Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:09:19.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Landowner Perceptions toward Adopting Patch-Burn and Mixed-Species Grazing for Rangelands in the U.S. Southern Great Plains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2024

Saroj Adhikari*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Bhawna Thapa
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Samuel D. Fuhlendorf
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Omkar Joshi
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
*
Corresponding author: Saroj Adhikari; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sustainability of grazed rangelands can be improved by adopting innovative management practices that enhance the ecological resilience, productivity, and long-term viability of rangeland ecosystems. This study applied a bivariate Multiple Indicator–Multiple Causation model to examine how landowner characteristics are associated with their perceptions concerning patch-burn grazing (PBG) and mixed-species grazing (MSG). Data were collected through a mail survey of landowners in the Southern Great Plains who own at least 100 acres. The significant and positive correlation between PBG and MSG suggests that their relative preference tends to change together, potentially allowing them to complement when implemented together.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Southern Agricultural Economics Association

Introduction

Rangelands around the world, which include grasslands, savannas, and shrublands, have historically evolved with strong interactions between fire and animal grazing (Bond and Keeley, Reference Bond and Keeley2005; Scasta et al., Reference Scasta, Thacker, Hovick, Engle, Allred, Fuhlendorf and Weir2016) influencing both livestock productivity and rangeland ecosystems. Traditionally, management strategies for rangelands, which account for about 55% of the U.S. land surface area (Weltz et al., Reference Weltz, Dunn, Reeder and Frasier2003), emphasize optimum livestock production and promote desired forage species to maximize grazing efficiency through the adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Ortega-S, Lukefahr, and Bryant, Reference Ortega-S, Lukefahr and Bryant2013; Sliwinski, Burbach, Powell, & Schacht, Reference Sliwinski, Burbach, Powell and Schacht2018b; Vallentine, Reference Vallentine2001). Traditional grazing management practices, such as rotational grazing, grazing fences, brush control, and herding, focus on homogenizing grazing distribution to maintain uniform cattle productivity (Bailey and Brown, Reference Bailey and Brown2011; Fuhlendorf and Engle, Reference Fuhlendorf and Engle2001). In addition, reduced use of fire and burrowing mammals to promote livestock production has resulted in homogenous rangelands reducing habitat types necessary for a variety of wildlife to thrive (Augustine and Derner, Reference Augustine and Derner2012; Freese, Montanye, and Forrest, Reference Freese, Montanye and Forrest2010; Fuhlendorf, Engle, Elmore, Limb, & Bidwell, 2012). However, structurally homogenous rangelands are prone to threats from Woody Plant Encroachment like redcedar and blackberry, uncharacteristic wildfires, overgrazing, and land use change (Berg et al., Reference Berg, Sorice, Wilcox, Angerer, Rhodes and Fox2015; Stroman, Kreuter, and Wonkka, Reference Stroman, Kreuter and Wonkka2020; Twidwell et al., Reference Twidwell, Rogers, Fuhlendorf, Wonkka, Engle, Weir and Taylor2013).

The rangeland scientific community recognizes that it is of utmost importance to develop multiple innovative management practices that embrace grassland ecosystem heterogeneity to ensure long-term conservation and the provisioning of benefits from natural ecosystems (Fuhlendorf et al., Reference Fuhlendorf, Townsend, Elmore and Engle2010; McGranahan, Hovick, Elmore, Engle, & Fuhlendorf, Reference McGranahan, Hovick, Elmore, Engle and Fuhlendorf2018). For rangeland management professionals to effectively promote innovative management practices, it is crucial to examine the motivations and barriers behind producers’ and landowners’ adoption behavior that can potentially enhance rangelands’ ecological health and productivity.

Adoption of innovative technologies is influenced by characteristics of the individual (such as age, income, education), innovation attributes (such as compatibility, complexity), and social system (such as attitudes of peers, social norms), among others (Rogers, Reference Rogers2010). Research on voluntary adoption of rangeland management practices suggests that producers and landowners are faced with other adoption determinants such as management costs, regional attributes (such as grassland type, environmental factors) (Saltiel, Bauder, and Palakovich, Reference Saltiel, Bauder and Palakovich1994), and farm characteristics (such as size, ownership) (Bultena and Hoiberg, Reference Bultena and Hoiberg1983). Additionally, most studies on the adoption of BMPs and other rangeland management practices generally focus on single-practice adoption, assuming that the decision is made independently of previous or potential future opportunities for adopting additional complementary practices (Holley et al., Reference Holley, Jensen, Lambert and Clark2020). Increasingly, rangeland scientists have realized that the adoption of single pasture management practice on private grassland does not promote vegetation heterogeneity (With, King, and Jensen, Reference With, King and Jensen2008) and has proven to be detrimental to floral and faunal biodiversity in the rangeland regions (Becerra et al., Reference Becerra, Engle, Fuhlendorf and Elmore2017; Toombs, Derner, Augustine, Krueger, & Gallagher, Reference Toombs, Derner, Augustine, Krueger and Gallagher2010).

Historically, fire and mixed animal grazing has been an integral part of grassland ecosystems in the Great Plains for maintaining its productivity and heterogeneity for providing diverse habitats (Samson, Knopf, and Ostlie, Reference Samson, Knopf and Ostlie2004). Research has shown that mixed animal grazing, when two or more species graze together, can promote animal performance (Wright, Jones, Davies, Davidson, & Vale, Reference Wright, Jones, Davies, Davidson and Vale2006), enhance forage quality and biodiversity (Abaye, Allen, and Fontenot, Reference Abaye, Allen and Fontenot1994), remove woody plants, and maintain healthy rangelands (Masson, Mesléard, and Dutoit, Reference Masson, Mesléard and Dutoit2015). Disturbance by fire combined with animal grazing is termed pyric-herbivory. Pyric-herbivory has played an important role in the evolution and resilience of grasslands by promoting heterogeneous vegetation (Fuhlendorf et al., Reference Fuhlendorf, Townsend, Elmore and Engle2010) and can potentially be utilized as a management strategy for the sustainable use and management of rangelands. Therefore, rangeland scientists have recommended management practices of patch-burn grazing (PBG) and mixed-species grazing (MSG) that are known to provide the best results on rangelands (Fuhlendorf, Winter, and Smith, Reference Fuhlendorf, Winter and Smith2013; Morton, Regen, Engle, Miller, & Harr, Reference Morton, Regen, Engle, Miller and Harr2010). Despite the benefits associated with these management systems, widespread adoption remains low (Wilcox et al., Reference Wilcox, Fuhlendorf, Walker, Twidwell, Wu, Goodman and Birt2022). Although their reasonable success in experimental scale plots, broader acceptance, and landowner willingness to adopt PBG and MSG is largely unknown. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the perceptions of landowners towards different attributes of these practices that influence the likelihood of their adoption. In addition, understanding the relative preference among other management options and exploring their substitute and complementary relationships is crucial for designing effective educational outreach and incentive-based policies to enhance voluntary adoption.

This study uses data from a survey of a representative sample of rangeland owners in the Southern Great Plains of the U.S. to understand their perceptions towards three key innovation attributes: compatibility, relative advantage, and complexity of PBG and MSG management practices. We also examined how land and landowner characteristics are associated with the likelihood of adopting PBG and MSG practices. Interestingly, PBG and MSG could complement each other in creating rangeland heterogeneity and controlling woody plant encroachment when carried out together as a set or practice bundles (Hobbs et al., Reference Hobbs, Schimel, Owensby and Ojima1991; Morton et al., Reference Morton, Regen, Engle, Miller and Harr2010; Weir et al., Reference Weir, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Bidwell, Cummings, Elmore and Winter2013). So, it is likely that landowner perceptions towards innovation attributes of PBG are correlated with the attributes of MSG, and the propensity to adopt PBG and MSG could be interrelated as complements.

Our study offers two contributions to the existing literature on adopting best management practices to improve the rangeland conditions in the imperiled grassland biome. First, factors affecting landowner adoption decisions or barriers to adoption of best practices, including patch-burn grazing, mixed-species grazing, prescribed fire, and brush control, are avidly discussed in social science-focused research on range management (Adhikari et al., Reference Adhikari, Joshi, Sorice and Fuhlendorf2023; Kreuter et al., Reference Kreuter, Woodard, Taylor and Teague2008; Meredith, Brunson, and Hardegree, Reference Meredith, Brunson and Hardegree2021; Toledo, Sorice, and Kreuter, Reference Toledo, Sorice and Kreuter2013), characters of these innovations have received little attention. Second, previous efforts have been primarily focused on individual strategy, without exploring complementarity between multiple BMPs. The MSG can be incorporated within the recently burned patches of the PBG system, allowing for a diverse range of species interactions and vegetation growth across the rangelands (Wilcox et al., Reference Wilcox, Fuhlendorf, Walker, Twidwell, Wu, Goodman and Birt2022). As research suggests that these practices lead to better outcomes together to control woody plant encroachment (Wilcox et al., Reference Wilcox, Fuhlendorf, Walker, Twidwell, Wu, Goodman and Birt2022), it is imperative to know whether landowner’s propensity to adopt one strategy translates to adopting the other. To this end, we have analyzed the potential influence of one set of attributes on others and assessed the relative preference for PBG and MSG.

The bivariate Multiple Indicator–Multiple Causation (MIMIC) framework provides a comprehensive approach to analyze the complex relationships between multiple indicators hypothesized to influence the latent adoption variables while addressing the problem of dimensionality (Holley et al., Reference Holley, Jensen, Lambert and Clark2020). The statistical modeling technique focuses on controlling the effects of unobserved interaction components between PBG and MSG perceived by landowners as latent variables. It can examine the association between these latent variables and adopt PBG and MSG as rangeland management practices to understand how producers perceive relative preferences between these two practices. Results from this empirical approach will enable policymakers and pasture management practitioners to understand better how private landowners perceive innovation attributes of alternative management strategies and gauge the likelihood of adopting a single practice or a bundle approach based on relative preferences.

Background

Government agencies and land management practitioners often recommend management practices based on stocking maximization principles to optimize livestock production across grazing lands. From a production economics standpoint, ranchers would continue livestock farming if marginal costs of farm management do not exceed the marginal revenues coming from additional cattle. Nonetheless, efforts are geared towards efficient grazing for livestock productivity as financial and biological conditions impact the economic stocking rates (Frasier and Steffens, Reference Frasier and Steffens2013). For instance, strategies for prescribed grazing promote forage species that maximize grazing efficiency (Ortega-S et al., Reference Ortega-S, Lukefahr and Bryant2013; Sliwinski et al., Reference Sliwinski, Burbach, Powell and Schacht2018b; Vallentine, Reference Vallentine2001). However, such practices have created uniform grazing lands, diminishing the diversity of habitats (Freese et al., Reference Freese, Montanye and Forrest2010; Fuhlendorf, Engle, Elmore, Limb, & Bidwell, Reference Fuhlendorf, Engle, Elmore, Limb and Bidwell2012). In addition, they fail to consider historical disturbances crucial to rangeland ecosystem health and the maintenance of biodiversity (Fuhlendorf et al., Reference Fuhlendorf, Engle, Kerby and Hamilton2009).

PBG and MSG are innovative management practices aiming to improve rangelands’ ecological health and productivity. PBG is designed to mimic historical grazing and fire interaction. It involves controlled burning of a portion of a pasture while allowing livestock to graze freely and then burning a different part of the same pasture in the following year (Fuhlendorf et al., Reference Fuhlendorf, Winter and Smith2013). This practice benefits a variety of species of plant and wildlife, promoting biodiversity. Additionally, the nutritious regrowth of recently grown forage provides livestock with higher crude protein and minerals (Satter et al., Reference Satter, Klopfenstein, Erickson and Powell2005). Although PBG can benefit grasslands and potentially enhance livestock performance and productivity, specific outcomes can vary depending on the characteristics of grassland, animal species, and overall management practices (Augustine, Derner, and Milchunas, Reference Augustine, Derner and Milchunas2010; Limb et al., Reference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell2011; Winter, Fuhlendorf, and Goes, Reference Winter, Fuhlendorf and Goes2014). Based on the early work conducted in Oklahoma, the PBG has been identified as an alternative paradigm for range management to increase floral and faunal diversity (Fuhlendorf and Engle, Reference Fuhlendorf and Engle2001). Several outreach and extension efforts are underway in the state to understand ecological and socioeconomic issues pertaining to this BMP (OSU Extension, Reference Extension2024).

MSG is a rangeland management practice where two or more livestock species are grazed together or separately on the same land during a single growing season (Byington, Reference Byington1985; Glimp, Reference Glimp1988). MSG increases grazing efficiency by facilitating the maximum utilization of all types of forages and also reduces the accumulation of biomass that can control wildfires significantly (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Feng, Wang, Wang, Wilsey and Zhong2015; Rouet-Leduc et al., Reference Rouet-Leduc, Pe’er, Moreira, Bonn, Helmer, Shahsavan Zadeh and van der Plas2021). Different types of livestock can be grazed together; however, a combination of small ruminant grazers such as cattle and browsers such as sheep and goats are highly preferred because they have different preferences for forage (Fraser, Reference Fraser2018). Also, browsers, like goats, feed on the saplings of woody vegetation like Redcedar, threatening rangelands (Archer et al., Reference Archer, Andersen, Predick, Schwinning, Steidl and Woods2017). As a range management practice, MSG has been found to be common in some parts of Texas, mainly in its Edwards Plateau (Walker et al., 2015).

However, the desired widespread adoption of these practices has not been achieved as expected, and studies have been conducted to analyze the adoption behavior of landowners (Adhikari et al., Reference Adhikari, Joshi, Sorice and Fuhlendorf2023). The lack of widespread adoption can be attributed to several factors, including traditional management preferences of landowners and ranchers who associate homogenous rangelands with higher agricultural productivity (Becerra et al., Reference Becerra, Engle, Elmore and Fuhlendorf2013; Joshi, Becerra et al., Reference Joshi, Becerra, Engle, Fuhlendorf and Elmore2017) and may perceive fire as a threat to their livestock, forage resources, and infrastructure (Sliwinski, Burbach, Powell, & Schacht, Reference Sliwinski, Burbach, Powell and Schacht2018a).

The Diffusion of Innovation theory explains the adoption process of new practices and is widely applied in communication and innovation studies (Rogers, Reference Rogers2010). The theory explains how new technologies are adopted and spread due to potential adopters’ perception of five attributes influencing the adoption rate: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, Reference Rogers2010; Rogers, Singhal, and Quinlan, Reference Rogers, Singhal and Quinlan2014). According to Rogers et al. (Reference Rogers, Singhal and Quinlan2014), relative advantage refers to the perceived benefits of adopting an innovation compared to the existing practices or alternatives. Compatibility refers to the extent to which an innovation is perceived as compatible with potential adopters’ values, beliefs, and needs. Complexity refers to the perceived complexity of undertaking an innovation. Trialability is testing an innovation on a small scale before full adoption. Finally, observability refers to the degree to which the benefits of an innovation are readily observable.

The attributes of innovation have been routinely researched in several disciplines, including health (Scott, Plotnikoff, Karunamuni, Bize, & Rodgers, Reference Scott, Plotnikoff, Karunamuni, Bize and Rodgers2008), agriculture (Lavoie, Dentzman, and Wardropper, Reference Lavoie, Dentzman and Wardropper2021), engineering (Shah Alam et al., Reference Shah Alam, Khatibi, Ismail Sayyed Ahmad and Bin Ismail2008), and natural resources (Mascia and Mills, Reference Mascia and Mills2018). Pertaining to the natural resource sector, Mascia and Mills (Reference Mascia and Mills2018) utilized the Diffusion of Innovation theory to study the technical, cultural, and political characteristics that influence the adoption process of conservation practices. Hedjazi (Reference Hedjazi2007) explored public perception concerning the acceptance of balancing livestock with grazing capacity, which has been adopted as a national project to aid in rangeland promotion in Iran. Noga et al., (2015) employed the theory to investigate how small farmers in the Okavango Delta region, Botswana, perceive and adopt innovative practices that mitigate human-elephant conflicts and minimize crop losses. They found that limited interaction with extension workers hindered awareness and unfavorable perception of some of the innovation practices were significant barriers to adoption for the subsistence farmers.

Landowners have varying motivations, constraints, and readiness levels to adopt new management practices on their rangelands. For example, the widespread adoption of PBG and MSG on lands where livestock production is a primary objective would necessitate substantial reassurance to livestock producers that their production will not be compromised (Winter et al., Reference Winter, Fuhlendorf and Goes2014). To achieve broader social acceptance, it is essential first to understand landowners’ adoption behavior comprehensively. Such knowledge will enable targeted outreach and policy initiatives to promote the widespread adoption of these best practices. Thus, this study examines how range landowners perceive the characteristics of PBG and MSG as innovative grazing management practices. Furthermore, the study aims to elucidate their relative preferences and synergetic relationships between two different management practices.

Data

The target population was the private rangeland owners of four states: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. For our sample, a list of names and addresses of random 3,000 landowners (750 for each state), who had more than 100 acres of land, was bought from Dyanta LLC. A mail survey was conducted to collect the required data for the study following the tailored design method protocols suggested by Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (Reference Dillman, Smyth and Christian2014). The Institution Review Board of Oklahoma State University approved the procedures and survey instruments used to conduct the study. The survey instrument included an invitation postcard, participant information sheet, 10-paged questionnaire, and reminder postcard. The 10-page questionnaire was developed with the help of rangeland experts. A pilot testing of the questionnaire was conducted with the rangeland owners. The survey was completed in March 2021. We received 523 responses for a response rate of 17.5%. Out of the total responses, 26 respondents did not participate, citing reasons such as they did not own the property anymore, the point of contact was deceased, etc.

The survey questionnaire included five sections. The first section gathered information about the characteristics of landowners and their land. The second section asked about the landowner’s experience with prescribed fire, PBG, and MSG. The third section of the questionnaire included statements about the adoption attributes of PBG and MSG, for which respondents showed their extent of agreement or disagreement. Finally, the last section collected demographic information of the landowners. The survey is available from the authors upon request.

In the third section of the survey, statements representing the three key innovation attributes: compatibility, relative advantage, and complexity were used to measure the degree of agreement for each management practice using a five-point Likert scale (Table 1). Two statements represented compatibility and complexity while one statement represented relative advantage, totaling five statements for PBG and five for MSG. It is worth mentioning that we included only one statement for each ‘relative advantage’ attribute to ensure statistical robustness, maintaining an acceptable range of goodness-to-fit statistics (CFI >0.90) and Cornbach’s alpha (0.70). The descriptive statistics with the statements used in the survey are provided in Table 1. While a higher degree of agreement for compatibility and relative advantage represents a higher likelihood of adopting the management practice, the case was the opposite for complexity. Therefore, the two complexity statements for each practice were reverse-coded to maintain uniformity in the direction of the degree of agreement between the three key innovation attributes.

Table 1. Statements representing three key innovation adoption attributes with means of the degree of agreement measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Definitely not true, 2 = Probably not true, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Probably true, 5 = Definitely true)

PBG = Patch-burn grazing.

MSG = Mixed-species grazing.

aOnly one statement for “relative advantage” was retained to maintain acceptable range of goodness-to-fit scores (CFI, RMSEA) and cronbaches alpha values.

bReverse coded.

Methods and procedures

This study performed a bivariate Multiple Indicator–Multiple Causation (MIMIC) model by introducing two latent variables that simultaneously explain the likelihood of adoption of two management practices—PBG and MSG practices. MIMIC models have been used in the agriculture sector to analyze the efficiency with which inputs are utilized in agricultural production at the aggregate level (Gao and Reynolds, Reference Gao and Reynolds1994; Richards and Jeffrey, Reference Richards and Jeffrey2000), technology adoption (Borges, Tauer, and Lansink, Reference Borges, Tauer and Lansink2016; Lambert, Paudel, and Larson, Reference Lambert, Paudel and Larson2015), and BMP adoption (Holley et al., Reference Holley, Jensen, Lambert and Clark2020). The MIMIC framework is appropriate for representing the utilization of various distinct management practices based on underlying factors (Krishnakumar and Nagar, Reference Krishnakumar and Nagar2008).

A typical MIMIC model consists of (i) a measurement model defining the relationships between a latent variable and its indicators and (ii) a structural model specifying the effects of causal variables on the latent variable (Holley et al., Reference Holley, Jensen, Lambert and Clark2020). Landowner i provides a degree of agreement for different attributes belonging to PBG and MSG. The degree of the agreement provided for the innovation attributes belonging to PBG and MSG may be correlated because of unobserved variables associated with dissonant or complementary attributes. The likelihood to adopt PBG or MSG practices is a system of linear index functions:

(1) $$\left[ {\matrix{ {\eta _i^p} \cr {\eta _i^m} \cr } } \right] = \left[ {\matrix{ {{Z_i}} & 0 \cr 0 & {{Z_i}} \cr } } \right]\left[ {\matrix{ {{\Gamma ^p}} \cr {{\Gamma ^m}} \cr } } \right] + \left[ {\matrix{ {\varsigma _i^p} \cr {\varsigma _i^m} \cr } } \right],$$

where ( $\eta _i^p,\,\eta _i^m$ ) are latent variables (adoption likelihood); Z i is a g × 1 vector including operator demographic and land characteristics variables (Table 2); (Г p , Г m ) are conformable vectors of coefficients; and ( $\varsigma _i^p,\,\varsigma _i^m$ ) are error terms with expected values, correlation (ρ), and variance of

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of landowners’ demographics and characteristics of the land

*SD (standard deviation) is only reported for continuous variables.

(2) $$\left[ {\matrix{ {\varsigma _i^p} \cr {\varsigma _i^m} \cr } } \right]\sim BVN\left( {\left[ {\matrix{ 0 \cr 0 \cr } } \right],\left[ {\matrix{ 1 & \rho \cr \rho & 1 \cr } } \right]} \right).$$

The variances in equation (2) are normalized to 1 to identify the latent variable component of the bivariate MIMIC model. The ordinal attributes indicators are regressed on the latent variables using the equation system.

(3) $$\left[ {\matrix{ {\matrix{ {p_{1i}^*} \cr . \cr } } \cr . \cr {p_{Ji}^*} \cr {m_{1i}^*} \cr . \cr . \cr {m_{Ki}^*} \cr } } \right] = \left[ {\matrix{ {\matrix{ {\alpha _{10}^p} \cr . \cr } } \cr . \cr {\alpha _{J0}^p} \cr {\alpha _{10}^m} \cr . \cr . \cr {\alpha _{K0}^m} \cr } } \right] + \left[ {\matrix{ {\matrix{ {\matrix{ {\lambda _1^p \ \ 0} \cr {\,\,.\ \ \ .} \cr } } \cr {\matrix{ {\,\,\ .\ \ .} \cr {\lambda _J^p\ \ 0} \cr } } \cr } } \cr {\matrix{ {\alpha _1^p\ \\ \,0} \cr \ \ {0 \ \ \lambda_1^m} \cr } } \cr {\matrix{ {\,\,\,.\ \ .} \cr } } \cr \ {\matrix{ {0\ \ \lambda _K^m} \cr } } \cr } } \right]\left[ {\matrix{ {\eta _i^p} \cr {\eta _i^m} \cr } } \right] + \left[ {\matrix{ {\matrix{ {\varepsilon _{1i}^p} \cr . \cr } } \cr . \cr {\varepsilon _{Ji}^p} \cr {\varepsilon _{1i}^m} \cr . \cr . \cr {\varepsilon _{Ki}^m} \cr } } \right],$$

where ( $\alpha _{j0}^p,\alpha _{k0}^p$ ) are constants, ( $\lambda _j^p,\lambda _k^p$ ) are factor loadings and the expected values of the ( $\varepsilon _{ji}^p,\varepsilon _{ki}^p$ ) are 0. The factor loadings correlate the propensity to adopt PBG or MSG practices with the kth or jth degree of agreement for the statement, respectively. The indicator functions (p*, m*) are modeled using the logistic distribution, which means the error variances of the indicator functions are restricted as Var( $\varepsilon _{ji}^p$ ) = Var( $\varepsilon _{ki}^{p}) = {1 \over 3}\pi ^{2}$ , Cov( $\varepsilon _{ji}^p,\varepsilon _{ki}^p$ ) = 0 for identification. The variance–covariance restrictions are the usual assumptions maintained when performing multinomial logistic regression. Cross-equation covariances are mediated through (i) the parameter r in equation (2), and (ii) through the (λ j , λ k ) factor loadings.

In this research, the degree of agreement for the three key innovation attributes (indicators) is modeled as a single latent variable, conditioned on respondent characteristics, representing the adoption likelihood. Demographic variables and land characteristics were used in the bivariate MIMIC model, along with the degree of agreement for the ten statements. The demographic variables and land characteristics served as the explanatory variables. This approach allows arbitrary correlation between the errors of the two latent variables using propensity scores. Whether the landowners conduct PBG and MSG separately or together, the complementary between these practices has been well documented (Cummings et al., Reference Cummings, Fuhlendorf and Engle2007; Cummings, Fuhlendorf, and Engle, Reference Cummings, Fuhlendorf and Engle2007; Fuhlendorf and Engle, Reference Fuhlendorf and Engle2004; Scasta et al., Reference Scasta, Thacker, Hovick, Engle, Allred, Fuhlendorf and Weir2016). Specifically, both practices are effective in controlling woody plant encroachment and invasive forage species. Therefore, a simultaneous analysis that allows the errors to be correlated makes intuitive sense. The factor loadings capture the relationships between the latent variables and the propensity to adopt PBG or MSG practices. In a bivariate MIMIC model, the variance–covariance restrictions are similar to the assumptions maintained in multinomial logistic regression, where it is assumed that the errors or residuals of the model are uncorrelated and have equal variances. The bivariate MIMIC model was estimated in STATA software using the Generalized Structural Equation Modeling (gsem) command (StataCorp, Reference StataCorp2015).

Results

We received 523 responses from the 3000 surveys we sent out, giving us a response rate of 17.5%. There was some variation in the number of respondents across the four states. Among the 523 respondents, 32% of them were from Oklahoma, 28% were from Kansas, 22% were from Nebraska, and 18% were from Texas. The demographic characteristics of landowners across the four states were not statistically different except for their age. The descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables are provided in Tables 1 and 2. On average, landowners owned about 752 acres of rangeland. The average age of the landowners was 67 years, ranging from 29 to 94 years. About 13, 76, and 11% of the landowners had short-grass prairie, mixed-grass prairie, and Tall-grass prairie, respectively. About 44% of the landowners were individual owners. Fact sheets/magazines (45%), university/county extension (44%), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and US forest service (38%) were the leading sources of information that landowners relied on for effective rangeland management. Redcedar (56%), Blackberry (22%), and sericea lespedeza (21%) were the top three woody species plants that landowners wanted to control on their lands. Over one-fourth, (76%) of the landowners spent less than $25 per acre to conduct all the management activities on their rangelands.

A total of 10 statements, five statements for each PBG and MSG, had a significant impact on latent variables PBG-adopt and MSG-adopt, respectively, with significant factor loadings (Table 3). Among those statements, only around one-third (34% for PBG and 31% for MSG) felt that these best management practices are compatible with their land. More positive perceptions towards the compatibility, relative advantage, and trialability of the practices are found to be associated with a higher likelihood of adoption of the practices (Lavoie et al., Reference Lavoie, Dentzman and Wardropper2021; Pannell et al., Reference Pannell, Marshall, Barr, Curtis, Vanclay and Wilkinson2006). The correlation between the two management practices-PBG and MSG was statistically significant and positive. Therefore, the results indicated a complimentary relationship between both PBG and MSG indicating that the relative preference for the two practices tends to increase or decrease together.

Table 3. Estimates from bivariate Multiple Indicator–Multiple Causation for patch-burn grazing and mixed-species grazing innovation propensity

Note: Single, double, and triple asterisks (*, **, ***) indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels.

Six out of 12 explanatory variables had a significant influence on the relative preference for PBG (Table 3). Landowners learning about rangeland management through NRCS positively influenced the adoption propensity of PBG. Landowners wanting to control blackberries on their land positively impacted the likelihood of adopting PBG. Compared to short-grass prairie, landowners with Mixed-grass prairie were likelier to adopt PBG. Landowners from Oklahoma and those with higher incomes had a positive association with the adoption propensity. Finally, older landowners were negatively associated with the relative preference for PBG.

Similarly, five out of 12 explanatory variables had a significant influence on the relative preference for MSG (Table 3). Having Mixed-grass prairie compared to short-grass prairie was positively associated with the relative preference for MSG. Landowners learning about rangeland management through fact sheets and magazines positively influenced the relative preference and hence adoption propensity of MSG. Landowners who wanted to control blackberries on their land and those from Texas positively impacted the relative preference for MSG. Landowners with higher incomes had a positive association with the relative preference. Finally, older landowners were negatively associated with the relative preference for MSG.

The results from Table 3 were used to calculate percentage changes in log odds associated with each statement that represents the relative preference of PBG or MSG. The percentage changes in log odds were calculated following Lambert et al. (Reference Lambert, Paudel and Larson2015) and presented in Table 4. The entries in Table 4 can be interpreted as a percentage change in the log odds of a change in agreement level by one level for a statement given a one-unit change in the covariate. For instance, having a mixed-grass compared to having other types of vegetation was associated with a 31% increase in log odds of an increase in agreement level by one level for compatibility of patch-burn grazing (PBG1). Likewise, an additional year in age was associated with a 1% decrease in log odds of a decrease in agreement level by one level for PBG1.

Table 4. Percentage changes in propensity odds

Notes: Entires are calculated as 100 × [exp(λ k .γ k ) − 1], where λ k = factor loadings of statement and γ k = coefficients of independent variable as reported in Table 3.

Discussion

Our findings are consistent with the literature on adopting BMP and other innovative rangeland management practices. Soule, Tegene, and Wiebe (Reference Soule, Tegene and Wiebe2000) thoroughly discuss how different types of ownership can impact the adoption of new BMPs, depending on investment requirements and associated short-, medium-, and long-term benefits. Previous research also notes that regulations, access and control, stakeholder engagement, funding opportunities, and cultural considerations vary between ownership types (Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy, and Floress, Reference Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy and Floress2012; Soule et al., Reference Soule, Tegene and Wiebe2000). Age is often negatively related to adopting innovative practices, as they may require investment upfront and yield long-term benefits (Baumgart-Getz et al., 2000). Feder and Umali (Reference Feder and Umali1993) found that younger and more educated farmers are more likely to perceive higher net returns from new and innovative practices and are more likely to adopt them.

Our findings suggest that elderly landowners had a lower relative preference for both management practices, while those spending more than 50 dollars had a higher relative preference. These findings are consistent with the previous research, which has shown a lack of interest among elderly landowners in the active management of their land (Adhikari et al., Reference Adhikari, Joshi, Sorice and Fuhlendorf2023, Joshi and Arano, Reference Joshi and Arano2009). Since PBG and MSG are known to improve productivity, economic returns, and health of the rangeland system (Fuhlendorf and Engle, Reference Fuhlendorf and Engle2001; Hintze, Bir, and Peel, Reference Hintze, Bir and Peel2021), landowners willing to spend more on management activities will likely be interested in those opportunities.

Our findings underscore the importance of education and outreach in promoting PBG and MSG. The decision to invest in new practices or technology, in general, is influenced by the quantity, variety, and reliability of information sources that producers utilize for learning about them (Jenkins et al., Reference Jenkins, Velandia, Lambert, Roberts, Larson, English and Martin2011). Agencies such as the NRCS and university/county extension have been very actively involved in communicating with landowners about the PBG and MSG. Also, factsheets and magazines are the standard outreach outlets used by these organizations. By providing credible information, educating the farmers, and targeting specific adopters, these outlets can help shape the attitudes and behaviors of clientele toward adopting new management practices (Taylor and Wong, Reference Taylor and Wong2002).

The proliferation of woody plants poses a critical threat to the sustainability of rangelands (Archer et al., Reference Archer, Andersen, Predick, Schwinning, Steidl and Woods2017; Ge and Zou, Reference Ge and Zou2013; Harr et al., Reference Harr, Morton, Rusk, Engle, Miller and Debinski2014). Previous studies have highlighted the vulnerability of the Great Plains grassland ecosystems to woody encroachment, necessitating a shift towards a proactive management approach (Knapp et al., Reference Knapp, McCarron, Silletti, Hoch, Heisler, Lett and Smith2008; Twidwell et al., Reference Twidwell, Rogers, Fuhlendorf, Wonkka, Engle, Weir and Taylor2013). Although range landowners who prefer to control Redcedar in their property did not have strong preferences, those wanting to control Blackberry were more likely to prefer both PBG and MSG. Redcedar trees are difficult to control with prescribed fire after they reach a certain height (Smith, Reference Smith2011), but fire can be effectively used for other brush control. Blackberry was the second most woody plant that rangeland owners wanted to control on their land (Adhikari et al., Reference Adhikari, Joshi, Sorice and Fuhlendorf2023). This explains the positive association between the adoption propensities of PBG and MSG with the landowners who want to control woody plants on their land. These findings are similar to previous studies that indicate a tendency to adopt practices that offer immediate advantages rather than those with less obvious benefits but potentially more significant long-term environmental benefits (Gillespie, Kim, and Paudel, Reference Gillespie, Kim and Paudel2007; Kim, Gillespie, and Paudel, Reference Kim, Gillespie and Paudel2005).

While PBG and MSG offer individual benefits to the landowners, their combined implementation can significantly improve rangeland health by controlling woody plant encroachment (Wilcox et al., Reference Wilcox, Fuhlendorf, Walker, Twidwell, Wu, Goodman and Birt2022). Interestingly, study findings suggest that landowners having positive perceptions about PGB in terms of its relative advantage, compatibility, ease in adoption (less complexity) were found to express similar opinions concerning MSG as well. This complimentary perception is encouraging for university Extension and natural resource management agencies aiming to control woody encroachment in the southern Great Plains. To capitalize on this synergy, outreach programs can target landowners who are open to PBG and guide them with effective MSG implementation as well.

Study results reveal regional differences in respondent preferences for both MSG and PBG. While ranchers traditionally favor homogenous pastures (Fuhlendorf and Engle, Reference Fuhlendorf and Engle2001), sheep and goats have historically accounted for a significant portion of livestock in the western rangeland of Texas (Wilcox et al., Reference Wilcox, Sorice, Angerer and Wright2012). Likewise, PBG has been at the forefront of natural resource extension programing in Oklahoma (Weir et al., Reference Weir, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Bidwell, Cummings, Elmore and Winter2013). These factors might have contributed to higher preferences for MSG and PBG among landowners in Texas and Oklahoma, respectively.

Study results have important management implications. As previous results suggest (Lavoie et al., Reference Lavoie, Dentzman and Wardropper2021; Pannell et al., Reference Pannell, Marshall, Barr, Curtis, Vanclay and Wilkinson2006), landowners are more likely to adopt innovations that they perceive as less complex and have more relative advantage or compatibility with current practices. In contrast, PBG and MSG’s were perceived to have higher complexity and lower relative advantage as a significant number of landowners expressed consternations. For example, almost half (49%) of the landowners did not perceive PBG as more convenient than their current practices. An even higher percentage (61%) of landowners did not think MSG was more convenient than their status quo practices. Since landowners will continue their existing land use practices unless they see significant superiority of innovation (Pannell et al., Reference Pannell, Marshall, Barr, Curtis, Vanclay and Wilkinson2006), exploring techniques that can make MSG and PBG more profitable than existing practices is imperative. A recent study in Oklahoma suggests that MSG with breeding goats resulted in the highest net economic returns (Hintze et al., Reference Hintze, Bir and Peel2021). Through open-ended responses, landowners provided several qualitative insights that offer useful information for outreach need in our study region. For example, while landowners seem to agree that patch burning and MSG could be beneficial practices, they did not have enough land or time to adopt these. For some landowners, they refrain from conducting prescribed fire as they had past experiences of fire escape. Others suggested that the loss of goats to predators and the cost of fencing did not make it profitable. Multiple landowners reported that the cost of fencing for multi-species was the primary obstacle. In summary, information on MSG and PBG primarily stems from experimental research, more operational analysis with real-world applications is essential to ensure adoption success with these techniques.

One limitation of our study is worth noting. Despite reasonable efforts, our response rate was less than our desired target. Although we have seen a declining trend in survey responses in the natural resources discipline (Aguilar, Reference Aguilar2008; Cleary, Joshi, and Fairbanks, Reference Cleary, Joshi and Fairbanks2021; Mehmood, Zhang, and Armstrong, Reference Mehmood, Zhang and Armstrong2003; Thompson and Hansen, Reference Thompson and Hansen2012) and non-response bias analysis did not identify significant concerns, we recommend some caution while interpreting study findings. Likewise, our study was not focused on trialability and observability, which are also essential characteristics of innovation adoption. Therefore, their inclusion in future research would provide additional insights into the adoption behavior of various landowners regarding PBG and MSG.

Conclusions

Rangelands are facing a growing susceptibility to woody encroachment, wildfire hazards, and reduction in diverse habitat types, necessitating a shift towards innovative grazing practices to address sustainable rangeland management. This study utilized the bivariate MIMIC model to process landowners’ perceptions in the Southern Great Plains on the innovation attributes of compatibility, relative advantage, and complexity of PBG and MSG into two latent variables representing PBG and MSG adoption propensities, respectively. A better understanding of landowners’ perception towards innovation attributes of PBG and MSG and the relative preference for these two management options can inform targeted and effective educational and incentive programs and overcome adoption barriers.

Our findings acknowledge the importance of innovation characteristics in adopting PBG and MSG. Landowners who believed PBG and MSG were compatible with their land imply that they perceived the practices as suitable and appropriate for their specific land characteristics and conditions. Similarly, landowners who saw PBG and MSG as providing a relative advantage compared to their present practices were more inclined to adopt them if they believed it would bring benefits or improvements over their current land management methods. Landowners who found PBG and MSG less complex were more willing to adopt them, suggesting that they perceived PBG and MSG as easier to implement than other practices, making them more likely to consider adopting them. These findings align with prior research indicating that producers and landowners tend to adopt practices offering more immediate benefits than those with less visible but more significant long-term environmental benefits.

Finally, our findings suggest that by recognizing the ecological advantages and positive complementarities that can arise in the combined implementation of PBG and MSG techniques, integrating these practices into broader policy frameworks related to land use, conservation, and agriculture can enhance awareness and foster widespread adoption, including support from policymakers. Targeted incentive-based policies like tax breaks, subsidies, or cost-sharing programs can encourage adoption by mitigating financial challenges associated with transitioning to these management practices. Engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process can facilitate customized management strategies to local contexts and effectively address region-specific barriers.

Data availability statement

Data was collected through a mail survey. The collected data is promised to be kept confidential.

Acknowledgements

The project is funded by USDA-NIFA Award (SRS#2019-68012-29819). We would like to thank Mr. John R Weir and Dr Laura E. Goodman for their help during survey data collection and the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Oklahoma State University for additional support.

Author contribution

Conceptualization, S.D.F., O.J.;

Data Curation, S.A., O.J.;

Formal Analysis, S.A., O.J., B.T.;

Funding Acquisition, S.D.F., O.J.;

Investigation, S.A.;

Methodology, O.J., S.A.;

Project Administration, O.J., S.D.F;

Resources, O.J., S.D.F;

Software, S.A., O.J.;

Supervision, O.J., B.T., S.D.F.;

Validation, O.J., B.T., S.D.F.;

Visualization, O.J., B.T., S.D.F.;

Writing—Original Draft, S.A.;

Writing—Review and Editing, O.J., B.T., S.D.F;

Financial support

This work was supported by the USDA-NIFA Award (SRS#2019-68012-29819).

Competing interests

All the authors declare none.

References

Abaye, A., Allen, V., and Fontenot, J.. “Influence of grazing cattle and sheep together and separately on animal performance and forage quality.” Journal of Animal Science 72,4(1994):1013–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adhikari, S., Joshi, O., Sorice, M., and Fuhlendorf, S.. “Factors affecting the adoption of patch-burn grazing in the southern Great Plains in the US.” Land Use Policy 125(2023):106458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar, F.X.Effect of centrifugal forces on cluster patterns in the softwood lumber industry of the United States.” Forest Science 54,2(2008):242–9.10.1093/forestscience/54.2.242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, S.R., Andersen, E.M., Predick, K.I., Schwinning, S., Steidl, R.J., and Woods, S.R.. “Woody plant encroachment: causes and consequences.” In Rangeland Systems. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 2584):.10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustine, D.J., and Derner, J.D.. “Disturbance regimes and mountain plover habitat in shortgrass steppe: large herbivore grazing does not substitute for prairie dog grazing or fire.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 76,4(2012):721–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustine, D.J., Derner, J.D., and Milchunas, D.G.. “Prescribed fire, grazing, and herbaceous plant production in shortgrass steppe.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 63,3(2010):317–23.10.2111/REM-D-09-00044.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D.W., and Brown, J.R.. “Rotational grazing systems and livestock grazing behavior in shrub-dominated semi-arid and arid rangelands.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 64,1(2011):19 doi:10.2111/rem-d-09-00184.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., and Floress, K.. “Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature.” Journal of Environmental Management 96,1(2012):1725.10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becerra, T.A., Engle, D.M., Elmore, R.D., and Fuhlendorf, S.D.. “Contrasting preference for grassland landscapes among population groups in the central and southern Great Plains.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 66,5(2013):529–38.10.2111/REM-D-12-00174.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becerra, T.A., Engle, D.M., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Elmore, R.D.. “Preference for grassland heterogeneity: implications for biodiversity in the Great Plains.” Society & Natural Resources 30,5(2017):601–12.10.1080/08941920.2016.1239293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M.D., Sorice, M.G., Wilcox, B.P., Angerer, J.P., Rhodes, E.C., and Fox, W.E.. “Demographic changes drive woody plant cover trends—an example from the Great Plains.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 68,4(2015):315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, W.J., and Keeley, J.E.. “Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20,7(2005):387–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borges, J.A.R., Tauer, L.W., and Lansink, A.G.O.. “Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying Brazilian cattle farmers’ intention to use improved natural grassland: A MIMIC modelling approach.” Land Use Policy 55(2016):193203.10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bultena, G.L., and Hoiberg, E.O.. “Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of conservation tillage.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38,3(1983):281–4.Google Scholar
Byington, E.K. (1985). Opportunities to increase multispecies grazing in the eastern United States.Google Scholar
Cleary, M., Joshi, O., and Fairbanks, W.S.. “Mapping and modeling the components of human tolerance for black bears in eastern Oklahoma.” Journal of Environmental Management 288(2021):112378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, D.C., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Engle, D.M.. “Is altering grazing selectivity of invasive forage species with patch burning more effective than herbicide treatments?Rangeland Ecology & Management 60,3(2007):253–60.10.2111/1551-5028(2007)60[253:IAGSOI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M.. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Extension, O.S.U. (2024). Patch Burning Research and Demonstration Sites, OSU Extension. Internet site: https://extension.okstate.edu/programs/fire-ecology/patch-burning/patch-burning-research-and-demonstration-sites.html.Google Scholar
Feder, G., and Umali, D.L.. “The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43,3-4(1993):215–39.10.1016/0040-1625(93)90053-ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, M.Mixed-species grazing management to improve sustainability and biodiversity.” Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 37,1(2018):247–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Frasier, W.M., and Steffens, T.. “Stocking rate decisions are not related to what you paid for your land or pickup.” Rangelands 35,5(2013):1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freese, C., Montanye, D.., and Forrest, S.. “Proposed standards and guidelines for private nature reserves in the northern Great Plains.” Great Plains Research 20(2010):7184.Google Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Engle, D.. “Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie.” Journal of Applied Ecology 41,4(2004):604–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Engle, D.M.. “Restoring Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem Management Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns: We propose a paradigm that enhances heterogeneity instead of homogeneity to promote biological diversity and wildlife habitat on rangelands grazed by livestock.” BioScience 51,8(2001):625–32.Google Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Elmore, D.R., Limb, R.F., and Bidwell, T.G.. “Conservation of pattern and process: developing an alternative paradigm of rangeland management.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 65,6(2012):579–89.Google Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Kerby, J., and Hamilton, R.. “Pyric herbivory: rewilding landscapes through the recoupling of fire and grazing.” Conservation Biology 23,3(2009):588–98 doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01139.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuhlendorf, S.D., Townsend, D.E., Elmore, D.R., and Engle, D.M.. “Pyric-herbivory to promote rangeland heterogeneity: Evidence from small mammal communities.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 63,6(2010):670–8 doi:10.2111/rem-d-10-00044.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S.D., Winter, S., and Smith, B.. Effects of Patch Burn Grazing On Biodiversity and Cattle Production in Southeastern Nebraska: Final Report. Lincoln, NE, USA: Nebraska Game & Parks Commision, 2013.Google Scholar
Gao, X., and Reynolds, A.. “A structural equation approach to measuring technological change: an application to southeastern US agriculture.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 5,2(1994):123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ge, J., and Zou, C.. “Impacts of woody plant encroachment on regional climate in the southern Great Plains of the United States.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118,16(2013):9093–104 doi:10.1002/jgrd.50634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J., Kim, S.A., and Paudel, K.. “Why don’t producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry.” Agricultural Economics 36,1(2007):89102.10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00179.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimp, H.A.Multi-species grazing and marketing.” Rangelands Archives 10,6(1988):275–8.Google Scholar
Harr, R.N., Morton, L.W., Rusk, S.R., Engle, D.M., Miller, J.R., and Debinski, D.. “Landowners’ perceptions of risk in grassland management: woody plant encroachment and prescribed fire.” Ecology and Society 19,2(2014):41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedjazi, Y.Balancing livestock with grazing capacity (BLGC): A new approach in sustainable management of rangelands in Iran.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 31,1(2007):6173.10.1300/J064v31n01_07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintze, K., Bir, C., and Peel, D.. “Economic feasibility of mixed-species grazing to improve rangeland productivity.” Animals 11,5(2021):1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, N.T., Schimel, D.S., Owensby, C.E., and Ojima, D.S.. “Fire and grazing in the tallgrass prairie: contingent effects on nitrogen budgets.” Ecology 72,4(1991):1374–82.10.2307/1941109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holley, K., Jensen, K.L., Lambert, D.M., and Clark, C.D.. “Bivariate MIMIC analysis of pasture management and prescribed grazing practices used by beef cattle producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45,1(2020):5677.Google Scholar
Jenkins, A., Velandia, M., Lambert, D.M., Roberts, R.K., Larson, J.A., English, B.C., and Martin, S.W.. “Factors influencing the selection of precision farming information sources by cotton producers.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 40,2(2011):307–20.10.1017/S106828050000808XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, O., Becerra, T.A., Engle, D.M., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Elmore, R.D.. “Factors affecting public preferences for grassland landscape heterogeneity in the Great Plains.” Environmental Management 60,5(2017):922–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joshi, S., and Arano, K.G.. “Determinants of private forest management decisions: a study on West Virginia NIPF landowners.” Forest Policy and Economics 11,2(2009):118–25.10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., Gillespie, J.M., and Paudel, K.P.. “The effect of socioeconomic factors on the adoption of best management practices in beef cattle production.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60,3(2005):111–20.Google Scholar
Knapp, A.K., McCarron, J., Silletti, A., Hoch, G., Heisler, J., Lett, M., and Smith, M.. “Ecological consequences of the replacement of native grassland by Juniperus virginiana and other woody plants.” In Western North American Juniperus Communities: A Dynamic Vegetation Type, 2008, pp. 156–69.10.1007/978-0-387-34003-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuter, U.P., Woodard, J.B., Taylor, C.A., and Teague, W.R.. “Perceptions of Texas landowners regarding fire and its use.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 61,4(2008):456–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnakumar, J., and Nagar, A.L.. “On exact statistical properties of multidimensional indices based on principal components, factor analysis, MIMIC and structural equation models.” Social Indicators Research 86,3(2008):481–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, D.M., Paudel, K.P., and Larson, J.A.. “Bundled adoption of precision agriculture technologies by cotton producers.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 40(2015):325–45.Google Scholar
Lavoie, A.L., Dentzman, K., and Wardropper, C.B.. “Using diffusion of innovations theory to understand agricultural producer perspectives on cover cropping in the inland Pacific Northwest, USA.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 36,4(2021):384–95.10.1017/S1742170520000423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limb, R.F., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Weir, J.R., Elmore, R.D., and Bidwell, T.G.. “Pyric-herbivory and cattle performance in grassland ecosystems.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 64,6(2011):659–63.10.2111/REM-D-10-00192.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., Feng, C., Wang, D., Wang, L., Wilsey, B.J., and Zhong, Z.. “Impacts of grazing by different large herbivores in grassland depend on plant species diversity.” Journal of Applied Ecology 52,4(2015):1053–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascia, M.B., and Mills, M.. “When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices.” Conservation Letters 11,3(2018):e12442.10.1111/conl.12442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, S., Mesléard, F., and Dutoit, T.. “Using shrub clearing, draining, and herbivory to control bramble invasion in Mediterranean dry grasslands.” Environmental Management 56,4(2015):933–45.10.1007/s00267-015-0541-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGranahan, D.A., Hovick, T.J., Elmore, R.D., Engle, D.M., and Fuhlendorf, S.D.. “Moderate patchiness optimizes heterogeneity, stability, and beta diversity in mesic grassland.” Ecology and Evolution 8,10(2018):5008–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehmood, S., Zhang, D., and Armstrong, J.. “Factors associated with declining hunting license sales in Alabama.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8,4(2003):243–62.10.1080/716100423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, G.R., Brunson, M.W., and Hardegree, S.P.. “Management innovations for resilient public rangelands: adoption constraints and considerations for interagency diffusion.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 75(2021):152–60.10.1016/j.rama.2021.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, L.W., Regen, E., Engle, D.M., Miller, J.R., and Harr, R.N.. “Perceptions of landowners concerning conservation, grazing, fire, and eastern redcedar management in Tallgrass Prairie.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 63,6(2010):645–54 doi:10.2111/rem-d-09-00041.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega-S, J.A., Lukefahr, S.D., and Bryant, F.C.. “Optimum stocking rate, monitoring, and flexibility: key components of successful grazing management programs.” Rangelands 35,5(2013):22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., and Wilkinson, R.. “Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders.” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46,11(2006):1407–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, T.J., and Jeffrey, S.R.. “Efficiency and economic performance: An application of the MIMIC model.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 25(2000):232–51.Google Scholar
Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Rogers, E.M., Singhal, A., and Quinlan, M.M.. “Diffusion of innovations.” In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Routledge, 2014, pp. 432448.Google Scholar
Rouet-Leduc, J., Pe’er, G., Moreira, F., Bonn, A., Helmer, W., Shahsavan Zadeh, S.A., and van der Plas, F.. “Effects of large herbivores on fire regimes and wildfire mitigation.” Journal of Applied Ecology 58,12(2021):2690–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltiel, J., Bauder, J.W., and Palakovich, S.. “Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: Diffusion, farm structure, and profitability.” Rural Sociology 59,2(1994):333–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, F.B., Knopf, F.L., and Ostlie, W.R.. “Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and future.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 32,1(2004):615.10.2193/0091-7648(2004)32[6:GPEPPA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, L.D., Klopfenstein, T.J., Erickson, G.E., and Powell, J.M.. “Phosphorus and dairy/beef nutrition.” Phosphorus: Agriculture and the Environment 46(2005):587606.Google Scholar
Scasta, J., Thacker, E., Hovick, T., Engle, D., Allred, B., Fuhlendorf, S., and Weir, J.. “Patch-burn grazing (PBG) as a livestock management alternative for fire-prone ecosystems of North America.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 31,6(2016):550–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S.D., Plotnikoff, R.C., Karunamuni, N., Bize, R., and Rodgers, W.. “Factors influencing the adoption of an innovation: An examination of the uptake of the Canadian Heart Health Kit (HHK).” Implementation Science 3,1(2008):18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah Alam, S., Khatibi, A., Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, M., and Bin Ismail, H.. “Factors affecting e-commerce adoption in the electronic manufacturing companies in Malaysia.” International Journal of Commerce and Management 1,2(2008):125–39.Google Scholar
Sliwinski, M., Burbach, M., Powell, L., and Schacht, W.. “Ranchers’ perceptions of vegetation heterogeneity in the Northern Great Plains.” Great Plains Research 28,2(2018a):185–97 doi:10.1353/gpr.2018.0029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sliwinski, M.S., Burbach, M.E., Powell, L.A., and Schacht, W.H.. “Factors influencing ranchers intentions to manage for vegetation heterogeneity and promote cross-boundary management in the northern Great Plains.” Ecology and Society 23,4(2018b) doi:10.5751/es-10660-230445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. Eastern Red-Cedar: Positives, Negatives and Management. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Ardmore, OK, USA., 2011.Google Scholar
Soule, M.J., Tegene, A., and Wiebe, K.D.. “Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82,4(2000):9931005.10.1111/0002-9092.00097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StataCorp, L. Stata Statistical Software (Version Release 14). College Station, TX: StataCorp, L., 2015, p. 464, 465Google Scholar
Stroman, D.A., Kreuter, U.P., and Wonkka, C.L.. “Landowner perceptions of woody plants and prescribed fire in the Southern Plains, USA.” PloS ONE 15,9(2020):e0238688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, A., and Wong, T.. Non-structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Psractices: An Overview of Their Use, Value, Cost and Evaluation (2002). CRC for Catchment Hydrology.Google Scholar
Thompson, D.W., and Hansen, E.N.. “Factors affecting the attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners regarding carbon sequestration and trading.” Journal of Forestry 110,3(2012):129–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toledo, D., Sorice, M., and Kreuter, U.. “Social and ecological factors influencing attitudes toward the application of high-intensity prescribed burns to restore fire adapted grassland ecosystems.” Ecology and Society 18,4(2013):19.10.5751/ES-05820-180409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toombs, T.P., Derner, J.D., Augustine, D.J., Krueger, B., and Gallagher, S.. “Managing for biodiversity and livestock.” Rangelands 32,3(2010):10–5.10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-10-00006.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twidwell, D., Rogers, W. E., Fuhlendorf, S. D., Wonkka, C. L., Engle, D. M., Weir, J. R., and Taylor, C. A.. “The rising Great Plains fire campaign: citizens’ response to woody plant encroachment.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11,s1(2013):e64e71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentine, J.F. Grazing Management. 2nd ed. San Diego, California, USA: Academic, 2001.Google Scholar
Walker, J.W., Johnson, J.L., and Taylor, C.A.. “Challenges and opportunities for sustainable rangeland pastoral systems in the Edwards Plateau of Texas.” Pastoral Systems in Marginal Environments. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2005, 7179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Bidwell, T.G., Cummings, D.C., Elmore, D., and Winter, S.L.. (2013). Patch burning: integrating fire and grazing to promote heterogeneity.Google Scholar
Weltz, M.A., Dunn, G., Reeder, J., and Frasier, G.. “Ecological sustainability of rangelands.” Arid Land Research and Management 17,4(2003):369–88.10.1080/713936117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, B.P., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Walker, J.W., Twidwell, D., Wu, X.B., Goodman, L.E., and Birt, A.. “Saving imperiled grassland biomes by recoupling fire and grazing: A case study from the Great Plains.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20,3(2022):179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, B.P., Sorice, M.G., Angerer, J., and Wright, C.L.. “Historical changes in stocking densities on Texas rangelands.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 65,3(2012):313–7.10.2111/REM-D-11-00119.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S.L., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Goes, M.. “Patch-burn grazing effects on cattle performance: Research conducted in a working landscape.” Rangelands 36,3(2014):27 doi:10.2111/Rangelands-D-13-00079.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K.A., King, A.W., and Jensen, W.E.. “Remaining large grasslands may not be sufficient to prevent grassland bird declines.” Biological Conservation 141,12(2008):3152–67.10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, I.A., Jones, J., Davies, D., Davidson, G., and Vale, J.The effect of sward surface height on the response to mixed grazing by cattle and sheep.Animal Science 82,2(2006):271–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Statements representing three key innovation adoption attributes with means of the degree of agreement measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Definitely not true, 2 = Probably not true, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Probably true, 5 = Definitely true)

Figure 1

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of landowners’ demographics and characteristics of the land

Figure 2

Table 3. Estimates from bivariate Multiple Indicator–Multiple Causation for patch-burn grazing and mixed-species grazing innovation propensity

Figure 3

Table 4. Percentage changes in propensity odds