Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 359–364 | Cite as

Wildlife Conservation and Private Protected Areas: The Discrepancy Between Land Trust Mission Statements and Their Perceptions

  • Ashley A. DayerEmail author
  • Amanda D. Rodewald
  • Richard C. Stedman
  • Emily A. Cosbar
  • Eric M. Wood


In 2010, land trusts in the U.S. had protected nearly 50 million acres of land, with much of it providing habitat for wildlife. However, the extent to which land trusts explicitly focus on wildlife conservation remains largely unknown. We used content analysis to assess land trust involvement in wildlife and habitat conservation, as reflected in their mission statements, and compared these findings with an organizational survey of land trusts. In our sample of 1358 mission statements, we found that only 17 % of land trusts mentioned “wildlife,” “animal,” or types of wildlife, and 35 % mentioned “habitat” or types. Mission statements contrasted sharply with results from a land trust survey, in which land trusts cited wildlife habitat as the most common and significant outcome of their protection efforts. Moreover, 77 % of land trusts reported that at least half of their acreage protected wildlife habitat, though these benefits are likely assumed. Importantly, mission statement content was not associated with the percentage of land reported to benefit wildlife. These inconsistencies suggest that benefits to wildlife habitat of protected land are recognized but may not be purposeful and strategic and, thus, potentially less useful in contributing toward regional wildlife conservation goals. We outline the implications of this disconnect, notably the potential omission of wildlife habitat in prioritization schema for land acquisition and potential missed opportunities to build community support for land trusts among wildlife enthusiasts and to develop partnerships with wildlife conservation organizations.


Habitat protection Mission statements Land conservation Organizational survey Content analysis Wildlife 



We would like to express our appreciation for funding support from the Sarah K. deCoizart Foundation and Wings Over Western Waters Initiative (with Intermountain West Joint Venture and Pacific Coast Joint Venture). We also thank our Advisory Team for their support on this project, including Marie McCarty (Kachemak Heritage Land Trust) and Andrew Mackie (Land Trust of the Upper Arkansas) from the Wings Over Western Waters Initiative, Erin Heskett (Land Trust Alliance), Ole Amundsen (The Conservation Fund), and Andrew Zepp (Finger Lakes Land Trust). Additionally, we appreciate the contributions of our colleagues, Ron Rohrbaugh and Sara Barker, to our Land Trust Initiative.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. Amundsen O (2011) Strategic conservation planning. Land Trust Alliance, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Baetz B, Bart CK (1998) The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: an exploratory study. J Manag Stud 36(5):823–853. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00121 Google Scholar
  3. Bart CK, Bontis N, Taggar S (2001) A model of the impact of mission statements on firm performance. Manag Decis 39(1):19–35. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cropper ED, Bastian CT, McLeod DM, Keske CM, Hoag DL (2011) Understanding land trusts and factors impacting their demand for conservation easements: survey results from the Intermountain West understanding land trusts. University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service.
  5. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  6. Hocker J (2008) Mission, planning and capacity. Land Trust Alliance, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoffmann et al (2011) The impact of conservation of the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330:1503–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kabii T, Horwitz P (2006) A review of landholder motivations and determinants for participation in conservation covenanting programmes. Environ Conserv 33(1):11–20. doi: 10.1017/S0376892906002761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kiesecker JM, Comendant T, Grandmason T, Gray E, Hall C, Hilsenbeck R, Kareiva P, Lozier L, Naehu P, Rissman A, Shaw MR, Zankel M (2007) Conservation easements in context: a quantitative analysis of their use by the nature conservancy. Front Ecol Environ 5(3):125–130. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[125:CEICAQ]2.0.CO;2
  10. Kirk G, Nolan SB (2010) Nonprofit mission statement focus and financial performance. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 20(4):473–490. doi: 10.1002/nml CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Land Trust Accreditation Commission (2014) Accreditation requirements manual: a land trust’s guide to understanding key elements of accreditation. Land Trust Accreditation Commission, Saratoga SpringsGoogle Scholar
  12. Land Trust Alliance (2004) Land trust standards and practices. Land Trust Alliance.
  13. Land Trust Alliance (2010) 2010 National land trust census report. Land Trust Alliance, Washington, DC.
  14. Merenlender AM, Huntsinger L, Guthey G, Fairfax SK (2004) Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conserv Biol 18(1):65–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00401.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (2013) The state of the birds 2013 report on private lands. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
  16. Oster SM, Wolfe FD (1995) Strategic management for nonprofit organizations. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Palmer T, Short J (2008) Mission statements in US colleges of business: an empirical examination of their content with linkages to configurations and performance. Acad Manag Learn Educ 7(4):454–470. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.35882187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Patrick PG, Matthews CE, Ayers DF, Tunnicliffe SD (2007) Conservation and education: prominent themes in zoo mission statements. J Environ Educ 38(3):53–60. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.38.3.53-60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pearce J, David F (1987) Corporate mission statements: the bottom line. Acad Manag Perspect 1(2):109–115. doi: 10.5465/AME.1987.4275821 Google Scholar
  20. Rissman AR, Lozier L, Comendant T, Kareiva P, Kiesecker JM, Shaw MR, Merenlender AM (2007) Conservation easements: biodiversity protection and private use. Conserv Biol 21(3):709–718. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00660.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie RG, Wright G, Groves C, Estes J (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecol Appl 11(4):999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stroman D, Kreuter UP (2015) Factors influencing land management practices on conservation easement protected landscapes. Soc Nat Resour 28:1–17. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1024365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swales J, Rogers P (1995) Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: the mission statement. Discourse Soc 6(2):223–242. doi: 10.1177/0957926595006002005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilcove D, Bean M, Bonnie R, McMillan M (1996) Rebuilding the ark: toward a more effective Endangered Species Act for private land. Environ Defense Fund, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashley A. Dayer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • Amanda D. Rodewald
    • 1
    • 3
  • Richard C. Stedman
    • 2
    • 3
  • Emily A. Cosbar
    • 1
    • 3
  • Eric M. Wood
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Cornell Lab of OrnithologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Human Dimensions Research UnitCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Fish and Wildlife ConservationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesCalifornia State University Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations