Progress 09/01/09 to 08/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Our intended target audiences for this project were intermediary organizations and policy makers who support landowners that may benefit from “payment for ecosystem services” (PES) programs, specifically those that create and/or connect landowners to PES opportunities as well as those that develop and advocate for PES programs at a policy level, policymakers who influence PES policies and programs, and academics who research PES phenomena. Throughout this project we have been in regular contact with numerous intermediary organizations, landowner leaders, policymakers and academics that are actively involved in developing PES programs or disseminating information about PES programs to landowners. These entities were crucial in helping us design and execute this research project as well as distill and disseminate our findings. Changes/Problems: In our original proposal, one of our extension activities involved the creation of a decision support tool to provide basic information about: the purpose, structure and function of existing and emerging “payment for ecosystem services” (PES) opportunities; and, actual landowner experiences in working with these programs, drawn from our research. Between the time we submitted our proposal and its funding, a number of new online tools emerged, which would have made the development of this tool redundant. We found many other efforts already underway to: create sophisticated decision support tools (Landserver, Directory of Watershed Resources); provide online directories of existing conservation and PES projects (The Conservation Registry, Watershed Connect, Ecosystem Marketplace), and; network and create a community of practice for people interested in PES (Ecosystem Commons). Rather than creating yet another tool, we inventoried available web-based PES resources and compiled them in a catalogue that is available on our website. Through our interviews, we also learned that intermediary groups and landowners make only limited use of online tools in their learning and decision-making processes, further limiting the need for a new tool. It appears that intermediaries are already oversaturated with online information and that landowners are often wary of using online tools to have sensitive discussions and/or aid their management decisions. Despite these concerns, our hypothesis is that these tools can be very valuable if they are adequately supported with interpersonal interactions with a trusted intermediary. Instead of developing an online decision-support tool as our extension platform, we developed a robust PES community of practice—the Ecosystem Services Learning Action Network (ESLAN) which we described in the activities section above. A second problem we faced was that, as a matter of policy, counties in Idaho would not provide us with property owner information, which was the sampling frame for our landowner surveys. Thus, we could not survey forest and range landowners in Idaho, and instead limited our survey efforts to our case study areas in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? This research project has provided several opportunities for professional development within our research team and the communities of interest who are the beneficiaries of our research. This project provided our research team with the opportunity to design and execute a large, multi-year, interdisciplinary, mixed-methods research project that involved both academic and non-academic partners. Researchers who had previously conducted primarily qualitative research gained experience with collecting and analyzing quantitative data and vice versa. Non-academic partners learned a great deal about how large research projects function, and academic partners learned about the nuances of extension and outreach to non-academic communities of interest. This large-scale, collaborative project was a beneficial experience to all team members who are continually seeking ways to better disseminate research findings so that they result in meaningful and actionable results. Numerous undergraduate and graduate students were involved in the design and execution of this project. These students were integral to the team and were closely mentored by investigators at their own institutions as well as those at partner institutions. Involvement in this project demonstrated the value of working across sectors.and has prepared students to meaningfully contribute to both academic and non-academic organizations upon graduation. As a result of their involvement these students: gained exposure to and experience in many different research approaches, including both qualitative and quantitative research; contributed significantly to myriad work products, which helped them understand how to hone messages for different audiences; received valuable and timely input on their contributions from multiple mentors; were encouraged to engage with non-academic partners to broaden the impact of research findings; learned how to craft research findings into actionable policy briefings; were invited to participate in meetings with decision-makers at multiple levels; and, improved presentation skills by presenting findings at numerous meetings and conferences. Finally, the funding from this project supported the master’s education and research of an individual who we believe will build on her experiences from this project and go on to do important work in this field. This student graduated in June 2012 with an exceptional master’s thesis and special recognition from her department. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results from our research have been disseminated to communities of interest through multiple formal channels, which are documented in our internal communications plan. All of our work products have been thoughtfully crafted with different audiences in mind. All of our written materials are posted online to provide easy access to our research findings. An email with a link to our website was sent to all research participants in addition to numerous other list-serves. Products have been promoted by Sustainable Northwest and the Ecosystem Workforce Program through conference calls, emails, relevant blog posts, Facebook posts and twitter posts. Both Sustainable Northwest and the Ecosystem Workforce Program have widespread readership including landowner leaders, representatives from key community based organizations and government agencies, policy-makers and the general public. Results have also been disseminated through other networks, including Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, University Extension Networks, other PES-related groups (e.g., Ecosystem Commons, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership and the Cascadia Ecosystem Services Partnership). The Annual Policy Meeting, organized by Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, provided an important venue for engaging intermediary organizations who benefit from the results of this research, and has helped us to hone policy messages that were delivered to policy-makers during the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition Western Week in Washington D.C. Information has been delivered to policymakers both at the state and national levels through one-on-one meetings with key groups and individuals. Results will be communicated in peer-reviewed journal articles and have also been shared at numerous academic and industry conferences. Research participants were also invited to participate in the Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network (ESLAN), which is modeled after Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition working groups. The Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition working group model (i.e. facilitated conference calls, collaborative issue paper development, and in-person meetings) is an effective method to engage intermediaries in discussing natural resource issues and then support them in developing and then advocating for policy recommendations. Building off of this approach, ESLAN provides a venue to engage intermediaries and landowners interested in PES, provide education about existing PES opportunities and on-the-ground experiences, create a trusting environment to express concerns about PES design, and generate policy actionable ideas and recommendations. Sustainable Northwest invited practitioners and intermediary groups to participate in ESLAN, including all of the research project interviewees and did an informal survey of interested participants to determine priority call topics. Sustainable Northwest developed agendas, secured speakers and presenters and facilitated ESLAN calls. Through ESLAN, participants learned about pilot projects occurring around the nation, participated in a two-part training webinar by the Willamette Partnership and World Resources Institute (Ecosystem Payments and Markets, 101), and heard from agency staff at the USDA Forest Service and USDOI Bureau of Land Management about their efforts to incorporate ecosystem services principles in policy and practice. In the next month we will host an ESLAN conference call to provide a venue to for our research team to talk about some of the final research products with a focus on the catalogue of e-tools, report of survey results and research on intermediary roles that we expect to be of interest to intermediaries working with landowners. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Though this is the final reporting period for this project, our research and extension activities have generated enthusiasm and momentum amongst the research team as well as within ecosystem services communities of interest who have been involved (directly or indirectly) in the research project. As a result, the team members will continue to use the information gathered for this project to further the goals and objectives outlined above. This includes an upcoming call with the Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network (ESLAN) to present and discuss our final research findings.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1 (Research) – The other objectives of this project hinged on our ability to collect and analyze data concerning the factors that enabled or hindered landowner involvement in “payment for ecosystem services” (PES) programs. To satisfy this data need, we employed a mixed-methods research strategy to explore landowners’ experiences with PES opportunities, the role that intermediaries played in engaging landowners, and the ways in which these phenomena varied across the subregions. We also investigated ways the system could be improved through better policymaking and support for intermediaries. To achieve this objective, we undertook three primary activities: (1) outreach to university extension in each of the four Interior Northwestern states and case study areas; (2) in-depth qualitative interviews focused on intermediary organizations and their interactions with landowners interested in PES; and (3) a mail survey of small- and medium-sized ranch and family forest landowners in each of our study areas. At the onset of the project we conducted interviews with 19 extension faculty across the four states, including county agents and specialists (forestry, rangeland) who cover several counties (including one or more of our target counties) or the whole state. We also conducted over 120 interviews with over 140 other key informants within our case study area. Approximately 118 hours of interview audio recordings were transcribed supplemented by field notes, resulting in 2,208 pages of information-rich data. This data was coded to identify general and specific trends and themes that pertained to our overarching research topic. We supplemented this qualitative information with quantitative data gathered through a landowner survey distributed to 2,226 landowners within our study area. We received 835 responses, a response rate of 38 percent. Survey responses were queried and analyzed to help us understand landowner decision-making with respect to PES programs. All of the qualitative and quantitative data gathered in the research phase helped us to identify and analyze factors affecting ranchers’ and family forest owners’ involvement in PES programs and distill this information for the outreach and extension phase. Objective 2 (Landowner/Intermediary Extension) – Our research was collected and analyzed with the intent to broaden, accelerate, and deepen the transfer of PES program information to landowners, land managers, and intermediaries. To this end, we developed multiple written products that were deliberately crafted to speak to different audiences. The work products, outlined in greater detail below, include fact sheets, policy briefings, academic journal articles, summary reports, and a website, in addition to the creation of a dynamic learning and action network that continues to benefit from these resources. As a result of these written products as well as our engagement with communities of interest, this project resulted in increased knowledge about the opportunities and challenges related to existing and emerging PES programs and policies. We believe that, as a result of our research and broad dissemination of our findings, intermediaries within our case study areas and especially those that are involved in the Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network (ESLAN) we are more aware of the range of PES opportunities available, how landowners are engaging with them, where to go for more information, and how to address challenges associated with participation and better support landowners needs. Finally, these intermediary organizations learned more about each other, discovered new ways to work together to support landowners, and identified the areas that need the greatest amount of attention if PES programs are to be successful. We have facilitated and witnessed meaningful information exchanges occur on conference calls, in one-on-one meetings with landowners and intermediaries, at the Annual Policy Meeting convened by Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, at conferences, on web forums, and at meetings with policymakers during the Western Week in Washington (also convened by Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition). Our diverse network of research partners has enabled us to enact meaningful change with our research results. Over time we believe our project will result in new behaviors. Intermediaries will engage more landowners in PES opportunities, and they will work together in a more functional, coordinated way to support landowners. Landowners will enroll in various PES programs and will share their experiences with other landowners. Networking between and among landowners and intermediaries will increase, building capacity to adapt to changing economic realities. Objective 3 (Policy Extension) – In collaboration with intermediary groups and landowners, this project has sought to distill our research results into tangible policy actions. As a result of our extension efforts, policymakers have learned what is working and what is not working for family forest and ranch owners wishing to participate in PES opportunities. Policymakers, especially leadership at the USDA Office of Environmental Markets the USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry and the USDOI Bureau of Land Management, have shown interest in our findings and are keen to incorporate recommendations developed through this project into future PES programs and policies. For example, Forest Service senior managers found it particularly useful to learn how landowners viewed conservation programs, and what it would take to interest them in participating. They also appreciated learning from the survey and case study work about the role that local, trusted intermediary organizations play in recruiting landowners and connecting them with the many, complex programs that may support private land conservation. We believe that our extension efforts will result in improvements to existing policies as well as new policies that better address landowner needs. Experience with our partners’ work in federal forestland policy indicates that significant policy change can occur within 3-5 years of work. Thus, we did not expect to have substantive policy impacts within the project timeline. Instead, we have invested in collecting information and supporting networks that can continue to advocate for meaningful policy change. In the long-term, we expect that some of the barriers to adoption of PES programs will be removed or reduced and that PES programs will better address the needs of landowners and the intermediary organizations that support them. Due to improved networking, information sharing, and diffusion of innovative ideas, landowners and intermediaries will work together more effectively to conserve and enhance ecosystem services while maintaining the viability of working landscapes. Greater intermediary and landowner input into decision making will lead to more responsive PES programs and policies. In sum, we believe this research will support rural landowners and communities as they plan for sustainable futures.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Davis, E.J., Gwin, L., Moseley, C., Gosnell, H., and H. Burright. (In Review). Beer, beef, and boards: The role of intermediaries in payment for ecosystem services arrangements in northwestern Montana. Submitted to the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Autumn, A.E., Moseley, C., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Gosnell, H. (In Preparation). From postage stamp to puzzle piece: Considering conservation easements in context. To be submitted to Journal of Natural Resource Policy Research.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Nielsen-Pincus, M., H. Gosnell, and C. Moseley. (In Preparation). Managing for ecosystem services: A study of ranchers and other landowners in the interior Northwestern USA. To be submitted to Rangelands.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Gosnell, H., Burright, H. and M. Nielsen-Pincus. (In Preparation). Facilitating a multifunctional rural transition through PES schemes in the Interior Northwest. To be submitted to Journal of Rural Studies.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Gwin, L. (In Preparation). Extensions role as intermediary between agricultural landowners and payments for ecosystem services in the Intermountain West. To be submitted to Journal of Extension.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Davis, E. J. and C. Moseley. Managing from the Middle: How do Intermediaries and Networks Help Landowners Access Payments for Ecosystem Services? Presentation at the International Symposium on Society and Natural Resource Management. Estes Park, CO. June 2013.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Nielsen-Pincus, M. and H. Gosnell. Managing Rangelands for Ecosystem Services: Rancher Attitudes and Adoption of 'Payment for Ecosystem Services' Opportunities . Presentation at the International Symposium on Society and Natural Resource Management. Estes Park, CO. June 2013.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Nielsen-Pincus, M. and H. Gosnell. Managing Rangelands for Ecosystem Services: Rancher Attitudes and Adoption of 'Payment for Ecosystem Services' Opportunities. Presentation at ACES Annual Meeting 2012. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. December 2012.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Moseley, C., E. J. Davis, H. Gosnell, H. Burright, The Roles of Intermediary Organizations and Networks in Getting Payments for Ecosystem Services to Forest and Range Landowners. Presentation at the International Symposium on Society and Natural Resource Management. Edmonton, Alberta. June 2012.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Burright, H. Beyond Random Acts of Conservation: The Natural Resource Conservation Services Partnership Approach. Poster Presentation at the National Institute for Food and Agriculture Water Conference. Portland, OR. May 2012.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Gosnell, H., C. Moseley, M. Nielsen-Pincus, L. Gwin, H. Burright, J. Honey, Enhancing the Capacity of Small- and Medium-Sized Ranch and Forestry Operations to Prosper from Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). Poster presented at the International Symposium on Society and Natural Resource Management. Edmonton, Alberta. June 2012.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Paulsen, H and H. Gosnell. Opportunities for Landowners to Prosper from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Poster Presentation at the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, Annual Policy Meeting. Portland, OR. March 2012.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2011
Citation:
Nielsen-Pincus, M. Ecosystem Services: Concepts, Research, and Practice for Planners . Presentation for the Oregon Planning Institute. Eugene, OR. September 2011.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2011
Citation:
Paulsen, H. Managing for Ecosystem Services through Governance Networks: An Analysis of OR Senate Bill 513. Paper Presentation at The Oregon Water Conference. Corvallis, OR. May 2011.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2010
Citation:
Paulsen, H and H. Gosnell. Understanding Landowner Participation and Interest in Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Opportunities. Poster Presentation at the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition Annual Policy Meeting. Portland, OR. December 2010.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Bennett, D., C. Moseley, M. Nielsen-Pincus, A. Pomeroy, and H. Burright. (In Preparation). Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest. Ecosystem Workforce Program Working Paper Series.
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (n.d.). Research on Landowners and Ecosystem Services The Project and Results. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices.
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (n.d.). Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network (ESLAN). Accessible at: http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/blog/posts/ecosystem-services-learning-action-network
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Burright, H., Gosnell, H., Moseley, C. and A. Pomeroy. (In Preparation). Beyond random acts of conservation: An institutional analysis of the Natural Resource Conservation Services Agricultural Water Enhancement Program. To be submitted to Journal of American Water Resources Association.
- Type:
Theses/Dissertations
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Burright, H. (2012). Beyond Random Acts of Conservation: An Institutional Analysis of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Agricultural Water Enhancement Program. (Master's Thesis). Retrieved from the Oregon State University's Scholars Archive: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/30033.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 1: Prospering from Nature: Helping Landowners Protect and Enhance Ecosystem Services. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 2 Coordinated Salmon habitat restoration on private working lands. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 3: Paying the Water Bill: Community Support for Agriculture and River Restoration in Central Oregon. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 4: Certification Rewards Stewardship and Assures Future Markets for Montana Timber. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 5: Ranch Combines Programs for Long-term Sustainability. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 6: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Conservation Easements. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 7: Beer, Fish, and Watershed Restoration Certificates. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 8: Bad Goat, Good Business: Byproducts Bring Big Gains for Watershed Restoration. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 9: Farm Bill Evolution to Increase Landowner and Ecosystem Service Benefits. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 10: Ecosystem Services Online: An Overview of Web-based Resources. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Fact Sheet 11: Matchmakers, Evaluators, Libraries, and Networks: Online Resources for Landowners and Practitioners. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Sustainable Northwest. (2013). Payments for Ecosystem Services: Catalog of Online Tools and Resources. Sustainable Northwest PES Fact Sheet Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Gosnell, H., H. Burright, M. Nielsen-Pincus, A. Ellison, and C. Moseley. (2013). Briefing Paper 49: Barriers and Preferences for Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest. Ecosystem Workforce Program Briefing Paper Series. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Davis, E.J., and C. Moseley. (2013). Briefing Paper 50: The Money Doesnt Deliver Itself: The Importance of Intermediaries in Ecosystem Services Programs. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Ellison, A., and C. Moseley. (2013). Briefing Paper 51: From Postage Stamp to Puzzle Piece: Conservation Easement Strategies in the Interior West. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Gwin, L., A. Ellison, and C. Moseley. (2013). Briefing Paper 52: Eco-Labels on the Range and in the Forests of the Interior West. Accessible at: www.tinyurl.com/SNWEcosystemServices
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: A number of outputs have resulted from our research during this past year. Approximately 118 hours of interviews were transcribed, resulting in 2208 pages of information rich data. We conducted a preliminary analysis of our interview results and identified a number of high-level themes, which are as follows: the role of intermediary organizations in the delivery of payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs; how certification and niche marketing are perceived as PES schemes; landowner socio-psychology surrounding PES opportunities; landscape-scale conservation easement strategies; institutional analyses of Farm Bill programs; innovative PES case stories; and, ideal PES program design. We concluded the first gross-scale coding process in May, which organizes our data by these high-level themes. We have initiated finer-scale coding, which we will use to turn our findings into publishable papers, fact sheets to disseminate our findings to landowners and intermediary organizations, and briefing papers to disseminate our findings to policymakers. Our findings have already been disseminated through a number of outlets. We have presented our preliminary findings for the past two years at the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC) Annual Policy Meeting (APM). At the most recent APM we invited many of the interviewees to participate in the meeting and a number of them were able to attend and contribute. Building off of existing RVCC networks we have initiated an Ecosystem Services Learning Action Network (ESLAN) that will continue to engage intermediaries and landowners through multiple outlets (conference calls, collaborative websites, etc) to facilitate learning and policy outcomes. Two conference calls have already taken place and there is a detailed outreach and extension plan for sustaining engagement. We also aim to disseminate our findings through the Ecosystem Commons, which is an existing collaborative website geared towards ecosystem services practitioners (www.ecosystemcommons.org). The ESLAN and the practitioners on Ecosystem Commons will be the primary beneficiaries of our research and will also help us to hone our policy messages. Two investigators presented our research at the International Symposium on Society and Natural Resource Management in June 2012. Our graduate research assistant finished her graduate thesis in June 2012 and presented her research to representatives at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Research has been presented to audiences at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting and the National Water Quality Program Conference organized by the National Institute for Food and Agriculture. Research has also been shared with the Oregon Cattlemans Association and the Oregon Planning Institute, among others. In addition to the interviews, we recently distributed a survey to 2227 private landowners in our study area and at present we have received 824 responses, a response rate of approximately 37 percent. All surveys received to-date have been entered into a database that can be used to analyze results and supplement our wealth of interview data. PARTICIPANTS: During this project period the principle investigator (PI), Dr. Hannah Gosnell, has spent the majority of her time organizing team members, convening calls and meetings, compiling and disseminating information about the project to the co-PIs and other team members, connecting with PES professionals in the field, overseeing the work of the graduate research assistant (GRA) and submitting necessary paperwork required by the university. Gosnell worked closely with the GRA, Harmony Burright, to conduct follow-up interviews where necessary, organize all of the interview data, transcribe interviews, develop a gross-scale coding guide, code interview data using NVIVO software, and develop finer-scale guides to support paper development. All other project participants attended meetings, participated in conference calls, and remained engaged with external happenings that are relevant to this research project. The two co-PIs at the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the University of Oregon, Dr. Cassandra Moseley and Dr. Max Nielsen-Pincus, handled logistics at the UO that are required for undertaking research, conducted follow-up interviews as necessary, completed the preliminary analysis of interviews results to inform survey development, assisted with development of gross-scale coding guide, led the effort to develop and distribute the landowner survey, solicited external input to refine the landowner survey, assembled multiple survey mailings, and processed survey results from incoming surveys. Four research assistants employed by the EWP, Dr. Emily Jane Davis, Shiloh Sundstrom, Nina Rinaldi and Autumn Ellison, assisted with transcribing and coding interviews, developing the survey instrument, compiling survey mailings and inputting survey data into the database. Two co-PIs from Sustainable Northwest (SNW), James Honey and Maia Enzer, as well as another staff member, Alaina Pomeroy, continued to engage with PES practitioners and policymakers through the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC, a network created and nurtured by SNW) to inform project development. Honey and Pomeroy developed a detailed plan for conducting extension and outreach and have taken the lead in creating the Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network. Finally, Dr. Lauren Gwin, a co-PI who works for Oregon State University Extension, is leading the effort to develop fact sheets from our research findings. This involved reviewing the coded results to identify innovative case stories and interesting findings that could easily be highlighted in brief but informative fact sheets. There are numerous collaborators and contacts throughout our case study areas including: local, state and federal government agency representatives; local, state, regional and national non-governmental conservation organizations; community based natural resource management organizations; for-profit organizations and consultants working on PES programs; academics and extension agents who are generating and disseminating knowledge about PES programs; and, landowner leaders who we consider to be innovators within their community with respect to PES. TARGET AUDIENCES: Our intended target audiences for this project are landowners who access PES opportunities, academics who research PES phenomena, intermediary organizations that create PES opportunities and/or connect landowners to PES opportunities, intermediary organizations that advocate for PES policies and programs, and policymakers who influence PES policies and programs. During this phase of the research we were in contact with numerous intermediary organizations and landowner leaders who are actively involved in developing or disseminating information about PES programs to landowners. The intermediary organizations and landowner leaders have different levels of familiarity with various PES programs and provided useful insight into geographic specific considerations for these programs. They also provided valuable feedback about the benefits of existing PES programs and how they can be improved. Interview results greatly informed development of the landowner survey and several key informants reviewed the survey instrument during the development phase to ensure that it would be accessible to landowners. We continue to engage landowners, practitioners and policy makers through our teams involvement with the RVCC. Members of our team have been involved with this group prior to the inception of the project (RVCC was created and is sustained by our key project partner, Sustainable Northwest) and we expect that RVCC members will be instrumental in disseminating the results of our research to broader issue networks, especially as we continue to engage them through the Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network (ESLAN). We have invited many of the interviewees to engage with ESLAN, which will improve the exchange of knowledge across our case study area and affect greater change. We will also be working with the RVCC to deliver policy messages during their Western Week in Washington, which will provide an opportunity for RVCC and ESLAN members to speak with congressional and agency representatives about important policies, including those that impact PES programs and opportunities. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: In our original proposal, one of our extension activities involved the creation of a decision support tool to provide basic information about: the purpose, structure and function of existing and emerging PES opportunities; and, actual landowner experiences in working with these programs, drawn from our research. When we submitted our proposal we had limited knowledge of existing online tools in this field and the costs associated with the development and long-term maintenance of e-tools. As we began our research we found many other efforts already underway to: create sophisticated decision support tools (Landserver, Directory of Watershed Resources); provide online directories of existing conservation and PES projects (The Conservation Registry, Watershed Connect, Ecosystem Marketplace); and, network and create a community of practice for people interested in PES (Ecosystem Commons). Following our interviews we came to the realization that we may have overestimated intermediary/landowner use of online tools in their learning and decision-making processes. It appears that intermediaries are already oversaturated with online information and that landowners are often wary of using online tools to have sensitive discussions and/or aid their management decisions. Despite these concerns, our hypothesis is that these tools can be very valuable if they are supported by a community. Instead of developing an online decision-support tool as our extension platform we propose developing a robust PES community of practice and using, connecting and introducing intermediaries and landowners to existing e-tools to help us to achieve our extension goals. The RVCC working group model (i.e. monthly conference calls, collaborative issue paper development, and an annual in-person meeting) is an effective method to engage intermediaries and landowners in discussing natural resource issues and then support them in developing and then advocating for policy recommendations. Building off of this successful approach, we are creating an Ecosystem Services Learning and Action Network (ESLAN) that provides a venue to engage intermediaries and landowners interested in PES, provide education about existing PES opportunities and on-the-ground experiences, create a trusting environment to express concerns about PES design, and generate policy actionable ideas and recommendations. As the leaders of ESLAN we will encourage practitioners to use existing e-tools tools by showing them the ropes, trouble-shooting, leading by example, and developing and organizing content (for webinars, websites, etc.). Sustainable Northwest will develop a web page devoted to sustaining ESLAN and disseminating information about our research to this community of practice and a broader audience. We believe that this revised approach will facilitate greater involvement and will be more sustainable in the long-run. We also believe that investing in this network will provide greater opportunities to monitor and measure outcomes as compared to building a static online tool.
Impacts
Our interviews revealed that most payment programs are administered by government agencies, but conservation non-profits and community based organizations are integral to informing landowners of these opportunities and connecting them with the appropriate resources. These intermediaries serve multiple functions, the most important of which are to develop large landscape scale strategies, conduct outreach to landowners, and help landowners navigate complex program rules. The Farm Bill programs are the most prolific programs accessed by landowners and intermediary organizations, though there are also numerous state and local resources. The research revealed that, in our case study area, there are very few active examples of innovative market-based mechanisms such as wetland mitigation banking, carbon trading and other PES schemes. Where there are examples of these new approaches, they are largely in a pilot phase and are highly localized in nature. The most active market-based approaches are conservation easements and water markets. The preliminary survey results reveal that one third of the respondents have been involved with government conservation programs, with the majority being federal Farm Bill programs. A little less than ten percent have experience with easements/acquisitions, a little more than ten percent have experience with certification and a little more than ten percent have experience with credit markets. Many landowners do not engage in these programs because they perceive them to be overly complex or because they are concerned about unintended consequences, especially surrounding government intervention and regulations. Landowners are interested in seeing the following in future programs: tax incentives for conservation; a shorter contract duration; and protection from regulatory enforcement, legal liabilities and contract failures. Our preliminary findings have spurred dialogue between influential intermediaries in the West who are engaged with ESLAN and have also informed policy discussions at the RVCC APM that will ultimately be turned into succinct fact sheets and policy briefings. Following distribution of the survey we have received numerous calls and emails from recipients who want to discuss our survey or who are interested in receiving more information about our research topic. This has led to many fruitful discussions and the transfer of knowledge between the researchers and the survey respondents. Our research and our preliminary dissemination of findings have resulted in new knowledge and an eagerness to act upon that new knowledge in multiple spheres, including among landowners, practitioners and policy makers. Our interactions with participants have also greatly informed our research and outputs for this project. We expect more tangible outcomes with respect to change in knowledge and actions within this upcoming year.
Publications
- Burright, H. (2012). Beyond Random Acts of Conservation: An Institutional Analysis of the Natural Resources Conservation Services Agricultural Water Enhancement Program. (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from the Oregon State Universitys Scholars Archive: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/30033.
|
Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: We spent the majority of Year 2 preparing for and initiating our field work. We held monthly meetings or conference calls to begin implementation of our project. We completed 19 interviews with extension agents in each of our case study areas to 1) understand the role that University extension plays in payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs, 2) inform them that we would be doing research in their area within the upcoming year, and 3) solicit names and contact information of key individuals and organizations who may be involved in PES programs. Notes were recorded for each interview and were coded and analyzed to understand general themes. The data and analysis that resulted from these interviews will inform resultant papers and fact sheets. We also began compiling detailed profiles for each county in our case study area. This information helped us to understand regional specific factors that may influence landowner participation in payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs. We conducted an extensive internet search to compile a list of potential key informants and contacted various professional networks to refine our list of key informants. We consulted with eight leaders in the field of PES who provided key insight into some of the intriguing questions within the world of PES. We also supplemented our existing literature review to ensure that our research is responsive to existing research needs and lines of inquiry. We used this information to create the initial draft of our interview guide. The interview guide was reviewed by numerous PES practitioners and contacts in the field to ensure that we were asking the most salient questions. By the end of Year 2 we completed 122 interviews with over 140 key intermediaries in the interior Northwest who are integral to connecting landowners with opportunities to be paid for conservation on private working lands. These intermediaries include: national, state and local government agencies, non-profit organizations, place-based or community based organizations; for-profit organizations; and research institutions. In total we have collected approximately 118 hours of recorded interviews. We completed a preliminary analysis of our interview results, which we used to inform the development of our landowner survey. Furthermore, we conducted an extensive review of existing web-based PES tools that could provide a template for our PES decision support system and compiled them into an inventory that we will add to over time. To supplement this review we also held webinars with two organizations who maintain relevant PES websites and tools that are particularly relevant to our research. These two sites include LandServer, which is maintained by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation and Ecosystem Commons, which is maintained by the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University. PARTICIPANTS: During this project period the principle investigator (PI), Dr. Hannah Gosnell, has spent the majority of her time organizing team members, convening calls and meetings, compiling and disseminating information about the project to the co-PIs and other team members, connecting with PES professionals in the field, overseeing the work of the graduate research assistant (GRA) and submitting necessary paperwork required by the university (e.g. human subjects protocols). Gosnell worked closely with the GRA, Harmony Burright, to conduct a supplemental PES literature review, compile case study area profiles, develop the interview guide, contact potential interviewees to schedule interviews. Both Gosnell and Burright conducted interviews and Burright transcribed interviews. All other project participants attended meetings, participated in conference calls, and remained engaged with external happenings that are relevant to this research project. The two co-PIs at the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the University of Oregon, Dr. Cassandra Moseley and Dr. Max Nielsen-Pincus, handled logistics at the UO that are required for undertaking research, assisted with development of the interview guide, conducted interviews and completed the preliminary analysis of interviews results. One research assistant employed by the EWP, Dr. Emily Jane Davis, assisted with conducting interviews in Oregon and another research assistant, Nina Rinaldi, transcribed interviews. Two co-PIs from Sustainable Northwest (SNW), James Honey and Maia Enzer, as well as another staff member, Alaina Pomeroy, continued to engage with PES practitioners and policymakers through the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC, a network created and nurtured by SNW) to inform project development. Honey and Pomeroy helped the team to identify and contact potential interviewees and conducted interviews in Idaho and Montana. SNW has played a lead role in identifying available web-based PES support tools and conceptualizing outreach and extension for our project. Finally, there is another co-PI, Dr. Lauren Gwin, who works for Oregon State University Extension. Gwin took the lead in interviewing extension agents in our case study area, which included developing an interview guide, scheduling and conducting interviews, and analyzing results that were then reported back to the team. Gwin worked closely with SNW to inventory existing web-based PES tools and conceptualize extension and outreach activities. Collaborators and contacts include important PES practitioners such as Dan Kent from Salmon-Safe, Sara Vickerman from Defenders of Wildlife, James Remuzzi of Sustainable Solutions LLC, Bobby Cochran of Willamette Partnership, Sally Duncan of the Institute for Natural Resources, representatives of the Office of Environmental Markets within the US Department of Agriculture, members of RVCC (which includes landowners, academics and representatives of community based organizations and conservation non-profits), and all interviewees which represent a diversity of organizations throughout our case study areas. TARGET AUDIENCES: Our intended target audiences for this project are landowners who access PES opportunities, academics who research PES phenomena, intermediary organizations that create PES opportunities and/or connect landowners to PES opportunities, intermediary organizations that advocate for PES policies and programs, and policymakers who influence PES policies and programs. During this phase of the research we were in contact with extension agents who we expected would be actively involved in developing or disseminating information about PES programs to landowners. What we discovered is that these extension agents have limited familiarity with PES programs, aside from Farm Bill programs, and many were interested in discussing the meaning and scope of PES and were unsure of their role in disseminating information about PES programs. We also had contact with a number of PES practitioners who are on the leading edge of developing PES policies and programs across the nation. Conversations with these practitioners will help to ensure that our results are relevant to the work that they do. These practitioners are also eager to see the results of our research. We continue to engage landowners, practitioners and policy makers through our teams involvement with the RVCC. Members of our team have been involved with this group prior to the inception of the project (RVCC was created and is sustained by our key project partner, Sustainable Northwest) and we expect that RVCC members will be instrumental in disseminating the results of our research to broader issue networks. We will also be working with the RVCC to deliver policy messages during their Western Week in Washington, which provides an opportunity for RVCC members to speak with congressional and agency representatives about important policies, including those that impact PES programs and opportunities. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
Our interviews with extension professionals revealed that extension agents are relatively familiar with the idea of PES. A third (6 of 19) of the extension interviewees associated it primarily with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) cost-share programs, especially the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and all respondents considered cost-share programs to be the main type of PES program available. Range and forestry specialists (regional or state-based) tended to be more familiar with a wider range of programs than county-based agents were. Several suggested (without any prompting) that conservation easements and fee hunting should also be considered PES. Others said that the term "ecosystem services" doesnt resonate with landowners. Most of the interviews with extension professionals led to an exchange of ideas about what qualifies as PES and how landowners engage with these programs. Knowledge was acquired by both the interviewer and the interviewees as a result of these conversations and the results of the interviews greatly assisted us in developing a detailed interview guide and identifying additional interviewees. The county profiles helped to familiarize all of the interviewers with our case study areas and will provide important context for our results and analysis. During this year we had very preliminary information to report to our target audiences and made considerable efforts to inform interested entities of our research objectives and methods. We presented a poster at the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC) Annual Policy Meeting (APM) and a number of our team members remained engaged with different RVCC working groups focused on PES and Farm Bill policies. The RVCC Working Lands Working Group developed a Farm Bill Capacity issue paper that was presented to key policymakers. Many of the recommendations in this issue paper draw on key elements that our team saw in the field during our research, namely the need for increased support for intermediary organizations. The issue paper indicated that project money is important but that community based organizations also need funding to support local capacity. A PES subgroup of the RVCC developed draft policy recommendations on PES, but did not think that these recommendations were ready to share. One of the things we learned as we discussed PES in the RVCC working group and at the APM was that the members still needed to develop a common understanding of what is meant by PES. This highlighted the need for a learning and action network that would increase the subgroups familiarity with PES vocabulary and concepts and improve their ability to advocate for policy changes related to PES. Papers on initial findings, research objectives and methodology were also presented at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting. The primary outcome of our project was enhanced knowledge amongst our team members and greater awareness of our project among our target audience.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|