Stakeholder participation in lake management in <scp>W</scp>isconsin (<scp>USA</scp>)

Thornton, J. A.

doi:10.1111/lre.12013

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, watershed management within the southeast region has evolved into dynamic partnerships amongst lake and river organizations, public citizens, NGOs, academic institutions and municipalities, as well as engaging state and federal representatives that lead to the development and ongoing implementation of planning efforts such as the Mukwonago River watershed protection planning project (Thornton et al . ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Perhaps this is simply an indication that LAs are far easier (i.e. less time consuming) to organize and form than LDs, which entail the creation of an actual unit of government with a taxing authority (see Thornton ). This increased rate of formation of LAs in the 1990s also might reflect the increasing awareness of aquatic invasive species, especially in the northern parts of the State.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lake Districts, or public inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts, are special purpose units of government. For more detailed descriptions see Thornton (). The entire list of Lake Associations and Lake Districts was downloaded and compiled from multiple resources, but the main source of information came from the University of Wisconsin (UW)‐Extension's ‘Directory of Lake Organizations’ website (UW‐Extension ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This report was intended to complement contributions on stakeholder participation in lake management in Wisconsin (Thornton ) and on the Mukwonago River Protection Plan (Thornton et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

River Basin Organization development in southeastern Wisconsin

Slawski¹

2013

Lakes & Reservoirs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report summarizes the role and function of river organizations in the southeast region of the State of Wisconsin (USA) by comparing the history of lake and river organization formation within the State and aspects of successful public involvement/engagement as examples in protecting and enhancing water resources in the southeastern region of the State. Review of the history of lake organization vs. river organization formation from years 1895 to 2011 demonstrates that Wisconsin has a long and stable history of stakeholder participation in watershed‐based resource management activities. The changes over time also demonstrate that lake association formation became consistent on an annual basis by about the mid‐1930s, followed by lake districts (special purpose units of government) in the early 1970s and river organization formation by the mid 1980s. Hence, the emergence of stream‐based watershed groups as partners in stream‐based watershed protection and management is a relatively new phenomenon statewide, as well as in the southeastern region, especially in the period since the year 1990 when these organizations exhibited the greatest increase in their rate of formation. Comparison of lake organization vs. river organization formation over time also exhibited similarities amongst the timing of formation, rates of development and peaks of formation at the State level that seems to be associated with, or partially explained by, ongoing state programmes and funding. This recent timing of increase in river group popularity in the southeastern region is coupled with an increase in understanding and importance of expanding the focus of management issues, beyond the specific surface water lake or river itself, to the watershed scale. This has set‐up an interesting dilemma amongst river and lake organizations, particularly within the Fox (Illinois) River watershed, as they attempt to identify their respective roles and work together to meet stakeholder demands into the future.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

River Basin Organization development in southeastern Wisconsin

Slawski¹

2013

Lakes & Reservoirs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Cambodia, as well as elsewhere, people are likely to become 'activists' when they are directly affected by a conflict, as bottom-up monitoring groups are usually formed around a community-concern or a community need (Lawrence et al 2005;Thornton 2013). In Cambodia, the community-concern or need is often the extraction of natural resources that are essential for the bio-cultural survival of forest-dependent people.…”

Section: Socio-demographic and Economic Background Of Monitorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Wants to Save the Forest? Characterizing Community-Led Monitoring in Prey Lang, Cambodia

Turreira-García

Meilby

Brofeldt

et al. 2018

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community monitoring is believed to be successful only where there is sustained funding, legislation for communities to enforce rules, clear tenure rights, and an enabling environment created by the state. Against this backdrop, we present the case of an autonomous grassroots-monitoring network that took the initiative to protect their forest, in a context, where no external incentives and rule enforcement power were provided. The aim was to analyze the socio-demographic and economic backgrounds, motivations and achievements of forest monitors, compared to non-monitors in the same communities. A total of 137 interviews were conducted in four villages bordering Prey Lang forest in Cambodia. We used binary logit models to identify the factors that influenced the likelihood of being a monitor. Results show that there were few (22%, n = 30) active monitors. Active monitors were intrinsically motivated forest-users, and not specifically associated with a particular gender, ethnicity, or residence-time in that area. The most common interventions were with illegal loggers, and the monitors had a general feeling of success in stopping the illegal activities. Most (73%, n = 22) of them had been threatened by higher authorities and loggers. Our results show that despite the lack of power to enforce rules, absence of external funding and land-ownership rights, and enduring threats of violence and conflicts, autonomous community monitoring may take place when community members are sufficiently motivated by the risk of losing their resources.

show abstract

From concept to practice to policy: modeling coupled natural and human systems in lake catchments

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Recent debate over the scope of the U.S. Clean Water Act underscores the need to develop a robust body of scientific work that defines the connectivity between freshwater systems and people. Coupled natural and human systems (CNHS) modeling is one tool that can be used to study the complex, reciprocal linkages between human actions and ecosystem processes. Well-developed CNHS models exist at a conceptual level, but the mapping of these system representations in practice is limited in capturing these feedbacks. This article presents a paired conceptual-empirical methodology for functionally capturing feedbacks between human and natural systems in freshwater lake catchments, from human actions to the ecosystem and from the ecosystem back to human actions. We address extant challenges in CNHS modeling, which arise from differences in disciplinary approach, model structure, and spatiotemporal resolution, to connect a suite of models. In doing so, we create an integrated, multi-disciplinary tool that captures diverse processes that operate at multiple scales, including land-management decision-making, hydrologic-solute transport, aquatic nutrient cycling, and civic engagement. In this article, we build on this novel framework to advance cross-disciplinary dialogue to move CNHS lake-catchment modeling in a systematic direction and, ultimately, provide a foundation for smart decision-making and policy.

show abstract

Stakeholder participation in lake management in Wisconsin (USA)

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

River Basin Organization development in southeastern Wisconsin

River Basin Organization development in southeastern Wisconsin

Who Wants to Save the Forest? Characterizing Community-Led Monitoring in Prey Lang, Cambodia

From concept to practice to policy: modeling coupled natural and human systems in lake catchments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About