Walking the land with property owners

From the landowner’s house, we walked across a hayfield to the small wetland. At the edge of the swamp, the landowner pointed out where the beaver had been active, where he had flushed a woodcock, and where he had harvested a deer. After explaining how he managed its water levels, he asked for our opinion—did his restored wetland really have conservation value? What could he do to make it even more valuable as a natural resource? We were part of a team investigating the ecological value of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), a public–private partnership—currently integrated into the Agency’s Agricultural Conservation Easement Program—that restores wetlands on private property where they had been lost due to agriculture, and protects them under permanent conservation easements. During that site visit and others like it, we inventoried biodiversity, assessed water quality, and documented hydrology and landscape context to evaluate whether the restored wetlands had ecological composition and functions similar to their original counterparts. We also surveyed and interviewed landowners, to find out why they decided initially to participate in the WRP, and whether they were now satisfied with the outcome. Residents in the St. Lawrence River valley of New York State, like many rural areas in the US, are generally opposed to private-property land use regulation and to acquisition of private land by the government for conservation. Nevertheless, public–private conservation programs are popular, with over 150 landowners participating in the WRP within this region alone. We expected that landowners would focus on federal and state tax incentives as motives to participate; for example, New York State has a property tax rebate for conservation easements. To our surprise, few landowners were aware of such incentives. Instead, they talked about the enjoyment received in walking the land with their dogs, hunting on it, and spotting wildlife with their grandchildren. They spoke about the heritage value of wetland restoration—how they wanted to conserve some nature so that their descendants would enjoy it, too. We asked about ecosystem services. While the term was unfamiliar to them, the landowners immediately grasped the concept and were pleased that what they had done might provide such services in their community. As we sat around participants’ kitchen tables, we listened to their stories—how they came to live on the property and what owning land meant to them. Most of the landowners who initiated the public–private partnership were at retirement age. They belonged to conservation or sportsman organizations. Many were from the region, though a number had moved away for their careers and had returned after retirement. Some had been “back-to-landers” who had arrived in the early 1970s to subsistence farm, while others were the inheritors of multi-generational family farms, while still others were hobby farmers. By walking the land with property owners, we learned that they knew a lot about the ecology of their property, and they were eager to learn more from us as well as from their government partner. They wanted our judgement about the ecological value of the wetland restoration, and they were a little frustrated they had not received more guidance from the government partner about managing the easement to improve its conservation value. This frustration was partly due to the landowners’ desire to share their knowledge of their restored wetland with school groups and community organizations interested in nature and land conservation. The economic implications of having otherwise arable land under perpetual conservation easement seemed of little consequence to these landowners. We also engaged with a few landowners who had purchased property with a preexisting wetland restoration conservation easement. Some bought the land because they liked owning a conserved wetland. Others expressed frustration about the land-use restrictions under the easement. Regardless, it was evident to us that the next generation of property owners held very different knowledge and values from their predecessors, which may weaken the permanency of these conservation partnerships when properties are transferred. By conversing with landowners where they live—as opposed to relying only on conventional survey instruments and structured interviews—we gained far-richer insight into why people voluntarily restore, manage, and protect their land for conservation. The property owners were curious and eager to learn from us. Reciprocally, we acquired a deeper understanding of the ecology of these wetlands, by learning from the property owners what they had observed on their land. Public–private partnerships are essential for meeting conservation goals like 30×30. Ecologists can advance ecological knowledge—and, more importantly, how it is applied—by talking with the people on their land: what they know about it, what motivates them to conserve, and what they want to learn from ecologists. This may seem obvious, but in a field that is becoming dominated by sensors, remotely sensed imagery, and automated data collection and processing, we may need from time to time to remind ourselves that there is still an important role in ecology for conversations on the land.