 |
Understanding Grassroots Stakeholders and Grassroots Stakeholder Groups: The View from the Grassroots in the Upper Sugar Creek
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Understanding Grassroots Stakeholders and Grassroots Stakeholder Groups: The View
from the Grassroots in the Upper Sugar Creek
Abstract
Although collaborative watershed management is increasingly accepted as the
dominant paradigm in resource management and environmental policy, research on collaborative watershed organizations has largely ignored the attitudes and behaviors of grassroots stakeholders and the formation and organization of grassroots watershed groups. Instead, the research on collaborative watershed management has remained focused on the study of policy elites or “grasstops” (Graetz and Shapiro 2005) stakeholders, including “interest group leaders, elected officials, bureaucrats, and partnership staff” (Lubell 2004, 341) and on watershed partnerships, defined as a “collection of parties, usually featuring both private and governmental representatives…” (Kenny et al. 2000, quoted in Lubell, et al 2002), i.e. as collaborations among such policy elites (see Leach and Pelky 2001). In this study, we shift this focus to examine the beliefs and behavior of grassroots stakeholders, defined as the “appropriators” (Ostrom 1990) or the “consumers” (Lubell 2004) of natural resources and the formation of grassroots watershed organizations. We utilize the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which has been fruitfully applied to research on watershed partnerships, and we attempt to adopt the appropriate elements of ACF in conjunction with conceptions of social identity to provide a framework for examining grassroots stakeholders and groups. This study focuses on one grassroots watershed group, which is made up of farmers, in a subwatershed in the Sugar Creek watershed in northeast Ohio, and uses data collected through three different methods to address some of the difficulties in understanding grassroots as opposed to grasstops stakeholders and organizations.
|
| | Authors: Weaver, Mark., Moore, Richard. and Parker, Jason. |
|
| |
|
|
Understanding Grassroots Stakeholders and Grassroots Stakeholder Groups: The View
from the Grassroots in the Upper Sugar Creek
Abstract
Although collaborative watershed management is increasingly accepted as the
dominant paradigm in resource management and environmental policy, research on
collaborative watershed organizations has largely ignored the attitudes and behaviors of
grassroots stakeholders and the formation and organization of grassroots watershed
groups. Instead, the research on collaborative watershed management has remained
focused on the study of policy elites or “grasstops” (Graetz and Shapiro 2005)
stakeholders, including “interest group leaders, elected officials, bureaucrats, and
partnership staff” (Lubell 2004, 341) and on watershed partnerships, defined as a
“collection of parties, usually featuring both private and governmental representatives…”
(Kenny et al. 2000, quoted in Lubell, et al 2002), i.e. as collaborations among such policy
elites (see Leach and Pelky 2001). In this study, we shift this focus to examine the beliefs
and behavior of grassroots stakeholders, defined as the “appropriators” (Ostrom 1990) or
the “consumers” (Lubell 2004) of natural resources and the formation of grassroots
watershed organizations. We utilize the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which
has been fruitfully applied to research on watershed partnerships, and we attempt to adopt
the appropriate elements of ACF in conjunction with conceptions of social identity to
provide a framework for examining grassroots stakeholders and groups. This study
focuses on one grassroots watershed group, which is made up of farmers, in a
subwatershed in the Sugar Creek watershed in northeast Ohio, and uses data collected
through three different methods to address some of the difficulties in understanding
grassroots as opposed to grasstops stakeholders and organizations.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
