in the eye of the beholder
Post on 04-Dec-2014
52 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
In the eye of the beholder . . .Variance of preference for grassland traits
between Great Plains ranchers and the general population.
Terrie A. Becerra, Sociology, Anthropology, & Social Work, Kansas State University
David M. Engle, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University
R. Dwayne Elmore, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University
Samuel D. Fuhlendorf, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University
Research was funded by USDA–AFRI Managed Ecosystems #2010-85101-20457
and by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station.
2 Overview
Literature—Culture, Landscape preference & Landscape change.
Methods—Study area Hypotheses & Research Questions Analysis & Results Implications
3 Literature Management for uniformity (Fuhlendorf et al. 2009; Toombs
and Roberts 2009).
Landscape perception and preference have long been drivers of landscape pattern and function (Gobster et al. 2007; Mitchell and Duncan 2009).
Cultural factors (Gonzalez-Bernaldez and Parra 1979; Dearden 1984; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010)
Environmental values
Landowners do not readily respond to biodiversity loss (Pannell et al. 2006).
Cultural norms and social acceptability are expressions of landscape preference.
4 Guiding Question
Do ranchers prefer homogeneous grassland landscapes and low preference for species diversity?
And does their preference differ from that of the general population?
5 Methods & Analysis Study Area
NE, KS, OK, & TX Panhandle
Study population: Ranchers whose
primary source of income is grazing
General population Instrument: Postal
Survey Adjusted Response Rate
Ranchers 28% General Population
22%
6 Demographics
Gender % Male % Female
Ranchers n=264 86% 14%Gen’l Pop’n
n=1036 64% 35%
Age% Younger
than 50% Older than 50
Ranchers n=261 14% 86%Gen’l Pop’n
n=823 28% 72%
7 Demographics
Length of Residency
Less than 9
yrs 10+ yrsAll
My Life
Ranchers % n=262 13% 50% 37 %Gen’l Pop’n %
n=1032 91% 6% 3%
Education Completed
Less than High
School
High Schoo
l2 years post HS
4-yr coll
degree
Advanced
degreeRanchers %
n=261 2% 25% 14% 38% 21%Genl Popn %
n=1024 3% 31% 24% 24% 17%
8 Hypotheses Species diversity (H1) and Heterogeneity (H3) are
most desirable to the General Population and least desirable to ranchers.
H2: Homogeneity is most desirable to Ranchers and least desirable to the General Population.
9 Research Questions
1. How desirable is it that species diversity is present in grasslands? (wildflowers/native plants, butterflies, game birds, songbirds, other wildlife)
2. How important is it that grasslands have . . . a. homogeneity characteristics?
all you see is grass the grass is the same height uniform
b. heterogeneity characteristics there is a variety of grasses and other grassland plants the grasses and other grassland plants vary in heights;
plants are not uniform
Scale 1 to 5 (not important, somewhat important, moderately important, very important, extremely important).
10
Overall preference for species diversity & structure
Forbs Bflies GBirds Sbirds Wldlife All_grass Even_ Ht Divrs_Plnt Var_Ht0
1
2
3
4
5
Pre
fere
nce S
cale
01
23
4
5
Forbs Butterflies Game Song Wildlife All Grass Even Diverse Variable birds birds Height Plants Height
General Population
Ranchers
Species Diversityvariables
Homogeneityvariables
Heterogeneity variables
11
Principal Component Analysis PCA reduced 11 diversity and structure variables to 3
components. Component 1 is comprised of species diversity variables
Component 2 is comprised of two homogeneity variables
Component 3 is comprised of two heterogeneity variables
Diverse Plants
Variable Height
0.23 0.160.03 0.020.98 1.00
Forbs
Butterflies Game birds
Song birds
Wildlife
Eigenvalue 4.26 1.54 1.16 0.57 0.45Proportion 0.47 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.05Cumulative 0.47 0.64 0.77 0.84 0.89
All grass Even Height
0.32 0.310.04 0.030.92 0.96
EigenvalueProportionCumulative
EigenvalueProportionCumulative
12 Principal Component Analysis
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
forbs
butterflies
Gamebirds
Song Birds
Wildlife
All Grass
Even Height
Diversity of plants
Variable HeightSong BirdsWildlife
Butterflies
All GrassEven Height
Variable Height
Forbs
Game birds
DoP
PCA Axis 1
PC
A A
xis
2
Heterogeneity variables
Homogeneity variables
Species diversity variables
Additive Preference by State13
1_NE 2_KS 3_OK 4_TX0
5
10
15
20
25
Desi
rabilit
y
1_NE 2_KS 3_OK 4_TX0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Import
ance
Sca
le1_NE 2_KS 3_OK 4_TX
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Import
ance
Sca
le
Heterogeneity VariablesHomogeneity VariablesSpecies Diversity Variables
RanchersGeneral Population
14 Explanatory Variables
Length of Residency Longer residency increases preference for diversity and
heterogeneity (P< 0.0004 – 0.05)
Economic-Environmental Scale General population more environmental priority;
Ranchers more economic priority Environmental side of EE scale = greater preference for
species diversity & heterogeneity Economic side of EE scale = greater preference for
homogeneity
15 Environmental-Economic Priority General population placed
more priority on the environment (P<0.0001)
Scores for the general population differ among the states (P=0.03)
Majority of both populations give equal priority to environmental and economic considerations.
Econ-Env priority ranks are opposite among the two populations Economic priority Equal priority Env priority
RanchersGeneral Population
Implications
Rancher-general population preference differences may need to be reconciled to affect management behavior change on the part of ranchers
Perceptions are influenced more by organisms, surprisingly plants about equally to animals, than by habitat structure.
An intervention strategy among both populations would be to educate to understand and appreciate the value of habitat structure.
16
top related