A landscape of conservation philanthropy for U.S. land trusts

Protected area, easement, and rental contract data reveal five communities of land protection in the United States

Land protection efforts represent large societal investments and are critical to biodiversity conservation. Land protection involves a complex mosaic of areas managed by multiple organizations, using a variety of mechanisms to achieve different levels of protection. We develop an approach to synthesize, describe, and map this land protection diversity over large spatial scales. We use cluster analysis to find distinct "communities" of land protection based on the organizations involved, the strictness of land protection, and the protection mechanisms used. We also associate identified land protection communities with socioenvironmental variables. Applying these methods to describe land protection communities in counties across the coterminous United States, we recognize five different land protection communities. Two land protection communities occur in areas with low human population size at higher elevations and include a large amount of protected land primarily under federal management. These two community types are differentiated from one another by the particular federal agencies involved, the relative contributions of smaller actors, and the amount of protection by designations vs. conservation easements or covenants. Three remaining land protection communities have less overall protection. Land in one community is primarily protected by federally managed rental contracts and government managed easements; another is managed by a diversity of non-federal actors through fee-ownership and easements; and the third stands out for having the lowest amount of formally recorded protection overall. High elevation and poor quality soils are over-represented in U.S. protected lands. Rental contracts help fill in gaps in counties with high productivity soil while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fills in gaps in low-elevation counties. Counties with large numbers of threatened species have more and stricter protection, particularly by regional entities like water management districts. The ability to synthesize and map land protection communities can help conservation planners tailor interventions to local contexts, position local agencies to approach collaborations more strategically, and suggest new hypotheses for researchers regarding interactions among different protection mechanisms.

Sources and dynamics of international funding for waterfowl conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

Abstract ContextFunding for habitat-management programs to maintain population viability is critical for conservation of migratory species; however, such financial resources are limited and can vary greatly over time. The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America is an excellent system for examining spatiotemporal patterns of funding for waterfowl conservation, because this transboundary region is crucial for reproduction and migration of many duck species. AimsWe examine large-scale spatiotemporal variation in funding for waterfowl habitat conservation in the PPR during 2007–2016. Specifically, we quantify major sources of funding and how funds were directed towards particular geographies within Canada and the USA. We further examine how sources and magnitude of funding changed over time and in relation to numbers of hunters. MethodsWe assembled data from multiple sources to quantify funding (in US$, 2016 values) from (1) USA states and non-government organisations (NGOs), (2) Canadian government and NGOs, and (3) major USA-based federal funding sources to the Canadian and US portions of the PPR between 2007 and 2016. We fit linear regressions to examine spatiotemporal variation in funding and in numbers of active waterfowl hunters in the USA. Key resultsWhereas annual funding for the Canadian portion was comparatively stable throughout the 10 years (range: US$25–41 million), funding for the US portion was dynamic and increased between the first (range: US$36–48 million) and second (range: US$43–117 million) 5-year intervals, despite concurrent declines in the number of active waterfowl hunters in the USA. ConclusionsWe discovered contrasting trends and dynamics in multiple streams of funding for habitat conservation on each side of the border bisecting the PPR. These findings and approaches warrant closer attention by wildlife professionals. Work is needed to analyse past and future funding for habitat conservation, which can then be used to refine plans for maintaining or recovering populations of migratory species. ImplicationsAlthough funding for waterfowl habitat conservation in the PPR increased over the past decade, trends were inconsistent among subregions and uncertain for some major funding sources. Better understanding of the complexities in funding will help inform more efficient long-term planning efforts for conservation of waterfowl and other migratory species.