Harvard Forest Data Archive

HF204

Regional Conservation Partnerships in New England 2009-2012

Related Publications

Data

• hf204-01: twenty RCPs (preview)

Overview

• Lead: William Labich
• Investigators: Elisabeth Hamin, Sydne Record
• Contact: Information Manager
• Start date: 2009
• End date: 2012
• Status: completed
• Location: New England
• Latitude: +40.589486 to +45.516667
• Longitude: -74.041811 to -69.864656
• Elevation: 0 to 1250 meter
• Taxa: Homo sapiens (human)
• Release date: 2013
• Revisions:
• EML file: knb-lter-hfr.204.6
• DOI: digital object identifier
• EDI: data package
• DataONE: data package
• Related links:
• Study type: short-term measurement
• Research topic: conservation and management
• LTER core area: disturbance
• Keywords: conservation, humans, land use, management
• Abstract:

  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.

• Methods:

  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.

• Use:

  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.

• Citation:

  Labich W. 2013. Regional Conservation Partnerships in New England 2009-2012. Harvard Forest Data Archive: HF204 (v.6). Environmental Data Initiative: https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/b1c626d0294facafcf1eb9ebcbbec375.

Detailed Metadata

hf204-01: twenty RCPs

1. partnership: partnership code
2. fte: full-time equivalent positions of the host partner organization in 2009 (unit: number / missing value: NA)
3. acres.protected: number of acres protected by RCP (unit: number / missing value: NA)
4. region.size: size of the partnership region in thousands of acres (unit: acre / missing value: NA)
5. total.protected: total number of acres protected in the partnership region (unit: acre / missing value: NA)
6. perc.protected: percentage of region protected from development (unit: dimensionless / missing value: NA)
7. perc.developed: percentage of region in development (unit: dimensionless / missing value: NA)
8. ns.centroid: North to South centroid of region (unit: meter / missing value: NA)
9. we.centroid: West to East centroid of region (unit: meter / missing value: NA)
10. hpt.to.pr: ratio of the host partner territory to the partnership region (unit: dimensionless / missing value: NA)
11. num.lts: number of land trusts who are partners in the region (unit: number / missing value: NA)
12. num.partners: number of partners in the region (unit: number / missing value: NA)
13. num.cons.orgs: number of statewide conservation organization who are partners in the region (unit: number / missing value: NA)
14. num.h2o.orgs: number of watershed association organizations who are partners in the region (unit: number / missing value: NA)
15. num.munic: number of municipalities in the region (unit: number / missing value: NA)
16. coord.indiv: RCP partners coordinate individual actions to raise money
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
17. joint.capital: RCP partners worked on joint capital campaigns to raise money
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
18. town.mem: RCP has towns as members
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
19. town.cons.plan: RCP involved towns in conservation planning
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
20. just.vision: RCP has a shared conservation vision
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
21. vision.map: RCP has a conservation vision and a map
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
22. vision.map.targ: RCP has a conservation vision, a map, and targets
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
23. rcp.age: age of RCP (unit: nominalYear / missing value: NA)
24. acres.protected.yrly: acres protected per year by RCP (unit: acre / missing value: NA)
25. mill.raised: millions of dollars raised by RCP (unit: number / missing value: NA)
26. reg.sched: RCP has in-person, regularly scheduled meetings
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
27. outreach.edu: RCP directs outreach and education to towns
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
28. forest.mgmt: RCP promotes forest management
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
29. fundraise: fundraising is an activity of the RCP
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
30. big.proj: RCP coordinates big land protection projects
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
31. serve.town: RCP provides benefits to towns and landowners
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
32. inside.init: RCP is an initiator from inside the region
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
33. part.self.select: RCP partners are self-selected
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
34. part.picked: RCP partners were picked by the initiator
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
35. hp.state.lt: host partner is a statewide land conservation trust
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
36. hp.int.ngo: host partner is an international non-governmental organization
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
37. hp.found: host partner is a philanthropic foundation
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
38. hp.rlt: host partner is a regional land trust
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
39. hp.rwa: host partner is a regional watershed association
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
40. hp.501c3: host partner is a 501c3 exempt organization
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
41. hp.3llt: host partner is three local land trusts
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
42. one.gov: RCP has only one governance structure
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
43. expert.part: most common value assigned to strong partners is expertise
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
44. local.buyin: most common value assigned to strong partners is the local buy-in that they provide
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
45. vis.work.for: RCP's conservation vision includes working forests
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
46. vis.large.for: RCP's conservation vision includes large forested areas
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
47. vis.connect: RCP's conservation vision includes connectivity
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
48. vis.lots: RCP's conservation vision includes protecting lots of land
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
49. vis.sprawl: RCP's conservation vision includes preventing sprawl
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
50. vis.people: RCP's conservation vision includes ideas that are people-centric
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
51. age.lpstart: age of RCP when land protection started, or age of RCP in 2009 if no land had been protected by then (unit: nominalYear / missing value: NA)
52. tnc: RCP includes The Nature Conservancy as a member and experienced partner
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
53. tpl: RCP includes The Trust for Public Land as a member and experienced partner
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
54. two.gov: RCP has two or more governance structures
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
55. part.staff: most common value assigned to strong partners is access to staffing and funding
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
56. perc.lts: percentage of partners that are land conservation trusts
    • 0: no
    • 1: yes
57. num.states: number of states in the region (unit: number / missing value: NA)