The United States is projected
to be a minority-majority population by the year 2042, meaning that there will
be as many minorities as non-hispanic whites. This, along with changes in socio-economic
demographics and increased urbanization create a dynamic and ever-changing
nation. What will these changes mean for the future of the land trust movement that
traditionally has been lead by and served white, fairly well off, educated,
middle-aged, land owning populations?
It is important to note that
segregation in the land trust movement has been more a function of form and
default practices rather than a systematic elitist approach to improving
quality of life for the privileged. Maybe it was easy and even acceptable to
work in and with a small slice of the population in the past, but today it is
counter-productive and irresponsible for the land trust movement not to involve
and serve a wider audience.
Considering demographic shifts
and the changing priorities of land trusts, eventually moving towards decreased
acquisition responsibilities and increased stewardship responsibilities, how
will trusts remain effective and meaningful? Who will fill the shoes of today’s
conservationists and stewards? Who will care for the ever-growing acreage
protected in perpetuity? If we do not evolve our methods today, can we rely on
individuals who have been left out of the conversation to take up the cause or
even care?
One strategy to diversifying
the movement is to get involved in built
green space. Built green space is the combination of land conservation,
urban open-space, and roof-top gardens. The concept is that land trusts become
involved in the multi-faceted work of conserving “built land” or “created land”,
bringing land conservation into the urban environment in a new way to serve and
engage a more diverse population.
Built green space is
essentially green roofs, land that is anthropogenically constructed on a
structure or building including gardens, parks, sports fields, and outdoor
meeting areas. The “land” could be treated similar to real land in that: its
protection could initiate tax breaks; it could be subject to conservation
easements; it would benefit biodiversity and help create wildlife corridors; it
would lessen the heat island effect and increase permeable surface area in
urban settings; it would improve the quality of life for local communities by
increasing access to green space, urban garden space, and outdoor recreation
opportunities; and it would increase exposure to, and benefits of, land
conservation to a more diverse population.
Critics may be quick to point
out what they consider insurmountable challenges to a built green space
initiative. They might site issues like the legal limitations of our current
system to conserve and place an easement on built green space; that it is not
true land, and therefore should not concern land trusts; the new set of management
and stewardship strategies needed would be cumbersome; etcetera. It is true
that new initiatives often come with new challenges and issues to be addressed,
but there is so much more to gain than loose from the inclusion of built green
space in the land trust movement and our portfolios.
As a system designed and
expected to last in perpetuity, the land trust movement must evolve to remain
financially and functionally strong, relevant, and meaningful. Built green
space embodies many of the values that trusts generally uphold and work for:
preservation of green space for the benefit of humans, wildlife; improving ecological
functions such as water flow and climate systems; connecting people to the land
and creating opportunities for environmental education; and encouraging
sustainable and healthy agriculture. With a dynamic future in mind, let’s take
the initiative to serve, benefit, and connect to a wider slice of society,
benefiting citizens of all kinds, trusts, and the environment.