Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Rangeland Management

Area of Focus
Forest and Rangeland Assessments

This project is a joint effort of the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable and the Society for Range Management. During a series of meetings from 2001 to 2003, the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable (SRR) developed the five criteria and 64 indicators of sustainable rangeland management. The SRR is a collaborative, inclusive organization, comprised of participants representing universities, federal research agencies, federal, state and local land management agencies, tribal governments, scientific societies, and both environmental and commodity-oriented non-governmental organizations. To achieve its goal, the SRR dealt with multiple issues, including those of scale and definitions. The criteria used are based on those of the Montreal Process and the concept of sustainability used here originates from the internationally-accepted definition for sustainable development contained within the UN's Brundtland Report: “... development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” More specifically, the SRR defines sustainable rangeland management as involving "the kinds of management that consider all aspects of rangelands, including their environmental, economic, and social values and the attempts to integrate them to achieve a sustainable future.

Indicators

  • Population Status and Geographic Range of Rangeland-Dependent Species
    This indicator measures the population levels (abundance) and the current geographic ranges of rangeland-dependent plant and animal species, monitored across their known range. It is not possible to monitor the population levels and ranges of all species of animals, plants, and microorganisms, so some species must be selected for monitoring. If the selected species include keystone species and those that are sensitive to particular threats, such as overgrazing, irreversible soil erosion, or fire, and if the species are diverse with respect to their taxonomy, habitats, trophic levels, ranges, and life strategies, the indicator will have a higher likelihood of detecting trends in range ecosystems.
  • Poverty rate – children
    This indicator measures the proportion of children (age 17 or younger) who live in households determined to be at or below the poverty threshold. Children in poverty can be a more specific indicator of community resilience because it may portend future capacity. Communities with high rates of poverty appear to have a legacy of poverty over time.
  • Poverty rate – general
    general poverty rate is a gross measure of social stratification that indicates the extent of poverty within a county or local area (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The greater the concentration of poverty (e.g., a higher percentage of a given population in poverty) the less likely it is that the population has the resources necessary to adapt to ecological and socioeconomic changes. Such increased social stratification, then, is related to a reduced ability to sustain counties. A lower capacity to adapt to changes implies a lower level of sustainability.
  • Presence and density of wildlife functional groups on rangeland
    This indicator measures both presence and density of representative species within functional groups of wildlife and within ecoregions or physiographic regions. Examples of functional groups for purposes of measuring this indicator may be: large herbivores, small herbivores, large predators, small predators, avian foragers, avian predators, burrowing reptiles, surface reptiles, insect grazers, amphibians, fish, and pollinators. Rangeland ecosystems provide all or a critical portion of many wildlife species annual habitat requirements. Habitat components include mating components, rearing young components, forage or food components, and resting components. Depending on the species, these may or may not be available or required in the same space. Grazing practices can impact the presence and well-being of wildlife functional groups.
  • Presence and tenure of natural resource non-governmental organizations at the local level
    The presence of private sector non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is considered to be an indicator of professional administrative capacity for conceiving, implementing, and managing community projects relating to rangeland sustainability or restoration that otherwise would be unsupported by government agencies. It is also an indicator of how strongly such groups feel about the importance of natural resources in an area.
  • Public beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward natural resources
    Public perceptions, intentions, and behaviors influence cultural, legal, and public policy decisions toward the management, consumption, and preservation of natural resources. In order for rangeland management decisions to be socially sustainable (especially on public lands), they must achieve and retain some minimum threshold of acceptability with citizens. This indicator would provide for regular measurement of preferences, attitudes, and intentions with respect to rangelands (and potentially other natural resource-based lands such as forests).
  • Public information and public participation
    This indicator measures the extent to which laws, regulations, guidelines, institutions, and organizations provide opportunities for public access to information and public participation in policy and decision-making processes relating to rangelands. Public participation ensures that policy and programs are vetted by a cross section of the people who are affected. Public participation can foster political support for sustainable management. All steps in the management decision process – problem identification, data collection, analysis, alternative formulation, and choice – must be open to public participation. Public involvement is thus a complex, dynamic, interactive process of bargaining, negotiating, and mediation among and between constituents and managers. Engaging the public does not ensure sustainability in itself. It does, however, inform participants about the issues involved, conflicting laws, resource limitations, and what other people and groups want.
  • Rangeland Area by Plant Community
    This indicator describes rangeland plant communities and their area at any given time, with the difference between times being a reflection of temporal changes. This indicator is the hierarchical subcomponent of the “Extent of Land Area in Rangeland” indicator. Changes in certain plant communities could result in changes in resource outputs, ecosystem services, non-market values, and habitats for plant and animal species. Changes in plant communities over time may suggest changes in underlying environmental factors such as climate and nutrient availability, changes in ecosystem functioning, or changes in disturbances (including grazing).
  • Rate of return on investment for range livestock enterprises
    This indicates whether ranch families are earning a competitive rate of return from producing livestock on rangelands. If the rate of return on rangeland-based livestock operations is not competitive, it might indicate that other on-ranch forms of economic returns and/or lifestyle values are important, other off-ranch sources of income are important, or that the ranch is likely to be converted to other uses.
  • Reported threats to quality of recreation experiences
    This indicator is envisioned as a way to address a problem inherent in simple measures of recreation use: rangeland sustainability is influenced by the ecological and social impacts of recreation use, and these impacts are not necessarily correlated with user density. Biophysical impacts of recreation typically follow a curvilinear pattern where marginal changes in impacts (e.g., soil compaction, change in plant species composition) become smaller as use levels increase. As a result, changes in visitor numbers may or may not indicate loss of additional value at the site level, depending on whether use is already low, moderate, or high. Social impacts of recreation – crowding, conflict between user groups, and depreciative behaviors (vandalism, littering, rule violation, etc.) – are more dependent on characteristics of the use and users than on simple numbers of users.
  • Sources of income and level of dependence on livestock production household income
    This indicator measures the degree of dependence of ranch families on livestock production for household income. Surveys have shown few ranchers rely totally on the ranch for household income. Higher dependence on the ranch for income may relate to the level of grazing during drought and the ability (or inclination) to follow sustainable grazing practices that might affect ecological sustainability. testable hypothesis might be: As income dependence on the ranch increases, ecological sustainability may be negatively affected.
  • The threat or pressure on the integrity of cultural and spiritual resource values
    This indicator relates to the intensity of concern over, and pressures for management of, cultural and spiritual resources, which are assets valued by particular groups of people. It is assumed that when spiritual or cultural values are threatened by activities on rangelands, citizens will suffer loss of value from those rangeland uses and may act to protect those values in ways that might decrease the value of other resources (e.g., by restricting livestock grazing or recreation access—either by legislation or regulation).
  • The value of forage harvested from rangeland by livestock
    Livestock grazing is the historical economic use of rangelands and continues to be an important use on both public and private lands. Changes in the value of forage used by grazing animals can indicate change in rangeland sustainability because they suggest increased (or decreased) pressure to harvest vegetation as forage to the exclusion or detriment of other uses or values. Forage values can also indicate quality of the forage in a particular area.
  • Value of investment in rangeland, rangeland improvements, and recreation/tourism infrastructure
    This indicator relates to expenditures on new structures and similar inputs for a variety of uses. It is the amount agencies and individuals are willing to spend on infrastructure for any given use of rangelands. It would be useful if data could be found that differentiate between public investment, private investment, and cost-sharing (joint investment). In terms of sustainability, it should indicate how much the current generation is willing to invest to maintain and improve the resource base for a variety of uses.
  • Value of non-livestock products from rangeland
    This indicator relates to the economic value of products from rangeland that are not related to livestock production, including recreation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, scenic views, nature experiences, open space, etc. Rangelands produce more than just livestock. The value of these other outputs is important for recognizing the full range of contributions made by rangeland and the land-use pressures that might affect sustainability.
  • Value produced by agriculture and recreation industries as percent of total economic output
    Agriculture- and recreation-based industries appear to be two of the primary sector groups of the economy related to rangelands and rangeland sustainability. While neither occurs exclusively on rangelands, tracking what happens to them in rangeland-dominated counties should indicate the pressures being placed on rangelands. As population grows and economies change, we expect there to be a differential effect on rangelands. Of course, the values that comprise this indicator will only reflect production that flows through the economy. Nonmarket values that accrue to people from such things as recreation (beyond that captured in markets) and ecosystem services provided by rangelands will be missed by this indicator.
  • Years of education
    This indicator measures the years of formal education of the population of rangeland-dependent communities. It is an important measure of the human (and to a lesser extent social) capital available for sustaining a social group. Moreover, communities whose populations have higher levels of education may tend to have increased ability to recognize and respond to problems on local rangelands.