| Records |
| Author |
Graversgaard, M.; Hedelin, B.; Smith, L.; Gertz, F.; Höjberg, A.L.; Langford, J.; Martinez, G.; Mostert, E. |
| Title |
Opportunities and Barriers for Water Co-Governance – A Critical Analysis of Seven Cases of Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year  |
2018 |
Publication |
Sustainability |
Abbreviated Journal |
Sustainability |
| Volume |
10 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
1634 |
| Keywords |
collaborative governance; decentralized decision-making; non-point source pollution; nutrient management; water governance; management; policy; river; eutrophication; phosphorus; resources; nitrogen; hypoxia; quality; options |
| Abstract |
Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) and its governance has received increased attention as a policy concern across the globe. Mitigation of DWPA is a complex problem that requires a mix of policy instruments and a multi-agency, broad societal response. In this paper, opportunities and barriers for developing co-governance, defined as collaborative societal involvement in the functions of government, and its suitability for mitigation of DWPA are reviewed using seven case studies in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK), Australia (Murray-Darling Basin) and North America (State of Minnesota). An analytical framework for assessing opportunities and barriers of co-governance was developed and applied in this review. Results indicated that five key issues constitute both opportunities and barriers, and include: (i) pressure for change; (ii) connected governance structures and allocation of resources and funding; (iii) leadership and establishment of partnerships through capacity building; (iv) use and co-production of knowledge; and (v) time commitment to develop water co-governance. |
| Address |
2018-07-12 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
2071-1050 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5205 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
König, H.J.; Helming, K.; Seddaiu, G.; Kipling, R.; Köchy, M.; Graversgaard, M.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Nguyen, T.P.L.; Quaranta, G.; Salvia, R.; Sieber, S.; Ithes, S.; Kjeldsen, C.; Turner, K.G.; Dalgaard, T.; Roggero, P.P. |
| Title |
Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how? |
Type |
Manuscript |
| Year |
|
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ; |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2564 |
| Permanent link to this record |
