A Typology of Catalyst Events for Collaborative Watershed Management in the United States

Prokopy, Linda Stalker; Mullendore, Nathan D.; Brasier, Kathryn J.; Floress, Kristin

doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.918230

Cited by 53 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and farmers become willing to try cover crops. Such events and associated realizations can serve as catalysts that influence changes in behavior (Prokopy et al 2014). However, our results indicate that farmers may need to have a solid understanding of both the benefits and the risks of cover crops in order to pass such a tipping point and make the decision to try them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Cover crop adoption in Iowa: The role of perceived practice characteristics

Arbuckle¹,

Roesch‐McNally²

2015

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

181

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover crops are widely viewed by the soil and water conservation community to be an effective means for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss and increasing soil health, yet relatively few farmers have adopted the practice. Despite the widespread recognition of cover crops' benefits and increased promotional efforts, there have been very few peer-reviewed studies focused on farmer perspectives on or adoption of cover crops. This study, which analyzed data from a survey and in-depth interviews with Iowa farmers, examined the roles that perceived practice characteristics, perspectives on potential facilitating factors, and crop and livestock diversity play in cover crop adoption among Iowa farmers. As expected, perceived benefits were strongly associated with cover crop use. Measures of crop and livestock diversity were also positive predictors of adoption. In addition, farmers who endorsed strengthening of facilitating factors such as educational and technological infrastructure to support cover crop use were more likely to have adopted cover crops. Farmers who perceived higher levels of risks associated with cover crop use, on the other hand, were less likely to use them. Results suggest that research and promotional efforts should focus on both raising awareness of potential benefits and quantifying and communicating potential risks and risk abatement strategies. Helping farmers to better understand (1) the benefits of cover crops and how they can be enhanced, and (2) the potential risks and ways that they can be minimized might allow farmers to more effectively weigh the probable benefits and costs of cover crop use. The findings further suggest that farmers believe that better facilitating infrastructure, in the form of technical assistance (e.g., agricultural retailers and custom operators) and education, is needed to support the widespread adoption of cover crops. Key words: adoption-cover crops-qualitative research-soil health-water qualityCover crops are widely viewed by the soil and water conservation community to be an effective means for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss and increasing soil health, yet relatively few farmers have adopted the practice. Cover crops are defined as "crops grown primarily for the purpose of protecting and improving soil between periods of regular crop production" (Schnepf and Cox 2006). Cover crops have long been valued for their soil conservation benefits, including reducing erosion, increasing infiltration, and improving soil health (Chatterjee 2013;Kaspar et al. 2001; Kaspar and Singer 2011;Schnepf and Cox 2006). More recently, as agriculture's impact on water quality has become a national concern (CENR 2010;Ribaudo 2011), the potential water quality benefits of cover crops, such as decreasing nitrate (NO 3 ) leaching into surface waters, have been highlighted (Kaspar et al. 2012; Kladivko et al. 2004Kladivko et al. , 2014Strock et al. 2004). Indeed, cover crops are being promoted heavily across the US Corn Belt to address soil and water issues (MCCC 2...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Cover crop adoption in Iowa: The role of perceived practice characteristics

Arbuckle¹,

Roesch‐McNally²

2015

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

181

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the cyclical nature of EPA 319 or state natural resource department funding, as well as the project-based operational time-horizons of these groups, are significant barriers to their sustainability and need to be considered during evaluation Sometimes groups form for a specific purpose, meet all of their goals, and then dissolve naturally (Prokopy et al, 2014b). However, all else held constant, a watershed with a funded organized group, including paid staff members, is preferred over one with no group.…”

Section: Funded Watershed Group With Current Paid Staffmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They find that the effectiveness of a catalyst is dependent upon baseline social conditions. This article builds off of Prokopy et al (2014b) by identifying specific baseline social conditions that can influence the success of NPS reduction projects. A focus on social criteria takes seriously Chess & Gibson's observation that "all watershed are not created equal (socially); some watersheds may benefit little from watershed management efforts" (2001: 775).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research findings and experiential evidence indicate that when selecting among several watersheds with comparable levels of biophysical impairment to participate in targeted watershed conservation projects that feature innovative planning techniques and novel management practices, using social criteria can greatly improve the selection of appropriate study sites. Prokopy et al (2014b) examine the role of catalysts such as increased grant funding in leading to change within a watershed. They find that the effectiveness of a catalyst is dependent upon baseline social conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using social criteria to select watersheds for non-point source agricultural pollution abatement projects

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cosens et al (2017) observed that top-down regulations such as the ESA can trigger innovation by presenting only narrow solutions that are socially and/or economically unacceptable. Others have noted that even the threat of the "hammer" of governmental intervention associated with the ESA can act as a catalyst and alter watershed and basin social dynamics by incentivizing collaboration among resource users and land managers to prevent further regulation (Prokopy et al 2014). The latter point is consistent with theories that disruptive legal actions can actually lead to collaboration, more equitable resource reallocation, and flexible resource management by first destabilizing rigid power relationships that exploit both resources and marginalized peoples (Arnold 2004, Karkkainen 2008.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming (perceived) rigidity in environmental law through adaptive governance: a case of Endangered Species Act implementation

Gosnell¹,

Chaffin²,

Ruhl³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is often portrayed as a major source of instability and crisis in river basins of the U. S. West, where the needs of listed fish species frequently clash with agriculture dependent on federal irrigation projects subject to ESA Section 7 prohibitions on federal agency actions likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Scholarship on Section 7 characterizes the process as unwaveringly rigid, the legal "hammer" forcing federal agencies to consider endangered species' needs when proposing operations and management plans for federally funded irrigation. In this paper, we identify barriers to an integrated approach to Section 7 implementation and characterize a set of strategies for overcoming its rigidity that may have broader applicability. We draw on lessons derived from the Klamath Basin along the Oregon-California border, where cross-scale processes and venues involving interagency collaboration among leaders in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation supported efforts to replace an ecologically and socially fragmented Upper Basin/Lower Basin approach to ESA implementation fraught with conflict. The result was the nation's first joint biological opinion (BiOp), which effectively institutionalized an adaptive, flexible, integrated approach to water sharing among competing interests. Keys to success included existing collaborative capacity related to shifting stakeholder networks, trust, and relationships and a shift in local agency culture facilitated by empathic leadership leading to a greater sense of shared responsibility for Section 7 compliance. A collaborative hydrologic modeling process enhanced participatory capacity, facilitated transformative social and technical learning, and cultivated greater understanding of the social-ecological system among key stakeholders. The 2013 joint BiOp exemplifies both governmental capacity for flexibility and evolution within the constraints of formal law and the potential for greater integration among federal agencies and between federal agencies and stakeholders involved in ESA implementation.

show abstract

A Typology of Catalyst Events for Collaborative Watershed Management in the United States

Cited by 53 publications

References 53 publications

Cover crop adoption in Iowa: The role of perceived practice characteristics

Cover crop adoption in Iowa: The role of perceived practice characteristics

Using social criteria to select watersheds for non-point source agricultural pollution abatement projects

Transforming (perceived) rigidity in environmental law through adaptive governance: a case of Endangered Species Act implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About