Variance of preference for grassland traits between Great Plains ranchers and the general population.

1. 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, & SocialWork, 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
2

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.
3

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?
4

5. Methods & Analysis5
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%
6

7. Demographics
Length of Residency
Less than
9 yrs 10+ yrs
All
My Life
Ranchers % n=262 13% 50% 37 %
Gen’l Pop’n % n=1032 91% 6% 3%
Education
Completed
Less than
High School
High
School
2 years
post HS
4-yr coll
degree
Advanced
degree
Ranchers % n=261 2% 25% 14% 38% 21%
Genl Popn % n=1024 3% 31% 24% 24% 17%
7

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.
8

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).
9

10. Overall preference for species diversity & structure
0
1
2
3
4
5
Forbs Bflies GBirds Sbirds Wldlife All_grass Even_ Ht Divrs_Plnt Var_Ht
PreferenceScale
012345
Forbs Butterflies Game Song Wildlife All Grass Even Diverse Variable
birds birds Height Plants Height
General
Population
Ranchers
Species Diversity
variables
Homogeneity
variables
Heterogeneity
variables
10

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
11
Diverse Plants Variable
Height
0.23 0.16
0.03 0.02
0.98 1.00
Forbs Butterflies Game birds Song birds Wildlife
Eigenvalue 4.26 1.54 1.16 0.57 0.45
Proportion 0.47 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.05
Cumulative 0.47 0.64 0.77 0.84 0.89
All grass Even
Height
0.32 0.31
0.04 0.03
0.92 0.96
Eigenvalue
Proportion
Cumulative
Eigenvalue
Proportion
Cumulative

12. Principal Component Analysis12
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
forbs
butterflies
Gamebirds
Song Birds
Wildlife
All Grass
Even Height
Diversity of plants
Variable Height
Song Birds
All Grass
Even Height
Variable Height
Game birds
DoP
PCA Axis 1
PCAAxis2
Heterogeneity variables
Homogeneity variables
Species diversity variables

13. Additive Preference by State13
0
5
10
15
20
25
1_NE 2_KS 3_OK 4_TX
Desirability
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1_NE 2_KS 3_OK 4_TX
ImportanceScale 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1_NE 2_KS 3_OK 4_TX
ImportanceScale
HeterogeneityVariablesHomogeneityVariablesSpecies DiversityVariables
Ranchers
General 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
14

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
15
Economic priority Equal priority Env priority
Ranchers
General Population

16. 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