Bethany B. Cutts

Conservation Program Participation and Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making

Abstract This paper analyzes rancher participation in conservation programs in the context of a social-ecological framework for adaptive rangeland decision-making. We argue that conservation programs are best understood as one of many strategies of adaptively managing rangelands in ways that sustain livelihoods and ecosystem services. The framework hypothesizes four categories of variables affecting conservation program participation: operation/operator characteristics, time horizon, social network connections, and social values. Based on a mail survey of California ranchers, multinomial logit models are used to estimate the impact of these variables on different levels of rancher involvement in conservation programs. The findings suggest that ranchers with larger amounts of land, an orientation towards the future, and who are opinion leaders with access to conservation information, are more likely to participate in conservation programs.

Sustaining Working Rangelands: Insights from Rancher Decision Making☆

ABSTRACT Grazed rangeland ecosystems encompass diverse global land resources and are complex social-ecological systems from which society demands both goods (e.g., livestock and forage production) and services (e.g., abundant and high-quality water). Including the ranching communitys perceptions, knowledge, and decision-making is essential to advancing the ongoing dialogue to define sustainable working rangelands. We surveyed 507 (33% response rate) California ranchers to gain insight into key factors shaping their decision-making, perspectives on effective management practices and ranching information sources, as well as their concerns. First, we found that variation in ranch structure, management goals, and decision making across Californias ranching operations aligns with the call from sustainability science to maintain flexibility at multiple scales to support the suite of economic and ecological services they can provide. The diversity in ranching operations highlights why single-policy and management “panaceas” often fail. Second, the information resources ranchers rely on suggest that sustaining working rangelands will require collaborative, trust-based partnerships focused on achieving both economic and ecological goals. Third, ranchers perceive environmental regulations and government policies—rather than environmental drivers—as the major threats to the future of their operations.

Community Theories of Change: Linking Environmental Justice to Sustainability through Stakeholder Perceptions in Milwaukee (WI, USA)

Environmental justice and sustainability are compatible lenses, yet action toward equity is often missing from urban sustainability initiatives. This study aims to assess the cohesion of these frameworks in practice. To do this, we parse individuals’ theories of change, or how they identify and propose to resolve environmental injustices in the pursuit of sustainability. We posit that these theories of change are comprised of three main components: (1) perceived environmental benefits and burdens; (2) the causal pathways of environmental and social injustice; and (3) visions for positive change. Drawing from 35 stakeholder interviews in Milwaukee (WI, USA) we examine individual and institutional perspectives on environmental and social change and their links to the production of injustice. Our findings reveal that participants do not distinguish between environmental and social injustices. Instead, both social and environmental factors are implicated in injustice. Furthermore, we identify two mental maps for how social and economic change reproduce injustice. These findings suggest the need to reorient how urban injustice is considered and make efforts to acknowledge how a diversity of operational theories of change could either be divisive or could bring environmental justice and sustainability initiatives together.

Moving dirt: soil, lead, and the dynamic spatial politics of urban gardening

ABSTRACT Urban gardens are often heralded as places for building social, physical, and environmental health. Yet they are also sites of significant conflict based on competing political, economic, and ecological projects. These projects range from radical re-envisionings of liberatory urban spaces, reformist aesthetic and sanitary improvement programmes, to underwriting the production of the neo-liberal city. These projects are based on divergent visions of the garden ground itself, in particular, whether this is soil (the fertile and living source for growing food and social values) or dirt (an inert and even problematic substrate to be removed or built upon for development purposes). These are not fixed or mutually exclusive categories, but are unstable as soil/dirt moves in discursive and material ways over time and space. Contaminants such as lead in the soil contribute to this instability, reframing fertile soil as dangerous dirt. To understand this discursive and material movement of soil/dirt over time and space, a dynamic spatial politics framework is needed that encompasses three scalar concepts: location, duration, and interconnection. This paper applies this dynamic spatial politics framework to interpret the 30-year conflict over the fate of an urban garden in Sacramento, California, that began as a countercultural space and was eventually transformed into a manicured amenity for a gentrifying neighbourhood, and the role of soil lead contamination in this narrative.

Local Government Capacity to Respond to Environmental Change: Insights from Towns in New York State

Local governments attempting to respond to environmental change face an array of challenges. To better understand policy responses and factors influencing local government capacity to respond to environmental change, we studied three environmental issues affecting rural or peri-urban towns in different regions of New York State: climate change in the Adirondacks (n = 63 towns), loss of open space due to residential/commercial development in the Hudson Valley (n = 50), and natural gas development in the Southern Tier (n = 62). Our analysis focused on towns’ progression through three key stages of the environmental policy process (issue awareness and salience, common goals and agenda setting, policy development and implementation) and the factors that affect this progression and overall capacity for environmental governance. We found that—when compared to towns addressing open space development and natural gas development—towns confronted with climate change were at a much earlier stage in the policy process and were generally less likely to display the essential resources, social support, and political legitimacy needed for an effective policy response. Social capital cultivated through collaboration and networking was strongly associated with towns’ policy response across all regions and could help municipalities overcome omnipresent resource constraints. By comparing and contrasting municipal responses to each issue, this study highlights the processes and factors influencing local government capacity to address a range of environmental changes across diverse management contexts.

An uncertain future: climate resilience of first-generation ranchers

Policymakers and scholars agree that the aging and declining number of ranchers is a serious problem for the future of ranching and range management. Studies show that recruiting and retaining new ranchers is difficult due to a complex mix of start-up costs, knowledge and skill requirements, and regulatory barriers. While research suggests that first-generation farmers are different demographically and require individualised information, there is limited research on first-generation ranchers (FGRs); at best they are generalised as beginning farmers in research and outreach programs. This is surprising given ranchers’ unique knowledge requirements relating to the production of food and fibre, and the management of vast areas of public and private land. Based on a rangeland decision-making survey of 507 California Cattlemen’s Association members, this paper examines similarities and divergences in socioeconomic factors, management practices, drought adaptation strategies, information needs, and values between FGRs and multigenerational ranchers (MGRs). Survey results indicate FGRs and MGRs are not statistically different demographically and have similar values; however, key differences include FGRs using fewer information sources about ranching, fewer general management practices, and fewer drought adaptation practices. FGRs are also more susceptible to drought, and are underserved by organisations. Their vulnerability is particularly concerning, as many have limited drought experience, are more likely to take risks, and are less likely to find value and/or participate in ranching organisations. The future of rangelands requires that organisations interested in conserving rangelands and supporting ranchers re-evaluate assumptions about why FGRs and MGRs have different information needs beyond simplistic demographic identity, and instead focus on their affinity as FGRs in order to understand the complexity of the processes underlying these differences. We end with suggestions for a research agenda to support the climate resiliency of FGRs and increase the efficacy of support organisations.

Is a clean river fun for all? Recognizing social vulnerability in watershed planning

Watershed planning can lead to policy innovation and action toward environmental protection. However, groups often suffer from low engagement with communities that experience disparate impacts from flooding and water pollution. This can limit the capacity of watershed efforts to dismantle pernicious forms of social inequality. As a result, the benefits of environmental changes often flow to more empowered residents, short-changing the power of watershed-based planning as a tool to transform ecological, economic, and social relationships. The objectives of this paper are to assess whether the worldview of watershed planning actors are sufficiently attuned to local patterns of social vulnerability and whether locally significant patterns of social vulnerability can be adequately differentiated using conventional data sources. Drawing from 35 in-depth interviews with watershed planners and community stakeholders in the Milwaukee River Basin (WI, USA), we identify five unique definitions of social vulnerability. Watershed planners in our sample articulate a narrower range of social vulnerability definitions than other participants. All five definitions emphasize spatial and demographic characteristics consistent with existing ways of measuring social vulnerability. However, existing measures do not adequately differentiate among the spatio-temporal dynamics used to distinguish definitions. In response, we develop two new social vulnerability measures. The combination of interviews and demographic analyses in this study provides an assessment technique that can help watershed planners (a) understand the limits of their own conceptualization of social vulnerability and (b) acknowledge the importance of place-based vulnerabilities that may otherwise be obscured. We conclude by discussing how our methods can be a useful tool for identifying opportunities to disrupt social vulnerability in a watershed by evaluating how issue frames, outreach messages, and engagement tactics. The approach allows watershed planners to shift their own culture in order to consider socially vulnerable populations comprehensively.

Neither Knowledge Deficit nor NIMBY: Understanding Opposition to Hydraulic Fracturing as a Nuanced Coalition in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (USA)

The expansion of unconventional sources of natural gas across the world has generated public controversy surrounding fracking drilling methods. Public debates continue to reverberate through policy domains despite very inconclusive biophysical evidence of net harm. As a consequence, there is a need to test the hypothesis that resistance to fracking is due to the way it redistributes economic and environmental risks. As in many other communities, opposition to fracking is common in central Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, (USA) but the rationale underpinning opposition is poorly understood. We test the prevailing assumption in the environmental management literature that fracking opposition is motivated by knowledge deficits and/or not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) politics. This study uses Q methodology to examine emergent perspectives and sub-discourses within the fracking opposition debate in central Westmoreland County, PA. Q methodology offers a systematic and iterative use of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques to explore frequently overlooked marginal viewpoints that are critical to understanding the fracking problem. The analysis reveals four different narratives of factors amongst people actively involved in locally opposing fracking, labeled (1) Future Fears; (2) NIMBY (3) Community Concerns; and (4) Distrust Stakeholders. The conflicts that emerge across these four factors are indicative of deeper discourse within the fracking debate that signifies diversity in motivations, values, and convictions, and suggests the inadequacy of relying on knowledge deficit and/or NIMBY explanations to fracking politics.

Weaving Community-University Research and Action Partnerships for environmental justice

This article is a case study of one Community-University Research and Action Partnership (CURAP) focused on soil lead, urban gardening, and environmental justice in Sacramento, California. We argue that creating and sustaining CURAPs requires a process of weaving together diverse strands of knowledge, resources, and lines of accountability that connect all parties involved. Like the physical process of weaving fabric, weaving CURAPs involve creative and collaborative uses and responses to tension between all elements of a partnership. This is especially true in long-term partnerships intended to address systemic environmental injustices. This case highlights the power relationships and challenges associated with such partnerships and presents several lessons to enrich the scholarship and practices of action research.