Engaging Landowners in the Conservation Conversation through Landowner-Listening Workshops

Sketch, Mary; Dayer, Ashley A.; Metcalf, Alexander L.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1657996

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The small sample size and collaborative research process allowed for a focused exploration of practitioner knowledge in the field of weed management in the chosen location. Sketch et al (2020) used a similar sample size of two focus groups over 2 days in their landowner-listening workshops in the United States, where they concluded that the workshops effectively bridge the gap between researchers and landowners. Similarly, our focus groups and subsequent communications between researchers and practitioners show how social research methods bridge gaps between basic or fundamental research (McLennan and Garvin 2012) and applied knowledge.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the success of cross-tenure collaborative weed management: insights codeveloped with practitioners

Graham¹,

Wyllie²,

Wilkerson³

et al. 2022

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is limited documentation of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs, and no consistent set of metrics for evaluating their performance. In this study, twelve weed management practitioners in south-east Australia participated in a qualitative social research project to discuss and document examples of cross-tenure collaborative weed management, and critically reflect on whether existing metrics are suitable for evaluating the performance of their programs. Analysis of focus group discussions, project documentation, subsequent reflections and review of the literature, reveal that weed management practitioners, in Australia and elsewhere, mostly rely on metrics that measure weed management inputs, such as herbicides, labour and costs. Metrics used to evaluate social outcomes focus on benefits for individuals rather than social relationships or achievement of equitable outcomes. Social research on collaborative governance and social science methods more broadly, such as social network analysis and collective narratives, could be used by weed management practitioners to better evaluate and explain social-ecological outcomes over time.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the success of cross-tenure collaborative weed management: insights codeveloped with practitioners

Graham¹,

Wyllie²,

Wilkerson³

et al. 2022

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the COVID-19 pandemic shed light on the issue of human health and equity as the pandemic disproportionately impacted meat packing plant workers, many of whom are members of marginalized and underserved racial minorities [12,39]. Other scholarship has brought to light the value of cattle ranching for providing recreation and tourism opportunities, particularly in the U.S. West [21], for maintaining a way of life, promoting connections and "social fabric" for neighbors and communities [40], and for reducing the out-migration of residents in rural communities [17].…”

Section: Sustainability and Beef Production In The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. beef producer perspectives on “sustainable beef” and implications for sustainability transitions

Smith,

Metcalf,

Metcalf

et al. 2024

Discov Sustain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beef production systems are at the center of ongoing discussion and debate on food systems sustainability. There is a growing interest among beef producers, consumers, and other beef supply chain stakeholders in achieving greater sustainability within the industry, but the relationship of this interest to general sustainability issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, food security, livelihood risks, and animal welfare concerns is unclear. Specifically, there is very little research documenting how beef producers define and view the concept of sustainability and how to achieve it. Producer perspectives are critical to identifying constraints to sustainability transitions or to help build agreement with other producers about the shared values such transitions may support. Through a secondary analysis of survey data of U.S. beef producers (n = 911) conducted in 2021 by the Trust in Food division of Farm Journal, a corporation that provides content, data, and business insights to the agricultural community (e.g., producers, processors/distributors, and retailers), we investigated what “sustainable beef” means to U.S. beef producers, highlighting the key components and constraints they perceive to achieving desirable sustainability outcomes. Leveraging the three-pillar model of sustainability as a framework for analysis, we identified key themes producers use to define “sustainable beef.” We found that producers collectively viewed sustainability as: (1) multidimensional and interconnected; (2) semi-closed and regenerative; (3) long-lasting; and (4) producer-centered, although an integrated perspective uniting these aspects was rare. We discuss how these perspectives may be the basis for sustainability efforts supported by producers and raise future research considerations toward a shared understanding of what sustainability is and what is needed for enduring sustainability solutions in the U.S. beef industry.

show abstract

“…Across conservation, environment and sustainability practice, listening is key. We frequently hear calls to ‘listen’, for example, to landowners to improve private land conservation programs (Fischer, 2004; Millar, 2001; Sketch et al., 2020), or to potential PES 2 participants when designing programmes (Petheram & Campbell, 2010), whose views of the purpose and meaning of such programmes may differ from those of programme managers (Chapman, Satterfield, Wittman, et al., 2020). Finding ways to appropriately listen is also central to formalised ‘listening’ processes, such as government mandates for consultation with First Nations (Gregory et al., 2008) and other consultative and participatory approaches.…”

Section: Framing Relationships Of Listening In Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of listening and listening for values in conservation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Engaging Landowners in the Conservation Conversation through Landowner-Listening Workshops

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Measuring the success of cross-tenure collaborative weed management: insights codeveloped with practitioners

Measuring the success of cross-tenure collaborative weed management: insights codeveloped with practitioners

U.S. beef producer perspectives on “sustainable beef” and implications for sustainability transitions

The value of listening and listening for values in conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About