Suchergebnisse

AbstractSoil carbon sequestration programmes are a way of offsetting GHG emissions, however, it requires agricultural landholders to be engaged in such initiatives for carbon offsets to occur. Farmer engagement is low in market-based programmes for soil carbon credits in Australia. We interviewed long-term practitioners (n = 25) of rotational grazing in high-rainfall lands of New South Wales, Australia to understand their current social-ecological system (SES) of soil carbon management (SCM). The aim was to identify those components of the SES that motivate them to manage soil carbon and also influence their potential engagement in soil carbon sequestration programmes. Utilising first-tier and second-tier concepts from Ostrom's SES framework, the interview data were coded and identified a total of 51 features that characterised the farmers' SES of SCM. Network analysis of farmer interview data revealed that the current SES of SCM has low connectivity among the SES features (30%). In four workshops with interviewed farmers (n = 2) and invited service providers (n = 2) the 51 features were reviewed and participants decided on the positioning and the interactions between features that were considered to influence SCM into a causal loop diagram. Post-workshop, 10 feedback loops were identified that revealed the different and common perspectives of farmers and service providers on SCM in a consolidated causal loop diagram. Defining the SES relationships for SCM can identify the challenges and needs of stakeholders, particularly farmers, which can then be addressed to achieve local, national and international objectives, such as SCM co-benefits, GHG reduction, carbon sequestration targets and SDGs.

Legitimacy deficits have been identified as central to the ongoing challenges encountered in implementing the policy reforms introduced to reduce the environmental impacts of over-allocating water in the Murray-Darling Basin. In closing the special issue on Building and Maintaining Trust and Legitimacy in Environmental Water Management, this article draws on the preceding articles in responding to a call for the focus of evaluations of environmental water reforms to be broadened to assess their performance against metrics of legitimacy. The first aim is to consider some analytical issues to be encountered in developing legitimacy metrics for MDB environmental water reform contexts. The other aim is to explore the role of legitimacy metrics in empirical research designed to strengthen the evidence available for deciding whether and how to invest in establishing and sustaining the legitimacy of the MDB reforms. Particular reference is made to empirical studies of the consequences and antecedents of legitimacy in U.S. contexts of the law and its policing. Furnishing policy makers with reliable evidence to guide their decisions on whether and how to invest in the legitimacy of the MDB environmental water reforms will require studies of this kind that are adapted to the unique contexts of these reforms.