Managing the Commons Texas Style: Wildlife Management and Ground‐Water Associations on Private Lands¹

Abstract

As nearly all of Texas' rural lands are privately owned, landowner associations for the management of white-tailed deer and ground-water have become increasingly popular. Deer are a common-pool resource with transboundary characteristics, requiring landowner cooperation for effective management. Ground-water reserves are economically important to landowners, but are governed by the ''rule of capture'' whereby property rights are not defined. One ground-water association and four wildlife management associations (WMAs) were surveyed to characterize their member demographics, land use priorities, attitudes, and social capital. Members of the ground-water cooperative were part of a much larger, more heterogeneous, and more recently formed group than members of WMAs. They also placed greater importance on utilitarian aspects of their properties, as opposed to land stewardship for conservation as practiced by members of WMAs. If ground-water association members could be more locally organized with more frequent meetings, social capital and information sharing may be enhanced and lead to land stewardship practices for improved hydrologic functions and sustained ground-water supply. This, coupled with pumping rules assigned by the local ground-water district, could yield an effective strategy that is ecologically and hydrologicaly sound, and that allows rural provision of water supply to urban consumers.(KEY TERMS: ground-water management; private lands; social capital; landowner associations; water policy; planning.)

A life course approach to understanding social drivers of rangeland conversion

“…Whereas current cost share programs focus on compensation, programs that pool labor may have as much value to landowners. Voluntary organizations can create a pool of labor from community members who seek mutual benefits from cooperation (Wagner et al 2007). For example, prescribed burn associations (PBAs) are cooperative groups that provide labor, equipment, and expertise that would be cost prohibitive for any single individual to supply (Toledo et al 2013(Toledo et al , 2014Twidwell et al 2013).…”

Classifying land-ownership motivations in central, Texas, USA: A first step in understanding drivers of large-scale land cover change

“…Additionally, extension and outreach programs will need to change from a traditional one biased toward agricultural production as the dominant value, so as not to alienate amenity buyers. Top-down approaches from centralized institutions should give way to innovative bottom-up approaches that generate social capital among diverse landowners (e.g., Wagner et al, 2007); are grounded in learning principles (Toman et al, 2006); use social marketing to identify constraints and costs working against the provision of a collective good such as a healthy watershed; and develop measures for allaying those constraints and costs (see McKenzie-Mohr, 2000).…”

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

“…Although conservation incentive programs may be essential tools for protecting and securing ecosystem services on private lands, use of such programs can come with risks. Such programs may create expectations that stewardship should only be provided if it is paid for (this study; [45]) and research in related fields suggests that once payments are started, organizations may be obligated to continue payments in order to maintain the management practices required to obtain their conservation objectives [46][47][48]. We suggest future inquiry addressing the degree to which payments for conservation actions shape views of stewardship and stewardship behaviors.…”