The Beargrass Story: Utilizing Social Science to Evaluate and Learn from the “Watershed Approach”

Church, Sarah P.; Babin, Nicholas; Bentlage, Belyna; Dunn, Michael; Ulrich‐Schad, Jessica D.; Ranjan, Pranay; Magner, Joe; McLellan, Eileen; Stephan, Susi; Tomer, Mark D.; Prokopy, Linda Stalker

doi:10.1111/j.1936-704x.2019.03313.x

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Combined with the finding that farmers who had received cost-share or technical assistance were twice as likely to be involved in WM activities, this offers evidence that public-sector groups' intensive efforts to promote conservation action positively impact farmer participation in WM. These findings align with Davenport and Seekamp's (2013) emphasis on relational and formal networks and support Church et al's (2019) recommendation that conservation agency involvement in watershed projects, especially combined with the promotion of cost-share and technical assistance, can play a key role in encouraging farmers' adoption of conservation practices to reduce impaired water quality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Understanding Factors Influencing Farmers' Engagement in Watershed Management Activities

Upadhaya¹,

Arbuckle²

2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have pointed to a positive relationship between farmers' active engagement in watershed management (WM) and soil and water conservation practice adoption. If farmers' involvement in WM leads to more conservation, what predicts WM participation? This study seeks to answer that question through binomial logistic regression analysis of data from a survey of 6,006 Iowa farmers conducted to support the implementation of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS). Results indicate that public and private sector information sources, awareness of and attitudes regarding nutrient loss reduction strategies, farm contiguity to water bodies, and cost-share and technical assistance were positive predictors of farmers' engagement in WM, while lower agronomic self-efficacy, farm press as an information source, greater age, and higher farm sales were negative. Findings point to several potential actions to improve farmer involvement in WM: (1) more effectively engage with the farm press to disseminate information about the benefits of WM, (2) increase outreach to larger-scale farmers, and (3) focus on nutrient loss management capacity building. Further, a continued emphasis on awareness and attitudes related to the NRS and related actions, such as watershed management, may guide efforts to recruit farmers into watershed groups to help improve soil and water conservation outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Understanding Factors Influencing Farmers' Engagement in Watershed Management Activities

Upadhaya¹,

Arbuckle²

2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Federally sponsored, co-produced climate knowledge projects across the USA are reporting enhanced utility of that knowledge (e.g., Prokopy et al 2017 ; Babin 2018 ; Singletary and Sterle 2020 ) and citing challenges–often referred to as ‘lessons learned’ (Hegger et al 2012 ; Hegger and Dieperink 2014 ; Ferguson et al 2017 ; Church et al 2019 ). We recommend ongoing evaluation of these processes to help evolve evidence-based engagement practices.…”

Section: Reflections On Knowledge Co-production Going Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the quality of interactions among diverse, competing water use interests will affect important future decisions surrounding water reallocation and related goals, such as global food security. Highly structured and thoughtful engagement can strive to build and support the co-creation of information and relationship-building around common challenges, potentially enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience (Church et al 2019 , 2021 ).…”

Section: Reflections On Knowledge Co-production Going Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent analyses of stakeholder engagement in collaborative research suggest that key factors underlying success include researchers having a clear understanding of who, why, when, and how to engage (Muhar and Penker 2018, p. 6)-factors that should be determined by the research question(s), political context of the research problem, and the available time, resources, and capacities of the science team (Kliskey et al 2021;Harvey et al 2019;Klink et al 2017). Additionally, while iterative engagement is thought to increase knowledge co-production and science utility (Lemos and Morehouse 2005), the optimal number of iterations, or engagement modality, remains less well understood (Eaton et al 2021;Church et al 2021;Bremer et al 2019), and evaluations of outcomes such as increased adaptive capacity remain mixed (Mach et al 2020;Church et al 2022). In fact, the added time, resources, and skills required for engagement have been cited as an obstacle to the broader use of collaborative research, along with warnings of engagement fatigue and burnout for scientists and stakeholders alike (Dilling and Berggren 2015;Roux et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating stakeholder engagement in collaborative research: co-producing knowledge for climate resilience

Singletary

Koebele

Evans

et al. 2022

Socio Ecol Pract Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of an initial stakeholder engagement experience designed to facilitate knowledge co-production. The engagement experience is part of a collaborative research framework (CRF), which facilitates iterative interactions among diverse researchers and stakeholders around the topic of enhanced climate resilience. Here, we describe the: (1) need for and development of a CRF as it relates to stakeholder engagement and knowledge co-production; (2) implementation of the initial engagement experience, focused around individual semi-structured interviews, in the context of a snow-dependent, arid river basin where historical water over allocation, climate change, and diversified water uses challenge the basin’s resilience; and (3) formative evaluation of the engagement experience using an online survey to inform the development of more effective engagement practices. Results of the evaluation indicate that, after participating, most stakeholders understand and recognize the importance of research goals, demonstrate positive attitudes toward collaborative research and researchers, view their contribution of knowledge and expertise as critical to research, and perceive researchers as eager to use their expertise. Moreover, stakeholders emphasized various context-specific goals for knowledge co-production, such as finding innovative ways to adapt to increased competition for diminishing water supplies. To achieve these goals, stakeholders suggested researchers learn about their basin, including its water allocation history and agricultural practices. These results highlight the importance of centering stakeholder engagement experiences within a broader CRF and formatively evaluating such experiences to adapt them to achieve research goals.

show abstract

“…The toolbox, user manual, and training resources are available online (www.acpf4watersheds.org). Developed at the National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment in Ames, Iowa, of USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the ACPF has been utilized in research conducted outside USDA to evaluate distributions of existing conservation practices (Rundhaug et al 2018), to optimize the economics of conservation planning scenarios (Zimmerman et al 2019), to assess social responses to precision conservation planning tools (Church et al 2019), and in environmental policy analysis (Konopacky and Ristino 2017). More than 200 watershed plans (many, but not all, in Iowa) have utilized ACPF analyses to identify conservation practice-placement options (Iowa Soybean Association 2019; English River Watershed Management Authority 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) practice placements for runoff mitigation and controlled drainage among 32 watersheds representing Iowa landscapes

Tomer¹,

Horn²,

Porter³

et al. 2020

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mark D. Tomer (corresponding author) is a research soil scientist, USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, Iowa. Jessica D. Van Horn (Beasley) is formerly a physical science technician with USDA ARS, currently senior geographic information systems (GIS) analyst, Geographic Technologies Group, Goldsboro, North Carolina. Sarah A. Porter is formerly a physical science technician with USDA ARS, currently senior GIS analyst, Environmental Working Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota. David E. James is a geographic information specialist, USDA ARS, Ames, Iowa. Jarad Niemi is an associate professor,

show abstract

The Beargrass Story: Utilizing Social Science to Evaluate and Learn from the “Watershed Approach”

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Understanding Factors Influencing Farmers' Engagement in Watershed Management Activities

Understanding Factors Influencing Farmers' Engagement in Watershed Management Activities

Evaluating stakeholder engagement in collaborative research: co-producing knowledge for climate resilience

Comparing Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) practice placements for runoff mitigation and controlled drainage among 32 watersheds representing Iowa landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About