Chino Winds Demonstration Project

Appendix O. Chino Winds Demonstration Project
A Baseline of Public Perceptions

The purpose of the Chino Winds Demonstration project is to demonstrate the effectiveness of applying best management practices on rangelands in order to minimize off-site movement of sediment as a non-point source of water pollution resulting from domestic livestock grazing operations. The project has two components: (1) to document the current vegetation in the demonstration area and the management inputs which are expected to affect vegetation cover and (2) to establish a baseline of public perception relative to the current erosion and water quality derived from the project area. This survey addresses the second component and offers an authoritative measure of Yavapai County residents' attitudes, perceptions, and opinions about their use and the management of rangelands in Yavapai County. An initial draft of the questionnaire was developed by the Drachman Institute following a "focus group" meeting with a variety of public sector resource managers in Yavapai County. Various drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed and commented upon by other members of the University community. The telephone interviews were administered by volunteers in Yavapai County and by students at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The questionnaire was administered successfully to a random sample of 286 individuals in Yavapai County. The questionnaire measured positive versus negative perception of rangelands, as influence by recreational use, cattle grazing, land management by private, state, and federal agencies, type of vegetation, and erosion. A total of 286 individuals were interviewed, with 58 percent being females. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents lived in Prescott and the Prescott Valley area, 19 percent in Chino Valley, 8 percent in Cottonwood, and 6 percent in Sedona. The residents were asked a variety of questions to ascertain their characteristics as well as to better understand their responses.

Tenure of Residents in Yavapai County. Yavapai County has grown substantially during the last number of years, with a population increase of 58 percent between 1980 and 1990. A significant portion of that growth was caused by in-migration. The individuals responding to this survey reflect that phenomenon, with 55 percent of the respondents having lived in Yavapai County ten or fewer years. The interviewed residents lived in Yavapai County an average of 12.7 years. Table 1 shows the distribution of Yavapai County residents by length of tenure.

Table 1. Years lived in Yavapai County.

Place of Prior Residence. Seven percent of the respondents were native to Yavapai County, while53 percent had moved to Yavapai County from either California or Maricopa County. Table 2 reports the eight leading places of origin for those persons interviewed for this study.

Table 2. Location of previous residence.

Occupations of Residents. Respondents were asked to identify their occupation or that of the person who contributes most of the income to the household. Figure 1 categorizes the respondents' occupations into eight major groups. A very high proportion of the respondents (43 percent) describe themselves as retired. This sample, therefore, is probably unrepresentative of the entire population. It should be remembered, however, that Yavapai County has the highest median age (42.4 years) of any county in Arizona, which has a median age of 32.2 years. Twenty-four percent of the population in Yavapai County is 65 years of age or older, while in Arizona as a whole only 13 percent are in that age cohort.

Organizational Involvement. Respondents were asked if they were a member of the various organizations shown in Figure 2. Sixty-seven percent of those persons interviewed did not participate in any of these organizations. Of the residents surveyed, only 14 percent had ever participated in a Cooperative Extension activity.

Impressions and Uses of Rangelands

The respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their general impressions and uses of the rangelands. Those interviewed were first given a series of positive and negative terms and asked if they perceived the rangelands in those terms. Approximately 90 percent perceived the rangelands in Yavapai County as both interesting and appealing. Other positive perceptions are shown in Figure 3. The most frequently expressed negative perception of the rangelands was that they were eroded (42 percent). Figure 4 shows other negative impressions of the rangelands. Positive perceptions of the rangelands greatly outnumbered negative perceptions.

Recreational Activities. Persons interviewed were asked if they participated in any of the nine recreational uses of rangelands shown in Figure 5. Approximately one-quarter of the respondents engaged in no recreational activities on Yavapai County rangelands during the previous twelve months. The most frequently mentioned recreational use of the rangelands was day hiking (54 percent), followed by photography (33 percent). Sixteen percent of the respondents used the rangelands for hunting, and of these individuals 63 percent hunted deer.

The fact that three-fourths of the respondents engaged in some type of outdoor activity on the rangelands corresponds with the highly positive perceptions of the visual quality of the rangelands that were held by most citizens. Ninety-seven percent of those using the rangelands generally enjoyed their activities there. Those who had negative experiences did so because of personal reasons and not for reasons associated with either the quality or management of the resource. Despite these seemingly high levels of use and enjoyment, 42 percent of all respondents felt that there was a need for more and better recreational activities on the rangelands in Yavapai County. Fifty-eight percent either disagreed or had no opinion concerning that need.

Management of the Rangelands

The central focus of the survey concerned attitudes and opinions about land use management practices on the rangelands. Three broad categories of rangeland concerns are discussed below: (i) general land use management, (ii) the management and environmental consequences of cattle and wildlife, and (iii) other change or deterioration in environmental conditions. There is of course a connection between each of these topics.

General Land Use. Eighty-five percent of the residents in Yavapai County know that some rangelands in their area are managed by the federal and state governments and that other rangelands are owned and managed by private citizens. No effort was made to determine if the respondents were able to discern which rangelands were public or private. It should be noted that there is a significant lack of agreement among residents as to whether the state and federal governments have been good managers of the rangelands, with only 34 percent agreeing that government has managed the rangelands well (Figure 6).

As previously noted, most respondents (46 percent) were satisfied with the amount and quality of recreational activities currently available on the rangelands in Yavapai County. Eighty percent of the residents agreed that public lands should be managed for multiple uses, but that concept was not specifically defined in the questionnaire. It appears that relatively strong opinions are held about fencing public lands, with almost one-third believing public lands should never be fenced and 54 percent disagreeing with that position.

Cattle and Wildlife on the Rangelands. About 95 percent of the respondents have seen pronghorn antelope, deer, and cattle on the rangelands in Yavapai County. Eighty percent of the residents believe cattle grazing is economically important to the county, and 82 percent of those who have seen cattle on the rangelands enjoy that experience. About 11 percent of the entire sample have seen cattle on the rangelands but do not like seeing them. These persons were asked to explain what it was they did not like about seeing cattle on the rangelands. Figure 7 reports the major concerns that these individuals volunteered, with overgrazing being the most significant problem identified.

All persons interviewed were presented a series of five statements to assess their perceptions of the impact of cattle grazing on the rangelands (Table 3). At least one-third of the respondents indicated that cattle grazing had damaged vegetation or caused erosion on the rangelands. Perhaps more important, however, is that a plurality and in some cases a majority of residents did not feel cattle grazing had had a deleterious impact on the rangeland environment, and, importantly, 41 percent understood that cattle grazing can improve vegetation. The greatest ambiguity among residents involved the relationship between cattle grazing and water quality, with one-third of the respondents having no opinion about this potential impact.

Table 3. Perceptions of the impact of cattle grazing on rangelands (in percents).

Other Environmental Change Concerns. Each person interviewed was asked to react to five statements broadly related to other human uses of the rangelands (Table 4). There is no overriding consensus as to whether (i) excessive woodcutting has damaged Yavapai County rangelands or (ii) soil erosion has affected water quality in the county's streams. It is important to observe, however, that relatively large proportions of those interviewed had no opinion on these topics. While 42 percent perceived rangelands as eroded (Figure 4), only 35 percent saw a specific connection between erosion and water quality in local streams. Forty-nine percent of the respondents believe that grasses are more effective than trees and shrubs in preventing soil erosion, but one-third of the residents had no opinion. A majority of those interviewed expressed a landscape preference for seeing grasses and meadows on the rangelands as opposed to trees and shrubs. And finally, most residents (81 percent) understood the concept that upstream activities affect downstream users.

Table 4. Perceptions of vegetation and erosion on rangelands (in percents).

Yavapai Ranch

This survey was interested in discovering what residents of the area already knew about Yavapai Ranch, the site of the Chino Winds Demonstration Project. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents knew nothing about the ranch. Of the 13 percent who claimed to know something about Yavapai Ranch, only one-half had specific knowledge of the location, operation, or characteristics of the ranch.

Additional Analysis

A detailed analysis of the entire data base indicates that male and female respondents did not have statistically significant different answers. Retired persons generally did not have statistically significant different answers from others in the sample, but retired persons were less inclined to horseback ride, day hike, hunt, camp, cut wood, and mountain bike than were other recreational users of the rangelands. Retired persons were also less inclined to call the rangelands productive, more inclined to think that soil erosion has affected water quality in Yavapai County streams, more inclined to disagree with the proposition that grasses are more effective than trees and shrubs in preventing soil erosion, and less likely to know about Yavapai Ranch.

Of great interest is the cluster of opinions held by the 42 percent of all respondents who perceive the rangelands as eroded. These persons, as compared to all other respondents, are statistically much more likely to

• dislike seeing cattle on the rangelands,
• believe cattle grazing has damaged vegetation,
• believe state and federal governments have not been good rangeland managers,
• believe cattle grazing has caused erosion,
• disagree that cattle grazing can help vegetation,
• believe soil erosion has affected stream water quality,
• believe upstream activities on the land affect downstream users,
• believe cattle grazing has damaged wildlife habitat on the rangelands, and
• believe cattle grazing has hurt water quality.

APPENDIX
(Based on 286 Interviews) in percents throughout

• 2. I would like to know what sort of things you have done in these rangelands during the last year. I'm going to read you a list, and I would like to know if you have done any of these activities in the local rangelands during the last year.
  
  

  Activity	Percent
  Day hikes	53.8
  Photography	32.9
  Camping	32.5
  Bird watching	28.3
  Has not used	23.4
  Wood cutting	18.2
  Horseback riding	17.5
  Hunting	16.4
  Motorized off-roaming	13.3
  Mountain biking	7.0

  Are there other activities which you have done in the rangelands during the last twelve months?

  Activity	Percent
  Picnics	4.2
  Animal watching	3.8
  Fishing	3.5
  Driving	2.8
  Rock hunting	1.7
  Short walks	1.3
  Sightseeing	1.0
  Painting	0.7
  Plant trees	0.7
  Exploring	0.6
  Christmas tree	0.3
  Exercise dog	0.3
  Gardening	0.3
  Raising livestock	0.3
  Running	0.3
  Trapping	0.3
  Target shooting	0.3
  Falconry	0.3

  If you have hunted, what did you hunt? (percent of those hunting)

  Animal	Percent
  Deer	62.9
  Birds	8.6
  Quail	8.6
  Javelina	5.7
  Antelope	5.7
  Rabbit	5.7
  Elk	2.9

  
  
• 3. Have you generally enjoyed these rangeland activities? (percent of respondents using the rangelands)

  Yes	97.3
  No	2.7

  
  

  Could you please explain why you have not enjoyed your use of the rangelands? (percent of respondents using the rangelands)

  Physically or visually impaired	1.3
  Age	0.4
  No explanation	1.0

  
  
• 4. I'm going to read you a list of words and I would like to know if you would use any of these words to describe the rangelands in Yavapai County. Would you describe these rangelands as:
  
  

  Description	Percent
  Interesting	90.9
  Appealing	89.2
  Attractive	88.1
  Beautiful	77.6
  Productive	69.2
  Eroded	42.3
  Overgrazed	32.2
  Lush	28.3
  Barren	19.2
  Bleak	18.9
  Used up	17.8
  Ugly	3.5

  
  
• 5. Have you ever seen cattle on the rangelands in Yavapai County?
  
  

  Yes	96.2
  No	3.8

  
  
• 6. Do you like to see cattle on the rangelands in this area? (percent of those who have seen cattle)
  
  

  Yes	88.3
  No	10.8

  
  

  What is it that you don't like about seeing cattle in this area? (percent of all respondents)

  Reason	Percent
  Overgrazing	3.5
  Ranchers abuse land	3.1
  Erosion/destroy land	2.8
  Detrimental to wildlife	1.7
  Scary	1.0
  Too many cattle	1.0
  Affect water	0.7
  Affect campers	0.3
  Cattle get shot	0.3
  Ranchers illegally fence	0.3

  
  
• 7. Have you ever seen pronghorn antelope or deer on the rangelands in this area?
  
  

  Yes	94. 1
  No	5.6
  Don't Know	0.3

  
  
• 8. Are you aware that some rangelands in this area are managed by the federal and state governments and other rangelands are owned and managed by private citizens?
  
  

  Yes	83.9
  No	16.1

  
  
• 9. Do you agree that the public lands should be managed for multiple uses?
  
  

  Yes	80.1
  No	10.5
  Don't Know	9.4

  
  
• 10a. Cattle grazing is an important economic activity in Yavapai County.
  
  

  Agree	79.7
  Disagree	8.4
  No Opinion	11.9

  
  
• 10b. I would rather see trees and shrubs than grasses and meadows on the rangelands.
  
  

  Agree	24.5
  Disagree	49.5
  No Opinion	26.0

  
  
• 10c. Cattle grazing has damaged vegetation on the rangelands in this area.
  
  

  Agree	35.7
  Disagree	45.5
  No Opinion	18.9

  
  
• 10d. The state and federal governments have been good managers of rangelands in this area.
  
  

  Agree	33.9
  Disagree	32.2
  No Opinion	33.9

  
  
• 10e. Citizens need more and better opportunities for recreational activities on the rangelands in this area.
  
  

  Agree	42.0
  Disagree	46.5
  No Opinion	11.5

  
  
• 10f. Cattle grazing has caused erosion on the rangelands in this area.
  
  

  Agree	33.2
  Disagree	45.8
  No Opinion	21.0

  
  
• 10g. Cattle grazing can help to improve the vegetation on the rangelands.
  
  

  Agree	41.3
  Disagree	29.7
  No Opinion	29.0

  
  
• 10h. Public lands should never be fenced.
  
  

  Agree	31.5
  Disagree	54.2
  No Opinion	14.3

  
  
  
• 10i. Soil erosion has affected the quality of water in the streams in Yavapai County.
  
  

  Agree	35.3
  Disagree	30.4
  No Opinion	34.3

  
  
• 10j. Excessive wood cutting has damaged the rangelands in this area.
  
  

  Agree	38.5
  Disagree	40.6
  No Opinion	21.0

  
  
• 10k. Upstream activities on the land affect downstream users.
  
  

  Agree	81.1
  Disagree	5.2
  No Opinion	13.6

  
  
• 10l. Cattle grazing has damaged rangelands as a place for antelope, deer, and other wildlife.
  
  

  Agree	27.3
  Disagree	54.9
  No Opinion	17.1

  
  
• l0m.Grasses are more effective in preventing soil erosion than trees and shrubs.
  
  

  Agree	49.0
  Disagree	18.2
  No Opinion	32.9

  
  
• 10n. Cattle grazing on rangelands in this area has hurt water quality.
  
  

  Agree	15.0
  Disagree	52.8
  No Opinion	32.2

  
  

  How do you think cattle grazing has hurt water quality in this area?

  Reason	Percent
  Erosion	4.9
  Manure	3.5
  Hurt water quality	3.1
  Breaks down stream beds	2.4
  Water contaminated by cattle	0.7
  Muddy water	2.1
  Urinate in water	1.7
  Standing in water	1.4
  Ranchers dump waste	0.7
  Sediment flows downstream	0.7
  Soil in rivers	0.7
  Dominates water tanks	0.3
  Unsure	0.3

  
  
• 11. Do you know anything about the Yavapai Ranch?
  
  

  Yes	12.2
  No	87.1
  Not Sure	0.7

  
  

  Explain what you know about the Ranch.

  Response	Percent
  Heard of it	5.9
  Knows where it is	2.8
  Near Seligman	1.4
  "Big Outfit"	1.0
  Been there	0.7
  By Indian tribe	0.3
  Good shape	0.3
  Business dealings with it	0.3
  Work in area	0.3
  Knew managers	0.3
  Friends have visited	0.3
  Overpopulated by predators	0.3
  Site of holistic resource management	0.3

  
  
• 12. How long have you lived in Yavapai County?
  
  

  Number of Years	Percent
  1 or less	4.2
  2	7.7
  3	5.9
  4	8.7
  5	7.7
  6	3.1
  7	5.6
  8	7.0
  9	1.7
  10	3.5
  11 to 12	9.1
  13 to 15	9.4
  16 to 20	9.4
  21 to 25	4.9
  26 to 30	5.2
  31 to 40	2.8
  41 to 70	3.8

  
  
• 13. Where did you live prior to moving to Yavapai County?
  
  

  Location	Percent
  Native	6.6

  States other than Arizona

  California	23.8
  Colorado	1.7
  Florida	1.4
  Georgia	0.3
  Hawaii	0.3
  Illinois	2.1
  Iowa	1.0
  Kansas	0.7
  Maryland	0.7
  Massachusetts	1.0
  Michigan	1.4
  Midwest	0.7
  Minnesota	0.7
  Missouri	0.7
  Montana	0.3
  Nebraska	0.7
  Nevada	0.3
  New Jersey	0.3
  New Mexico	0.3
  New York	2.8
  North Carolina	0.7
  North Dakota	0.7
  Ohio	0.3
  Pennsylvania	1.4
  South Dakota	0.7
  Tennessee	0.3
  Texas	1.0
  Virginia	0.3
  Washington	2.1
  Wisconsin	1.0
  Wyoming	0.3

  Other general area

  East Coast	0.3
  Foreign	1.7
  Midwest	.07

  Counties in Arizona

  Cochise	2.1
  Coconino	3.1
  Gila	1.4
  La Paz	0.7
  Maricopa	29.4
  Mohave	0.3
  Pima	2.4
  Pinal	0.3
  Yuma	0.7

  
  
• 14. What is you occupation or the occupation of the person who contributes most of the income for your household?
  
  

  Occupation	Percent
  Air traffic controller	0.3
  Antique dealer	0.3
  Apartment manager	0.7
  Architect	0.3
  Army	0.3
  Artist	1.7
  Builder	0.7
  Business owner	2.4
  Cable repairman	0.3
  Camp director	0.3
  Car salesman	0.3
  City worker	1.0
  Computer consultant	0.3
  Construction	1.4
  Contractor	1.0
  Cook/chef	1.0
  Counselor	0.7
  Dental technician	0.3
  Dentist	0.3
  Doctor	1.4
  Electronics	0.7
  Engineer	1.0
  Environmental studies	0.3
  Extension Director	0.3
  Factory worker	0.7
  Firefighter	0.7
  Floorman	0.3
  Gardener	1.4
  Geological studies	0.3
  Groceries	1.0
  Investment banker	0.3
  Journalist	0.3
  Landscaper	0.7
  Machine operator	0.3
  Manager	3.1
  Marketing	1.0
  Mechanic	0.7
  Musician	0.3
  Navy	0.7
  Nurse	1.4
  Paralegal	0.3
  Pastor	0.7
  Payroll supervisor	0.3
  Pilot	0.3
  Police officer	1.4
  Printing	0.3
  Railroad worker	0.3
  Ranch hand	1.4
  Real estate sales	2.1
  Rental business	0.3
  Restaurant owner	0.7
  Retail sales	1.0
  Retired	43.0
  Secretary	0.7
  Self-employed	1.4
  Slaughter house operator	0.3
  Student	0.7
  Superintendent	0.3
  Teacher/professor	7.3
  Therapist	0.3
  Trucker	1.0
  Unemployed	0.7
  Utility	0.3
  Waitress	0.3
  Welder	0.7
  Wood worker	0.7

  
  
• 15. Are you a member of any of the following organizations?
  
  

  Organization	Percent
  The Nature Conservancy	8.0
  Chamber of Commerce	7.3
  Audubon Society	5.9
  Museum of Northern Arizona	3.8
  Friends of Prescott National Forest	3.1
  Sierra Club	3.1
  Yavapai Cattlegrowers Association	1.7
  Earth First!	0.3

  
  
• 16. Have you ever participated in any Cooperative Extension activities?
  
  

  Yes	14.3
  No	80.1
  Don't know	5.5