Progress 10/01/03 to 09/30/08
Outputs OUTPUTS: Through this project, we have discovered several things about how collaborative natural resource management groups function in Indiana. We have learned that social networks play an important role - where groups have more extensive networks, they are more successful. It is important for collaborative projects to carefully think about what types of social networks they need. Leadership also plays an important role in group functioning and currently leaders of collaborative efforts face challenges in terms of decision making roles. Future projects should clearly define the roles of paid staff and volunteer committee members. We learned that an individual's sense of place and environmental attitudes are important for support of collaborative initiatives. We also learned that there is a proliferation of local initiatives that address the conversion of farmland to other uses. Three workshops were held in Indiana to train state agency and non-point source pollution project staff about how to consider the social dimension in their watershed planning efforts. Two assessments of collaborative watershed projects revealed that collaborative groups are strongly and negatively influenced by historical differences and conflicts between participants. Research into these types of groups needs to be careful to protect people's rights. PARTICIPANTS: Aaron Thompson, Graduate Research Assistant; Adam Baumgart-Getz, Graduate Research Assistant; Kristin Floress, Graduate Research Assistant. Collaborations with colleagues at University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, and the University of Minnesota. Multiple workshops about social indicators were held within the Great Lakes region and at national conferences. TARGET AUDIENCES: Watershed groups in Indiana and state agency staff at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Collaborative initiatives working to protect farmland from conversion to other uses. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts Six collaborative watershed groups in Indiana are using data about social dimensions to improve their collaborative planning efforts. Reports provided to watershed groups have helped them address some internal problems and develop education programs. Data from a phone survey to gauge people's interest and support for a collaborative group to protect farmland has been posted on the American Farmland Trust's website.
Publications
- Prokopy, Linda Stalker. 2008. Ethical Concerns in Researching Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 21(3): 258-265.
- Prokopy, Linda, Rebecca Power, and Ken Genskow, Guest Editors. 2008. LakeLine Special Edition on the Social Dimensions.
- Genskow, Ken and Linda Prokopy, Editors. 2008. The Social Indicator Planning and Evaluation System (SIPES) for Nonpoint Source Management: A Handbook for Projects in USEPA Region 5. Great Lakes Regional Water Program. Publication Number: GLRWP-08-S101 (169 pages).
- Hack, Eileen, Lenore Tedesco, Kristin Floress, and Linda Prokopy. 2008. Using Social Indicator Research to Enhance Watershed Education for Drinking Water Resources: Eagle Creek Watershed, Indiana. LakeLine. Fall. Genskow, Ken, Linda Prokopy, and Rebecca Power. 2008. A System for Using Social Data in Nonpoint Source Management. LakeLine. Fall.
- Power, Rebecca, Ken Genskow, and Linda Prokopy. 2008. The Social Dimension of Water Resource Management: An Overview. LakeLine. Fall.
|
Progress 10/01/06 to 09/30/07
Outputs OUTPUTS: One Masters student thesis has been completed that examines the role of collaborative groups in protecting farmland in Indiana. Data were collected from 20 counties in Indiana to ascertain the extent to which collaborative groups existed to protect farmland. We learned that there is a proliferation of local initiatives to address the conversation of farmland to other uses. These local initiatives are relying on participatory collaborative processes to achieve better policy outcomes that are broadly accepted by the public. An in-depth case study of one farmland preservation group was completed. This work showed that an individual's sense of place and environmental attitudes are importnat for support of collaborative initiatives. Three collaborative watershed groups are collecting data on how well their message is reaching their target audience. Three workshops were held in Indiana to train state agency and non-point source project staff about how to consider the social
dimension in their watershed planning efforts. Interviews are being conducted with three watershed groups to understand the role of leadership and social networks on collaborative group success.
PARTICIPANTS: Aaron Thompson, graduate research assistant Adam Baumgart-Getz, graduate research assistant Kristin Floress, graduate research assistant. Collaborations with colleagues at University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, and the University of Minnesota.
TARGET AUDIENCES: Watershed groups in Indiana and state agency staff at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Collaborative initiatives working to protect farmland from conversion to other land uses.
Impacts Three collaborative watershed groups in Indiana are using data about social dimensions to improve their collaborative planning efforts. Data from a phone survey to gauge people's interest and support for a collaborative group to protect farmland has been posted on the American Farmland Trust's website.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 10/01/05 to 09/30/06
Outputs I have completed two qualitative studies of collaborative watershed groups in Indiana. I am halfway through a study of a collaborative process to protect farmland in Harrison County, Indiana. For this study, we have completed over 500 phone interviews with residents, observed meetings, and interviewed several participants in the process. I am also working with three additional watershed groups to evaluate their effectiveness using social indicators developed especially for this purpose.
Impacts Reports provided to the two groups studied so far have helped the groups address some of their internal problems. For example, one of the group's coordinators called me to discuss some of my recommendations and receive my advice on how to proceed. These recommendations will help the groups function better and thus help improve natural resource management in Indiana.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 10/01/04 to 09/30/05
Outputs I have completed two assessments of collaborative watershed groups in Indiana. These assessments involved qualitative research, primarily interviews and review of documents. Both groups received summary reports of the findings and recommendations to help them continue their work in the future. I have made one conference presentation based on this work and will make another one in late October. A journal article has been prepared on one of the two groups. The overall results from the first study indicate that collaborative groups are strongly and negatively influenced by historical differences and conflicts between participants. The study recommends that participants in collaborative groups need to be clear both with themselves and with other participants who they represent. The study also concludes that coordinators of these types of groups need to remain unbiased. These are very important findings that both complement and contradict earlier studies. The unique aspect
of this study is that this group had a lot of difficulties and struggles and interviewees were prepared to discuss them. Most collaborative groups that are studied are 'success' stories where everyone is able to put aside their differences and work together towards a common goal. In this instance, participants never reached a common goal and the article discusses why this happened. The article will help similar groups understand some of their problems and provide some tools to address the problems. I am now starting an assessment of a collaborative land use planning group in Indiana. This study involves both qualitative aspects (primarily interviews) and quantitative aspects (phone surveys).
Impacts Reports provided to the two groups studied so far have helped the groups address some of their internal problems. For example, one of the group's coordinators called me to discuss some of my recommendations and receive my advice on how to proceed. These recommendations will help the groups function better and thus help improve natural resource management in Indiana.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 10/01/03 to 09/29/04
Outputs I am finalizing a comprehensive qualitative study of a watershed project in Indiana to better understand the role of stakeholders in collaborative decision making. This work included 27 in-depth interviews with project participants and an examination of project documents, meeting minutes, monitoring reports, newspaper articles and on-line chatrooms. This watershed project was voluntary and any potential outcomes will have no teeth; the most the participants can hope to get out of this project is a series of recommendations that landowners can choose to follow or not follow. Despite this, the project was fraught with conflict from its inception, with a local branch of a national farmer's group ultimately withdrawing its support for the project. Our preliminary conclusions suggest that the project's problems were based on a perceived lack of fairness in the process, little interpersonal trust and a history of ideological differences that the collaborative process could
not overcome. One clear finding of this study, however, is that not all farmers shared the views of the farmer's group. While a majority of farmers are members of this group, they do support the goals of the watershed project. However, when the farmer's group spoke out against the watershed project, it carried significant weight, as evidenced by newspaper articles and interviews with members of the steering committee. This calls into question what the notion 'representative stakeholder' really means. The President and Vice-President of the county chapter of the farmer's group both sat on the watershed project's steering committee, but they claimed they were there as individuals and they were not representing the group. However, in conversations with other farmers they constantly denigrated both the project and its goals. This case study highlights the difficulties of collaboration in a fragmented landscape. It also suggests a number of ways in which collaboration can be made stronger:
1) Leaders of collaborative processes must go above and beyond in their pursuit of fairness. They have to consider how both their public and their private actions can affect people's perceptions about their impartiality. When questions are raised during the process, they must be addressed to the satisfaction of all participants. 2) All stakeholders must be very clear and honest about who they represent. It is perhaps impossible to expect participants to remove all of their different hats when they enter a collaborative process. By acknowledging this difficulty, perhaps there can be less ambiguity in collaborative processes. 3) Historical and ideological conflicts must be openly discussed at the beginning of a collaborative process and the participants must agree to disagree about some things while still working together on others.
Impacts The number of collaborative processes underway in Indiana is increasing every year. However, collaboration is not an easy undertaking and a great deal of care must be taken in working with the many diverse stakeholders. Implementing the lessons from this case study can help make ongoing and future processes work better which will benefit the entire state.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|