Healthy sagebrush communities in the Great Basin are rapidly disappearing due to invasion of non-native plants, catastrophic wildfires, and encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands. Land management options, including the use of prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and herbicides can reduce the potential for wildfire and restore healthy plant communities. Public acceptance of management actions is a critical component of developing and implementing successful long-term land management plans. This study examined citizens\u27 opinions and perceptions about rangeland management in the Great Basin

Brunson, Mark W.

Gordon, Ryan

Shindler, Bruce

English

DigitalCommons@USU

Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Reports Publications 4-12-2007 Public Priorities for Rangeland Management: A Regional Survey of Citizens in the Great Basin Bruce Shindler Oregon State University Ryan Gordon Oregon State University Mark W. Brunson Utah State University, mark.brunson@usu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/sagestep_reports  Part of the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Shindler, B., R. Gordon, and M. Brunson. 2007. Public priorities for rangeland management: A regional survey of citizens in the Great Basin. SageSTEP Independent Publication, 8 pages. This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@usu.edu.  Public Priorities for Rangeland Management A Regional Survey of Citizens in the Great Basin  Healthy sagebrush communities in the Great Basin are rapidly disappearing due to invasion of non-native plants, catastrophic wildfires, and encroachment of pinyon-juniper woodlands.  Land management options, including the use of prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and herbicides can reduce the potential for wildfire and restore healthy plant communities.  Public acceptance of management actions is a critical component of developing and implementing successful long-term land management plans.  This study examined citizens’ opinions and perceptions about rangeland management in the Great Basin.  Objectives   • Identify perceived threats to healthy rangelands and support for rangeland restoration activities. • Evaluate the public’s trust in land management agencies to plan and implement restoration activities. • Examine the effectiveness of agency outreach methods for addressing the information and communication needs of community members. • Characterize differences in opinion between rural and urban residents. • Provide feedback to agency personnel for use in developing management plans.  Preliminary Results  A total of 1345 individuals responded to surveys sent to households in the Great Basin between September and November 2006.  Households were randomly selected from the following communities:  Boise, Reno, Salt Lake City, Lake and Harney Counties, OR, White Pine and Elko Counties, NV, and Millard and Beaver Counties, UT.  For comparison purposes, respondents were identified as urban or rural based on their community of residence.  Differences in the response between urban and rural residents are noted when significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.  All values are reported as a percent unless noted otherwise.  In some cases scores do not total 100 percent because “don’t know” responses were omitted.  These are preliminary results from a study in progress; do not cite without permission of the authors.     Dr. Bruce Shindler Ryan Gordon Oregon State University  Dr. Mark Brunson Utah State University     This is contribution number 06 of the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP), supported by funds from the U.S. Joint Fire Science Program.  SageSTEP Study Region Page 2 ¾ Question:  How well informed would you consider yourself to be about the management and condition of natural environments in the Great Basin?                       * Ratings significantly higher           ¾ Question:  In general, how would you rate the overall condition of natural environments in the Great Basin?                          * Rated conditions significantly higher Not Informed  Moderately Informed  Very Informed 14214416471345241101020304050601 2 3 4 5UrbanRural *Very Unhealthy     Very Healthy 225504320511301020304050601 2 3 4UrbanRural *Page 3 Perceived Threats to Healthy Rangelands (percent agreement)                                  * Significantly more urban residents believe this item to be a threat ** Significantly more rural residents believe this item to be a threat Note:  Over 50% of urban residents responded “don’t know” for juniper and Pinyon-pine encroachment32494429604551537158182126596165717575810 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Pinyon-pine EncroachmentJuniper Encroachment**Dense Sagebrush**Mining*WildfireOver-grazing*Riparian Impacts*OHV Impacts*Invasive Species*Development*UrbanRuralPage 4 Highest priority should be given to economic considerations, even if there are negative environmental consequences. Highest priority should be given to maintaining natural environmental conditions, even if there are negative economic consequences. Both environmental and economic factors should be given equal priority. ¾ Question:  Many range management issues involve difficult trade-offs between natural environmental conditions and economic considerations.  Please indicate your preference on the following scale.                                     * Significantly higher preference for maintaining natural conditions 1117243981 15 61456126201020304050601 2 3 4 5 6 7Urban *RuralPage 5 Local priorities should have greater influence than national priorities on management decisions. * There are few opportunities for citizens to participate in the agency planning process. Restrictions at the national level constrain local agency staff from doing their jobs. * ◊ I am skeptical of information from federal management agencies. Agency information about projects provides a good explanation of options and consequences. ◊ Federal managers use public input to help make decisions. ◊ Federal managers effectively build trust with local citizens. ◊ ¾ Question:  Please evaluate the following statements about your experiences with federal agencies (BLM, Forest Service) in your area. Values reported indicate percent of respondents who agree with the statement.                                  * Significantly more rural residents agree with this statement  ◊ More than 30% of urban residents indicate they don’t know enough to make a judgment about the statement62816159212746526552521821430 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90UrbanRuralPage 6 ◊ Rural residents have a significantly higher level of acceptance for grazing, thinning, herbicide application, and chaining.  ◊◊ Rural residents have greater trust in federal agencies to use thinning, chaining, and herbicides.  Urban residents have greater trust in federal agencies to use prescribed fire.      * Scores are combined percentages from first two categories in acceptability table above (practice is a legitimate tool and should be done infrequently in carefully selected areas).  ** Scores are combined percentages from first two categories in trust table above (full trust and moderate trust). Acceptability of Management Practices and Trust in Land Management Agencies (Urban and rural scores combined for presentation purposes)  Acceptability of management practices ◊ Prescribed Fire Grazing to Reduce Fuel Thinning Mowing Herbicide Application Chaining This practice is a legitimate tool land managers should be able to use whenever they see fit 40 57 34 32 18 22 Practice should be done infrequently in carefully selected areas 42 24 35 35 36 29 Practice should not be considered because it creates too many negative impacts 7 6 11 9 19 17 This is an unnecessary practice 5 4 9 10 16 17 I know too little to make a judgment about this practice 6 9 11 15 11 15  Trust in BLM and Forest Service to implement practices ◊◊ Prescribed Fire Grazing to Reduce Fuel Thinning Mowing Herbicide Application Chaining Full Trust 17 22 19 19 11 15 Moderate Trust 41 35 38 36 28 28 Limited Trust 27 23 24 22 27 25 No Trust 10 13 8 8 21 16 Don’t Know 5 7 11 16 13 16                Comparison of Acceptance of Practices and Trust in Agencies4339555757585154676981820 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90ChainingHerbicide ApplicationMowingFellingGrazingPrescribed FireAcceptability *Trust **Page 7 Influences on Public Acceptance of Agency Actions  ¾ Agreement on 14 listed factors as being important when judging BLM or Forest Service actions and decisions (urban/rural combined response).  • When I know the objective of a proposed management action (61%) • Actions will help reduce the spread of non-native plants (58%) • Specific characteristics of local places have higher priorities when an action is planned (57%) • Scientists have a role in reviewing management alternatives* (56%) • The decision is based on environmental consequences* (55%) • The decision maintains or restores natural conditions through active management (53%) • The decision is made only after open discussions in a public setting (52%) • The decision is based on reliable scientific information* (50%) • Citizens have meaningful opportunities to contribute to the decision (45%) • The decision protects wildlife habitat over human uses (45%) • The decision maintains grazing allotments for ranchers (44%) • Actions help support the local economy (42%) • The decision is based on economic consequences (41%) • My trust in the decision-maker (39%)  *  Significantly more urban residents agree   Communication and Outreach  ¾ Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of various agency-sponsored mechanisms for communication and outreach.           Most Useful  9 Guided Field Trips 9 Visitor Centers & Interpretive Programs 9 Demonstration Sites 9 Interactive Workshops & Public Meetings Moderately Useful  9 Conversations with Agency Personnel  9 Brochures  Least Useful  9 Environmental Impact statements 9 Newsletters/Mailings 9 Agency Websites Page 8 Management Summary   • Overall, respondents believe the most serious threats to healthy rangelands are development, invasive species, OHV’s, impacts to riparian systems, overgrazing, and wildfire.  • Overall, public acceptance is high for managing rangeland conditions, particularly use of prescribed fire, grazing, thinning, and mowing.  • Despite the high levels of acceptance for certain practices, there is substantially less confidence that agency personnel can effectively implement those practices.  • Regarding experience with federal agencies, respondents: o are skeptical of information o believe local personnel are hindered by national constraints o feel local priorities should receive more consideration o gave managers low marks for their interactions with citizens, particularly for using public input and building trust with local citizens.  • Highly rated forms of agency-to-public communication are more interactive approaches (i.e. field tours, demonstration sites, small workshops) that provide opportunities for discussing local conditions.            • Many factors influence public acceptance of agency actions and decisions, particularly o understanding project objectives, often through open discussion. o activities that protect natural conditions, especially those that target local problems. o scientist review of management plans and alternatives.  • Numerous differences exist between urban and rural residents.  Most notable are: o perceived threats to rangelands o opinions about environmental and economic priorities o acceptance of specific management practices o support for local priorities o the role of science in decision-making o levels of understanding of issues and conditions. Many of these differences present an opportunity for focused public education and outreach in local communities. • Overall, residents lean more toward policies that protect environmental conditions than those that favor economic considerations.    For more information, please contact:  Dr. Bruce Shindler Department of Forest Resources Oregon State University 280 Peavy Hall Corvallis, OR 97331  Bruce.Shindler@oregonstate.edu 541-737-3299 April 12, 2007 cover Photo Credit: Jennifer Peterson

Public Priorities for Rangeland Management: A Regional Survey of Citizens in the Great Basin

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=sagestep_reports

Public Priorities for Rangeland Management: A Regional Survey of Citizens in the Great Basin

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU