Social and Biophysical Context Influences County-level Support for Collaborative Watershed Restoration: Case Study of the Sacramento River, CA, USA

被引:2
|
作者
Langridge, Suzanne [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Environm Studies, 1156 High St, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA
关键词
collaborative watershed management; governance; large-scale restoration; Sacramento River Conservation Area; stakeholders; RESOURCE-MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES; ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION; POLITICAL ECOLOGY; PARTNERSHIPS; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.3368/er.34.4.285
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Collaborative watershed management is an increasingly common practice with the potential to be more effective than top-down approaches. One critical issue I investigate here is regional differences in collaborative governance context, process, and outcomes within large-scale collaborative watershed restoration. Using interviews, document review, direct observation, and analysis of employment, population, voting, and land use data, I examine differences in socioeconomic, political, and biophysical context among four counties in California, US within a large-scale collaborative watershed restoration project. I relate these factors to differences in collaborative processes and environmental and social outcomes. The four rural agricultural-based counties had different socioeconomic and biophysical concerns associated with large-scale restoration. Flood risk, type of agriculture, and local advocacy organizations emerged as important factors influencing support for collaborative restoration within the watershed. Although individual farmers in all four counties sold their land to restoration practitioners in similar proportions, there were differences in area restored among the counties. Only 3% of the purchased properties were restored in the county with the highest level of irrigated cropland and highest flood risk, while 26-38% of the purchased properties were restored in the other three counties. Multi-benefit projects that target issues important to the community (i.e., recreation or flood control) can reduce opposition as can mitigation and minimization of negative effects of restoration on crops, and co-developing knowledge with stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页码:285 / 296
页数:12
相关论文
共 6 条
  • [1] E-government and Socioeconomic Development-A County-level Case Study in China Context
    Luo Guang-hua
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (4TH), VOL I, 2008, : 712 - 719
  • [2] A County-Level Case Study of Early Psychosis in the Context of a Hybrid Juvenile Competency Restoration and Mental Health Problem-Solving Court and Linkage to Coordinated Specialty Care Services
    Callejas, Linda
    Jones, Nev
    Watson, Amy
    Marino, Marie
    COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, 2024, 60 (05) : 1031 - 1035
  • [3] Spatio-Temporal Differentiation and Driving Factors of County-Level Food Security in the Yellow River Basin: A Case Study of Ningxia, China
    Wu, Guiming
    Xia, Bing
    Dong, Suocheng
    Zhang, Jing
    Li, Zehong
    Yang, Guiqing
    LAND, 2024, 13 (11)
  • [4] Optimizing county-level infectious respiratory disease forecasts: a pandemic case study integrating social media-based physical and social connectivity networks
    Jing, Fengrui
    Li, Zhenlong
    Qiao, Shan
    Lessani, M. Naser
    Ning, Huan
    Ma, Wenjun
    Hu, Jinjing
    Yang, Pan
    Li, Xiaoming
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH, 2024, 17 (01)
  • [5] Mapping Perceived Social Values to Support a Respondent-Defined Restoration Economy: Case Study in Southeastern Arizona, USA
    Petrakis, Roy E.
    Norman, Laura M.
    Lysaght, Oliver
    Sherrouse, Benson C.
    Semmens, Darius
    Bagstad, Kenneth J.
    Pritzlaff, Richard
    AIR SOIL AND WATER RESEARCH, 2020, 13
  • [6] Examining the Social Acceptability of Forest Biomass Harvesting and Utilization from Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration: A Case Study from Western Colorado, USA
    Western, Jessica M.
    Cheng, Antony S.
    Anderson, Nathaniel M.
    Motley, Pamela
    JOURNAL OF FORESTRY, 2017, 115 (06) : 530 - 539