Source: PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY submitted to
SECURING WATER FOR AND FROM AGRICULTURE THROUGH EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
EXTENDED
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1011824
Grant No.
2017-68007-26584
Project No.
PENW-2016-10221
Proposal No.
2016-10221
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Program Code
A8101
Project Start Date
Jul 1, 2017
Project End Date
Jun 30, 2022
Grant Year
2019
Project Director
Brasier, K. J.
Recipient Organization
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
408 Old Main
UNIVERSITY PARK,PA 16802-1505
Performing Department
Ag Econ, Sociology & Eductn
Non Technical Summary
This project-- Securing Water for and from Agriculture through Effective Community and Stakeholder Engagement-- will promote sustainable water for agriculture by developing a proven, flexible, and transferable model of stakeholder engagement that transforms the way scientists, Cooperative Extension, agency officials, and engagement specialists approach critical water availability issues. This project will develop, conduct, evaluate, and disseminate an engagement model that works across differing hydrological and agricultural contexts in the U.S. The model will be tested in three case study locations (Arizona, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania) that represent a range of biophysical and social contexts, yet share long-standing and emerging water availability concerns related to water for agriculture. The project will examine basic research questions about the knowledge-to-action pathways by which engagement impacts individual and collective capacity to address water availability challenges, landscape management behaviors, and ultimately, water quality and quantity outcomes. Changes attributed to the engagement efforts will be assessed at the individual (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, identities), collective (norms, social networks), and institutional (programs, resource allocations, partnerships) levels. Biophysical impacts will be assessed by examining practice implementation and changes in water quantity and quality parameters using model simulations and field experiments. The project team will consult with international partners (Israel, Australia) to learn from those countries' ongoing engagement and assessment work. Based on these changes, project impacts range from the individual to the national, with the ultimate goal to create a transferable model of stakeholder engagement that can be used in any area facing critical questions related to water for agriculture.
Animal Health Component
0%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
5%
Applied
55%
Developmental
40%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
8036050308020%
9030210303010%
1115350205015%
1120320305015%
1022410107015%
1335310202015%
6056030301010%
Goals / Objectives
This project will promote sustainable water for agriculture by developing a proven, flexible, and transferable model of stakeholder engagement that transforms the way scientists, Cooperative Extension, agency officials, and engagement specialists approach these issues. This project will develop, conduct, evaluate, and disseminate a model for engagement that works across differing hydrological and agricultural contexts in the U.S., allowing stakeholders to serve as key drivers to biophysical research questions. We will examine basic research questions about knowledge-to-action pathways by which engagement impacts individual and collective capacity to address water availability challenges, landscape management behaviors, and ultimately, water quality and quantity outcomes. This engagement model will be developed and tested in diverse case study locations: Arizona (AZ), Nebraska (NE), and Pennsylvania (PA). These states have unique contexts yet share long-standing and emerging water availability concerns. Changes attributed to the engagement effort will be assessed at the individual level (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, identities), collective level (norms, social networks), and institutional levels (programs, resource allocations, partnerships). Biophysical impacts will be assessed by examining practice implementation and changes in water quantity and quality parameters using model simulations and field experiments. We will also consult with partners in Israel and Australia to compare this project with those countries' ongoing engagement and assessment work.
Project Methods
Research methods are multiple, and unique to each goal.Activity 1.1: Legal research on policy and regulatory framework for water in each state. This review will include archival documents (including articles, documents, or other related information) and pertinent federal, state and local laws related to water and agriculture.Activity 1.2: Stakeholder analysis in each case study area. Potential stakeholders will be identified through existing relationships, discussions with key contacts, and internet-based searches.Activity 1.3: Mail surveys will be sent to farming households in each of the three case study areas to examine knowledge, attitudes, perceived norms, and involvement in critical social and policy networks related to water and agriculture. Survey instruments will be developed by the Integrative Research Team and administered by Penn State's Survey Research Center. Appropriate sample sizes are calculated for each region to achieve a 95% confidence level and a +/-5% margin of error. Assuming a 25% response rate, the sample sizes needed are 1400 in AZ, 1200 in the two study regions in PA, and 1500 in NE. Households in AZ and NE will be randomly selected; all households in PA will be selected because of the small number. A modified Total Design Method (Dillman et al. 2014) will be used to contact participants.Activity 1.4:Interviews with approximately 25-30 stakeholders in each case study area will be conducted by local project team members. Team members will start with known stakeholders and use a snowball referral method, being aware of the need to engage under-represented stakeholders.Activity 1.5: Using proprietary databases of traditional and social media outlets, members of the Team will conduct a content analysis of the media specific to each area to describe media portrayals of water and agricultural issues.Activity 1.6: Biophysical variables include but are not limited to water sources (surface, groundwater, storage); water uses (agricultural, municipal, instream, industrial, etc.); soils; precipitation patterns; infrastructure (irrigation, storage, delivery systems); and impacts to water quality from agriculture (local, state, regional, national data).Activity 2.1: The stakeholder engagement model design process will focus on consistent principles to be applied across all the case study locations, with flexibility to accommodate the specific needs of each location. A steering committee composed of local stakeholders and the project's state engagement specialist will be developed to guide the development and refinement of the stakeholder engagement model.Activity 2.2: All project team members will participate in a training on the procedures and strategies to be used in the engagement process.Activity 3.1: Specific steps of the stakeholder engagement process include: (1) Initial stakeholder meetings(2) On-going stakeholder meetings(3) Parallel biophysical work(4) Refinement, further evaluation, and stakeholder agreement about solutions.Activity 3.2:Each formal meeting of the stakeholder groups will be evaluated using short paper-based instruments.Activity: 4.1: The AZ team will assess potentially available water resources (unused groundwater and unallocated treated wastewater from municipal facilities) near the CAP canal. The AZ Groundwater Site Inventory will be used to determine well yield, salinity and depth to groundwater with a focus on saline waters. Hydraulic modeling will be used to determine mixing, transport and storage of these waters in the canal to determine proper handling and movement of waters with different qualities through the system. The NE team will characterize the biophysical dynamics associated with water availability, including water quantity and quality, for and from agriculture in two basins in NE. Data will be drawn from historical and current monitoring studies of groundwater, surface water, surficial soils, and the deep vadose zone. A meta-analysis will be performed to combine and analyze the results of the collected agronomic/irrigation and water quality related studies.One potential project in PA is to interseed corn with cover crops. Another project would study the impact of shallow disc injection of manure. A third project could examine nutrient reduction through feed management, demonstrating both economic and nutrient management benefits (Wu et al. 2003).Activity 4.2: Develop Lorenz Inequality model and Gini coefficient comparison between states to identify and communicate variation between case study locations.Activity 5.1: Post-engagement interviews will be completed with 25-30 institutional stakeholders in each case study location to describe the extent to which engagement led to changes in the institutions themselves and their approaches to water and agriculture issues.Activity 5.2: Asurvey of farming households, similar to that under Objective 1, will be conducted. The survey will be a new random sample of households using similar sample sizes as in the pre-engagement survey.Activity 5.5: The external evaluator will interviewand surveyproject members and outside stakeholders, including the advisory committee, throughout the course of the project.

Progress 07/01/20 to 06/30/21

Outputs
Target Audience:In project sites in Arizona, Nebraska and Pennsylvania, local stakeholder groups ("local leadership teams"), each consisting of 15-18 individuals representing the broad set of interests in each community worked together for their second year. Our projects' efforts have connected us with diverse audiences, including those reached through formal research activities (e.g., interviews), local leadership team members' presentations and engagement, communication with existing community groups and potential future project collaborators. These include the following groups: Members of agricultural communities, including individual farmers and representatives of farm organizations (e.g., Farm Bureau); Plain Sect (Amish, Mennonite) farmers representing a wide range of agricultural types, farming operations and sizes Technical service providers, agricultural consultants, retailers, and lenders/financial service consultants Rural non-farm landowners in study locations Municipal and county employees and officials with relation to water and agriculture including planners, city managers, mayors, township officials, and county commissioners Cooperative Extension Agents, administrators, employees and educators Participants in workshops and related programs (dscribed below) Representatives from federal and state agencies, including Natural Resource Conservation Service, state environmental agencies, state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, conservation districts/commissions; representatives from regional organizations including the Chesapeake Bay Program and Susquehanna River Basin Commission Members of environmental and conservation organizations active in project sites, including The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Audobon Society, local watershed organizations; individual environmental and conservation activists. Citizens and community members via press releases, print, radio and social media outlets, participating in webinars and reading fact sheets and other outreach products available on project website Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Ishler, Virginia, Walt Whitmer, Jon Laughner, and Nicole Santangelo. 2021. "Water for Agriculture local leadership committees share initial outcomes." Penn State Department of Animal Science. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?During the final year of the project, the project team will focus on completing objectives 3, 4, 5, and 6. Obj. 3: complete the engagement processes in the final sites. Complete the engagement guidebook and related training materials and disseminate to engagement professionals, scientists, and stakeholders. Obj. 4: complete the biophysical research projects identified by the Local Leadership Teams and share the project results with stakeholders, resource managers, practitioners, and researchers through reports, presentations, and publications. Obj. 5: complete the social science data collection and analysis to assess the outcomes of the stakeholder engagement process. This includes completing the post-engagement interviews of LLT members and farm and non-farm household surveys. Data analysis will be completed to assess the core outcomes, including social learning, individual and organizational change, and community capacity building. Results will be shared with LLT members, stakeholders, researchers, and engagement professionals through reports, presentations, and publications. Obj. 6: share the findings with our project partners in Australia and Israel through publications and online discussion forums.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? During the 2020-21 period, we implemented stakeholder engagement (Obj. 2, 3), conducted biophysical research with leadership team members (4), and developed plans for evaluating outcomes (5). We completed one project deliverable, a paper describing the stakeholder engagement model (Eaton et al., forthcoming). The paper provides a framework for how engagement processes can lead to behavioral and environmental change. The model delineates multiple levels of change (individual, organization, and community) by which water management and environmental change can occur. Obj. 1.0: Evaluate baseline social and biophysical conditions.The team reviewed regulatory frameworks for stakeholder engagement in 3 states. Laws for public participation are vague but provide opportunity for innovative ways to enhance participation (Divine et a., under review).Fowler is leading a paper to identify engagement opportunities with the Plain Sect communities (Amish and Mennonite) in Pennsylvania (1.1). Interviews and surveys of stakeholders completed in previous reporting years are being analyzed and findings disseminated (1.3, 1.4). Eaton et al (under review) examines how previous participatory efforts and the openness of local regulatory context shape needed engagement strategies and outcomes for farmers' participation (Eaton et al.). Silva et al. (under review) find that collaborative approaches to water management result in more efficient irrigation withdrawals than other information sharing conditions in a simulated laboratory experiment. Obj. 2.0: Develop the stakeholder engagement model and training activities. The stakeholder engagement model has been developed, implemented, and disseminated to scholars and practitioners through papers (Eaton et al., forthcoming) and presentations/trainings (Whitmer et al., 2021) (2.1). The engagement processes have concluded in 3of the 5 sites. The annual project team meeting in Fall, 2020 featured a panel of LLT members who reflected on engagement processes, LLT accomplishments, and advice for future stakeholder engagements processes (2.2). Obj. 3.0: Implement the stakeholder engagement process. All 5 project sites continued implementation of the engagement model; 3concluded formal activities during the reporting period. In total, 42 LLT meetings, 11 stakeholder meetings, and 1 webinar were conducted (3.1). The Verde Valley Local Leadership Team (AZ) dedicated the year primarily to conducting educational events, working on water rights adjudication, completing an online water evapotranspiration estimator tool, and developing a Verde Grown local agricultural branding and partnership project.The group held its commencement in April 2021 but is completing a GIS-based story map, refining the water estimator tool, and working with the Verde Grown partnership. Following a tunnel collapse of late 2019, the North Platte Local Leadership Team (NE) focused on infrastructure policy and funding provisions needed to address the crisis and establish support for a more resilient irrigation system. The group completed a story map, held the Yonts Water Conference, conducted producer and residents' surveys, participated in a range of collaborative educational programs, and held its commencement in April 2021. The Central Platte Local Leadership team (NE) established the Platte River Resiliency Fund (PRRF) - a program with Nebraska Community Fund to provide resources to control the invasive grass Phragmites and ensure continued water conveyance of the South Platte River. The group completed a story map, conducted the producer and residents' surveys, conducted several educational events including the Water Leadership Academy and NE Water Center Conference, and held their commencement in November 2020. The group continues its work through the PRRF and the on-going steam monitoring project in partnership with StreamNet. The Mifflin County Local Leadership Team (PA) completed its story map, a cover cropping fact sheet, research on double cropping, and a community-based well-testing program. Members have become actively engaged in developing the county's approach to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Improvement Plan. Current work includes a video project highlighting water resources, developing the final community and agriculture surveys, and four print media stories. Commencement will occur in July, 2021. The Upper Cowanesque Local Leadership Team (PA) focused on the USGS water sampling project. The LLT also began a media campaign designed to inform residents and farmers of LLT activities and other opportunities to protect the watershed's ground and surface water. The LLT has been actively participating in the development of the Chesapeake Bay's Watershed Improvement Plan for the three-county area. Commencement is anticipated to be fall, 2021. Observer, participant, and facilitator data were collected to monitor implementation of the engagement model and adjust as needed (3.2). Objective 4.0: Analyze biophysical issues relevant to each case study location. Biophysical research projects were identified through the engagement processes and conducted in partnership with Local Leadership Teams (LLTs). Topics in Mifflin County include double cropping, cover cropping, integrated farms systems modeling, and private well-water testing, resulting in two Extension/outreach publications, 5 webinars, a student's thesis, and a scholarly publication (Barnes, et al., 2021). The findings provide critical information for farmers and conservation professionals to assess the effects of best management practices for farms and agroecosystems at the local level. The Potter/Tioga LLT have pursued water quality testing to assess the effects of recently adopted best management practices. The coordinated efforts of the LLT resulted in acquisition of funds from USGS. The North Platte LLT is partnering with StreamNet, a collaboration between the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and local water managers to sample streams in the North Platte River Valley and provide data in near real time. The Verde Valley stakeholders identified evapotranspiration and water availability as critical concerns, resulting in a project to model ET rates for differing vegetative systems. Model results are being shared with water managers and local planners to identify tradeoffs in vegetative cover choices. All of these projects reflect interests of stakeholders and were identified through engagement processes (4.1). Objective 5.0: Evaluate the impacts of stakeholder engagement and disseminate results. Final data collection has been initiated in sites that have completed their activities. Surveys of LLT members, interviews with facilitators, and observation data are complete in 4 of 5 sites; 24 interviews with LLT members in Nebraska sites and 3000 surveys of farming and non-farming households in the two Nebraska sites and Mifflin County (5.1, 5.2). These data are being used to assess outcomes identified in Eaton et al. (forthcoming). These include (1) social learning (change in cognitive, relational, and normative learning, knowledge diffusion, and skill building), (2) behavioral change, and (3) change in community capacity. The team published 13 papers and have 5 additional papers under review. Team members participated in nearly 60 events with LLT members, Extension colleagues, practitioners, and the public. The team conducted internal skill-building activities and offered 3 public webinars (5.4). The external evaluator administered interviews and surveys to assess productivity and culture and shared results periodically (5.5). ?Objective 6.0: Assess project with project partners in Israel and Australia. Project activities did not address this objective during the reporting year.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Barnes, R. G., H. E. Preisendanz, C. A. Rotz, J. E. Watson, H. A. Elliott, T. L. Veith, C. Williams, and K. Brasier. 2021. Cover cropping and interseeding management practices to improve runoff quality from dairy farms in central Pennsylvania. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. doi: 10.13031/trans.14329
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Beresford, Melissa; Jones, Leah; Bausch, Julia; Williams, Clinton; Wutich, Amber; Porter, Sarah; Quimby, Barbara; Eaton, Weston M.; and Brasier, Kathryn. 2021. No Significant Third-Party Effect when a Scientific Expert is Present in Stakeholder Interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920966482
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Church, Sarah P., Kristin Floress, Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad, Chloe B. Wardropper, Pranay Ranjan, Weston M. Eaton, Stephen Gasteyer, and Adena Rissman. 2020. How water quality improvement efforts influence urban  agricultural relationships. Agriculture & Human Values 38:481498.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2021 Citation: Eaton, Weston M., Kathryn Brasier, Mark E. Burbach, Walt Whitmer, Elizabeth W. Engle, Morey Burnham, Barbara Quimby, Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Hannah Whitley, Jodi Delozier, Lara B. Fowler, Amber Wutich, Julia C. Bausch, Melissa Beresford, C. Clare Hinrichs, Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel, Heather E. Preisendanz, Clinton Williams, Jack Watson, Jason Weigle. Forthcoming. A conceptual framework for social, behavioral, and environmental change through stakeholder engagement in water resource management. Society & Natural Resources.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Garc�a Su�rez, F., Fulginiti, L.E. and Perrin, R.K. 2019. What Is the Use Value of Irrigation Water from the High Plains Aquifer?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101: 455-466. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay062
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Kliskey, A., Williams, P., Griffith, D., Dale, V., Schelly, C., Marshall, A., Gagnon, V., Eaton, W., Floress, K. 2021. Thinking big and thinking small: A conceptual framework for best practices in community and stakeholder engagement in food, energy, and water systems. Sustainability 13:2160.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Silva, F., Fulginiti, L., Perrin, R., and Schoengold, K.. 2019. The Effects of Irrigation and Climate on the High Plains Aquifer: A County-Level Econometric Analysis. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1085 1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12781.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Wutich, A, Brewis, A, Tsai, A. Water and mental health. WIREs Water. 2020; 1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1461
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Wutich, A., C. DeMyers, J. C. Bausch, D. D. White, and A. Sullivan. 2020. Stakeholders and social influence in a shadow network: implications for transitions toward urban water sustainability in the Colorado River basin. Ecology and Society 25(1):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11451-250128
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Wutich, A., M. Beresford, J. C. Bausch, W. Eaton, K. Brasier, C. Williams, and S. Porter. 2020. Identifying stakeholder groups in natural resource management: Comparing quantitative and qualitative social network approaches. Society and Natural Resources 33(7): 941-948. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1707922
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Silva, Felipe de Figueiredo; Perrin, Richard; Fulginiti, Lilyan; Burbach, Mark. Does stakeholder engagement improve groundwater management? Under review at Water Economics and Policy Journal.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Divine, M. Burbach, W. Eaton, L. Fowler. Beyond Three Minutes at a Microphone: Legal Requirements and Opportunities for Effective Public Participation in Water Governance. Under Review in Journal of the American Water Resources Association
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Eaton, Weston M., Kathryn J. Brasier, Julia C. Bausch, Jodi Delozier, Mark E. Burbach, Amber Wutich, Walt Whitmer, Stephanie Kennedy, Jason Weigle, C. Clare Hinrichs, Barbara Quimby, Clinton Williams, Perspectives on collaboration among agricultural producers: Evidence from Arizona, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. Journal of Rural Studies. Under Review.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Burbach, M., Weston M. Eaton, Kathryn Brasier, Jodi Delozier. Foundational conditions enabling collaborative resource management in two geographically and regulatorily different watersheds. Paper presentation at International Association of Society and Natural Resources. Online. June 24, 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Burbach, Mark, Jason Weigle, and Jodi Delozier. Central Platte Local Leadership Team - From knowledge to understanding: Lessons learned from integrating research and stakeholder Engagement in a Water & Agriculture Project. Nebraska Water Center Virtual Conference. August, 2020.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Delozier, J., Mark Burbach, and Weston M. Eaton. The Emergence of Boundary Spanner Skills in Community-led Engagement: A Case Study. Lightning talk with the Advancing Engagement Workshop. Online. June 11, 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Delozier, Jodi, Mark Burbach, and Weston M Eaton. The Emergence of Boundary Spanners in Collaborative Policy-Making: A Case Study. Paper presentation at International Association of Society and Natural Resources. Online. June 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Delozier, Jodi. Bridging Boundaries: A Model for Effective Stakeholder Engagement. Nebraska Water Center Brown Bag Lunch Series Virtual Presentation, April, 2021.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Delozier, Jodi. Bridging Boundaries: A Model for Effective Stakeholder Engagement. Presentation as part of Nebraska Water Leaders Academy. June, 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Delozier, Jodi. Producer Attitudes Toward Stakeholder Engagement: Opportunities for and Constraints to Participation in Water and Land Management and Policy Development. American Water Resources Association Annual Meeting. Online, November, 2020.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Fowler, Lara, K. Brasier, M. Burbach, B. Quimby, C. Williams. Water for Agriculture: Engaging with stakeholders to find solutions. Panel for the American Water Resources Association Annual Meeting. Online, November, 2020.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Delozier, Jodi. Panelist for Daugherty Water for Food Initiative (DWFI) Women Leaders in Water for Food: Empowering Youth Entrepreneurs, Online, August, 2020.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Eaton, Weston M. A Longitudinal Mixed Methods Case Comparison Participatory Research Design to Examine Social and Behavioral Change through Stakeholder Engagement in Water Resource Management. Paper presentation at International Association of Society and Natural Resources. Online. June 21, 2021.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Eaton, Weston M., and Morey Burnham. Invited Lecture. Bioenergy Futures: Imagined Publics, the Politics of Imaginaries, and Opportunities for Knowledge Co-Production. Norwegian University of Life Sciences at the University of Agder, Norway, PhD course Renewable Energy Development and its Contestation. June 9, 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Quimby, B. Stakeholder Engagement at the Nexus of Water and Agriculture in the Verde Valley. Arizona Postdoctoral Research Conference. September, 2020.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Quimby, B. Invited Presenter, Equity and community participation in coastal resource management: lessons from Samoa and California. Friday Science Seminar, Department of Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University. March, 2021.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Quimby, B. Invited Presenter, Jump In, the Waters Fine: Participatory Approaches to Managing Natural Resources, Fall Colloquium, Department of Geography, San Diego State University. October, 2020.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Quimby, B., Williams, C., Bear, M. Porter, S., Wutich, A. Paper: Stakeholder Engagement and Participatory Modeling for Water and Agriculture in the Verde Valley, Arizona. American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting. April 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Quimby, Barbara. Session Organizer and Chair. Stakeholder participation and engagement in water resource management. American Association of Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting. Online, April, 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Whitmer, W., Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel, Weston M. Eaton, Elizabeth Engle, Kathy Brasier, Jason. Weigle. New Insights into Engagement Research and Practice: Expanding our Toolbox. Presentation to the National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals (NACDEP). Online. May 18, 2021.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Trindade, Federico.; Fulginiti, Lilyan E.; Perrin, Richard. 2019. How much is free irrigation water really worth? International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR), June 4-7, 2019, Ravello, Italy.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: De Figueiredo Silva, Felipe; Fulginiti, Lilyan E.; Perrin, Richard K. 2019. Water efficiency in high-yield irrigated corn fields in the Western U.S. Corn Belt. Applied Agricultural Economics Association meetings, Atlanta, GA, July 2019. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/291135
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: De Figueiredo Silva, Felipe; Perrin, Richard K.; Fulginiti, Lilyan E. 2019. Does stakeholder engagement improve groundwater management? A lab experiment analysis. Applied Agricultural Economics Association meetings, Atlanta, GA, July 2019. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/290828
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Ishler, Virginia, John E. Watson. 2020. Assessing the Benefits of Double Cropping in Mifflin County, Pennsylvania. Penn State Extension. Available at: https://water4ag.psu.edu/files/2021/02/Doublecroppingpaper.MifflinWater4Ag-002.pdf.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Barnes, Ryan G., Virginia Ishler, Walt Whitmer, C. Alan Rotz, Heather E. Preisendanz, Herschel A. Elliott, and John E. Watson. 2020. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Cover Cropping in PA Using a Model-Based Approach. Penn State Extension. Available at: https://water4ag.psu.edu/files/2020/09/CC-Fact-Sheet-8.18.20.pdf.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: De Figueiredo Silva, F. Perrin, R.K., Fulginiti, L.E., & Burbach, M.E. 2021. Does stakeholder engagement improve groundwater management? Water Economics and Policy Online Ready. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X21500089
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Delozier, J., & Burbach, M.E. 2021. Boundary spanning: Its role in trust development between stakeholders in integrated water resource management. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 3: 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100027
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Qiao, and D.M. Heeren. 2020. Differences in soil water changes and canopy temperature under varying water x nitrogen sufficiency for maize. Irrigation Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-020-00683-2
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Burbach, M.E., Eaton, W., Quimby, B., Babbitt, C., and Delozier, J. Assessing an integrated approach to large-scale common pool water resource management: A case study of Nebraska's Platte River Basin. Under review at Ecology & Society.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: du Bray, Margaret V., Barbara Quimby, Julia C. Bausch, Amber Wutich, Weston M. Eaton, Kathryn Brasier, Alexandra Brewis, and Clinton Williams. Red, white & blue: Environmental distress among water stakeholders in a U.S. farming community. Weather, Climate and Society. Under Review.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Eaton, Weston M., Morey Burnham, Christine Kirchhoff, & Clare Hinrichs. Experts Habits of Mind: Implications for Knowledge Co-Production in Energy Transitions, invited Perspective article for Energy Research & Social Science. Revise & Resubmit.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2021 Citation: Chaudhary, A.K., Eaton, W., Assan, E., Burbach, M., Brasier, K., & Burkhart-Kriesel, C. Using Understanding of Stakeholders Social Indicators to Promote Stakeholder Engagement. Paper presentation at International Association of Society and Natural Resources. Online. June 22, 2021.
  • Type: Book Chapters Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Delozier, J., & Burbach, M.E. 2020. The need for boundary spanners in integrated water resource management. In Goldstein, M. & D. DellaSala (Eds.), Encyclopedia of World Biomes (pp. 351-357). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12062-7


Progress 07/01/19 to 06/30/20

Outputs
Target Audience:In all five project sites, local stakeholder groups ("local leadership teams") were formed between fall 2018 and summer 2019, each consisting of 11-18 individuals representing the broad set of interests in each community. Project efforts and information have reached diverse audiences during the reporting period by working directly with the Local Leadership Teams (LLTs). Specific audiences reached across our research sites include: •Members of agricultural communities, including individual farmers and representatives of farm organizations (e.g., Farm Bureau); Plain Sect (Amish, Mennonite) farmers in one site •Technical service providers, agricultural consultants, retailers, and lenders/financial service consultants •Rural non-farm landowners •Municipal and county employees and officials including planners, city managers, mayors, township officials, and county commissioners •Cooperative Extension Agents, administrators, employees, and educators •Representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, including Natural Resource Conservation Service, State Departments of Environmental Quality and Departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Commissions; representatives from regional organizations including the Chesapeake Bay Program and Susquehanna River Basin Commission •In Nebraska, Natural Resources District General Managers and other staff, and power and irrigation district staff; in Pennsylvania, Conservation District director and staff •Members of environmental and conservation organizations, including The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Audubon Society, local conservation organizations; individual environmental and conservation activists. In addition to the audiences within project sites, the team has reached broader academic, practitioner, and policy audiences through participation and presentations during various workshops, state or regional meetings of agriculture and water related organizations, and the regular webinar series hosted by the project. Changes/Problems:The most substantial changes in the project have been associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. Due to both the virus and changed IRB protocols, the engagement processes had to move from face-to-face to remote technologies, with varying degrees of comfort and access among local leadership team members with conferencing technology. For some, using Zoom or similar technologies was seamless; for others, lack of connectivity in rural areas and lack of familiarity required local facilitators to explore options and seek multiple ways for team members to connect. For one project site (North Platte, NE), it resulted in the cancelation of a planned conference on water and irrigation infrastructure, though the team was able to move much of the information online. Other planned activities were delayed in some locations. The social science researchers are incorporating these changes into the data collection processes, both during the engagement processes (e.g., conducting observation via zoom vs in-person) and in the instruments for data collection at the end of the engagement. As with many involved in higher education, many planned presentations and conferences have been canceled or postponed (resulting in fewer presentations) or delayed and moved online. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Research Associate Wes Eaton participated in the workshop: Socio-Environmental Approaches to Watershed Management and Governance Workshop. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Annapolis, MD. February 19-21. The event resulted in a new interdisciplinary collaboration supported by SESYNC that is a) developing a literature review of social and environmental change through engagement in context of wildfire management and water and b) building a SESYNC Pursuit grant proposal. The project team members worked with the Penn State Center for Community and Economic Development to sponsor an undergraduate research assistant September 2019-August 2020. The student has been working with the project team to manage and analyze data and write technical reports for the Local Leadership Teams. Engagement and other team members participated in numerous webinars, training events and presentations Two project team members attended the Chesapeake Bay Report Card Workshop. They learned that even though this is the lowest score since 2011, the good news is the trend downward was not as severe compared to 2003 and 2011 with similar weather events. Climate change is credited as the main culprit for the score received. The project team members have continued to maintain a dialogue with workshop organizers about the Water for Ag project and its potential relevance to their assessments in the Chesapeake Bay. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Team members have conducted trainings, webinars, presentations, and workshops with a variety of audiences, as noted in previous sections. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?During the next reporting period, team members will primarily focus on accomplishing objectives 2 (assessing impact of the engagements), 4 (implementing the engagement activities), and 5 (disseminating results). The local leadership team activities, though delayed by the pandemic, have continued to progress toward achieving their collaboratively-defined goals and outcomes. In most sites, the teams will conclude many of their planned activities during the next reporting period (winter or spring 2021). The team will then conduct data analysis with local leadership team members, including final surveys and interviews, to assess the impacts of their involvement. In addition, the team will continue to finalize papers analyzing data from the baseline data collection and move those toward publication. One of the main deliverables of the project, the guidebook on stakeholder engagement, is in process; the team intends to finish the guidebook and begin sharing it during the next reporting period.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Progress during the 2019-20 reporting period prioritized analyzing baseline data and conducting biophysical research (Obj. 1), conducting engagement processes (Obj. 3), assessing the engagement processes (Obj. 4), and disseminating preliminary findings (Obj. 5). Obj. 1.0: Evaluate baseline social and biophysical conditions. The team conducted a review of policy and regulatory frameworks for stakeholder engagement in the 3 states (Obj. 1.1). Laws for public participation specify procedures, but only vaguely. The vagueness provides opportunity for decision-makers to employ innovative methods to enhance participation. The manuscript will be submitted to Journal of the American Water Resources Association in summer, 2020. The conceptual model guiding the research on engagement processes and outcomes is finalized; the paper will be submitted to Journal of Environmental Management in July, 2020. The paper describes a framework for change through stakeholder engagement across (a) contextual factors, (b) process conditions, (c) change at individual, group and network levels, and (d) human behavioral and environmental change. Over 150 stakeholders were invited to participate (1.2). Interviews and community surveys were completed in Nebraska and Pennsylvania, and interviews and surveys of stakeholders in Arizona (1.3 and 1.4). Reports were provided to the Local Leadership Teams (LLTs). Two papers describing methodological issues with studying stakeholder engagement have resulted. Wutich et al. compares quantitative and qualitative methods for collecting social network data among stakeholders, finding that qualitative methods produce efficient and substantively similar results to quantitative methods. Beresford et al compares interviews with and without scientific experts present. The presence of the expert resulted in no quantitative differences but some subtle qualitative differences in how interviewees talked about scientific issues. Relevant media sources and preliminary data were collected for the media content analysis (1.5). Biophysical projects were emphasized this period (1.6). Projects assess baseline conditions, allow monitoring, and provide trusted data for the LLTs. Specific projects include: Models of vegetation on evapotranspiration and water availability (Verde Valley) Models of disruption to irrigation water access (North Platte) Phragmites ecology and eradication (Central Platte) Integrated farm system modeling of best management practices (Mifflin County) Soil quality testing and interpretation (Mifflin County) Cover crop assessment (Mifflin County) Water quality sampling and assessment (Potter/Tioga & Mifflin Counties) Groundwater quality data summary (Potter/Tioga County) Nutrient and sediment loss across tillage and soil characteristics (Pennsylvania) Obj. 2.0: Evaluate the impacts of the stakeholder engagement process. Engagements are expected to continue through 2020-21. Current evaluation activities entail periodic data collection (through participant observation, surveys, and interviews) with LLT members to assess learning, capacity-building, and behavior change attributable to the engagement (2.1). The remaining components of this objective will be addressed in the next reporting period. Obj. 3.0: Develop the stakeholder engagement model and training activities. The stakeholder engagement model was finalized and implemented in each project site (3.1). The model outlines 9 goals for engagement: (1) foster trust and build relationships; (2) Identify key partners and programs; (3) Assess existing information and identify collaboration opportunities; (4) Assess effectiveness of programs and identify gaps; (5) Identify and prioritize issues; (6) Build leadership and technical capacity for long-term action; (7) Develop an outreach plan; (8) Evaluate actions; and (9) Assess sustainability. Although implemented across all the sites, the model provides flexibility to adapt to local context. All team members have been trained through team meetings, webinars, and annual project meeting (3.2). The annual project team meeting utilized external facilitators which exposed the team to additional techniques. The LLT members regularly identify, assess, and monitor local water and agriculture concerns (3.3). Obj. 4.0: Implement the stakeholder engagement process in parallel in each location. All 5 project sites implemented the engagement model (4.1). In total, 46 LLT meetings have occurred; 12 stakeholder meetings and 2 field tours were organized with the LLTs. Verde Valley (AZ): Project social scientist and co-PIs developed a report based on the stakeholder interviews and survey, a rich portrayal of key issues and tensions in the Verde Valley. The LLT developed two projects: (1) locally-grown label (Verde Valley Grown) and (2) modeling vegetation choices on evapotranspiration and water availability. The relationships established in the LLT created additional outreach opportunities and collaborative projects. North Platte (NE): The LLT identified a top concern as irrigation infrastructure following a tunnel collapse in spring, 2019. The LLT initiated an outreach effort to increase awareness of the infrastructure problem and organized a conference for regional and state policymakers. The conference was canceled due to the pandemic but all materials are available through the website. Central Platte (NE): The LLT identified stream conveyance as the most critical concern, emphasizing the lack of research and outreach to address the invasive tall grass phragmites. LLT members worked with the Nebraska Community Foundation to establish the Platte River Resilience Fund, which provides sustainable financial resources to coordinate research, education, and action to improve river conveyance. Potter/Tioga County (PA): The LLT identified priorities of developing peer to peer educational programming, expanding best management practices (BMPs), and developing strategies to minimize de-icing chemical runoff. They developed a successful grant proposal to USGS to expand water quality sampling in the watershed. Mifflin County (PA): The LLT priority issues are expanding riparian buffers, developing water quality assessment and impairment source data, and community and farm field days. They are studying cover cropping effects on soil and forage, sharing integrated environmental/economic farm systems models, and developing a "Water Resources and Conservation in Mifflin County" video project. At each event, observation, participant, and facilitator reflection data are collected (4.2). These data are used to assess impact according to the engagement model. Preliminary data indicate that LLT activities resulted in increased knowledge of community water concerns, actions needed, challenges, and opportunities. LLTs have high retention rates (over 90%). Participants report very positive experiences with the LLTs, including feeling valued, learning about others, learning new information, learning about scientific research, and building relationships locally. Objective 5: Develop and share research and engagement outcomes with relevant audiences. The team revised the website (5.2). Team members presented 5 workshops with Extension colleagues, 8 events for scholars and practitioners, and 6 events for the public (5.2). The team conducted internal skill-building activities and offered 5 public webinars. The team is creating a national dialogue on stakeholder engagement in agricultural landscapes. The team published 3 papers and submitted 3 for review (5.2). The external evaluator continued assessment and provided results to the team (5.4). Objective 6.0: Assess project objectives, findings, and results with project partners in Israel and Australia. The team conducted one external webinar and one professional development training workshop with Australian partners. Information about this project has been shared with international audiences in Sweden.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2020 Citation: Wutich, A., Beresford, M., Bausch, J.C., Eaton, W., Brasier, K., Williams, C., Porter, S. (forthcoming). Identifying stakeholder groups in a socio-ecological system: Comparing quantitative and qualitative social network approaches. Society & Natural Resources, 8 p.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Lo, Tsz Him, Daran R. Rudnick, Jasreman Singh, Hope Njuki Nakabuye, Abia Katimbo, Derek M. Heeren, Yufeng Ge. 2020. Field assessment of interreplicate variability from eight electromagnetic soil moisture sensors. Agricultural Water Management volume 231, 105984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105984.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Caccese, Robert, Lara Fowler. 2020. Reasonable Use?: The Challenges of Transboundary Groundwater Regulation in the Eastern United States. Journal of American Water Resources Association April 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12840
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2020 Citation: Silva, Felipe de Figueiredo; Perrin, Richard; Fulginiti, Lilyan; Burbach, Mark. Does stakeholder engagement improve groundwater management? Under review at Water Economics and Policy Journal.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2020 Citation: Beresford, Melissa; Jones, Leah; Bausch, Julia; Williams, Clinton; Wutich, Amber; Porter, Sarah; Quimby, Barbara; Eaton, Weston M.; and Brasier, Kathryn. Under Review. No Significant Third-Party Effect when a Scientific Expert is Present in Stakeholder Interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
  • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2020 Citation: Using the Integrated Farm System Model to Compare Cover Cropping and Interseeding on Nutrient and Sediment Losses from Dairy Farms in Central Pennsylvania
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Whitmer, W., et al. Honing Our Craft: New Insights into Engagement Research and Practice. Presentation at the National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals (NACDEP), June 1, 2020.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Burbach, Mark. Full Range Leadership for Leaders in the Water Arena. Nebraska State Irrigation Association, Nebraska Water Leaders Academy, January 23, 2020
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Burbach, Mark. Nebraskas local, integrated approach to water management in the Platte River Basin: A case study. Presentation to the International Society for River Science special session planning meeting, May 28, 2020.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Brasier, Kathryn, Weston M. Eaton, Walt Whitmer, Mark Burbach, et al. Webinar. From Knowledge to Understanding: Lessons Learned from Integrating Research and Stakeholder Engagement in a Water & Agriculture Project. A Panel Discussion Univ. of Washington EarthLab's "Collaborating Across Difference" series (via Zoom). May 12, 2020.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2020 Citation: Barnes, R., Gall, H.E., Watson, J.E., Rotz, C.A., and Elliott, H.A. Evaluating nutrient management approaches to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff from dairy farms in Central Pennsylvania. Poster presentation at The Northeast Pasture Consortium Conference, January 14-16, 2020, Lake Morey, VT.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Miller, Melissa. Manure Injection versus Broadcasting: Effects on Phosphorus and Soil Loss. The North East Region of the CCA Conference, Syracuse, NY, December 3-5, 2019.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Eaton, Weston M. What Difference Does Engagement Make? Conceptual Model and Research Design for the Water for Agriculture Project. Idaho NSF ESPCoR GEM3 speaker series. Idaho State University. November 20, 2019.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Eaton, Weston M., & Kathryn Brasier. What changes through engagement, and how do we know? An overview of socio-behavioral research with the Water for Agriculture project. Rural Sociology Brownbag Series. The Pennsylvania State University. November 15, 2019.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Burbach, Mark & Weston M. Eaton. Strategies for Stakeholder Engagement to Address Water and Agricultural Challenges in Stakeholder Engagement. Research Panel discussion, Nebraska Water Conference. Norfolk, NE. October 8, 2019.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Eaton, Weston M. Invited Speaker. Stakeholder Engagement in Natural Resource Management: Overhyped or Underutilized? Lessons from the Literature and Stakeholder Interviews. School of Natural Resources Fall Seminar Series, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. October 2, 2019.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Eaton, Weston M. Stakeholder Engagement in NRM: An Overview of Key Concepts from the Literature and Stakeholder Interviews. Presentation for Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. Lincoln, NE. October 1, 2019.


Progress 07/01/18 to 06/30/19

Outputs
Target Audience:In project sites in Nebraska and Pennsylvania, local stakeholder groups ("local leadership teams") have been formed, each consisting of 15-18 individuals represnting the broad set of interests in each community. Our projects' efforts have connected us with diverse audiences, including those reached through formal research activities (e.g., interviews), local leadership team members, and communication with existing and potential future project collaborators. These include the following groups across our research sites in Nebraska, Arizona, and Pennsylvania: Members of agricultural communities, including individual farmers and representatives of farm organizations (e.g., Farm Bureau); Plain Sect (Amish, Mennonite) farmers Technical service providers, agricultural consultants, retailers, and lenders/financial service consultants Rural non-farm landowners in study locations Municipal and county employees and officials in project sites in each state with relation to water and agriculture including planners, city managers, mayors, township officials, and county commissioners Cooperative Extension Agents, administrators, employees and educators Representatives from federal and state agencies, including Natural Resource Conservation Service, State Departments of Environmental Quality and Departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Commissions; representatives from regional organizations including the Chesapeake Bay Programand Susquehanna River Basin Commission In Nebraska, Natural Resource District General Managers and other staff; in Pennsylvania, Conservation District director and staff Members of environmental and conservation organizations active in project sites in each state, including The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Audobon Society,local conservation organizations; individual environmental and conservation activists There have been multiple events and activities in each project site in which information about water and agriculture issues have been shared and discussed. This includes: 24 meetings of the Local Leadership Teams 15 stakeholder meetings 3 field tours Most audiences have been reached through our formal engagement processes (as noted above). Additional audiences have been reached through presentations within study sites. 3 professional development trainings for Extension 4 public presentations and workshops offered in partnership with Local Leadership Teams and other community events ("science talks" at local businesses/organizations, podcasts, and media interviews) presentations during partner-organized events (e.g., agricultural industry meetings, state policy meetings, community events, NRCD meetings) presentations as part of public workshops/symposia, such as the Nebraska Water Leaders Academy (graduating 19 students in 2018) We have worked with graduate and undergraduate studentsand social and biophysical scientists with expertise related to project topics. (Professional presentations are listed under products.)In addition to the four graduate students funded on the project, efforts have been made to reach more general students. These include a module based on the project was included in formal classroom instruction at Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln (NRES 428/828). Students also participated in laboratory experiments on stakeholder engagement at the Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln. Five undergraduates were formally mentored in data analysis at Arizona State University. We have also connected with audiences across the United States and beyond through our bi-monthly webinar series. We have now hosted 3 webinars with a diverse audience of approximately 35-40 people per call. Our efforts have stretched to international audiences. In March, 2019,5 project members, including advisory board members, visited Israel for a tour of their water system. We shared information internationally through World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden in August 2018. Changes/Problems:We have negotiated several delays in plans for social science data collection. First, preparing IRB protocols for data collection in multiple project sites ultimately required having to submit some portions of our research design through Penn State to cover data collection across all sites, whereas other portions of our data design required submission to each local institution's IRB. Second, obtaining completed data sharing agreements for building household address databases for the survey of residents within project sites took more time than we initially foresaw, leading to mail survey mail outs happening later in the year than we had initially planned. Identifying potential Local Leadership Team members and acquiring participation commitments took longer than anticipated in some project sites. Conflicting time commitments on the part of engagement leads and local leadership teams makes scheduling and consistent progress a challenge. Groups continue to go through the group process stages at different paces requiring flexibility in process, but not goals. Retaining consistency in the model given variable meeting schedules, starting places, and history of working togetherremains a challenge. Distance between projectsites creates communication and capacity-building challenges within the project team. Incorporation of biophysical researchers and educators has been slower than anticipated. Weather and start date challenges were challenges in a number of sites, including record-breaking cold and floods. The concept and principles of 'community-led' are neither easily explained nor easy to delineate in practice and have wide variations in interpretation; this has taken more time than expected to discuss and implement. We have had to make changes to the engagement plan as we build relationships, learn about and adapt to the stakeholder landscape. Although we have pursued working with tribal nations in Arizona, we have not been able to work with the Yavapai Apache Nation because Arizona State University has not approved this outreach. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?There have been multiple trainings for project team members, including regular team meetings to discuss on-going research and engagement processes, monthly all-team meetings to showcase project related work, annual team meetings to share research and learn from each other, and a national webinar series. Additionally, professional development included postdocmentoringbyCo-PIsSarah Porter and AmberWutichandResearch Associate mentoring by PD Kathy Brasier.Also, severalgraduate studentswere mentoredon data management, data analysis, and manuscript preparationby PI KathyBrasier, co-PIs Mark Burbach, Daran Rudnick,Heather Gall and Jack Watson. Five undergraduate students were mentored in qualitative data analysis by Postdoc Chrissie Bausch. Co-PI Wes Eaton deliveredseminars tolocal leadership teamson water quality, water policy, and local working groups,and Co-PI Mark Burbach developed modules on community-led engagement for two university courses and the Nebraska Water Leaders Academy. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Project results have been shared in diverse venues including the professional conferences listed above and community based events. Thesecommunity events includea seminar deliveredtothelocal leadership teamin North Platte Region on water quality, water policy, and local working groups in Pennsylvaniaand public presentation on the Water for Agriculture project at an event in Centre County, Pennsylvaniaby Co-PI Wes Eaton. Co PI Walt Whitmer and others delivered 4Extension based presentations within Penn State, 3 conference presentations, 8 workshops, re-developed the website, and shared fact sheetsand resourceswith community partners. Co-PI Mark Burbach shared the engagement model with participants at theNebraska Water Leaders Academy,the Nebraska Association of County Officials Institute of Excellence (twice), theNebraska Water Center Advisory Board Meeting, theNebraska Water Center Spring Retreat, and theNebraska Association of Resources Districts Legislative Conference. The Nebraska Association of County Officials have limited information about water issues in Nebraska and stakeholder engagement practices in particular so this was an important audience to address. More than 150 people participated in these outreach activities.Reports on stakeholder interviews conducted in each project site were developed and shared back with Local Leadership Teams in Nebraska, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In order to accomplish our goals for the next reporting period, wewill continue implementing engagements in each site, collect and analyze the social science data, identify research biophysical questions, and seek to develop greater cross disciplinary communication. To enhance our engagement approach, we willcontinue on-going skill development for state engagement leadsand capacity building workshops and training inprojectsites.Training and coordination of local leadership teams will continue. We will expand our outreach, website,and other educational resources. We will specifically focus on developing and publishing engagement resource materials and guides for stakeholders and practitioners.Our social science team will continue to collect data in all project sites in support of local leadership team and research objectives. We will continue analysis of baseline data already collected and prepare manuscripts and present at professional meetings and prepare reports for engagement purposes. We will analyze and develop reports on mail survey findings in conjunction with local leadership teams and community partners. We willdistribute summary reports as the basis for interacting with stakeholders, building trust, relationships;andfindingways to navigate strong/historic tensions across stakeholder groups. We willmore fully integrate biophysical scientists with local leadership team activities,define researchable biophysical questions, and assess challenges and possibilities for interactions across scientists and leadership teams. And more broadly, we willcontinue to engagediverse publicsthroughlocal, regional, national, and international presentations on this research.

Impacts
(N/A)

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Miller, M. D., H. E. Gall, A.R. Buda, L. S. Saporito, T. L. Veith, C. M. White, C. F. Williams, K. J. Brasier, P. J. A. Kleinman, J. E. Watson. 2019. Load  discharge relationships reveal the efficacy of manure application practices on phosphorus and total solids losses from agricultural fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 272:19-28.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2019 Citation: Wutich, A., Beresford, M., Bausch, J.C., Eaton, W., Brasier, K., Williams, C., Porter, S. (in review). Identifying stakeholder groups in a socio-ecological system: Comparing quantitative and qualitative social network approaches. Society & Natural Resources, 8 p.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Whitmer, Walt E., Kathryn Brasier, Weston M. Eaton, and Elyzabeth Engle. Water for Agriculture: Creating an Engaged Approach to Water For & From Agriculture. Paper presentation at National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals. Cleveland, Ohio. July 11, 2018.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Engle, Elyzabeth W., Kathryn Brasier, Weston M. Eaton, Walt Whitmer. Stakeholder Engagement in Water Resource Management: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Practices, and Outcomes. Poster presented at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. Portland, Oregon. July 26-29, 2018.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Eaton, Weston M. Lessons from the Field: Expertise and Science in Public Engagement with Water and Agriculture. Paper presentation at Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. Portland, Oregon. July 26-29, 2018.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Brasier, Kathryn, Walt E. Whitmer, Weston M. Eaton, Elyzabeth Engle, Mark Burbach, and Clinton Williams. Water for Agriculture: Creating an Engaged Approach to Water For & From Agriculture. Paper presentation at Social and Water Conservation Society Annual Conference. Albuquerque, New Mexico. July 31, 2018.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Burbach, Mark, Chrissie Bausch, Brasier, Kathryn, Jodi Delozier, Weston M. Eaton, Lara Fowler, Jack Watson, Walt E. Whitmer and Clinton Williams. Securing Water for and from Agriculture through Effective Community and Stakeholder Engagement. Paper presentation at American Water Resources Association 2019 Spring Specialty Conference. Omaha, NE. March 23-27, 2019.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Brasier, Kathryn, Weston M. Eaton, Hannah Whitley, Elyzabeth Engle. Cultures of collaboration: Informing future engagements with insight from stakeholders culture of participation. Paper presentation at International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Oshkosh, WI. June 2-7, 2019.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Eaton, Weston M., Kathryn Brasier, Mark Burbach, Elly Engle, Hannah Whitley. A conceptual model for assessing whether and how community-led engagement builds community capacity to address complex environmental challenges in agricultural landscapes. Paper presentation at International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Oshkosh, WI. June 2-7, 2019.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Chaudhary, Anil Kumar, Weston M. Eaton, Kathryn Brasier, Elyzabeth Engle, Hannah Whitley. Exploring Social Network Analysis as a Resource for Supporting Community-Led Stakeholder Engagement to Manage Water and Agricultural Challenges in Rural Communities in Nebraska and Pennsylvania, U.S. Paper presentation at International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Oshkosh, WI. June 2-7, 2019.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Whitmer, Walt E., Cheryl Burkhart-Kreisel, Elyzabeth Engle, Kathryn Brasier, Weston M. Eaton, Jason Weigle. Water for Agriculture: Creating an Engaged Approach to Water For & From Agriculture  Lessons Learned from Year Two. Paper presentation at National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals. Asheville NC. June 10, 2019.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Fowler, Lara B., Kathryn Brasier, Mark Burbach, Walt Whitmer, Clinton Williams. Water for Agriculture: Creating an Engaged Approach to Water For & From Agriculture. Presentation at American Water Resources Association 2018 National Conference. Baltimore, MD. Nov. 7, 2018.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Fowler, Lara B. Water for Agriculture: Creating an Engaged Approach to Water For & From Agriculture. Presentation at Stockholm International Water Institutes World Water Week. Stockholm, Sweden. Aug. 28, 2018.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Bausch, C, S. Nelson, C. Ray, D. Rudnick and C. Williams. 2019. Panel Discussion: Stakeholder Engagement in Answering Water Quality and Quantity Problems. Universities Council on Water Resources. Annual Conference. Jun11-13, 2019. Snowbird, UT.
  • Type: Other Status: Other Year Published: 2019 Citation: Water for Agriculture sponsored webinars include: Kern, Michael. The Voluntary Stewardship Program: Engaging Diverse Interests to Resolve Conflict Over Preserving Agriculture and Protecting Natural Resources. February 19, 2019 Jackson-Smith, Douglas. Promise and Peril in Participatory Approaches to Water Quality Research. April 19, 2019 Rudnick, Daran. Linking Extension and Research to Identify Management Solutions in Partnership with Producers and Industry. June 18, 2019


Progress 07/01/17 to 06/30/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Our projects' efforts have connected us with diverse audiences, including those reached through formal research activities (e.g., interviews) as well as communication to existing and potential future project collaborators. These include the following groups across Nebraska, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, our three project sites: Cooperative Extension Agents, Administrators, Employees and Educators, including 4H and other areas of specialization Representatives from agency groups including Natural Resource Conservation Service, State Departments of Environmental Quality and Departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Commission Representatives from regional organizations including the Chesapeake Bay Program In Nebraska, Natural Resource District General Managers and other staff, in Pennsylvania, Natural Resource Conservation District director and staff Members of agricultural communities across our three states, including individual farmers, Farm Bureau members, Future Farmers of America Members of area educational systems, including K-12 agricultural education programs in Pennsylvania Graduate students with direct and indirect interest and connection with the project, undergraduate students attending symposiums connected with the project Members of environmental and conservation organizations active in project sites in each state, including The NatureConservancy, Trout Unlimited, local conservation organizations with specific topical focus including specialty agricultural crops, individual environmental and conservation activists Municipal employees and officials in project sites in each state with relation to water and agriculture including planners, city managers, mayors and county commissioners Biophysical scientists with expertise related to project topics (esp. agricultural sciencies, water science, etc.) Minority groups reached thus far include members of the Anabaptist community (Amish/Mennonite) in Pennsylvania project sites. Working with rural populations across our project sites by its very nature involves connecting with populations with a range of social, economic, and education inequalities. However, the project has not specifically targeted or reached out to under-represented groups as of yet. We reached these audiences in three primary ways: 1. Formal research project data collection, including interviews, phone calls, face-to-face meetings 2. Professional outreach, including conferences, symposiums, and workshops for water and agricultural stakeholders 3. Informal networking, including sharing our project with potential collaborators and with members of research and practitioner communities who are working in similar topics The methods of reaching out to audiences include face-to-face meetings, phone calls, webinars, Extension meetings, public presentations & discussions, and private interviews (informal and semi-structured).We also met with stakeholders face to face on farms as well as through professional meetings and gatherings. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Project staff have conducted multiple internal trainings, webinars, and discussions on engagement practices and techniques.Team members conducted an internal webinar on water law in the three project states.Team members participated in a survey writing workshopat Arizona State University.Team members conducted a session on stakeholder engagement at the Nebraska Water Leaders Academy. Two team members attended trainings on stakeholder engagement techniques conducted by the International Association for Public Participation. Team members responsible for conducting the stakeholder engagement processes in each state will attend an in-depth training to enhance skills and finalize plans in June, 2018. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?I'd add a short intro statement: Information about this project has been disseminated at several conferences and presentations, including the following: Securing Water for and from Agriculture through Effective Community & Stakeholder Engagement. Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, Legislative Conference, January 24, 2018. (Some attendees are not usually aware of research activities). Securing Water for and from Agriculture through Effective Community & Stakeholder Engagement. Nebraska Water Center, Spring Retreat, April 5, 2018. Brasier, K., Securing Water for and from Agriculture through Effective Community & Stakeholder Engagement. Universities Council on Water Resources Annual Conference, June, 2018. Securing Water for Agriculture through Effective Community and Stakeholder Engagement. National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals, June 2018 Co-PI and Postdoc in AZ presented the Water for Agriculture project in various stakeholder & community meetings in AZ project site, met with potential stakeholders one-on-one to inform them of the project, and informed them of the project through interviews completed for the project. Project summary and status updates will be provided to NC1190 at the annual meeting in June, 2018, the multi-state project in which several team members participate. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objective 1: Assess baseline conditions: Identify biophysical science research projects relevant for stakeholders in project sites, including "edge of field" studies if desired by local stakeholders Complete and analyze interviews in each project site. Develop additional instruments (network analysis; survey of residents) as appropriate to each site. Conduct media analysis in each site. Objective 2.0: Evaluate the social, economic, institutional, and biophysical impacts of the stakeholder engagement process. This objective's purpose is to gather data parallel to that under Objective 1 and to assess changes attributable to the engagement. Objective 3: Develop stakeholder engagement procedures and training activities. Continue skill development for state engagement leads Refinement of engagement model Objective 4: Implement stakeholder engagement model Implementation of engagement strategies in each site develop and conduct evaluations at each stage of the engagement process conduct capacity building workshops and training in sites as needed Objective 5: Share and disseminate outcomes with relevant audiences Present findings at relevant conferences and workshops Prepare manuscripts to reach both researchers and practitioners Objective 6.0: Assess project objectives, findings, and results with project partners in Israel and Australia Continue to work with project partners in Israel to plan collaborative experiments and workshop Continue to consult with project parnters in Australia to compare procedures and findings

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Team members conducted baseline interviews (n=82) and developed partnerships with water and agricultural key stakeholders in 5 total project sites in Nebraska, Arizona and Pennsylvania. In addition, the team developed engagement training resources, and assembled and analyzed biophysical data to begin development and testing of a stakeholder engagement model that can potentially transform the way scientists, Cooperative Extension, agency officials, and engagement specialists approach these issues. Researchers are assembling previous literature on assessing evidence for whether and how diverse forms of community and stakeholder engagement can be an effective tool for improving environmental outcomes. Based on this literature, we are developing tools to assess the extent to which community stakeholder engagement could empower diverse community members, change perceptions and behavior, identify possibilities for individual and collective action, repair or form new collaborations, and activate existing norms for protecting and enhancing water quantity and quality issues relative to agriculture. Objective1.0: Evaluate baseline social and biophysical conditions. Biophysical Team members began to gather baseline biophysical for each of the proposed study locations. In addition, they evaluated the phosphorous loss from experimental plots to develop baseline biophysical conditions in Pennsylvania; and developed a listing of water and soil databases for use during engagement discussions in year 2; analyzed data collected from research plots; reviewed pertinent literature regardingPhosphorus loss from fields and water transport variability. Preliminary conclusion: field variability often masks treatment differences; Disc injection reduces P losses over broadcast application of manure depending upon specific circumstances of application time versus rainfall event. Socio-behavioral team conducted interviews in each state's project sites to determine baseline social conditions. 49 interviews in Nebraska, 18in Pennsylvania and 15in Arizona. We gathered data on current policy and legal processes and debates that provide context for project sites in each state. We reviewed literature on stakeholder and community engagement; developed literature reviews, conceptual and research models, meta-analysis of engagement literature; created a reference list of articles on common-pool resource management; and created a reference list of articles on boundary spanners and water resource management. Objective 2.0: Evaluate the social, economic, institutional, and biophysical impacts of the stakeholder engagement process. This objective's purpose is to gather data parallel to that under Objective 1 and to assess changes attributable to the engagement. No progress on this goal during Year 1. Objective 3.0: Develop the stakeholder engagement model and training activities. Draft models, in concert with social behavioral, state, and biophysical teams, completedand in process of beginning implementation. The entire team participated in an initial training on engagement and facilitation at the first annual meeting in October of 2017. An additional workshop will take place in June, 2018, for the team members responsible for implementing the engagement model in each state. Objective 4.0: Implement the stakeholder engagement process in parallel in each location. No progress on this goal during Year 1. Objective 5.0: Develop and share research and engagement outcomes with relevant audiences. No progress on this goal during Year 1. Objective 6.0: Assess project objectives, findings, and results with project partners in Israel and Australia. Interviews, discussion, and webinars have been conducted with ourAustralian partners. We have initiated the development of a workshop in Israel with collaborators at ARO Vocani Center.

Publications