Post by Caitlyn Wanner
Rural Americans are important. Besides having an outsized voice in the US Senate and other elections, rural communities are also the stewards of America’s rich natural resources. But being the gatekeepers to large swaths of land and water resources comes with a price. In the past, rural communities have felt disproportionately burdened with environmental policies enacted without consideration of the impact on rural communities (Andre and Velasquez, 2015). The result has been unresolved grievances and a distrust for government stewardship that frequently borders paranoia. In today’s increasingly polarized political climate and insulative media networks, many voices dismiss rural voters for “voting against their best interest” and opposing all efforts to conserve or improve the environment (Evans, 2019). This stereotype of rural voters is far from reality.
In a recent report focused on rural attitudes on the environment, conducted by Duke University’s Nicholas School for the Environment, about rural 71% of rural voters said environment issues were important to them personally, on par with 75% of all urban/suburban voters (Bonnie 2020). This agrees with a long-term survey conducted every since 2011 by Colorado College on western voters that has documented the rise in more rural westerners considering themselves conservationists (Weigel and Metz 2022). If rural Americans care for the environment, even in brick-red states, why do these voters and their elected officials broadly oppose most environmentally-aimed bills?
While some right-wing opposition likely comes from elected officials who don’t want to be seen crossing party lines, much of the pushback has resulted from left-wing policies that appeal to urban voters. An urban voter may find broad-scale sweeping legislation that promises to solve all environmental concerns very attractive (Grandoni et al. 2021). But when it comes to managing land and wildlife across rural America, the issues are context-dependent. Environmental policy that works in Wyoming’s vast tracts of undeveloped land is not going to work in California’s crowded wildland-urban interface. Yet frequently, when rural issues make national headlines, concerned voters from places like California feel the need to voice opinions about places such as Wyoming. It is no wonder then, that rural voters do not trust the federal government’s ability to design environmental programs with enough flexibility to accommodate regional situations; nor do they trust outside environmental groups (Bonnie 2020). But that doesn’t mean largely rural states are ignoring the environment, they simply approach conservation from another angle. Here are some elements of conservation approaches that are more likely to get the support of rural voters.
First, as stated, the messaging that surrounds environmental issues needs to change to have a chance of reaching rural voters. Rural industries have felt the blame of every environmental issue and disaster for decades, both real and imagined. Commercials depicting littered beaches and sad fish—intended to guilt the suburban American into a lifestyle change—are unlikely to affect rural voters, whose hearts are accustomed by the barrage of such messaging. Conservation messaging more likely to touch the heart of a rural American will instead invoke their love for the land (Bonnie 2020, Diamond 2021). Messaging that connects to the strong place-based identities of rural Americans are more likely to gain rural support (Jacobs and Munis,2019). Unsurprisingly, conservation-minded nonprofits that appeal to the ways Rural Americans appreciate nature are more popular and trusted in rural circles, such as Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Second, rural Americans need to see the economic benefit to conservation. This is a pragmatic rather than exploitive mindset. Because rural Americans strongly associate way of life with the local landscape, changes in land policy can have oversized impacts on small, isolate communities. Studies on national monuments concluded that national monuments had a null effect local economies because the industries that were lost were replaced by more recreation-based businesses (Jakus and Akhundianov, 2019). Ask most rural Americans and they’ll tell you that effect is not net neutral, that’s a loss of their cultural heritage!
Researchers at New Mexico State University (2014) found that public rangeland cattle producers were less likely to invest in rangeland improvements when they felt uncertain of the future, an uncertainty that was driven primarily by encroachment of urbanization and shifting opinion of how public land should be used (Parry and Skaggs 2014). However, this study and others have also observed that ranchers that were equipped with knowledge and resources to manage the land sustainably strived to do so whenever economically feasible (Parry and Skaggs 2014, Didier et al. 2004).
Last and most important, rural voters need to feel heard. Coming from counties that have to fight to be heard above more populous regions and their well-funded opinions, rural voters are highly sensitive to policies that feel forced upon them. Rural communities tend to deeply value personal independence and revolt against the notion of having to live or work according to anyone else’s playbook. That’s why outreach attempts that come across as prescriptive, even when backed by good science, are likely to be rejected (Goldfarb 2020, Redpath et al. 2013). Two-way conversations between managers and locals throughout the process of scientific research and policy application can both benefit science and build trust with local stakeholders (Jakopak et al. 2021, Shirk et al. 2012). Yet calls for greater cooperation have been dismissed by some policy experts as “Sagebrush rebellion in bureaucratic clothing” (Zaffos, 2015). Though this is likely a motive in some battlegrounds, research in scientific outreach has repeatedly shown that active involvement of stakeholders and buy-in by local communities formulate the most effective and sustainable conservation strategies, long-term (Campbell and Vainio-Mattila, 2002, DeCaro and Stokes, 2013, DeCaro et al. 2017, Bonnie et al. 2020). However, efforts to collaborate with local communities must occur before picket signs rise.
There have been many small, under-reported examples of victories in conservation. One of the best examples of conservation done right in regards to rural communities is the Sage-Grouse Agreement. Sagebrush steppe in the inner-mountain West tends to be sparsely populated and utilized for a variety of industries, including livestock, energy infrastructure, and military weapons testing. When the sage-grouse endemic to this region came under review for listing under the Endangered Species Act, all of these industries risked having activities curtailed by the strict standards of the ESA. Working together in one of the most large-scale collaborative conservation efforts of our generation, industry leaders, non-profit organizations, rural interest groups, and wildlife professionals across the spectrum of federal and state agencies formulated the Sage-Grouse Agreement. This was an agreement between multiple states and the federal government to create conservation plans for rescuing this species as well as the ecosystem it represented. Local working groups have a strong role in most state action plans, providing forums for gathering local knowledge and concerns in a bottom-up strategy of land management. Recognizing the effective conservation efforts underway, in 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a “not warranted” decision regarding ESA enlistment. Though attacked by the Trump Administration and decried by some environmentalist groups, the original plans have been strongly supported by participating states, and have proven more resilient to attempts to overturn them (Bowlin, 2019).
The current political climate certainly does not make cooperation and education on the environment any easier. The extreme far-right can be expected to galvanize rural Americans with anti-federalist rhetoric for a long time. However, rural Americans do not deserve to be lumped together with Ted Bundy and other extreme right voices. The right message, by the right messengers, can galvanize the sleeping giant that is rural conservatives and reach long-lasting environmental goals.
Caitlyn Wanner is a graduate student at the University of Wyoming.
references:
Bonnie, R., D.E. Bennett, E. P. Diamond, and E. Rowe. 2020 Attitudes of rural westerners on the environment and conservation. Nicholas institute report 20(7) Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Bowlin, N. 2019. A silver lining to sage grouse rollbacks? High country News. https://www.hcn.org/articles/endangered-species-in-some-states-sage-grouse-rules-rollback-means-more-protections
Campbell, L.M. and A. Vainio-Mattila. 2002. Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human ecology 31(3):417–437.
DeCaro, D.A. and M.K. Stokes. 2013. Public participation and institutional fit: a social-phychologial perspective. Ecology and society 18:40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05837-180440
DeCaro, D.A., C. A. Arnol, E. F. Boama, and A.S. Garmestani. 2017. Understandign and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance. Ecology and society 22: 33. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09154-220133
Didier, E.A. and M.W. Brunson. 2004. Adoption of range management innovations by Utah ranchers. Journal of Range Management 57: 330–336. https://doi.org/10.2111/15515028(2004)057[0330:AORMIB]2.0.CO;2
Evans, S. 2019. Why rural voters vote Republican. Jackson sun, March 15, 2019. https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opinion/2019/03/15/why-rural-voters-vote-republican/3179313002/
Goldfarb, B. 2020. When wildlife safety turns into fierce political debate. High Country News 52:1–15, accessed February 25, 2022 at https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.1/wildlife-when-wildlife-safety-turns-into-fierce-political-debate.
Grandoni, D., B. Dennis, and J. Eilperin. 2021. Democrats push sweeping climate legislation amid a scorching summer. The Washington Post, July 16, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/07/16/climate-deal-democrats/
Jacobs, N.F and B.K. Munis. 2019. Place-Based Imagery and Voter Evaluations: Experimental Evidence on the Politics of Place. Political research quarterly 72:263–277.
Jakus, P.M and S.B. Akhundjanov. 2019. The antiquities act, national monuments, and the regional economy. Journal of environmental economics and management 95: 102-107.
Parry, S.F. and R. Skaggs. 2014. Uncertainty, impermanence syndrome, and public land ranching. Rangelands 36(2): 20–24.
Redpath, S.M., J. Young, A. Evely, W.M. Adams, W.J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, R.A. Lambert, J.D.C. Linnell, A. Watt, and R.J. Gutierrez. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in ecology and evolution 28:100-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
Weigel, L., and Metz, D., 2022, Conservation in the west poll key findings: Colorado College, The Colorado College State of the Rockies Project, accessed February 24, 2022, at https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/2022/
Jakopak, R.P., J. Western, and K.L. Monteith. 2021. Embracing complexity and context to improve science communication. Journal of wildlife management 85(7): 1309–1320.
Shirk, J.L., H.L. Ballard, C.C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E.McCallie, M.Minarchek, B.V. Lewenstein, M.E. Krasny, and R. Bonney. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and society 17(2): 29.
Andre, C. and M. Velasquez. 2015. The spotted owl controversy. Ethics and the Environment, Nov 13, 2015.
Zaffos, J. 2015. Counties use a ‘coordination’ clause to fight the feds. High Country News, May 11, 2015.
Engage Laramie Science 