Social Science Report on Sagebrush Conservation Needs
Over the last several decades, scientists have significantly advanced understanding of ecological processes and biophysical components within sagebrush ecosystems. These advances provide a strong scientific basis for informing management and conservation efforts. There is a growing recognition that people are critical to the health of the sagebrush ecosystems through the decisions they make, but the human dimensions of sagebrush management and conservation are not well understood. These insights motivated the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (WAFWA) Sagebrush Science Initiative to release a request for proposals to “facilitate the integration of social science and associated data into sagebrush conservation.” Subsequently, WAFWA funded the Ruckelshaus Institute at the University of Wyoming to conduct research on the social science research needs and priorities to help natural resource managers integrate social and ecological perspectives into more comprehensive sagebrush management strategies. The following content highlights their findings.
Focus Group Findings:
Findings from the focus group discussions in four western states reveal a fair amount of consensus in terms of identifying top priority topics for social science research. Chief among them was a focus on gaining a better understanding of the costs and benefits associated with conserving sagebrush ecosystems. Participants expressed increased interest in research topics that move beyond simply economic values to more nuanced ideas of value, for example understanding community values and landowner goals and motivations for decision making.
Some research priorities identified by focus group participants varied from location to location. For example, focus group participants in Wyoming and Colorado showed interest in research topics related to energy development. This is likely due to the fact that, while energy development plays a large role in the economies of those states, it plays a far lesser role in the economies of Idaho and Oregon. Similarly, although wildfire is a threat to sagebrush ecosystems in all states, there was interest in prioritizing research topics to understanding and quantifying the economic implications of restoring sagebrush ecosystems. This interest was far more pronounced in Oregon and Idaho (respectively), where devastating wildfires have occurred in recent years. It’s worth noting, however, that an interest in prioritizing research topics related to fire also ranked highly in Wyoming as well.
With regard to the perceived barriers to incorporating social science into resource management decisions, participants identified a general lack of funding for social science research and of social scientists working in sagebrush country. Participants also noted that social science research “takes a long time” to conduct, and that decision makers are more likely to rely on quantifiable data that is readily available as opposed to waiting for findings from social science research that is often laced with uncertainty. This also brings up a recognition on behalf of focus group participants about a general unease, and/or, lack of understanding about what social science is and how it could be used to inform conservation and management of sagebrush ecosystems on the ground.
Recommendations:
Based on the extensive stakeholder engagement process conducted in this research project, researchers provide the recommendations below to enhance the role of social science in informing management and conservation of sagebrush ecosystems. These suggestions are relevant to the development and implementation of funding programs (e.g., WAFWA’s Sagebrush Science Initiative) and researchers developing research programs to fill the needs of a diverse range of stakeholders.
1) Prioritize decision-making needs, rather than research topics
A range of specific research topics emerged as research priorities, yet there was no clear understanding about how this research would directly contribute to management and conservation decisions. Instead of prioritizing specific social science research topics, we suggest that funders prioritize research that has clearly defined applications for end users.
2) Develop templates for integrating social science into agency and organizational plans
To support decision-relevant research, we suggest supporting efforts to pair social scientists with specific land or resource management agencies to develop templates to integrate social science insights into agency documents and plans, for example US Forest Service Forest Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management’s Resource Management Plans. These collaborations can help improve the usefulness of social science research as agency staff can help researchers understand the spatial and temporal scales, data formats, and other considerations that are relevant to management decisions.
3) Support collaboration among social scientists and practitioners
Collaborative research that pairs researchers and practitioners will likely result in significant co-learning outcomes and increase the capacity of researchers and practitioners to integrate social science insights into management and conservation decisions overtime. These funding strategies will help address the identified challenges to applying social science and bridge the gap between academic and theoretically-oriented research with on-the-ground needs of resource managers and other stakeholders.
4) Raise the profile of social science by illustrating impact
Throughout the focus group discussions and in open-ended survey questions, we found evidence that the social sciences were perceived negatively or as irrelevant to some individuals and stakeholder groups. This perception limits opportunities to integrate the social sciences into management and decision making as their value and usefulness are not broadly recognized. Although several federal and state agencies have added social science staff, we recommend funders and researchers develop a deliberate strategy to continue to raise the profile of the social sciences through targeted communications and trainings.
5) Invest in social science communication strategy
Our survey results indicated that there is no one preferred avenue for communicating social science research findings, so an effective strategy will likely need to include multiple engagement formats, ranging from in-person communication, briefing papers, newsletters, and webinars. One communication model highlighted by multiple participants is the Sage Grouse Initiative’s (SGI) Science to Solutions program, which multiple participants felt was an effective strategy for reaching a diverse array of stakeholders. Research participants also emphasized the SageWest Communications Network as a useful tool to share information through its listserv and newsletter. We suggest developing a social science communication strategy that is integrated within the SGI or SageWest infrastructure, or similar frameworks, to reach key constituencies and increase awareness of social science research. Building on these existing efforts is likely to be a more efficient and effective approach than creating a separate communication program from scratch.
6) Develop integrated social-ecological systems or coupled human and natural systems approaches
Social science research is likely to be more relevant and useful when it is integrated with ecological and other natural sciences. Conceptual frameworks that integrate natural and social sciences, such as social-ecological systems or coupled human and natural systems approaches, can be especially helpful in understanding the links between otherwise disparate and independently pursued research. These approaches can help to map social-ecological systems, organize existing knowledge, identify gaps, and diagnose drivers of change within the system and their related feedbacks, such as explicitly recognizing how existing governance structures and power relationships present barriers to conservation action.
7) Build social science capacity within agencies and organizations
Federal agencies (e.g., USGS, BLM, USFS, USFWS), state wildlife management agencies, and conservation organizations have made significant progress in expanding social science capacity in recent years. Yet this capacity is still insufficient to meet the need and integrate social science perspectives in sagebrush management and conservation. Additionally, while many agencies and organizations support a diverse range of natural science expertise (e.g., wildlife ecologists, fire ecologists, fisheries scientists, hydrologists), the spectrum of social scientists (e.g., sociologists, economists, human geographers, social psychologists) is rarely represented within these institutions.
