4.6 Article

Perceptions of, and Motivations for, Land Trust Conservation in Northern Michigan: An Analysis of Key Informant Interviews

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13041609

Keywords

conservation; land trust; key-informant surveys; easements; Michigan

Funding

  1. University of Michigan Biological Station's Biological Fund for Interdisciplinary Graduate Student Support

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the perceptions and motivations of stakeholders of small-scale land trust conservation, with a focus on the Little Traverse Conservancy (LTC) in northern Michigan, USA. Findings show that the primary motivation for stakeholder involvement is the protection of nature and scenic beauty, highlighting the importance of relationships and partnerships in facilitating successful land conservation efforts.
Land trusts are common and expanding mechanisms for conservation, although their impacts have been little-studied. The objective of this paper is to understand the perceptions and motivations of stakeholders of small-scale land trust conservation. We used 33 key informant interviews to learn the motivations and opinions of stakeholders regarding the Little Traverse Conservancy (LTC) of northern Michigan, USA. The interviews were coded for relevant themes and interpreted alongside a literature review. The highest reported motivation for stakeholder involvement with LTC was the protection of nature and scenic beauty. Economic and social factors were also considered motivators; however, were not the key facilitators for conservation action for LTC stakeholders. Interviews emphasized that relationship and partnership formations are critical for facilitating successful land conservation. We conclude that land trust organizations can captivate the long-term support and participation of stakeholders through the consideration of local dynamics and building upon existing community relationships.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available