Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: Introducing a new approach

Whitfield, Stephen J.; Reed, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.09.015

Cited by 58 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…NEPA stipulates an interdisciplinary approach so that the entire environment is included in planning and decision making (Council on Environmental Quality 2007). Even so, a typical EIS tends to comprise more ecological than social impacts, and assessments that integrate ecological and social concepts to identify impacts at multiple scales are uncommon (Burdge 2002, Franks et al 2011, Whitfield et al 2011, Whitfield and Reed 2012.…”

Section: When Federal Actions Aimed At Species Conservation In the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Esteves et al (2012) identified a set of issues that persist in SIA, including inadequate public participation and analyses that do not identify spatial or temporal distributions of impacts. Research has demonstrated that dialogue-based approaches to SIA such as interactive community forums and participatory modeling can help to overcome these limitations by providing a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of values, place meanings, and perceived impacts (Becker et al 2003, Harris et al 2012, Whitfield and Reed 2012. Rather than predicting impacts from secondary data sources, an emerging paradigm of SIA seeks a community-based process that empowers affected people with improved understanding of a project and increased capacity to negotiate outcomes with the project managers or developers (Vanclay and Esteves 2011).…”

Section: When Federal Actions Aimed At Species Conservation In the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A social-ecological impact assessment for public lands management: application of a conceptual and methodological framework

Brymer¹,

Holbrook²,

Niemeyer³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. According to the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), federal action to manipulate habitat for species conservation requires an environmental impact statement, which should integrate natural, physical, economic, and social sciences in planning and decision making. Nonetheless, most impact assessments focus disproportionately on physical or ecological impacts rather than integrating ecological and socioeconomic components. We developed a participatory social-ecological impact assessment (SEIA) that addresses the requirements of NEPA and integrates social and ecological concepts for impact assessments. We cooperated with the Bureau of Land Management in Idaho, USA on a project designed to restore habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). We employed questionnaires, workshop dialogue, and participatory mapping exercises with stakeholders to identify potential environmental changes and subsequent impacts expected to result from the removal of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Via questionnaires and workshop dialogue, stakeholders identified 46 environmental changes and associated positive or negative impacts to people and communities in Owyhee County, Idaho. Results of the participatory mapping exercises showed that the spatial distribution of social, economic, and ecological values throughout Owyhee County are highly associated with the two main watersheds, wilderness areas, and the historic town of Silver City. Altogether, the SEIA process revealed that perceptions of project scale varied among participants, highlighting the need for specificity about spatial and temporal scales. Overall, the SEIA generated substantial information concerning potential impacts associated with habitat treatments for Greater Sage-Grouse. The SEIA is transferable to other land management and conservation contexts because it supports holistic understanding and framing of connections between humans and ecosystems. By applying this SEIA framework, land managers and affected people have an opportunity to fulfill NEPA requirements and develop more comprehensive management plans that better reflect the linkages of social-ecological systems.

show abstract

Section: When Federal Actions Aimed At Species Conservation In the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: When Federal Actions Aimed At Species Conservation In the Unmentioning

confidence: 99%

A social-ecological impact assessment for public lands management: application of a conceptual and methodological framework

Brymer¹,

Holbrook²,

Niemeyer³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a transparent learning-centered participatory approach can help to reveal and deal with some of these factors, there is a need for more interdisciplinary research to understand the multiscale network of influences that drive stakeholder management decisions. In addition, using this type of approach to evaluate alternatives under a variety of future scenarios can enhance adaptive capacity and help build resilience in the management system (Whitfield and Reed, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The multi-faceted nature of dryland response to environmental and human pressures call for integrated, transdisciplinary assessment approaches that consider the variety and trade-offs of land management impacts. However, regardless the assessment approach followed, the effective use of the results tends to be limited largely because local perspectives, interests, needs, and knowledge, are inadequately considered (Estrella and Gaventa, 1998;Hisschemller et al, 2001;Whitfield and Reed, 2012). Despite the many open questions on the benefits and risks of participatory approaches (e.g., Coglianese, 1997;Irvin and Stansbury, 2004;Webler and Tuler, 2001), it is acknowledged that the involvement of stakeholders in the assessment process contributes to ensuring the relevance and acceptance of the assessment approach and outcomes; enriching the assessment with local and contextual knowledge; and understanding and adequately considering the influence of the governance and cultural elements on the system assessed (Stirling, 2006;Salter et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

Bautista

Campanyà

Ocampo‐Melgar

et al. 2017

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe adoption of sustainable land management strategies and practices that respond to current climate and human pressures requires both assessment tools that can lead to better informed decision-making and effective knowledge-exchange mechanisms that facilitate new learning and behavior change. We propose a learning-centered participatory approach that links land management assessment and knowledge exchange and integrates science-based data and stakeholder perspectives on both biophysical and socio-economic attributes. We outline a structured procedure for a transparent assessment of land management alternatives, tailored to dryland management, that is based on (1) principles of constructivism and social learning, (2) the participation of stakeholders throughout the whole assessment process, from design to implementation, and (3) the combination of site-specific indicators, identified by local stakeholders as relevant to their particular objectives and context conditions, and science-based indicators that represent ecosystem services of drylands worldwide. The proposed procedure follows a pattern of eliciting, challenging, and self-reviewing stakeholder perspectives that aims to facilitate learning. The difference between the initial baseline perspectives and the final self-reviewed stakeholder perspectives is used as a proxy of learning. We illustrate the potential of this methodology by its application to the assessment of land uses in a Mediterranean fire-prone area in East Spain. The approach may be applied to a variety of socio-ecological systems and decision-making and governance scales.

show abstract

“…A sustainability space for 12 any given system has n-dimensions defined by the multitude of social and ecological boundaries that 13 represent the limits of acceptable compromises for a system (Figure 1 This presents several challenges for research. The first is to define and describe a multi-scale and 30 multi-faceted system, a challenge for which there is a precedent within socio-ecological systems and 31 farming systems research and a variety of sophisticated approaches and techniques, in which 32 participatory and deliberative techniques are often combined with a range of simple and complex 33 modelling programmes and scenario outputs (Whitfield and Reed, 2011), will have relevant 34 application here. The second challenge is to determine, and regularly recalculate, the boundaries of 35 sustainability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%