Perception versus Practice: How Misreported Adoption of Rotational Grazing Biases Conservation Evaluation in the U.S. Great Plains

This study examines the misalignment between self-reported and practice-based measures of rotational grazing adoption among ranchers in the Northern Great Plains. Using survey data, we compare ranchers’ self-reported rotational grazing status with a practice-based adoption measure constructed from paddock number and livestock movement frequency. Whereas 79% of respondents self-reported practicing rotational grazing, only 37% met the baseline of practice-based criteria. Among self-reported adopters, 59% (257 of 434) overreport, accounting for 99% of all misalignments. Logistic regressions show that larger paddock size and higher perceived fencing costs raise the likelihood of overreporting, whereas larger animal inventories and connection to USDA personnel lower it. These associations persist across relaxed and tightened definitions of rotational grazing. Mismeasurement is consequential, increasing as practice standards tighten. First, the estimated association between rotational grazing and stocking density is attenuated when adoption is measured by self-report rather than practice, rising from near zero under lenient definitions to 40–49% under stricter definitions, where the difference is statistically significant. For a second outcome, we link willingness to accept a rotational-grazing requirement, estimated from a different choice experiment: self-reported adoption understates by about a third the lower compensation practice-based adopter requires. Surveys and conservation-program evaluations could therefore adopt explicit practice definitions and management-based verification questions rather than single yes/no items. The bias is largest where programs seek the greatest ecological gains, directly affecting payment design.