All Conservation is Local
An Interview with Buzz Constable and Brian Donahue
Editor’s Note: Having relied for years on the sage oral advice from Buzz (William) Constable in his role as a member of the steering committee of Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands and Communities, I am delighted to see his thoughts conveyed on paper through the following discussion with Marissa Latshaw and Brian Donahue. As indicated by his extensive experience, no individual better epitomizes the integration of land conservation and land use planning. Through his career as a real estate lawyer; his civic contributions in land conservation on townwide, statewide, and national organizations; and his leadership role in Boston-area and statewide planning commissions, Buzz has helped to advance a legacy of well-reasoned actions that bring ongoing benefit to both nature and society. – David Foster
Marissa Latshaw (ML): I once heard you say that all land conservation is local. What do you mean by that?
Buzz Constable (BC): It is a play on what iconic Congressman Tip O’Neill said: “All politics is local.” The same holds true for conservation. Decisions about land use are shaped by local relationships, local values, and local conditions. Whether or not land gets protected often depends on who lives nearby, who hears about a potential sale, and who’s willing to act. Conservation is always opportunistic. Of course, successful land protection often relies on state or federal funding, but many projects begin more on local initiative and less on government analysis.
It’s not necessarily the local government—it’s the people. Neighbors are the first to know about land availability and the inclinations of the landowner. They understand the character and value of that land better than anyone else. And they’re the ones who can best begin conversations with the landowner and rally others to support a project.
ML: Why do you say that conservation is always opportunistic?
BC: Conservation tends to happen when a landowner is ready to act. You can’t force it, like you can with a road or a school. We don’t condemn land for open space. It’s entirely dependent on the landowner’s willingness to sell or protect—that’s what makes it opportunistic.
Brian Donahue (BD): Other land uses—like housing or infrastructure—have strong economic drivers or legal mandates. Conservation doesn’t. It’s not competitive in the same way.
BC: Right. If you’re a developer, you can offer enough money to make a project happen. If you’re trying to conserve land, you rely on a patchwork of funding sources and a landowner’s sense of mission. That makes the whole process less predictable. The contrast with governmental power to take land by eminent domain, developers’ financial power, and the conservationists’ patient persuasion makes symbiotic land use changes more challenging. One exception is when regulators must apply judgment instead of pre-determined empirical requirements as conditions for approvals. Unfortunately, the proffered conservation mitigation rarely protects the open space benefits most important to the community.
ML: And yet we’re dealing with urgent issues like housing shortages and climate change. Why should land conservation be part of that conversation?
BC: Because land use planning is about choices—what to build and what to save. The two go hand in hand. If we plan well, we can identify the areas that are most suitable for development and the areas that are most valuable to conserve—ecologically, socially, even economically—in terms of long-term resilience.
But current zoning laws don’t support that. Since its origins in the 1920s, zoning has focused on separation of uses and empirical dimensional requirements that often eliminate the possibility of good conservation-development integration. The result? We end up with sprawl or missed opportunities for density and green space.
BD: And we’re still stuck in this dynamic where suburban Americans dislike sprawl—but they dislike density even more. It creates a kind of paralysis in planning.
ML: What needs to happen to move beyond that paralysis?
BC: A few things. First, we need stronger partnerships—between municipalities and land trusts, as well as between local advocates and state policymakers. Second, we need better planning tools. Open space residential developments, or OSRDs, can protect conservation land within a single development plan, but developers tend to bristle at the variable judgments made by the regulatory boards applying OSRDs. Transferable development rights, or TDRs, for example, could allow landowners to sell to someone else the development rights to their land in a more appropriate location for housing or commercial activity—but they’re barely used in Massachusetts.
We also need to get better at identifying where development is most needed and makes sense—near infrastructure, schools, or jobs—and where conservation provides the most benefit. Right now, we have great conservation data, but lack data to best locate housing. We’re flying blind on that half of the equation.
Land conservationists played a crucial role in this affordable housing project in Lincoln, Massachusetts. They ensured the protection of the adjacent woods and fields, creating equity for the project by providing the land at a nominal cost. In the background, the sewage treatment plant is visible—while just out of frame is a nearby train station, as well as the post office and retail center that helped finance the entire land acquisition project. Photo courtesy of Lincoln Land Conservation Trust
ML: What role do municipalities play?
BC: Cities and towns play a huge role. Towns hold the regulatory keys in their zoning boards, conservation commissions, and planning boards. They can guide development and protection, but they’re often fragmented. Recreation committees focus on soccer fields. Climate committees think about solar panels, not ecosystems. It’s all siloed. However, the number of regulatory hurdles also provides more opportunity for community members to comment. Often, such commentary amounts to “not in my back yard” (NIMBY), but it can also be productive, suggesting where to locate conservation and where to build. While the delay that community action may bring is frequently blamed for thwarting housing construction, it can also be the catalyst for compromise and improvements in the final plans.
ML: What are the biggest barriers for towns trying to prioritize conservation?
BC: There are several. First, towns are made up of individuals—and those individuals have different priorities. Sometimes land conservation depends more on the inclination of the landowner than the land’s conservation values. Second, municipalities are dealing with limited resources and many other responsibilities—schools, roads, water. Conservation often doesn’t compete well with other municipal priorities.
BD: And there’s an adage that conserved land takes property off the tax rolls. That may be true in some cases, but research shows that tax rates are not necessarily higher in similar towns with more conservation land.
BC: Right. In many places, houses near conservation land increase in value without any increase in municipal costs.
ML: You both mentioned wetlands protection earlier. How does that fit in?
BD: In Massachusetts, wetlands regulation is often handled locally, by conservation commissions. And those same commissions are often involved in land protection. That overlap can be powerful, but also problematic.
BC: It gives towns leverage. They can use both regulatory and financial tools to shape outcomes. But it can also lead to decisions by regulators that make development less predictable. Clear rules for development density and design can encourage good development, and also help protect land of conservation interest.
ML: How can we influence landowners who aren’t already thinking about conservation?
BC: First, the landowner needs to understand the many conservation values of their land and the importance of protection. Then, social and cultural influences among neighbors are effective tools to help landowners understand how conservation might best work for them. Often combined with the expertise of land trusts and others, these discussions may illustrate how to best meet the owner’s needs. Seeing others conserve land can certainly plant a seed for landowner action.
Beyond that, communities can influence conservation through regulation—wetlands protection, zoning—and through financial tools like Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding. But the spark often comes from personal relationships.
“Decisions about land use are shaped by local relationships, local values, and local conditions.”
ML: What can towns and cities do to focus needed housing where it can be best accommodated while conserving land for its many societal and ecological benefits?
BC: Towns know their land and their landowners, but think how much better they could do if the lands were mapped for their conservation values and also for the characteristics most suitable for land development, such as access to transportation and utilities; water and septic infrastructure; and distance to public amenities including libraries, schools, and recreation facilities.
Land conservation and housing development share the need for land. Building more housing on less land has obvious cultural, infrastructure, public service, and cost advantages. If towns would evaluate how to increase residential density by facilitating development where it may best be sited, there would be an opportunity to protect the land where conservation values are highest—and to protect more land in the long run.
It is encouraging to see that more conservationists, developers, municipal leaders, and citizens increasingly recognize the value of working together as a community to achieve integrated housing, infrastructure, recreation, and conservation objectives.
For more on the intersection of housing and land conservation, see “Conserving Land, Creating Homes” by Gus Seelig of Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.
Buzz Constable
Buzz Constable has evolved from a commercial real estate attorney and investment executive to focus on land, land conservation, and environmental implications of land use. He remains involved in leadership roles with the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust, the Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. He has been an active member of organizations including the Land Trust Alliance, Boston Bar Association, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, and the Boston & South Shore Chambers of Commerce, and has served on numerous local, state, and national civic boards and commissions. He spends time participating in civic life in Lincoln, Massachusetts, and recreating in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. His educational affiliations include Williams College, Yale University, and Boston University; he was also a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University.
Brian Donahue is Professor Emeritus of American Environmental Studies at Brandeis University, and a farm and forest policy consultant. He co-founded and for 12 years directed Land’s Sake, a nonprofit community farm in Weston, Massachusetts, and now co-owns and manages a farm in western Massachusetts. He sits on the boards of the Massachusetts Woodland Institute, the Friends of Spannocchia, and Franklin Land Trust. Brian is author of Reclaiming the Commons: Community Farms and Forests in a New England Town (1999); The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord (2004); and Slow Wood: Greener Building from Local Forests (2024). He is co-author of Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities (2017) and A New England Food Vision (2014).
Marissa Latshaw works with mission-driven organizations to build empathetic and inclusive communication strategies that inspire action. She is the publisher of From the Ground Up and Co-Coordinator of the Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities initiative, working with partners throughout New England to help bring a more holistic, integrated approach to land conservation. Marissa resides in Connecticut where she’s always up for a walk in the conservation area adjacent to her home.