how much nature?

When it comes to natural areas, more can be better. But since conserved properties are often taken off the property tax rolls, sometimes there can be resistance to designating another property to conservation status. When one property comes off the tax rolls, others have to make up that difference. But the conservancy groups respond with a.) the conserved property does not require the services local property taxes pay for and b). the conserved properties increase economic activity, for example through increased tourism. The conservancy might not mention the increased property values due to the contribution to the area’s desirability for newcomers. That might sound too much like gentrification, but the area might indeed find itself better able to attract professional workers if there are those kinds of assets that young professionals seek in a place to live. That makes property taxes go up on newly purchased properties. I’d be interested to see how the data supports the claims and counter-claims. It’s probably out there, I just have not searched for it. Any of you readers have insight on that?