sharp_collaborative habitat management

Peer-reviewed

Collaborative Habitat Management inAgricultural Landscapes:

Opportunities and Barriers toFarmer Involvement in the Central

Wisconsin Grassland Conservation Area

Anthony K. SharpCorresponding Author

Senior Analyst, The Cadmus Group, Inc.1624 Market Street, Suite 308, Denver, Colorado 80202

[email protected]

Aaron W. ThompsonAssistant Professor

UW-Stevens Point College of Natural Resources800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481

Matthew S. BroadwayGraduate Research Assistant

UW-Stevens Point College of Natural Resources800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481

291

ABSTRACT

Collaborative habitat management func-tions at an intersection of differing priorities,which at times result in conflict, within therural landscape. Collaborative habitat man-agement considers stakeholder conflict as acatalyst, rather than an obstruction to im-provement. The research presented here ex-plores the beliefs and opinions toward col-laboration held by stakeholders andgovernment agents working in the CentralWisconsin Grassland Conservation Area

(CWGCA). We seek to understand the barri-ers and opportunities available to improvethe collaborative process in the CWGCA andto provide recommendations for a more effec-tive conservation effort. This study uses amixed-methodology began by utilizing semi-structured interviews with knowledgeableand active stakeholders of this landscape tounderstand the challenges associated withmeaningful landowner input and the abil-ity of government agents to communicatewith farmers in this landscape. The researchteam interviewed active stakeholders in-

292 Collaborative Habitat Management in Agicultural Landscapes (Peer-reviewed)

volved in this grassland management effort,including representatives from agencies, con-servation organizations, wildlife experts,and the farm community. Interviews re-vealed important themes related to publicparticipation and communication betweengovernment agents and rural landowners.Building upon the interview results, a web-based survey was then sent to over 100 gov-ernment agents (county, state, and federal)that had worked in the CWGCA landscapebetween 2006 and 2013. The survey effortyielded a 46% response rate. Our results in-dicate that agencies are losing farming expe-rience through retirement. Additionally, gov-ernment agents varied in their response toquestions about how to best involve locallandowners while planning for and manag-ing the landscape. These findings illustratesignificant barriers to effectively managingland use in the agricultural landscape ofcentral Wisconsin. Findings from this re-search provide a basis for management rec-ommendations, such as sharing decisionmaking with local stakeholders, broadeningthe range of concerns addressed by the man-agement plan, working to create an envi-ronment of co-learning, and working on asmaller scale by selecting portions of theGreater Prairie-Chicken habitat range wherelandowners are more supportive of manage-ment efforts.

INTRODUCTION

The rural landscape as a place foragricultural production, human com-munities, wildlife habitat, and recre-ation (among many other uses) holdssignificant potential for conflict; espe-cially during the process of establishingmanagement goals. Although numer-ous methods have been explored to ad-dress complex natural resource man-agement issues, collaboration mayprovide the best potential for building

consensus among the clashing values ofpeople on the land (Margerum, 2008).Collaboration as a learning process al-lows for evolving methods to addresscomplex, multi-party problems (Gray,1989). However a collaborative ap-proach to management does not guar-antee the elimination of conflict or nec-essarily result in improved ecologicalconditions. However, using a collabora-tive approach has shown promise forresponding to these challenges in rurallandscapes across the U.S., including:the Nature Conservancy’s efforts to re-store grasslands in New Mexico’s Mal-pai Borderlands region (Adams, 2006),U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s effortsto protect critical Greater Sage-Grousehabitat in the northwest (US DOI,2015), and more localized challengessuch as efforts to protect farmland fromconversion to urban development inOhio (Koontz, 2005).Government agencies now generally

regard public participation as highlyadvantageous when making manage-ment decisions. Public participationcan promote a healthy, transparent re-lationship between government agen-cies and private landowners, which isoften necessary to promote collabora-tive natural resource decision-making(Fischer, 1995). Successful collabora-tive efforts benefit from involvement oflocal stakeholders and relationshipbuilding that leads to a more compre-hensive landscape planning processand improved capacity for implement-ing plan recommendations stemmingfrom a process that fosters relationshipdevelopment between parties (Fischer,1995). This study focuses on one initia-tive where the Wisconsin Departmentof Natural Resources (WDNR) hasspent more than a decade working tobuild a collaborative partnership be-

The Passenger Pigeon, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2016 293

tween government agencies, non-profitconservation groups, and landowners –known as the Central Wisconsin Grass-land Conservation Area (CWGCA)Partnership—to protect and enhancegrassland habitat for the GreaterPrairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido)and other grassland species. The re-search presented here sought to ex-plore the beliefs and opinions towardcollaboration held by stakeholders andgovernment agents working in the Cen-tral Wisconsin Grassland ConservationArea (CWGCA) and to understand thebarriers and opportunities available toimprove the collaborative process inthe CWGCA.

HISTORY OF THE

CWGCA PARTNERSHIP

Although not historically a grass-land, the land in central Wisconsin hasbeen shaped by human modificationinto a surrogate prairie that is home tothe last remaining population of theGreater Prairie Chickens in Wisconsin.The timber harvests of the 1800s re-sulted in a landscape well suited fordairy and cattle production, which inturn provided habitat for the GreaterPrairie-Chicken throughout southernWisconsin in the early 1900s (Johns-gard 2002, Bellinger et al., 2003). Over99% of Wisconsin’s approximately 1million ha of grassland habitat andrelated vegetative communities werelost by the mid-20th century (Ventura1990). This demonstrates that Wiscon-sin has been subject to the same pres-sures leading to a national decline ingrassland ecosystems due to conversionof land to agriculture, other forms ofrural development, forest succession,and urban expansion (Sverdarsky, et al.2000, Sample et al. 2003, WDNR

Feasibility, 2004). Management for theGreater Prairie-Chicken can be chal-lenging as geographically disparate re-search suggests that habitat quality ispredicated on available residual coverfor nests (Jones 1963, Robel 1970,Kirsch 1974, Buhnerkempe et al. 1984;but, see McKee et al. 1998) and a grass-land composition that optimizes foodand cover availability (Johnson et al.2011). Additionally, the Greater Prairie-Chicken is an area-dependent grass-land bird species (Samson 1980) andseveral authors suggest large tracts ofcontiguous prairie for effective man-agement of prairie grouse (Hamer-strom et al. 1957, Fuhlendorf andEngle 2001).In the context of central Wisconsin,

surrogate grasslands prove challengingas weather and soil types may limitmanagement practices intended tomimic abiotic processes driving prairiegrouse demographics. Furthermore,the Greater Prairie-Chicken is per-ceived as a potential umbrella speciesbecause of its need for large expansesof undisturbed grassland (Poiani et al.2001). Effectively managing for GreaterPrairie-Chicken life-history require-ments is conducive to providingsuitable habitat for numerous othergrassland species, such as Bobolink(Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Mead-owlark (Sturnella magna), Short-earedOwl (Asio flammeus), Regal Fritillarybutterfly (Speyeria idalia), Clay-colored(Spizella pallida) and Savannah Sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis). As the pop-ulation of the Greater Prairie-Chickenhas plummeted, concern over the con-dition of remaining grasslands andgrassland dependent avian species hasgrown. Further changes in land use ex-acerbating fragmentation effects or re-moving remaining grasslands may con-


tribute to their decline (Bellinger et al.,2003) which is already complicated byrelated genetic and demographic issues(Bouzat et al. 1998, Westemeier et al.1998).During the 1940s and 50s, Drs. Fred

and Fran Hamerstrom developed aconservation vision leading to the cre-ation of a public-private partnership tomanage grasslands in central Wiscon-sin. Their recommendation suggestedthat well-planned landscape patterns(i.e. ecological scatter patterning) wereequally important to the existence oflarge contiguous blocks of grasslandhabitat (Hamerstrom et al. 1957). Inthe early 2000s, the WDNR along withother agencies began taking a more ac-tive leadership role in the CWGCA withthe specific goal of managing for grass-land bird species at multiple spatialscales (Sample et al. 2003). This proj-ect area includes six Wisconsin counties(Taylor, Wood, Clark, Adams, Portage,and Marathon) and four state wildlifeareas (Leola Marsh, Buena Vista, PaulJ. Olson, and George Mead) (WDNR,2004, a). The CWGCA contains ap-proximately 22,000 acres of publiclymanaged grassland buoyed by thesewildlife areas. However, research sug-gests that grassland bird populationsand community structures are nega-tively impacted by habitat loss and frag-mentation (Samson and Knopf 1994,Herkert 1995, Coppedge et al. 2001,Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005). Further-more, there is strong geospatial evi-dence showing that the available acresof contiguous grassland in central Wis-consin are not enough to conservegrassland species from continued de-cline (Sharp & Thompson, 2013).The management challenges facing

the CWGCA Partnership are notunique in the context of a Midwestern

landscape of the U.S. as conservationobjectives are being pursued within aproductive agricultural region. Yet, it isimportant to note that the central Wis-consin agriculture practices (e.g. rota-tional grazing) have allowed for, andmay continue to provide, overlappingbenefits to grassland wildlife speciesand private landowners. While much ofthe benefits to grassland species is theresult of farming practices in the re-gion, efforts to involve agriculturallandowners in the CWGCA partnershiphave seen little success and challengesto involve these landscape stakeholdersremain.

COLLABORATIVEHABITAT MANAGEMENT

The WDNR initiated and continuesto lead the CWGCA effort with the ob-jectives to establish more grasslandhabitat and maintain the open land-scape of central Wisconsin (WDNR,2004, a). Since 2004, the primarymethod of increasing grassland acreageis through a variety of initiatives run bygovernment agencies, including theFarm Service Agency, Natural Re-sources Conservation Service, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, and County LandConservation Departments, to promotegrassland management on privatelands. Meanwhile, the WDNR’s primarymethod of increasing acreage is to ac-quire land and encourage propertyowners to enroll into temporary pro-grams (such as the Conservation Re-serve Program), promote conservationeasements, or participate in other con-servation programs. In 2004, theWDNR conducted and distributed theFeasibility Study and EnvironmentalAnalysis for the CWGCA that helped in-form the development of a ten-year


Wisconsin DNR Greater Prairie-Chicken Management Plan (WDNR,2004, b). Consistent with a resiliencethinking approach to landscape man-agement, this plan recognized that thegrassland system must be maintainedon both public and private land to with-stand unforeseen disturbances of thisever-changing landscape (Walker andSalt, 2006). This integration of govern-ment and private lands is particularlyimportant in the CWGCA because cur-rent protected acres represent approx-imately six percent of total availablegrassland in a six-county area (Sharp &Thompson, 2013).As the end of the ten-year manage-

ment plan laid out by WDNR in 2004has passed, there are questions aboutthe success of these initiatives to protectgrasslands in central Wisconsin andstem the loss of Greater Prairie-Chick-ens in Wisconsin. There are also addi-tional opportunities to improve man-agement in the next management plan.The plan has succeeded in increasingacquisition and management of grass-land acreage, perhaps as result of nu-merous outreach efforts to build localawareness (e.g., Prairie Chicken Festi-val, school programs, viewing blinds,etc). Yet the amount of increasedacreage has been insufficient to reversePrairie Chicken declines, somelandowner opposition remains, and thepublic by and large has not respondedto invitations to participate in theprocess.The challenges mentioned above

may stem from factors that governmentagencies commonly face while workingwith the stakeholders nationwide.These factors include: 1) informationthat is commonly slow to disseminateamongst stakeholders through largebureaucracies, 2) structural factors,

such as how power is shared amongststakeholders and decision-making rolesand responsibilities, and 3) structuredflow of communication, such as hori-zontal, top-down, bottom-up (Koontzand Bondine, 2008). Other barriersthat government agencies experiencewhile working with stakeholders in-clude: how problems are framed (thussolutions formed), how a conflict is in-terpreted (thus resolutions shaped),and the motives (and ulterior motives)of partners involved (Gray, 2004).Moreover, top-down technical decision-making often associated with large bu-reaucracies is problematic because it isfrequently perceived as “being made byfar-off, faceless bureaucrats with littleknowledge of, or concern for howthose decisions affected local condi-tions” (Sabatier et al., 2005, p. 5).

METHODS

To meet our objectives, a mixed-method social science based approachwas implemented. The research teamconducted in-depth, semi-structured in-terviews to elicit major themes relatedto past collaboration and communica-tion and then used those data to createa survey with the purpose of gatheringinsights from government agents thathave had professional experience work-ing within the CWGCA (which makesthe quantitative aspect of research).

Qualitative ResearchMethodology

Semi-structured interviews were con-ducted in-person during the 2012Greater Prairie-Chicken Festival week-end. Interviews were audio recordedwith consent and the identities of par-


ticipants were withheld to encourageunbiased response to questions. In-per-son interviews are well suited for situa-tions where the research interests arewell defined and dependent on gather-ing information from a broad range ofinformed participants and provide anin-depth source of information appro-priate to the dynamic and complex na-ture of research (Baxter & Jack, 2008).Interviews were conducted during thefestival weekend because it brings to-gether many knowledgeable, experi-enced, and active stakeholders into onelocation with a focus on one topic (inthis case, the CWGCA and the GreaterPrairie-Chicken). The interviewingmethodology used to determine whowas to be interviewed (the sample) uti-lized snowball sampling to select inter-view subjects. Interview questions weredeveloped with the assistance of a keyinformant, who served for nearly adecade as the CWGCA Partnership Co-ordinator with a local non-profit con-servation organization. The key in-formant was selected based on thequalifications, longtime tenure of work-ing with multiple stakeholders in theCWGCA, and available resources (in-cluding a stakeholder register andknowledge of decision-making in thepast).Interviewees were asked about per-

ceived barriers of, and opportunitiesfor, the CWGCA partnership. The re-search team, with the help of the key in-formant, decided the precise wordingto help prompt responses from inter-viewees about collaboration in theCWGCA, including:

1. How well do you believe govern-ment agencies are able to copewith various landowners needs?

2. Can you evaluate the effective-

ness and cooperation of the agen-cies and organizations working inthe CWGCA?

Other questions asked about the ideasor strategies that can be implementedto promote the CWGCA partnershipand the improvements that can bemade to enhance CWGCA partnershipefforts were also asked. Responses tothese questions were transcribed fromthe recorded audio and were analyzedusing grounded theory’s constant com-parison methodology (Strauss &Corbin, 1990) through the QSR quali-tative research analysis tool, NVivo(NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Soft-ware, QSR International Pty Ltd. ver. 7,2006, Doncaster, Victoria, Australia).This qualitative analysis began withopen coding of data, which involvesevaluating and separating them intothemes (or ‘binned’ statements) thatconvey perspectives associated with therespective phenomena described by theinterviewee. The analysis can be viewedas a way to separate the interviews intoindividual thoughts and when viewedwith statements of all respondents, cat-egorizing them into themes. Eachtheme showed multiple perspectivesand at times how a theme may relate toanother. Data that covered multiplethemes were categorized into multiplecategories if they conveyed multiplephenomena. Axial coding was thenused to connect themes into an organ-ized continuum conveying propertiesof each theme (Strauss & Corbin,1990). The analysis resulted in a list ofthemes aggregated from all interviews,and the perspective held by partici-pants on that theme (as shown in Table1).

Table 1. Qualitative Analysis Results

DescriptionTheme (common responses associated with theme) Frequency

Agricultural / Land-use management, partnerships, Mentioned = 56 total;Wildlife Views land acquisition. (n= 7 of participants who

mentioned the theme)

Communication Agents training and outreach abilities, Mentioned = 17 total; (n= 5 ofovernment agency coordination, participants who mentionedspeaking with farmers. the theme).

Constraints Macro-economics, farm-bill incentives, Mentioned = 55 (n = 11 ofagency funding, landowner stewardship, participants who mentionedprogram eligibility, commodity prices. the theme).

Strategies Market driven fixes, technological fixes, Mentioned = 9 (n = 3 ofAgricultural fixes. participants who mentioned the

theme).

Trust Mistrust and negative views of government Mentioned = 57 (n = 11 ofagencies, taxation, public participation. participants who mentioned the

theme).


Quantitative Research Methodology

To build a further understanding ofthe themes identified through inter-view analysis and to validate interviewresults, we developed a web-survey todistribute to government agents to fur-ther explore areas for improvement.This was done by operationalizing qual-itative results into testable survey vari-ables. The intent of this web-survey wasto assess government agents’ beliefs as-sociated with government agent /landowner relations. We distributed theweb-survey in a four-wave contact via e-mail as adapted fromDillman (2007) toa population of 116 government agents(federal, state, and county). The emailscontained an introductory letter and alink to the web-survey and were sent tothose that currently are, or had workedon CWGCA issues over the last sevenyears on a professional level. The mail-ing list of government agents was com-piled through the CWGCA Partnership

stakeholder register, which had beendeveloped over the course of the previ-ous seven years of interaction by ourkey informant. Respondents were askedto rate the following statements per-taining to landowner input in theCWGCA partnership on a five-pointLikert scale (–2—strongly disagree to+2—strongly agree):

1. Landowners provide valuableinput for decision making.

2. CWGCA management decisionstailor priorities of the landownerinto each decision.

3. Landowners are involved in mak-ing management decisions in theCWGCA.

Survey respondents were also askedto provide binary feedback (by re-sponding yes or no) on their own farm-ing knowledge and background to eachof the following:


1. Did you grow up on a farm?2. Do you have experience workingon a farm?

3. Do you have experience manag-ing a farm for over a year?

If a respondent answered a surveyquestion with ‘Don’t Know’ or ‘Re-fused’, we removed that answer beforeany analysis. Survey data were statisti-cally analyzed with frequency distribu-tion and an analysis of variance(ANOVA) test to identify key differ-ences affecting interactions betweenagents and landowners using the Statis-tical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS,ver. 21).

RESULTS

This section provides a descriptionof the results from data collected dur-ing stakeholder interviews (qualitativeanalysis) and the web-based survey ofgovernment agents (quantitative analy-sis) who are all engaged in the CWGCApartnership.

Semi-Structured Interviews

A total of twelve interviewees yielded15,512 words transcribed verbatim andchecked for errors. Interviewees in-cluded three representatives from theWisconsin DNR, two retired employeesfrom the DNR, two members of thesame conservation organization, twolocal grazing experts (private businessowners), a retired USFWS agent, acounty representative, and an authoron grassland bird species.Data analyses resulted in a wide vari-

ety of perspectives on the history and fu-ture of the CWGCA, including aspectsof government agent communication,economics, land use and management,

public involvement, and value differ-ences among agricultural producers andwildlife conservationists. The analysis re-vealed many themes (such as con-straints, strategies, and agricultural andwildlife views); however, the constructsof public participation and communi-cating with farmers emerged from thedata as particularly relevant to the ob-jectives of this research.Public Participation.As previouslymen-

tioned, there are currently not enoughpublic acres to conserve many grasslandspecies (such as the Greater Prairie-Chicken) from continual decline andthat the grassland system must be main-tained on both public and private landin order to withstand unforeseen distur-bance to the CWGCA. Recognizing theintegral need for public involvement,five interviewees mentioned the limitedlevel of public participation currently inthe CWGCA Partnership. Of the five in-terviewees, one interviewee, a rotationalgrazing expert that does not work for agovernment agency but has actively at-tended CWGCA meetings, reflected onrecent attendance at a meeting by stat-ing “There were only two guys besidesthe private landowners that were sittingat thatmeeting that said anything to helpout private landowners in the immediatearea. There must have been 30 or 40people there, State, County, Federal of-ficials, and all they said was acquisition,acquisition, acquisition.” This perspec-tive conveys a frustration that solutionsremain focused on public land manage-ment resolutions and alternatives thatmay engage agricultural landowners arenot being explored. In contrast, a countyrepresentativemade observations on thedifficulties that the DNR is faced with,stating “. . . the DNR is between a rockand a hard place with budgets and withhow things are going. Ideally, they are


trying to work with local landowners, butthat’s not always easy . . .”In regards to collaboration with the

public, a retired USFWS agent reflectedon the years of service and experiencestating, “I think that agencies have to bemore open to collaboration and not justgo into a community and feel that theyare the power. They have to open upand get buy-in from everybody and seeboth sides of the situation . . . so if youcan get to that point of collaboration Ithink that you are going to have a muchstronger effort in conservation.” This re-tired USFWS agent echoes the idea ofstakeholder buy-in, one of the key bene-fits public participation can provide.Communicating with Farmers. There

were seven interviewees that men-tioned twenty-five times the topic ofgovernment agents’ ability to commu-nicate with rural landowners, especiallywith those who farm as their primaryoccupation within the CWGCA. Theresearcher asked interviewees whetheror not government agencies are ableto cope with the various landownersneeds. Multiple interviewees (self-iden-tifying as government agents) sharedproblems that their respective agenciesface. A WDNR Wildlife Biologist stated“It would be great if we had more toolsor abilities to communicate with thefarming community on a local level, be-cause they are not all the same . . .”One interviewee, a member of a con-

servation organization, spoke about theimportance of in-person communica-tion, stating “They [government agen-cies] don’t have enough individuals tofollow-up on leads . . . you can’t sendthem brochures in the mail if you don’thave people on the ground looking thefarmer in the eye and talking to him onhis own terms.”A different WDNRWildlife Biologist

stated the importance of technicalknowledge and credibility as precursorsto collaboration when speaking tofarmers by stating a rhetorical question,asking “If I walked in right now andtried to deliver a program [to a farmer]and couldn’t even answer a simplequestion about grazing with a farmer,you know, what would he think of me?”The statements above suggest that

communication issues may be hinderedby a lack of farming knowledge amonggovernment agents, or an inability ofthose with this knowledge to spendtime directly working with landowners.

Government Agents Survey

Fifty-three government agents (46%)responded to the online survey, an ac-ceptable response rate for online sur-veys (Dillman, 2007). Responses werereceived from individuals representingthe following organizations: WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources(n=26), USDA Natural Resources Con-servation Service (n=12), County Landand Conservation Departments (n=9),US Fish and Wildlife Service (n=3),USDA Farm Service Agency (n=2), andWisconsin Department of Transporta-tion (n=1)—all of whom were identi-fied as participants in the CWGCA Part-nership register.Farming Knowledge. Based on the in-

terview responses described above, thesurvey was designed to understand thelevel of farming knowledge among gov-ernment agents. An Analysis of Vari-ance (ANOVA) test was run to comparethe mean scores of the three agegroups identified within the survey re-sponses resulting in groups represent-ing individuals 39 and under, 40 to 49,and those 50 years of age or older (asshown in Figure 1A).

Figure 1. (A) Survey frequencies conveying government agent’s history of working in a farmingoccupation. (B) Survey frequencies conveying the mean responses government agents provided interms of sharing power with landowners.


The purpose of the ANOVA analysisprocedure was to test the hypothesisthat more experienced agency staff,identified here as those nearer to re-tirement age, have more direct experi-ence with farm management. Re-sponses to the survey showed that 33percent of agents 50 years or older hadexperience managing farm operationsfor a year or more, whereas only 8 per-cent of the agents 39 years or youngerhad this experience. A total of 88 per-cent of the agents age 40 to 49 had ex-perience working on a farm, whereasonly 54 percent of agents 39 years oryounger had that experience. TheANOVA revealed that there is a statisti-cal difference at the 0.05 significancelevel (F = 5.10, p = 0.01, df = 2) for thequestion ‘Have you ever managed afarming operation for a season orlonger?’ and at the 0.10 significancelevel (F = 2.77, p = 0.08, df = 2) for thequestion ‘Have you had experienceworking on a farm?’ Between groupcomparisons were run using Tukey’spost hoc procedure, which is bestsuited for analysis where all pairs ofmeans are available for comparison(Stevens, 1999). Examining the results

of the post hoc tests revealed that indi-viduals over 50 years of age are morelikely to have managed a farming oper-ation than those were between 40 and49 years (mean difference = .48, Sig. =.02) and those 39 and under (mean dif-ference = .45, Sig. = .03). There was nodifference identified in managementexperience between the two youngerage groups. For the question of experi-ence working on a farm this pattern re-peats where we see no significant dif-ference between the two younger agegroups, but there also isn’t a differencebetween the two older age groups. Theonly statistically significant difference isbetween those 50 years of age and olderand those 39 years and younger (meandifference = .40, Sig. = .07).For the final question related to

farmer relations, we did not see a sta-tistically significant difference in theANOVA between groups (F = 1.38, p =.268, df = 2) for the question, ‘Did yougrow up on a farm?’ As shown in thegraph for agents 50 years or older 37percent grew up on a farm, whileagents between the ages of 40 and 49the results show that 24 percent grewup on a farm, and for agents 39 years


and younger only 15 percent grew upon a farm. While not statistically signif-icant the trend is that older individualsresponded more positively to this ques-tion than younger agency staff. Theseresults suggest that younger govern-ment agents have less first-hand expe-rience in farming operations, high-lighting a growing challenge foragency-landowner interactions.Landowner Input. The results, as

shown in Figure 1B, address how gov-ernment agents perceive landownerparticipation in CWGCA managementdecisions. There was widespread agree-ment with the statement “Landownersprovide valuable input for decision-making” (mean = 1.1). However, therewas a shift towards neutrality as state-ments became more specific towardssharing power or direct involvement oflandowners. For instance, responses tothe statement “CWGCA managementdecisions tailor priorities of thelandowners into each decision” yieldedonly slight agreement (mean = 0.24)whereas a near neutral response wasgiven to the statement “Landowners areinvolved in making management deci-sions in the CWGCA,” (mean = 0.11).The lack of response for some of thestatements can be attributed to respon-dents answering that they do not know,further displaying the uncertainty thatagents have in the current level of pub-lic participation. There was no signifi-cant difference between age groups inthe response to these questions (Q1: F= 0.29, p = 0.74, df = 2; Q2: F = 1.10, p =0.35, df = 2).

DISCUSSION

Survey results show that governmentagents working in the CWGCA may belosing their collective farming knowl-

edge as those 50 and older retire andyounger agents take their place. Whileeven among those 39 and younger,more than half reported having someexperience working on a farm. How-ever, the lower percentage of directfarm experience among youngeragency staff may present a significantbarrier to working with agriculturallandowners. The qualitative findingssuggest that practical first-hand knowl-edge is essential to establishing com-munication with farmers. These find-ings further suggest that the decline indirect farm experience may actuallypresent a significant challenge to col-laboration between landowners andfarmers. This research conveys that gov-ernment officials recognize that theyneed more help to communicate effec-tively with the realization that technicalknowledge of farming is an importantaspect to communication. As agents areretiring, their roles are being fulfilledby those that have less farming back-ground. Furthermore, landowners haveexpressed that their land managementvalues are not shared or compre-hended by some agencies.With the findings expressed above,

conclusions are two-fold:

• Government officials are not com-municating with farmers as effec-tively as they believe that theycould be.

• Although some landowners areusing their property to actively ex-ecute the CWGCA landscape man-agement initiatives, those samelandowners have limited ability toparticipate in the management de-cision-making process. Withoutreciprocity, landowners in generalare not likely to respond to re-quests or invitations from govern-


ment agents, or may even discon-tinue providing grassland habitaton their land in the future.

Another factor complicating theCWGCA partnership is the limited op-portunities for true collaboration be-tween government agents andlandowners. Our research illustratesthat government agents generally be-lieve that the landowners of theCWGCA provide valuable grasslandmanagement input. However, there isuncertainty among government agentsas to the public’s role in managementdecision-making. This suggests thatthere is not a clear governance struc-ture for making decisions based onpublic participation in the CWGCA.Without a clear structure that showshow managers will utilize public in-volvement, landowners may see publicinput as simply being used only when itfits an agency’s philosophy. This bringsinto question the legitimacy of askingfor public involvement and whetheragencies are guilty of simply goingthrough the motions of involving stake-holders (Davenport et al., 2007).Furthermore, there are several rea-

sons why government agencies may bereluctant to share power, including:concerns that the time necessary tomake decisions might increase, thatspecial interest groups might take overthe process and not represent the bestinterest of the public, and that the pub-lic might lack the technical backgroundfor effective decision-making (Depoe etal., 2004). Care must be taken to de-velop a culture of collaboration withinpublic agencies because efforts to forcenatural resource managers to gatherinput from the public creates a cultureof compliance that misses the ultimategoal of collaboration, which is shared

ownership by all stakeholders (Bryan,2004).With the findings expressed above,

conclusions in regards to collaborationare:

• Landowners have differing per-spectives on effective manage-ment goals than those of agencyinitiatives. Landowners may pro-vide opportunities to promoteCWGCA management goals, yetgovernment agencies are not en-tirely recognizing that point, norare they providing landowners anadequate opportunity to do so.

• Stakeholder buy-in is integral toeffectively accomplish CWGCAmanagement objectives.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION

There is no set path, or single ap-proach, to resolving the barriers to col-laboration between agency staff and pri-vate landowners in the CWGCA. A singleprogram or management prescription(even those calling for large increases inpublic land acquisition) are not enoughto generate the capacity necessary tomake a positive impact on GreaterPrairie-Chicken populations or othergrassland bird species. As we examinedthe past, it is clear that an informationgap (perhaps of understanding, clearcommunication, or common vision) ex-ists between key stakeholders, which fur-ther increases the separation betweenlandowners and agency staff working toachieve conservation objectives. Theroots of this conflict respond at a basiclevel to the different priorities at work inthis landscape, a frequent challenge fac-ing resource management efforts. How-ever, this research also suggests that theconditions in the CWGCA are also about


the ability of different groups to com-municate and trust the actions of others.When both sides fail to see the contribu-tions of the other or have no clear com-munication channel for engaging in pro-ductive dialogue, the efforts to build anetwork of public and private lands tostem the decline of Greater Prairie-Chicken are likely to plateau.Especially in the agriculturally dom-

inated landscapes, private landownersare key stakeholders for the long-termsuccess of the collaborative efforts tomanage wildlife habitat. The results ofour survey and interviews clearly re-vealed that agency staff working in theCWGCA see the value of landownerinput in management decisions, butcurrently they may need training andpolicy guidance about how to effec-tively seek and apply input from variousstakeholders. We need to work towardbetter understanding the priorities ofthe farmers and other rural landownerswho are ultimately responsible for man-aging the majority of the landscape.Enhancing the opportunity for

shared dialogue is a necessary step for-ward; however this is not easy (or itwould already be occurring). The abil-ity of agency staff to understand thechallenges unique to farming this land-scape is necessary for the developmentof a common vision that recognizesthat this landscape is valued for morethan just the agricultural services it pro-vides, including the continued man-agement of the Greater Prairie-Chickenand the other beautiful grassland floraand fauna inhabiting this landscape.Based on the results of this study it is

also clear that there is both value and apractical need for wildlife managers tohave a strong working knowledge offarm practices and factors that influencefarm decisions that impact land man-

agement. In short, we need to improvecommunication to find opportunities towork together tomanage the rural land-scape. In the CWGCA there is a sense ofurgency to respond to grassland habitatloss that is felt primarily on the side ofwildlife managers. Ironically, this ur-gency translates into a barrier that weare seeing played out, where the moti-vation can actually hinder the progress ifessential agricultural needs are notclearly understood and met. This studyrevealed that even in rural Wisconsin,where farming remains a big part ofcommunities, there is a decline in farm-ing knowledge in the younger cohort ofour public agencies. This trend is likelyto become a greater challenge with anexpected 40 percent of agents to retirein the next five years (Yaffee & Wondol-leck, 2010). As a result, there is a need tobuild capacity to work with the agencies’younger cohort, but we must acknowl-edge that the success of collaborative ac-tion is impacted by perceived legitimacyof parties involved (Gray, 1989). In thecontext of managing for wildlife in theagricultural landscape, governmentagents must be knowledgeable aboutfarming or find quickly that manylandowners will not respect the individ-ual wearing the agencies’ emblem. Wecannot replace the experience of grow-ing up on a farm (overall the trend con-tinues that fewer people in the U.S. willhave this opportunity), but we have tobe responsive andmake sure that part ofthe time spent is “rubbing elbows” withfarmers, learningmore about their prac-tices, needs, and priorities to managethe rural landscape for the multiple pri-orities it can provide.So how can those respond whose con-

cern lies with addressing threats to thesustainability of the remaining GreaterPrairie-Chicken populations and seeing


the continued presence of their matingbehaviors that attract visitors to CentralWisconsin each spring? As it was morethan a generation ago when theHamer-stroms made recommendations for thelong-term protection of this grassland,the time has come for a new vision thatresponds both to the biological needs ofthe species dependent on this surrogategrassland community while simultane-ously responding to the priorities ofthose private landowners who own theremaining grasslands that support them.Again, this is not an easy task and successwill require a different approach thatemphasizes sharing decision makingwith local stakeholders (including pri-vate landowners), broadening the rangeof concerns addressed by the manage-ment plan to include consideration ofgoals and objectives that differ fromthose established for Greater Prairie-Chicken populations, and working tocreate an environment of co-learningwhere the level of awareness of bothGreater Prairie-Chicken and agriculturalconcerns grows amongst those engagedin the process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thankSharon Schwab, CWGCA PartnershipCoordinator from 2005 to 2013, for herrole in the development of this re-search and unwavering dedication totrue environmental stewardship.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (2006). The future of the wild: radicalconservation for a crowded world. Boston: BaconPress.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case studymethodology: Study design and implementa-tion for novice researchers. The Qualitative Re-port, 13(4), 544–559.

Bellinger, M. R., Johnson, J. A., Toepfer, J., &Dunn, P. (2003). Loss of genetic variation ingreater prairie chickens following a popula-tion bottleneck in Wisconsin, USA. Conserva-tion Biology, 17(3), 717–724.

Bouzat, J. L., Cheng, H. H., Lewin, H. A., Weste-meier, R. L., Brawn, J. D., & Paige, K. N.(1998). Genetic evaluation of a demographicbottleneck in the greater prairie chicken. Con-servation Biology, 12(4), 836–843.

Brennan, L. A., & Kuvlesky Jr, W. P. (2005). In-vited Paper: North American Grassland Birds:An Unfolding Conservation Crisis? Journal ofWildlife Management, 69(1), 1–13.

Bryan, T. A. (2004). Tragedy averted: the promiseof collaboration. Society & Natural Resources,17(10), 881–896.

Buhnerkempe, J. E., Edwards, W. R., Vance, D. R.,& Westemeier, R. L. (1984). Effects of residualvegetation on prairie-chicken nest placementand success.Wildlife Society Bulletin, 12(4), 382–386.

Davenport, M. A., Leahy, J. E., Anderson, D. H., &Jakes, P. J. (2007). Building trust in natural re-source management within local communi-ties: a case study of the Midewin National Tall-grass Prairie. Environmental Management, 39(3),353–368.

Depoe, S. P. (2004). Public involvement, civic dis-covery, and the formation of environmentalpolicy: A comparative analysis of the FernaldCitizens Task Force and the Fernald Health Ef-fects Subcommittee. Communication andpublic participation in environmental decisionmaking, 157–173.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys:The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons.

Fischer, Frank. (1995). Evaluating Public Policy.Chicago: Nelson- Hall Publisher

Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Engle, D. M. (2001). Restor-ing Heterogeneity on Rangelands: EcosystemManagement Based on Evolutionary GrazingPatterns We propose a paradigm that en-hances heterogeneity instead of homogeneityto promote biological diversity and wildlifehabitat on rangelands grazed by livestock. Bio-Science, 51(8), 625–632.

Gray, Barbara. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Com-mon Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-BassPublishers, San Fransisco, CA.

Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: frame�basedresistance to collaboration. Journal of Commu-nity & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 166–176.

Hamerstrom, F., Mattson, O. E., & Hamerstrom,F. (1957). A Guide to Prairie Chicken Manage-ment (No. 15). Game Management Division,Wisconsin Conservation Department.

Herkert, J. R. (1995). An analysis of Midwesternbreeding bird population trends: 1966–1993. American Midland Naturalist, 41–50.

Johnsgard, P. A. (2002). Grassland Grouse and their


Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C., USA.

Johnson, J. A., M. A. Schroeder and L. A. Robb.(2011). Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchuscupido), The Birds of North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Or-nithology; Retrieved from the Birds of NorthAmerica Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/036doi:10.2173/bna.36

Jones, R. E. (1963). Identification and analysis oflesser and greater prairie chicken habitat. TheJournal of Wildlife Management, 757–778.

Kirsch, L. M. (1974). Habitat management con-siderations for prairie chickens.Wildlife SocietyBulletin, 124–129.

Koontz, Tomas M. (2005). We finished the plan,so now what? Impacts of collaborative stake-holder participation on land use policy. PolicyStudies Journal 33 (3): 459–481.

Koontz, T.M., & Bodine, J. (2008). Implementingecosystemmanagement in public agencies: les-sons from the U.S. bureau of land manage-ment and the forest service. Conservation Biol-ogy, Vol. 22: No. 1.

Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collabo-ration efforts in environmental manage-ment. Environmental Management, 41(4), 487–500.

McKee, G., Ryan, M. R., & Mechlin, L. M. (1998).Predicting greater prairie-chicken nest successfrom vegetation and landscape characteris-tics. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 314–321.

Poiani, K. A., Merrill, M. D., & Chapman, K. A.(2001). Identifying conservation priority areasin a fragmented Minnesota landscape basedon the umbrella species concept and selectionof large patches of natural vegetation. Conser-vation Biology, 15(2), 513–522.

Ragin, C. C. (1994). “Constructing Social Re-search: The Unity and Diversity of Method”.

Robel, R. J. (1970). Possible role of behavior inregulating greater prairie chicken popula-tions. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 306–312.

Sabatier, P. A., Weible, C., & Ficker, J. (2005). Erasof water management in the United States: implica-tions for collaborative watershed approaches. Swim-ming upstream: collaborative approaches to water-shed management (pp. 23–52). Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.

Sample, D. W., Ribic, C. A., & Renfrew, R. B.(2003). Linking landscape management withthe conservation of grassland birds in Wiscon-sin. Landscape ecology and resource management:linking theory with practice, 359–385.

Samson, F. B. (1980). Island biogeography andthe conservation of prairie birds. In Proceedings

of the Seventh North American Prairie Confer-ence (Vol. 7, pp. 293–299).

Samson, F., & Knopf, F. (1994). Prairie conserva-tion in North America. BioScience, 418–421.

Sharp, A.K., & Thompson, A.W. (2013). StrategicConservation Planning: The Relationship be-tween the Landscape and Landowners in theCentral Wisconsin Grassland ConservationArea. The Passenger Pigeon: Vol 75(4):395–416.

Stevens, J. (1999). Post Hoc Tests in ANOVA.Retrieved from http://pages.uoregon.edu/stevensj/posthoc.pdf

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory. Sage Publications, Incorpo-rated

Sverdarsky, W. D., Westemeier, R. L., Robel, R. J.,Gough, S., & Toepher, J. E. (2000). Status andmanagement of the greater prairie-chickenTympanuchus cupido pinnatus in North Amer-ica. Wildlife Biology, 6(4), 277–284.

US Department of Agriculture. (2010). Wiscon-sin Cropland Data Layer. Accessed August2011. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/

US Department of Interior. (2015). Historic Con-servation Campaign Protects Greater Sage-Grouse. Accessed January 2016. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/historic-conservation-campaign-protects-greater-sage-grouse

Ventura, S. (1990). Digital database of the mapof the original vegetation cover of Wisconsin.(Map originally prepared by R. W. Finley, Uni-versity of Wisconsin Extension, 1976; modifiedby Scott Sauer. Scale 1:500,000). University ofWisconsin Institute for Environmental Studiesand Soil Science, Madison. Wisconsin/Publi-cations/Cropland_Data_Layer/index.asp

Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Think-ing: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Chang-ing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Westemeier, R. L., Brawn, J. D., Simpson, S. A.,Esker, T. L., Jansen, R. W., Walk, J. W., & Paige,K. N. (1998). Tracking the long-term declineand recovery of an isolated population. Science,282, 1695–1698.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.(2004a). Greater Prairie-Chicken ManagementPlan 2004–2014. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.(2004b). Feasibility study and environmentalanalysis for the Central Wisconsin Grassland Con-servation Area. Madison, WI.

Yaffee, S. L., & Wondolleck, J. M. (2010). Collab-orative ecosystem planning processes in theUnited States: Evolution and challenges. Envi-ronments: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,31(2).

This basic-plumage Common Loon stayed above the water in Dane County long enough for JeffGalligan to get this shot in mid-November 2015.

306

sharp_collaborative habitat management

Documents