Change On The Range

Rowe, Helen I.; Shinderman, Matthew; Bartlett, E. T.

doi:10.2458/azu_rangelands_v23i2_rowe

“…Of those who graze on public lands, some stated that while public grazing was extremely important to them, they would find a way to continue ranching if access to public lands was reduced. Similar commitment to ranching was illustrated by results of a Colorado survey, which revealed that ranchers dependent on ranching income and public lands were determined to stay on the ranch regardless of reductions in federal grazing privileges (Rowe et al 2001). Innovative management inspired by these values may allow ranchers who otherwise might be forced out of the business by such events to sustain their operations.…”

Section: Personal Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Results from past surveys offer some insight (e.g., Lacey et al 1985, Rowan and White 1994, Coppock and Birkenfeld 1999, Kreuter et al 2001, Peterson and Coppock 2001, Rowe et al 2001). Peterson and Coppock (2001) identified advancing age and economics as primary barriers to adoption among Utah ranchers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Montana, Lacey et al (1985) found that when investment in range improvements occurs, it tends to be made by operators of larger ranches, and ranchers are more likely to invest in structural improvements (e.g., fencing or water developments) rather than nonstructural improvements (e.g., range reseeding). Research in Utah (Coppock and Birkenfeld 1999) and Colorado (Rowe et al 2001) has revealed that diversification of the enterprise is not a popular management option among livestock producers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adoption of Range Management Innovations by Utah Ranchers

Didier¹,

Brunson²

2004

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the sustainability of grazed rangelands requires that landowners adopt management innovations. We interviewed Utah ranchers to better understand innovation adoption among range livestock operators, and ultimately to suggest improvements in content and delivery of outreach activities. A 2-phase, qualitative social science research method was used to encourage discovery of information unlikely to be revealed via surveys and to expand the application of adoption theory to range livestock production. In line with previous research, innovation was related to full-time ranch operation, dependence on ranch income, anticipated future of the ranch, and extent of social networks. Barriers to innovation included inadequate time and resources, peer influences, and perceived drawbacks of potential innovations (e.g., difficulty of pilot-testing new grazing systems, or poor cost-benefit ratios of vegetation treatments). In contrast to previ

show abstract

“…Results from past surveys offer some insight (e.g., Lacey et al 1985, Rowan and White 1994, Coppock and Birkenfeld 1999, Kreuter et al 2001, Peterson and Coppock 2001, Rowe et al 2001). Peterson and Coppock (2001) identified advancing age and economics as primary barriers to adoption among Utah ranchers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of range management innovations by Utah ranchers

Didier¹,

Brunson²

2004

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the sustainability of grazed rangelands requires that landowners adopt management innovations. We interviewed Utah ranchers to better understand innovation adoption among range livestock operators, and ultimately to suggest improvements in content and delivery of outreach activities. A 2-phase, qualitative social science research method was used to encourage discovery of information unlikely to be revealed via surveys and to expand the application of adoption theory to range livestock production. In line with previous research, innovation was related to full -time ranch operation, dependence on ranch income, anticipated future of the ranch, and extent of social networks. Barriers to innovation included inadequate time and resources, peer influences, and perceived drawbacks of potential innovations (e.g., difficulty of pilot-testing new grazing systems, or poor cost -benefit ratios of vegetation treatments). In contrast to previous studies, innovators were motivated by a desire to demonstrate stewardship to land managers and the public. Previously unidentified barriers included spatial characteristics of the ranch enterprise and perceptions about political/legal constraints.Economic hardships, combined with changing political -legal forces and ecological conditions, are threatening the sustainability of Western range livestock production. Not only do marginal ranch operations tend to be at risk ecologically, but as ranches are sold non grazing uses of rangelands such as subdivision pose additional risks to conservation (Knight et al. 1994(Knight et al. , 2002. Enterprise diversification and implementation of improvements are advocated as ways for ranchers to cope with marginal returns from ranching while better managing resources. However, relatively few ranchers make such substantive changes in their operations (Coppock and Birkenfeld 1999). If range professionals are to successfully encourage implementation of desirable management practices, more information is needed about when and why range livestock operators will adopt innovations that can enhance sustainability.

show abstract

“…At present, land use and stocking decisions among Tibetan homads appear to be aimed more towards increasing reliability and minimising natural and economic risks than maximising profits per se (Edstrom 1993, Roe et al 1998. Interestingly, research has found that ranchers in the USA, too, strive less for profits than to maintain their lifestyle (Rowe et al 2001, Torell et al 2001, Walker and Janssen 2002.…”

Section: 'How Sholbargang Village Changed Immediately By Using Sciencmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and the Enclosure Movement in Pastoral Tibet since the 1980s

Bauer¹

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the implementation of development policies in pastoral areas of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) since the reforms of the 1980s. It analyses why certain kinds of interventions-particularly fencing-have been introduced. The rhetoric and reality of markets, technology, degradation and land tenure in the reform era are put into ecological, historical and cultural perspective. The causes and potential consequences of widespread fencing are also considered and, based on these trends, the article speculates on the future development trajectory of pastoral areas in the TAR.

show abstract

Change On The Range

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Adoption of Range Management Innovations by Utah Ranchers

Adoption of Range Management Innovations by Utah Ranchers

Adoption of range management innovations by Utah ranchers

Development and the Enclosure Movement in Pastoral Tibet since the 1980s

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About