A Practitioner’s Guide to Conservation and Limited Development Projects Page 6 of 7: Minimizing perception risk
A common concern among land trusts is that CLDPs will tarnish their image by creating the perception that they are more interested in revenue or development than in conservation. Critiques of CLDPs in a series of articles published by The Washington Post in 2003 have added to this sentiment. However, my research revealed that the perceptions of CLDPs by stakeholders such as land trust members, local officials, and abutters were generally positive. The following information may help CLDP proponents minimize the risk of negative perception. First, it is important to recognize that, for many people, the symbolic meaning of a project is often more important than its actual outcome. The act of a land trust proposing a development, advocating for a development, or even selling off land of little conservation value to a developer may create an incongruous image that is difficult for the public to reconcile with the organization’s supposed conservation mission. Contributing to this confusion is the fact that journalists, politicians, and others who influence public opinion often fail to understand the nuances of the CLDP concept or have difficulty explaining it. One Massachusetts CLDP, for example, garnered the following oxymoronic headline in the local newspaper: “Conservation organization saves land by developing it.”		A Practitioner’s Guide to CLDPs Page 1: Deciding when to do a CLDP Page 2: Selecting the right CLDP structure Page 3: Forming a project team Page 4: Designing the development program and site layout Page 5: Minimizing financial risk „ Page 6: Minimizing perception risk Page 7: Planning for land stewardship
Many land trusts have effectively addressed misunderstanding or skepticism of CLDPs through public education and outreach or by building a local reputation through a track record of conservation success such that there is little reason to question the group’s motives when they propose a CLDP. Others have reduced the perception risk associated with CLDPs by partnering with developers or landowners, thereby limiting their involvement in the more controversial aspects of the project. When community members and abutting landowners have a negative perception of CLDPs, this response is often a consequence of differing definitions of “conservation” on the part of community residents as compared to conservationists. For many residents, conservation is mainly aesthetic: it means keeping trees along a favorite road or preventing development from marring a scenic viewshed. In contrast, those interested in ecological conservation might prefer to place new development in already-degraded areas that are more visible, such as near roads or in old pastures. This tension between ecological and aesthetic conservation is a common issue in CLDPs, and one that conservationists must appreciate if they wish to avoid alienating local stakeholders.
Single-family houses in the Greenways CLDP in Wayland, Massachusetts.	A final note of interest is that the CLDPs I studied more commonly attracted criticism from non-participating environmental groups than from community members, local officials, or land trust members. The issue seems to be that some environmental groups espouse a “pure” conservation agenda and fear that when other conservation groups facilitate development activities through CLDPs they compete with and undermine the work of these “purist” organizations. In actuality, much of this internal criticism reflects a lack of understanding of the conservation benefits that the CLDPs provided. This situation suggests that the conservation movement could benefit if all organizations adopted a tolerant attitude toward considering different conservation approaches as well as a commitment to judging projects on their conservation merits, as measured using objective standards. Otherwise, conservationists operating in different arenas of the environmental movement risk undermining each other’s efforts.
Where to now? Guide for Practitioners, Page 7 of 7 Back to Main CLDP Page
Copyright © 2005, All Rights Reserved.