The sustainability of agriculture depends as much on the natural resources required for production as it does on the stakeholders that manage those resources. It is thus essential to understand the variables that influence the decision-making process of agricultural stakeholders to design educational programs, interventions, and policies geared towards their specific needs, a required step to enhance agricultural sustainability. This study employed a survey of multiple-choice and open-ended questions to examine the perceptions, experiences, and priorities that influence management decisions of agricultural stakeholders across Montana, United States. A total of 272 respondents completed a survey, representing five distinct agricultural stakeholder groups: 103 (34.9%) conventional producers, 78 (28.7%) consultants, 37 (13.6%) researchers, 33 (12.1%) organic grain producers, and 21 (7.7%) organic vegetable producers. The results revealed that, while stakeholder groups have distinct perceptions, experiences, and priorities, there were similarities across groups (pseudo-F = 22.92, p = 0.001). Specifically, organic vegetable and organic small-grain producers showed similar responses that were, in turn, divergent from those of conventional producers, researchers, and crop consultants. Conventional small-grain producers and researchers showed overlapping response patterns, while crop consultants formed an isolated group. Six clusters resulting from the classification of the multiple-choice response dataset associated with specific agricultural professions (χ2 = 549.72, p = 0.001). The classification of open-ended questions that assessed agronomic challenges and research needs resulted in six distinctive clusters, with specific associations between clusters and agricultural stakeholder groups (χ2 = 164.41, p = 0.001). These results reinforce the need for agricultural education and programs that address unique and shared experiences, priorities, and concerns of multiple stakeholder groups. This study endorses the call for a paradigm shift from the traditional top-down agricultural extension model to one that accounts for participants’ socio-ecological contexts to facilitate the adoption of sustainable agricultural systems that support environmental and human wellbeing.
more »
« less
Ecological stakeholder analogs as intermediaries between freshwater biodiversity conservation and sustainable water management
Water security is essential for human well‐being and is among the biggest challenges in environmental governance. Governments and nonprofit organizations alike are gaining increased appreciation for the contributions of intact ecosystems to water security, whereas conservation scientists call for decisive action to address the dire condition of earth's freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity. Stakeholder‐based, Habermasian decision‐making frameworks such as integrated water resources management (IWRM) are widely used to equitably manage complex water systems, and ecologists have developed increasingly sophisticated frameworks (e.g., environmental flows) to quantify and anticipate the ecological outcomes of water management decisions. IWRM implementation is criticized for being excessively top‐down whereas ecological frameworks in water decision‐making can fail to account for the cultural and societal values of ecosystems, and it remains unclear how best to connect the desired bottom‐up implementation of IWRM with the expert‐based, top‐down structure of hydro‐ecological research. We revisit and elaborate upon the ecological stakeholder analog (ESA) concept, which treats ecological phenomena (e.g., species and processes) as stakeholders and ecological information as interests and positions with respect to water management. We then illustrate how ESAs can address the many calls to improve environmental flows and IWRM strategies by improving their integration, and how established conceptual frameworks from stakeholder theory applies readily to ecological stakeholders.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10371914
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Policy and Governance
- Volume:
- 29
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1756-932X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 303-312
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract Wildfire risk is a defining environmental challenge throughout much of the American West, as well as in other regions where complex social and ecological dynamics defy simple policy or management solutions. In such settings, diverse forms of land use, livelihoods, and accompanying values provide the conditions for trade-offs (e.g. between protecting homes from uncontrollable fires and restoring low-severity fire to ecosystems as a natural disturbance process). Addressing wildfire risk requires grappling with these trade-offs at multiple levels—given the need for action by individuals as well as by large and diverse stakeholder groups—and under conditions of considerable complexity. We evaluated how individual and collective perception of trade-offs varies as a function of complexity through analysis of the cognitive maps—representations of perceived causal relationships among factors that structure an individual’s understanding of a system—of 111 stakeholders in the Eastern Cascades Ecoregion of central Oregon. Bayesian statistical analysis revealed a strong tendency against perception of trade-offs in individual maps, but not in a collective map that resulted from the aggregation of all individual cognitive maps. Furthermore, we found that lags (the number of factors that mediated the effect of an action on multiple valued outcomes) limited perception of trade-offs. Each additional intervening factor decreased the likelihood of a trade-off by approximately 52% in individual cognitive maps and by 10% in the collective cognitive map. However, the heterogeneity of these factors increased the likelihood of perception of trade-offs, particularly among individual cognitive maps, for which each unit increase of the Shannon diversity index translated into a 20-fold increase in the likelihood of perception of trade-offs. Taken together, these results suggest that features of complexity have distinct effects on individual—and collective-level perception of trade-offs. We discuss implications for wildfire risk decision-making in central Oregon and in other complex wildfire-prone social-ecological systems.
-
more » « less
Abstract Several environmental policies strive to restore impaired ecosystems and could benefit from a consistent and transparent process—codeveloped with key stakeholders—to prioritize impaired ecosystems for restoration activities. The Clean Water Act, for example, establishes reallocation mechanisms to transfer ecosystem services from sites of disturbance to compensation sites to offset aquatic resource functions that are unavoidably lost through land development. However, planning for the prioritization of compensatory mitigation areas is often hampered by decision‐making processes that fall into a myopic decision frame because they are not coproduced with stakeholders. In this study, we partnered with domain experts from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services to codevelop a real‐world decision framework to prioritize catchments by potential for the development of mitigation projects following principles of a structured decision‐making process and knowledge coproduction. Following an iterative decision analysis cycle, domain experts revised foundational components of the decision framework and progressively added complexity and realism as they gained additional insights or more information became available. Through the course of facilitated in‐person and remote interactions, the codevelopment of a decision framework produced three main “breakthroughs” from the perspective of the stakeholder group: (a) recognition of the problem as a multiobjective decision driven by several values in addition to biogeophysical goals (e.g., functional uplift, restoring or enhancing lost functionality of ecosystems); (b) that the decision comprises a linked and sequential planning‐to‐implementation process; and (c) future risk associated with land‐use and climate change must be considered. We also present an interactive tool for “on‐the‐fly” assessment of alternatives and tradeoff analysis, allowing domain experts to quickly test, react to, and revise prioritization strategies. The decision framework described in this study is not limited to the prioritization of compensatory mitigation activities across North Carolina but rather serves as a framework to prioritize a wide range of restoration, conservation, and resource allocation activities in similar environmental contexts across the nation.
-
Introduction Integrated water management (IWM) involves a range of policies, actions, and organizational processes that go beyond traditional hydrology to consider multifaceted aspects of complex water resource systems. Due to its transdisciplinary nature, IWM comprises input from diverse stakeholders, each with unique perceptions, values, and experiences. However, stakeholders from differing backgrounds may disagree on best practices and collective paths forward. As such, successful IWM must address key governance principles (e.g., information flow, collective decision-making, and power relations) across social and institutional scales. Here, we sought to demonstrate how network structure impacts shared decision-making within IWM. Methods We explored a case study in Houston, Texas, USA, where decision-making stakeholders from various sectors and levels of governance engaged in a participatory modeling workshop to improve adoption of nature-based solutions (NBS) through IWM. The stakeholders used fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) to define an IWM model comprising multifaceted elements and their interrelationships, which influenced the adoption of NBS in Houston. We applied grounded theory and inductive reasoning to categorize tacit belief schemas regarding how stakeholders viewed themselves within the management system. We then used FCM-based modeling to explore how unique NBS policies would translate into more (or less) NBS adoption. Finally, we calculated specific network metrics (e.g., density, hierarchy, and centrality indices) to better understand the structure of human-water relations embedded within the IWM model. We compared the tacit assumptions about stakeholder roles in IWM against the quantitative degrees of influence and collectivism embedded within the stakeholder-defined model. Results and discussion Our findings revealed a mismatch between stakeholders' external belief statements about IWM and their internal assumptions through cognitive mapping and participatory modeling. The case study network was characterized by a limited degree of internal coordination (low density index), high democratic potential (low hierarchy index), and high-efficiency management opportunities (high centrality index), which transcended across socio-institutional scales. These findings contrasted with several of the belief schemas described by stakeholders during the group workshop. We describe how ongoing partnership with the stakeholders resulted in an opportunity for adaptive learning, where the NBS planning paradigm began to shift toward trans-scale collaboration aimed at high-leverage management opportunities. We emphasize how network analytics allowed us to better understand the extent to which key governance principles drove the behavior of the IWM model, which we leveraged to form deeper stakeholder partnerships by identifying hidden opportunities for governance transformation.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Frontline communities of California experience disproportionate social, economic, and environmental injustices, and climate change is exacerbating the root causes of inequity in those areas. Yet, climate adaptation and mitigation strategies often fail to meaningfully address the experience of frontline community stakeholders. Here, we present three challenges, three errors, and three solutions to better integrate frontline communities' needs in climate change research and to create more impactful policies. We base our perspective on our collective firsthand experiences and on scholarship to bridge local knowledge with hydroclimatic research and policymaking. Unawareness of local priorities (Challenge 1) is a consequence of Ignoring local knowledge (Error 1) that can be, in part, resolved with Information exchange and expansion of community-based participatory research (Solution 1). Unequal access to natural resources (Challenge 2) is often due to Top-down decision making (Error 2), but Buffer zones for environmental protection, green areas, air quality, and water security can help achieve environmental justice (Solution 2). Unequal access to public services (Challenge 3) is a historical issue that persists because of System abuse and tokenism (Error 3), and it may be partially resolved with Multi-benefit projects to create socioeconomic and environmental opportunities within frontline communities that include positive externalities for other stakeholders and public service improvements (Solution 3). The path forward in climate change policy decision-making must be grounded in collaboration with frontline community members and practitioners trained in working with vulnerable stakeholders. Addressing co-occurring inequities exacerbated by climate change requires transdisciplinary efforts to identify technical, policy, and engineering solutions.more » « less
