Progress 03/01/18 to 09/01/20
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences are the landowner community in the study region and the community of conservation professionals that work with landowners or study issues relevant to private lands. During the project, I have been in communication with members of these communities and about the status of this reserch and its findings. I will continue to communicate reserach findings and disseminate reserach products to these audiences. Changes/Problems:The project was significantly impacted by COVID-19 in 2020 due to limitations on travel for research, cancellation of meetings and conferences to share results, and impacts staffing on the project. These impacts have delayed final publication of results and dissemination to target audiences but these final steps will be taken in 2021 to conclude the project as impacts from COVID-19 subside. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project provided the opportunity for the project director to participate in 2 professional development opportunities. The first was a week-long workshop entitled the "Conservation Finance Bootcamp" that provided training on innovative conservation approaches to make conservation viable for landowners from a financial standpoint. This workshop also provided significant networking opportunities. The second professional development opportunity was a week-long faculty development workshop for new or future faculty in the discipline of geography provided through the Geography Faculty Development Alliance and affiliated with the American Association of Geographers. The workshop provided in-depth training on pedagogy, classroom strategies, grant writing, and general tips and information on succeeding as a university faculty member. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have not yet been disseminated widely to communities of interest, in part due to delays and complications from COVID-19 that have prevented travel to meetings and conferences where results could be shared. However, plans are in place to present results at scientific conferences, state conservation district meetings, and state livestock associations in 2021. Additionally, the project director has been in communication with the SageWest Network to share results through their listserv and a webinar to share results with conservation practitioners, agency personnel, and landowners that are key stakeholders in the study region and the most able to take actionable steps based on the study's findings. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1: I completed survived and analyzed data from 517 landowners in study areas in Colorado, Oregon, and Wyoming. To test for potential response bias in those responding to the full survey, I completed a short survey of 105 landowners and I did not detect non-response bias. I also interviewed 18 conservation practitioners working in the private land conservation field to understand their insights and ground truth survey findings. Survey results show that 40% of landowners have participated in voluntary conservation programs. Participation rates varied significantly between agricultural landowners (i.e., those that self-identify as farmers or ranchers) versus non-agricultural landowners with 55% of agricultural landowners currently or previously participating in a voluntary conservation program while only 13% of non-agricultural landowners currently or previously participated. Participants in conservation programs generally reported positive experiences with programs with a majority of participants reporting that they would chose to participate again if they had to make the choice over. Similarly, a majority of participants in all the programs agreed that they their land was in better condition because of their participation and a majority in 6 of the 10 programs considered said they were in a better financial position due to their participation. These results suggest that conservation programs are successfully reaching agricultural landowners in the study area with relatively high rates of participation in conservation among this group. Notably, non-agricultural landowners had much lower levels of participation. Although agricultural landowners represented a majority of respondents and accounted for roughly two thirds of the acreage managed, non-agricultural landowners are still a significant and likely growing group in the study landscapes representing roughly one third of the respondents and acreage managed among survey respondents. Given the growing importance of amenity landowners, such as landowners that acquire property for lifestyle purposes like retirement and hunting and fishing, in the American West there is a need to better understand how to engage with this group and encourage participation in voluntary conservation programs to support conservation at the landscape level. One of the key outcomes related to this objective is the change in knowledge about the reach of conservation among agricultural landowners in the study areas, which are areas of high wildlife value especially for sage dependent species like the Greater sage-grouse. The other key outcome is the change in knowledge about comparably low participation and information exchange among non-agricultural landowners in the study area. This suggests that current outreach and extension efforts are not adequate for reaching this group, which could undermine the overall success of wildlife conservation efforts at the landscape level. This change in knowledge can play an important role in raising awareness about the limitations of current conservation approaches and raise awareness about the need to develop new strategies to engage non-agricultural landowners in these landscapes. Objective 2: This objective used the same datasets as those collected in Objective 1. The landowner survey asked landowners about their use of information and the credibility of the information provided by nineteen agencies, organizations, or groups. Family and friends followed by other landowners were considered to be the most commonly used sources of information and perceived to be among the most creditable. Among agencies and organizations, landowners reported using information from local conservation districts and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) most commonly and these sources were also perceived as highly credible. Landowners were substantially less familiar with information and its credibility from non-governmental conservation organizations with a majority or plurality of respondents reporting that they were not familiar with these groups. Notably, non-agricultural landowners were significantly less familiar with all sources of information than agricultural landowners. A key outcome of this objective is a change in knowledge about the information and social networks related to private lands conservation in the study region. There are a large number of agencies and organizations in the information network but information exchange and credibility is dominated by family and peers and the NRCS and local conservation districts. These findings reflect the importance of informal and local network connections and the top down agency role that NRCS plays as the primary federal agency involved with private lands conservation. A second key outcome is a change in knowledge regarding the significantly smaller knowledge networks of non-agricultural landowners in the study area as they relate to conservation issues. This new knowledge suggests new strategies or network actors are needed to connect non-agricultural landowners in the network. Objective 3: This objective used the same datasets as those collected in Objective 1. The survey results show that social networks and the connectedness of landowners to each other and conservation agencies and organizations is significantly correlated with participation in conservation programs. For example, among landowners participating in at least one conservation program, 75% reported that they regularly use information provided by the NRCS and 78% perceive that information to be credible. Among landowners that have not participated in a conservation program, only 22% regularly use NRCS information while 43% are unfamiliar with the type of information they provide and 44% are unsure if it is credible. These differences were highly significant (p < 0.001). I observed similar trends among the other agencies and organizations addressed in the survey. To better understand the role of social connectedness with peers plays in participation in conservation programs, landowners were asked whether they agreed or disagreed "that other landowners in their state consider them to be an opinion leader on land management issues" and whether "they share information about land management issues with groups of landowners that otherwise wouldn't communicate with each other". Thirty six percent of landowners that participated in at least one conservation program agreed that other landowners considered them an opinion leader while only 13% disagreed (51% neither agreed or disagreed). Conversely, only 10% of landowners that have not participated in conservation agreed with the statement while 40% disagreed (50% neither agreed or disagreed). When asked about sharing information with groups of landowners, 46% agreed with the statement while only 13 disagreed. Among landowners not participating in conservation programs, only 14% agreed and 43% disagreed. These results were highly significant (p < 0.001) and confirm the hypothesis that landowners participating in conservation programs are substantially more socially connected. The importance of economic situations and economic motivations was less clear and statistical tests reported no significant differences among landowners participating in conservation programs and those that do not. The key outcome from this objective is a change in knowledge about the significance of knowledge networks and social connectedness and their correlation with participation in conservation programs. While these results cannot be used to infer causality or directionality among the variables, outreach and engagement efforts with landowners to build connections with conservation agencies and organizations are likely resources well spent. This research also suggests that incorporating other landowners in communication efforts could be an effective strategy to increase information use and credibility.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Barton, E., Bennett, D.E., and Burnidge, W. 2020. Holistic perspectives understanding rancher experiences with holistic resource management. Rangelands 42(5), 143-150
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Bennett, D.E., and Pejchar, L. In preparation. Cash or Connections? Influences on landowner participation in voluntary conservation programs. To be submitted to Conservation Science and Practice.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2020
Citation:
Bennett, D.E., Gautier, N. and Pejchar, L. In preparation. Landowner experiences with voluntary conservation programs and motivations for participation. Technical report from the Ruckelshaus Institute at the University of Wyoming.
|