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