uid=HFR,o=lter,dc=ecoinformatics,dc=org all public read doi:10.6073/pasta/68049679ebcebeae4abf53ce2d904be7 William Labich Elisabeth Hamin Researcher Sydne Record https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7293-2155 Researcher 2023 English

Across New England, a new model of regional collaboration is increasingly being used by land conservation trusts, watershed associations, state agencies and others. Regional conservation partnerships (RCPs) serve multiple purposes, such as coordinating among the various active groups in the region and allowing them to leverage funding and staff capacity. However, their essential missions are the same--protect more land from development. We use interviews, geographic information systems (GIS), and statistical analysis on 20 case studies to document RCP growth and characteristics and to analyze which attributes most contribute to their ability to conserve land. Along with well-known factors of organizational development, we find that the RCPs that match the size of the partnership region with the territory and capacity of the host partner organization are better able to achieve measurable conservation gains.

conservation humans land use management LTER controlled vocabulary disturbance human-environment LTER core area Harvard Forest HFR LTER USA HFR default

This dataset is released to the public under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (No Rights Reserved). Please keep the dataset creators informed of any plans to use the dataset. Consultation with the original investigators is strongly encouraged. Publications and data products that make use of the dataset should include proper acknowledgement.

Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html CC0-1.0 https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/exist/apps/datasets/showData.html?id=hf204 New England. Coordinates based on WGS84 datum. -74.041811 -69.864656 +45.516667 +40.589486 0 1250 meter 2009 2012 genus Homo species sapiens human complete Information Manager Harvard Forest

324 North Main Street Petersham MA 01366 USA

(978) 724-3302 hf-im@lists.fas.harvard.edu Harvard Forest

324 North Main Street Petersham MA 01366 USA

(978) 724-3302 (978) 724-3595 https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu

In 2009, we used the snowball sampling technique to identify 20 regional conservation partnerships in New England. Conservation professionals were asked whether they knew of one or more ongoing and informal, multi-stakeholder collaboration(s) organized to advance conservation efforts in a particular region. We interviewed the coordinator or other leader for each of these. Interviews took place between October 2009 and April 2010 and lasted between 60 and 120 minutes each. Seventy-four questions focused on partnership history, activities, partners/partnership, conservation vision/planning, funding, communication, and needs. We categorized all of the interview responses using the constant comparative technique and generated data for 45 variables. These data were then drawn from in order to describe the RCPs' key characteristics in the areas of partnership initiation, establishment and growth, organization and design, membership, host partner capacity, partnerships' regions and conservation activities. Interview responses were cross-referenced when possible. For instance, we checked publicly accessible sources such as annual reports and websites to assure that the values reported in interviews for number of acres protected were accounted for. To more fully document the growth and characteristics of RCPs and their regions, we collected additional data on eleven variables including: number of the host partner's full-time equivalent positions, size of the partnership region, size of the "host" partner territory, and percentage of the partnership region protected from development. The organization providing critical financial support to the RCP, which might include employing the current coordinator, is considered the "host" partner in our study. Staffing figures were acquired from phone calls to the host partner organization. The extent of the partnership's region was derived from maps submitted to the researchers by the partnership coordinators, or leaders. The host partner's territory was determined by its geography, found on the organization's website (e.g. the towns of a, b, and c). The percentage of a partnership's region that was protected from development was found using GIS and publicly available datasets.

Harvard Forest

324 North Main Street Petersham MA 01366 USA

(978) 724-3302 (978) 724-3595 https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu https://ror.org/059cpzx98 pointOfContact The Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program examines ecological dynamics in the New England region resulting from natural disturbances, environmental change, and human impacts. National Science Foundation LTER grants: DEB-8811764, DEB-9411975, DEB-0080592, DEB-0620443, DEB-1237491, DEB-1832210. hf204-01-RCPs.csv twenty RCPs hf204-01-RCPs.csv 3651 70e3420047c87edda124dc942db7623e 1 \r\n column , https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/data/p20/hf204/hf204-01-RCPs.csv partnership partnership code partnership code fte full-time equivalent positions of the host partner organization in 2009 number 0.01 real NA missing value acres.protected number of acres protected by RCP number 1 whole NA missing value region.size size of the partnership region in thousands of acres acre 1 natural NA missing value total.protected total number of acres protected in the partnership region acre 1 natural NA missing value perc.protected percentage of region protected from development dimensionless 1 natural NA missing value perc.developed percentage of region in development dimensionless 0.1 real NA missing value ns.centroid North to South centroid of region meter 1 natural NA missing value we.centroid West to East centroid of region meter 1 natural NA missing value hpt.to.pr ratio of the host partner territory to the partnership region dimensionless 0.01 real NA missing value num.lts number of land trusts who are partners in the region number 1 whole NA missing value num.partners number of partners in the region number 1 whole NA missing value num.cons.orgs number of statewide conservation organization who are partners in the region number 1 whole NA missing value num.h2o.orgs number of watershed association organizations who are partners in the region number 1 whole NA missing value num.munic number of municipalities in the region number 1 whole NA missing value coord.indiv RCP partners coordinate individual actions to raise money 0 no 1 yes joint.capital RCP partners worked on joint capital campaigns to raise money 0 no 1 yes town.mem RCP has towns as members 0 no 1 yes town.cons.plan RCP involved towns in conservation planning 0 no 1 yes just.vision RCP has a shared conservation vision 0 no 1 yes vision.map RCP has a conservation vision and a map 0 no 1 yes vision.map.targ RCP has a conservation vision, a map, and targets 0 no 1 yes rcp.age age of RCP nominalYear 1 natural NA missing value acres.protected.yrly acres protected per year by RCP acre 0.01 real NA missing value mill.raised millions of dollars raised by RCP number 0.0001 real NA missing value reg.sched RCP has in-person, regularly scheduled meetings 0 no 1 yes outreach.edu RCP directs outreach and education to towns 0 no 1 yes forest.mgmt RCP promotes forest management 0 no 1 yes fundraise fundraising is an activity of the RCP 0 no 1 yes big.proj RCP coordinates big land protection projects 0 no 1 yes serve.town RCP provides benefits to towns and landowners 0 no 1 yes inside.init RCP is an initiator from inside the region 0 no 1 yes part.self.select RCP partners are self-selected 0 no 1 yes part.picked RCP partners were picked by the initiator 0 no 1 yes hp.state.lt host partner is a statewide land conservation trust 0 no 1 yes hp.int.ngo host partner is an international non-governmental organization 0 no 1 yes hp.found host partner is a philanthropic foundation 0 no 1 yes hp.rlt host partner is a regional land trust 0 no 1 yes hp.rwa host partner is a regional watershed association 0 no 1 yes hp.501c3 host partner is a 501c3 exempt organization 0 no 1 yes hp.3llt host partner is three local land trusts 0 no 1 yes one.gov RCP has only one governance structure 0 no 1 yes expert.part most common value assigned to strong partners is expertise 0 no 1 yes local.buyin most common value assigned to strong partners is the local buy-in that they provide 0 no 1 yes vis.work.for RCP's conservation vision includes working forests 0 no 1 yes vis.large.for RCP's conservation vision includes large forested areas 0 no 1 yes vis.connect RCP's conservation vision includes connectivity 0 no 1 yes vis.lots RCP's conservation vision includes protecting lots of land 0 no 1 yes vis.sprawl RCP's conservation vision includes preventing sprawl 0 no 1 yes vis.people RCP's conservation vision includes ideas that are people-centric 0 no 1 yes age.lpstart age of RCP when land protection started, or age of RCP in 2009 if no land had been protected by then nominalYear 1 natural NA missing value tnc RCP includes The Nature Conservancy as a member and experienced partner 0 no 1 yes tpl RCP includes The Trust for Public Land as a member and experienced partner 0 no 1 yes two.gov RCP has two or more governance structures 0 no 1 yes part.staff most common value assigned to strong partners is access to staffing and funding 0 no 1 yes perc.lts percentage of partners that are land conservation trusts 0 no 1 yes num.states number of states in the region number 1 natural NA missing value 20 conservation short-term measurement