: The Emerging Geography of LEED-Certified Buildings and

Professionals” Professional Geographer, 61(2): 200-215. doi:10.1080/00330120902735932

Comer, JC., and Wikle, T. (2008). “Worldwide Diffusion of the Cellular Telephone, 1995-2005” The

Professional Geographer, 60(2):252-269.

Conservation Impact (October 2012). “Land Trust Alliance All-Volunteer Land Trust Report” Land Trust

Alliance, www.lta.org, 59p.

Daniels, T. (2004). “Land Preservation” Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4): 494-496.

Davies, ZG., Kareiva P., and Armsworth PR. (2010). “Temporal Patterns in the size of conservation land

transactions” Conservation Letters, 3:29-37. Doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00091.x

Fishburn, IS. , Kareiva P., Gaston KJ., and Armsworth PR. (March 2009). “The Growth of Easements as a

Conservation Tool” PLoS ONE, 4(3): e4996 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004996

Fishburn, IS. , Kareiva P., Gaston KJ., Evans KL., Armsworth PR. (2009). “State-level variation in

conservation investment by a major nongovernmental organization” Conservation Letters, 2:74-

81 doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00045.x

Gattuso, Dana J. (May 2008). “Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” National

Policy Analysis, #569 http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html

Hess, R. (2010). “Spatial Distribution Patterns of Land Trust Attributes, A Comparative Analysis Based on

2005 National Land Trust Census Report Data” Shippensburg University Research Paper,

Unpublished, 29p.

Kelliher, K. (2009). “The Spatial Pattern and Diffusion of Land Trusts in the United States” Shippensburg

University Practical Exam, Unpublished, 25p.

Leip, D. (2012). “Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections” http://uselectionatlas.org

Randolph, J. (2004). “Environmental Land Use Planning and Management” Island Press (DC):

Washington; 653p.

23

Tenenbaum, D. (2000). “Land Trusts: A Restoration Frontier?” Ecological Restoration, 18(3):167-72.

Wikle, T. ( 1995). "Geographical Patterns of Membership in U.S. Environmental Organizations"

Professional Geographer 47(1):41-48.

Wikle, T. (1998). “A comparison of geographic membership patterns in three National Environmental

Organizations” Journal of Environmental Education; Spring98, 29(3):39-49.

Wikle, T. and Comer, CJ. (May 2010). “Translator Networks and the New Geography of Religious Radio” Journal of Radio & Audio Media 17(1):48-62. doi:10.1080/19376521003720407