Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.
Ecological restoration is a value‐driven process; yet social understanding of restoration lags ecological understanding. Restoration goals are driven by which stakeholders have a voice in the restoration process and their individual goals. While conflict among stakeholder visions has been observed, we lack a multidimensional understanding of these visions, where they overlap, and how they diverge. Focusing on stream restoration on private lands, we asked: (1) How do perspectives on measures of restoration success vary among stakeholders, including contractors and designers, scientists, organizations, and landowners? and (2) How do these groups discuss and navigate these differences? We used a mixed‐method interview and Q‐methodology approach to understand the range of stakeholders' approaches for assessing a successful stream restoration. We asked stakeholders to rank their level of agreement with 33 statements about restoration goals, using these to evaluate perspectives about restoration success. We identified four perspectives on successful stream restoration that varied in: the use of science‐driven criteria, risk tolerance, private property protection, and commitment to restoring streams to a previous state. Notably, contractors used deficit model approaches to communicate with landowners, even for private restoration. Institutional and cultural changes to how we approach restoration, suggested by some of the interviews, may provide paths forward. These include a recognition that all restoration objectives are socially defined, even within and among professionals, and that landowners have important local‐system knowledge. Earlier engagement between all stakeholders involved in restoration may help create mutual understanding across parties and stave off disputes about project objectives or implementation.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10411028
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Restoration Ecology
- Volume:
- 31
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1061-2971
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
This paper is a research paper. Many engineering problems require efficient coordination across disciplinary boundaries. Few studies exist about how engineers negotiate and coordinate the knowledge required for working across these boundaries on large, intricate engineering problems. We approach knowledge as a complex and socially constructed system. Knowledge systems are inherently difficult to study because they are dynamic and ephemeral: they are only visible in interactions among the individuals of the community. The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of the knowledge system of practicing engineers through ethnographic observations of their practices. We used an ethnography-inspired situative approach based on observable knowledge practices to study the knowledge system of practicing engineers. Data was collected through observation of a Critical Design Review (CDR) of a satellite project at NASA. A CDR occurs after the technical design and specifications of a project nears completion and brings together the scientists and engineers on a project to present their plans to an external review board. A CDR therefore provides a unique opportunity to witness how knowledge is exchanged and negotiated within a complex, interdisciplinary setting. The resulting ethnographic observations were analyzed and categorized into peak events. Peak events were identified when successive questions were asked pertaining to the engineering design. Focusing on these events is a useful lens to get insight about the overall knowledge system because they can represent moments where different understandings and disciplinary perspectives emerge. This paper reports on one such peak event concerning the thermal design of the satellite. We focus on one peak to provide sufficient detail so that the knowledge system and its context can be understood. Thermal design of a spacecraft is complex and dynamic with the engineer having to design for drastically different external thermal environments while balancing the changing thermal demands of internal systems. The thermal design discussion provides a particularly thorough example of a knowledge system since the engineer explained, justified, negotiated, and defended knowledge within a social setting. For example, a reviewer asked the engineer if they had taken into account what they considered to be the worst-case scenario. This required an extended discussion to negotiate the criteria by which the credibility and relevance of design components were assessed and to create a shared meaning of what “worst-case” meant. This discussion was centrally important to the technical success of the project and was unequivocally “engineering,” even though it was light on technical detail. This aspect of engineering work is focused more on the epistemic criteria by which knowledge is assessed (i.e. on the foundations of the knowledge system), rather than the technical knowledge of the design itself. Engineering students do not get much practice or instruction in explicitly negotiating knowledge systems and epistemic standards. Although this analysis is limited to a single discussion, we argue that such discussions are important in many engineering projects. Understanding how engineers communicate across different epistemic and disciplinary viewpoints is another step towards creating an engineering curriculum that more closely aligns with engineering practice. Furthermore, it shows that engineering knowledge is not only something to be possessed but instead something that must be negotiated within an interconnected and socially situated knowledge system.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)In 2016, 10 universities launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) aimed at increasing the number of scholars from Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) populations entering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty careers. NICs bring together stakeholders focused on a common goal to accelerate innovation through structured, ongoing intervention development, implementation, and refinement. We theorized a NIC organizational structure would aid understandings of a complex problem in different contexts and accelerate opportunities to develop and improve interventions to address the problem. A distinctive feature of this NIC is its diverse institutional composition of public and private, predominantly white institutions, a historically Black university, a Hispanic-serving institution, and land grant institutions located across eight states and Washington, DC, United States. NIC members hold different positions within their institutions and have access to varied levers of change. Among the many lessons learned through this community case study, analyzing and addressing failed strategies is as equally important to a healthy NIC as is sharing learning from successful interventions. We initially relied on pre-existing relationships and assumptions about how we would work together, rather than making explicit how the NIC would develop, establish norms, understand common processes, and manage changing relationships. We had varied understandings of the depth of campus differences, sometimes resulting in frustrations about the disparate progress on goals. NIC structures require significant engagement with the group, often more intensive than traditional multi-institution organizational structures. They require time to develop and ongoing maintenance in order to advance the work. We continue to reevaluate our model for leadership, climate, diversity, conflict resolution, engagement, decision-making, roles, and data, leading to increased investment in the success of all NIC institutions. Our NIC has evolved from the traditional NIC model to become the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) AGEP NIC model with five key characteristics: (1) A well-specified aim, (2) An understanding of systems, including a variety of contexts and different organizations, (3) A culture and practice of shared leadership and inclusivity, (4) The use of data reflecting different institutional contexts, and (5) The ability to accelerate infrastructure and interventions. We conclude with recommendations for those considering developing a NIC to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Despite long‐standing knowledge of the benefits of riparian buffers for mitigating nonpoint source pollution, many streams are unprotected by buffers. Even landowners who understand ecological values of buffers mow riparian vegetation to the streambank. Do trends in rural riparian conditions reflect the development of riparian forest science? What motivates residential riparian management actions? Using high‐resolution orthoimagery, we quantified riparian conditions and trends between 1998 and 2015 in the rural upper Little Tennessee River basin in Macon County, North Carolina and explored how landowners view riparian zone management and riparian restoration programs. Buffer composition in 2015 was as follows:
no buffer (32.5%),narrow (19.3%),forested (26.7%),shrub (7.2%), andintermediate (7.0%). Relative to 1998, the greatest decrease occurred in theno buffer class (−17.7%, 46 km) and the largest increases occurred in theshrub (+72.5%, 20 km) and narrow (12.6%, 14 km) classes.Forested buffer marginally increased. Semi‐structured interview data suggest that landowners prioritize recreational and scenic aspects of riparian buffers over ecological functions such as filtration and bank stabilization. Riparian restoration programs might be made more enticing to non‐adopters if outreach language appealed to landowner priorities, design elements demonstrated intentional management, and program managers highlighted areas where ecological goals and landowner values align. -
more » « less
Abstract Background Calls to improve learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and particularly engineering, present significant challenges for school systems. Partnerships among engineering industry, universities, and school systems to support learning appear promising, but current work is limited in its conclusions because it lacks a strong connection to theoretical work in interorganizational collaboration.
Purpose/Hypothesis This study aims to reflect more critically on the process of how organizations build relationships to address the following research question: In a public–private partnership to integrate engineering into middle school science curriculum, how do stakeholder characterizations of the collaborative process align with existing frameworks of interorganizational collaboration?
Design/Method This qualitative, embedded multiple case study considered in‐depth pre‐ and post‐year interviews with teachers, administrators, industry, and university personnel during the first year of the Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools (PEERS) program. Transcripts were analyzed using a framework of interorganizational collaboration operationalized for our context.
Results Results provide insights into stakeholder perceptions of collaborative processes in the first year of the PEERS program across dimensions of collaboration. These dimensions mapped to three central discussion points with relevance for school–university–industry partnerships: school collaboration as an emergent and negotiated process, tension in collaborating across organizations, and fair share in collaborating toward a social goal.
Conclusions Taking a macro‐level look at the collaborative processes involved enabled us to develop implications for collaborative stakeholders to be intentional about designing for future success. By systematically applying a framework of collaboration and capitalizing on the rich situational findings possible through a qualitative approach, we shift our understanding of collaborative processes in school–university–industry partnerships for engineering education and contribute to the development of collaboration theory.
