Suchergebnisse

Flood irrigation on western rangelands is important for diverse social and ecological reasons, providing forage for many agricultural operations and maintaining many critical wetlands across the region. However, recent debate over the efficiency of flood irrigation and resulting transition to other "more efficient" types of irrigation has put many of the working wet meadows sustained by flood irrigation at risk. As the sustainability of these landscapes is primarily dependent on ranchers' management decisions, we sought to gain a deeper understanding of factors influencing ranchers who flood irrigate and how these factors interrelate. We applied the Community Capitals Framework to explore what considerations act as enablers and constraints to maintaining flood irrigation and to evaluate the role of each type of capital in enabling and constraining the coproduction of working wet meadows for ranchers and the environment. Our qualitative analysis of facilitated workshop transcripts and observation notes from two study areas within the Intermountain West showed that ranchers perceived constraining and enabling factors of flood irrigation related to all seven types of community capitals: natural, financial, built, cultural, human, social, and political. The irrigation methods used by ranchers were heavily influenced by environmental components of the landscape rather than reflecting a choice among alternative methods. Other prominent enablers included a commitment toward maintaining the natural history of the landscape and the ranching lifestyle. Primary constraints included the impact of public misperception and the ability to pass their operation on to the next generation. Ranchers weighed multiple considerations simultaneously in a holistic, community-scale approach to management decisions and described how diverse enablers and constraints interacted to determine the viability of flood irrigation and ranching. These results indicate rancher decisions are driven by complex social-ecological considerations and demonstrate the importance of each capital type to rangeland conservation. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Society for Range Management. ; US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (Oregon State Office); US Fish and Wildlife Service (Mountain-Prairie Region) through the US Geological Survey Cooperative Research Unit [RWO 174]; USDA Farm Service Agency ; This work was funded by the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (Oregon State Office) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Mountain-Prairie Region) through the US Geological Survey Cooperative Research Unit RWO 174 to Virginia Tech with a subcontract to University of Montana. In addition, the PI of the project and second author (Dr. Ashley Dayer) has another research project studying agricultural producers outside of the study area funded by the USDA Farm Service Agency.

Successful conservation in the United States relies on collective stewardship by millions of private landowners, challenging those agencies and nongovernment organizations tasked with engagement and outreach. Perennially limited resources compound this challenge, highlighting a deep need for efficient social marketing. In the following research, we test the efficacy of two social marketing strategies—microtargeting and normative appeals—through a randomized controlled trial of an integrated social marketing campaign targeting riparian landowners in the Pennsylvania portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. We used a microtargeting algorithm to predict landowners' likelihood of responding to a conservation outreach campaign to create treatment groups of high-likelihood prospects versus random prospects (i.e., no microtargeting). A normative appeal was also included as an experimental factor in the campaign communicating that forested riparian buffer investments were common among similar landowners. Among microtargeted landowners, we observed a 66% increase in response to a riparian restoration survey compared to the control group. Additionally, we found a significant influence of a normative message among random (nonmicrotargeted) prospects, increasing response by 23% over the control group. We conclude conservation outcomes may be more efficiently achieved by deploying these marketing techniques on a wider scale to a variety of conservation challenges.

Controlling invasive species presents a public‐good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and economic benefits of control accrue to society, costs are borne by only a few individuals and organizations. For decades, policy makers have used incentives and sanctions to encourage or coerce individual actors to contribute to the public good, with limited success. Diverse, subnational efforts to collectively manage invasive plants, insects, and animals provide effective alternatives to traditional command‐and‐control approaches. Despite this work, there has been little systematic evaluation of collective efforts to determine whether there are consistent principles underpinning success. We reviewed 32 studies to identify the extent to which collective‐action theories from related agricultural and environmental fields explain collaborative invasive species management approaches; describe and differentiate emergent invasive species collective‐action efforts; and provide guidance on how to enable more collaborative approaches to invasive species management. We identified 4 types of collective action aimed at invasive species—externally led, community led, comanaged, and organizational coalitions—that provide blueprints for future invasive species management. Existing collective‐action theories could explain the importance attributed to developing shared knowledge of the social‐ecological system and the need for social capital. Yet, collection action on invasive species requires different types of monitoring, sanctions, and boundary definitions. We argue that future government policies can benefit from establishing flexible boundaries that encourage social learning and enable colocated individuals and organizations to identify common goals, pool resources, and coordinate efforts.

Sònia Graham va finalitzar el seu treball quan treballava a l'ICTA, que ha col·laborat al seu finançament amb fons Maria de Maeztu. ; Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552 ; Controlling invasive species presents a public-good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and economic benefits of control accrue to society, costs are borne by only a few individuals and organizations. For decades, policy makers have used incentives and sanctions to encourage or coerce individual actors to contribute to the public good, with limited success. Diverse, subnational efforts to collectively manage invasive plants, insects, and animals provide effective alternatives to traditional command-and-control approaches. Despite this work, there has been little systematic evaluation of collective efforts to determine whether there are consistent principles underpinning success. We reviewed 32 studies to identify the extent to which collectiveaction theories from related agricultural and environmental fields explain collaborative invasive species management approaches; describe and differentiate emergent invasive species collective-action efforts; and provide guidance on how to enable more collaborative approaches to invasive species management. We identified 4 types of collective action aimed at invasive species-externally led, community led, comanaged, and organizational coalitions-that provide blueprints for future invasive species management. Existing collective-action theories could explain the importance attributed to developing shared knowledge of the socialecological system and the need for social capital. Yet, collection action on invasive species requires different types of monitoring, sanctions, and boundary definitions. We argue that future government policies can benefit from establishing flexible boundaries that encourage social learning and enable colocated individuals and organizations to identify common goals, pool resources, and coordinate efforts.

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated selfreported factors associated with public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = −0.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.