Property Rights Orientations and Rangeland Management Objectives: Texas, Utah, and Colorado

Abstract

In response to substantial economic and social dislocations in the United States, many rangeland owners are changing land use and management practices. Changes in land use can significantly affect the services rangeland ecosystems provide. Decisions associated with such changes are likely mediated by landowner views regarding individual rights, social responsibilities, and the future security of property rights. In this paper, we examine the extent to which landowners are likely to adopt, without public compensation, socially desirable land management objectives that enhance ecosystem services from rangelands. The study consisted of a mail survey of landowners with at least 40 ha: 500 in Texas, 500 in Utah, and 694 in Colorado. Adjusted response rates were 62% in Texas, 46% in Utah, and 51% in Colorado. Regression analyses showed that willingness to adopt socially desirable rangeland management objectives was positively correlated with the social responsibility dimension of respondents' property rights orientations but negatively correlated with the rights erosion dimension. Our results also suggested that landowners in private land states, such as Texas, might be less willing than landowners in states with more public land to manage their land for the maintenance of ecosystem services without being compensated. Although the scope of our study was limited, the results suggest that agencies tasked with maintaining ecosystem services on private rangelands might more successfully achieve their mission by promoting social responsibility among landowners. Including community leaders with a highly developed sense of social responsibility in programs aimed at improving land stewardship and including peer-pressure incentives in such programs might enhance social responsibility perspectives among landowners. Such programs should also be adaptable at the state-level to account for differences in property-rights orientations relative to landowner dependence on private and public land. Resumen En repuesta de las confusiones substanciales sociales y econó micas en los Estados Unidos de América, muchos de los propietarios de pastizales está n cambiando el uso del terreno y las prá cticas de manejo. Los cambios en el uso de la tierra puedes afectar significativamente los servicios que el ecosistema de pastizal provee. Las decisiones asociadas con tales cambios probablemente son mediadas por los puntos de vista de los propietarios con respecto a los derechos individuales, responsabilidades sociales y seguridad futura de los derechos de la propiedad. En este articulo, examinamos que tan dispuestos está n los propietarios de los terrenos a adoptar, sin una compensació n pú blica, los objetivos de manejo de la tierra socialmente deseables que mejoran los servicios del ecosistema del pastizal. El estudio consistió de una encuesta por correo a los propietarios de los terrenos con al menos 40 ha: 500 en Texas, 500 en Utah, y 500 en Colorado. Las tasas ajustadas de respuesta fueron 62% en Texas, 46% en Utah y 51% en Colorado. Los análi...

Increasing participation in incentive programs for biodiversity conservation

“…Landowners generally believe that they should be compensated for protecting at-risk or endangered species (Brook et al 2003, Kreuter et al 2006, Raymond and Olive 2008. Landowners showed a strong preference for increasing their profit.…”

Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the New West?

“…American ranchers as a group are known to be quite protective of ''private property rights,'' hostile to regulation, and very attached to the idea that they can do what they like with their own land (Huntsinger et al , 2007bJackson-Smith et al 2005). Moreover, ranchers' willingness to adopt socially desirable range management objectives has been found to be negatively correlated with beliefs that property rights are being eroded (Kreuter et al 2006).…”

What is Private Land Stewardship? Lessons from Agricultural Opinion Leaders in North Carolina

“…These findings seem intuitive, particularly if respondents interpret questions about future generations as referring to their own progeny. Given that PLS can influence landowner willingness to adopt socially desirable land management practices without financial incentives [19], future research should investigate the extent to which perceived responsibility to future generations reflects a sense of responsibility to the future society at large versus responsibility to one's own heirs, and explore ways to promote individual, familial, and public responsibility simultaneously as part of stewardship.…”