| dc.description |
The last five decades of research in arid land ecology cites Invasive species as a source of imbalances in biodiversity through habitat destruction and reductions of native species through ecosystem alterations in favor of non-native species. Invasive species are known to damage not only the surrounding ecosystem but also cause economic and non-economic losses to society.
This study focuses on economic and social impacts of controlling cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) on the public rangelands of the Great Basin region. This research seeks to examine the economic and social impacts of adopting different restoration strategies (herbicide use, fire, grazing and re-seeding of native grasses). The economic study seeks to assess the cost-effectiveness of adopting any versus none of the restoration strategies using a linear programming multi-period optimization framework. In order to understand if restoration of cheatgrass is socially acceptable and whether the spatial context influences economic decisions, a parallel social attitudinal study examines the perceptions held by ranchers, interest groups, agency personnel and informed public with regard to restoration, the ongoing collaborative project and expected costs of undertaking restoration.
The bio-economic study incorporates ranch production and ecological site specific data into representative optimization models and solves to maximize net ranch income subject to market and resource constraints. The economic study found restoration to impact the ranches financially as the degree of restoration increased. Costs of restoration were lowest under baseline conditions and increased in magnitude with use of grazing, fire, herbicide and the integrated strategy respectively. Attitudinal data indicated that the meaning of restoration and social acceptability towards restoration strategies differed within and across stakeholder groups in the Great Basin states of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. |
|