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, 2021
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 07/01/18 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