Abstract
AbstractThe success of conservation efforts for imperiled and endangered wildlife species relies on private landowners, yet a definitive model of landowner cooperation remains elusive. We use a case study to explore the multiple pathways by which demographics, rootedness, resource dependence, environmental attitudes, social influence, and program structure intersect to jointly explain participation in a federally funded cost‐share program to help prevent the Lesser Prairie‐Chicken from being listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. We conducted structured interviews across three ecoregions with 64 participants and 22 nonparticipants. We analyzed the data using fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis, an approach that identifies the multiple combinations of conditions related to engagement in the program. We found that two concepts, landowner characteristics and social influence, were most commonly associated with participation while profiles representing typical landowner tropes performed poorly. Finally, the positive effect of encouragement by agency representatives suggests that agency staff play a central role in determining participation. It also suggests landowners' decision processes may not be as deliberative as the literature on private lands conservation suggests. The results of our case study suggest new avenues for research that explicitly consider the role of heuristics in decisions to participate.
Highlights
An increased number of species are receiving protection under the U.S Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) due to increasing human demands on natural resources and their resulting negative impacts to wildlife populations
We propose that there are multiple pathways to participation, all of which are context dependent. We explored this idea of multiple pathways through a case study of landowner participation in the U.S Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Working Lands for Wildlife program to conserve the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)
Launched in 2010, the Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative (LPCI) is a voluntary prelisting conservation program that focuses on increasing habitat quality for the lesser prairie chicken, which was a candidate species for listing under the ESA during the study period
Summary
An increased number of species are receiving protection under the U.S Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) due to increasing human demands on natural resources and their resulting negative impacts to wildlife populations. The original intention of the ESA was to correct unwanted biodiversity loss, yet it ostensibly exacerbated the problem on private lands due to: challenges with enforcement (Bean, 1998); over-reliance on biologists manage social conflict (Kellert, 1994); a command-and-control approach to implementation; and a bureaucratic structure that precludes organizational learning, flexibility, and adaptability (Clark, 1997; Norris, 2004) These factors have created lasting concerns about land regulation and have led some private landowners to refuse government access to their property, or even to preemptively destroy habitat that could support both candidate and listed species (Brook et al, 2003; Lueck & Michael, 2003; Polasky & Doremus, 1998). We explored how participation in the LPCI is related to seven factors or constructs, all of which have been hypothesized or shown to be related to participation in conservation programs for at-risk species in other contexts (Table 1): (a) landowner demographics (e.g., Zhang & Mehmood, 2002); level of connection to the land, including (b) rootedness and (c) resource dependence, which have both been shown to have a negative association with intention to participate in an at-risk species conservation program (e.g., Sorice et al, 2012); underlying values, including (d) concern for environment and (e) dominance values toward wildlife (e.g., utilitarian or instrumental perspectives on the value of wildlife) which may have negative influence on intention to participate (e.g., Brook et al, 2003; Kreye et al, 2018); (f) social norms and (g) program structure, which both have been demonstrated to influence participation in programs for at-risk species (Langpap, 2004, 2006; Sorice et al, 2011; Sorice & Conner, 2010)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
