Collaborative Conservation in the Great Plains: Opportunities and Barriers for Cross-Property Private-lands Management

Collaborative Conservation in the Great Plains: Opportunities and Barriers for Cross-Property Private-lands Management

Summary

Birds in the Northern Great Plains require a variety of habitats, from bare ground to denser grass to shrubby. All of these habitats are required to ensure grassland biodiversity is achieved. (Photographs by M. Sliwinski)

In 2016 we completed the qualitative data analysis, which resulted in seven themes: maintain control by reducing risk, wildlife are not our focus, the miracle of animal impact, managing to the middle, perceptions of the good rancher, trust insider, mistrust outsiders, and love of grasslands. We received 595 usable surveys after distributing the survey to 2873 landowners in Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. The analysis of those data indicated that attitudes about fire and prairie dogs were important predictors of a producer’s intent to use management that promotes vegetation heterogeneity or crosses property boundaries.

Objectives/Performance Targets

During 2016, the second objective of this study was met through the quantitative survey process. The focus of the survey was on ranchers’ attitudes about vegetation heterogeneity, which is crucial for biodiversity in the Great Plains because different wildlife species require different types of habitat. For example, common nighthawks (Chordeiles minor) and mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus) nest on bare ground, whereas field sparrows (Spizella pusilla) and loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) require shrubby habitat (Figure 1). Additionally, we were interested in understanding ranchers’ attitudes about management across property boundaries, because ecosystem processes in the Great Plains, like fire, occur over large landscapes.

The survey was mailed to ranchers in February 2016 after completing scale development and pilot testing. The variables that were assessed in the survey included attitudes about vegetation heterogeneity, landscape management, agreement with norms, perceived control over ranch management, land use values, innovativeness, risk aversion, individualism, collectivism, and the intent to engage in behaviors that promote vegetation heterogeneity and landscape management. We also requested demographic information such as age, education, and amount of rangeland managed. We received 595 usable surveys in February-April 2016. Data entry was completed by a lab assistant over the summer of 2016. Data analysis was completed in the fall of 2016, in consultation with the Nebraska Evaluation and Research Center. We used structural equation modeling to analyze the data, because there is inherent error when measuring attitudinal variables.

Accomplishments/Milestones

Accomplishments/Milestones

1. Complete: Interviews were completed in September 2015, and transcriptions were completed soon thereafter.
2. Complete: Thematic analysis of interview data was completed in summer 2016.
3. Complete: Survey development (designing a new scale for assessing attitudes about habitat heterogeneity and landscape management).
4. Complete: Implementation of survey in the Northern Great Plains.
5. Complete: Survey data analysis.
6. Complete: Dissertation defended in February 2017.
7. In process: The qualitative portion of this study was submitted to the journal Ecology and Society for review. The quantitative portion of this study is being prepared for submission to the journal Society and Natural Resources.
8. In process: We are currently designing the report that will be sent to survey participants to inform them of the results and thank them for participating.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

This research highlighted that ranchers did not consider managing for heterogeneity as reasonable, because optimizing harvest efficiency of available vegetation and livestock production were their primary objectives. There is no reason for producers to consider using tools that create vegetation heterogeneity when heterogeneity is not appreciated. However, many of the ranchers said they appreciated wildlife. The ranchers also suggested that “seeing is believing”, meaning that if ecologists and conservationists can show producers, rather than just tell them, that new management strategies are beneficial for both wildlife and livestock, they might be more willing to use those strategies. Ranchers often felt that ecologists and conservationists acted and spoke as though conservationists knew best and ranchers were not doing a good job. It is clear that there is not enough effort on the part of the conservationists to understand the intricacies and difficulties of raising livestock. Ranchers need to make a living, thus beef production comes before wildlife management. The ranchers we spoke with suggested that monetary incentives can be strongly motivational, but that if the incentives don’t align with their pre-existing goals they are unlikely to be used. Alternatively, ranchers might manage for wildlife if ecologists can show that the new strategies are beneficial or neutral to livestock production.

The survey results indicated that attitudes about landscape management were generally positive, and that the participants understood that their management affected the larger landscape and future uses of the land. However, attitudes about fire and prairie dogs, two important ecosystem drivers in the Great Plains, were negative. Additionally, attitudes about fire and prairie dogs were important predictors of whether a participant was willing to engage in behaviors that promoted vegetation heterogeneity and landscape-scale management. Thus, fostering positive attitudes about fire and prairie dogs might be key to increasing vegetation heterogeneity and landscape-scale management in the Great Plains. We recommend that trusted advisors, such as University Extension staff, will have an important role to play in changing attitudes about fire and prairie dogs.

Collaborators: