Stakeholder Analysis of a Collaborative Watershed Management Process: A Florida Case Study¹

Abstract

This study focuses on a Florida watershed where development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) and its implementation plan resulted in conflicts among stakeholders. The overall goal is to build a better understanding of stakeholder perceptions of water quality problems, water policy processes and decisions, and water management plan development in a region where these issues have become contentious. Findings are based on a stakeholder analysis using qualitative data collected through focus groups with agricultural producers, local governments, and environmental groups, and supplemented with additional qualitative data on the watershed management process. Stakeholder conflicts in this case study are associated with perceived flaws in the structural and procedural characteristics of the stakeholder involvement process: (1) suboptimal watershed stakeholder representation on the TMDL executive committee, (2) an inappropriate voting procedure for making TMDL decisions, (3) limitations in information sharing between regulatory agencies and watershed stakeholders, and (4) stakeholders' doubts about whether tradeoffs associated with achieving the water quality targets were assessed adequately throughout the TMDL planning and implementation process. This study contributes to the literature on collaborative watershed management by analyzing stakeholder involvement given Florida's unique institutional settings, where implementation of TMDL pollution abatement is mandatory.(KEY TERMS: stakeholder analysis; collaborative processes; watershed management; conflict management; public participation; water policy; total maximum daily load; best management practices.) Borisova, Tatiana, Laila Racevskis, and Jennison Kipp, 2012. Stakeholder Analysis of a Collaborative Watershed Management Process: A Florida Case Study.

Aligning Climate Change Adaptation Planning with Adaptive Governance: Lessons from Exeter, NH

“…In a study focused on developing a water management plan in Florida, Borisova et al (2012) designed a collaborative process to build a better understanding of stakeholder perceptions of water quality problems and water policy. The authors found that stakeholder conflicts were associated with perceived flaws in the structural and procedural characteristics of the stakeholder engagement process (e.g., suboptimal watershed stakeholder representation on committees, limitations in information sharing between stakeholder groups).…”

Differences in Opinions about Surface Water Quality Issues in the Southern United States: Implications for Watershed Planning Process

“…A variety of sources, including agriculture, urban-related runoffs, and municipal discharges, contribute to the impairments (USEPA, 2012c). However, opinions about nutrient and pathogen impairments can differ among various stakeholder groups (e.g., Borisova et al, 2012b). In this article, we specifically examine the differences in opinions about nutrient and pathogen water pollution among respondents (a) living in rural and urban areas; (b) with different demographic characteristics based on age, gender, and education; and (c) supporting eco-centric or anthropocentric worldviews.…”

Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices

“…Such factors as the compatibility of the BMP with producers' beliefs, values, and self-image can play a decisive role, especially when the difference in the payoffs for alternative production practices is relatively small (i.e., the case with the flat payoff function) (Pannell, 2006;Pannell et al, 2006). BMPs are a cornerstone of agricultural water quality policy, and producers' perceptions about the development and administration of the policy can also affect the choice to adopt a specific production practice (Borisova et al, 2012;Lubell, 2004;Sabatier et al, 2005). For example, the fact that BMP adoption is mandatory in Florida implies that producers' beliefs about the role of government in regulation of private actions can affect the decision to comply or not with the BMP program (Lubell, 2004).…”