bioearth – extension and communications research chad kruger, fok-yan leung, and andy perleberg...

BioEarth – Extension and Communications research

Chad Kruger, Fok-Yan Leung, and Andy PerlebergWashington State University

Jennie StephensClark University

Fully integrated research requires an ongoing dialogue between researchers and stakeholders

The purpose of the project is to:

Create the dynamic process between researchers and stakeholders so that real integrated research can take place.

Gains:

1) Research that is useful for policy making and respected by stakeholder groups

2) Stakeholders and Researchers benefit from the knowledge base of both groups.

BioEarth Extension and Communications research:Agriculture & Forestry Stakeholder Interaction

Inadequate or inappropriate tools for communication – technology, infrastructure, common language.

Indifference or Hostility


The goal of extension activities is to provide appropriate venues and tools for communication

The goal of the communications research is to identify problems in the process and produce workable solutions.

When two very different constituencies meet


The overall goal of the process is to aid in the process of determining critical requirements for model success

Skateholder wants and needs

Researchers capabilities, desires,

and limitations

Model which focuses on

meeting critical needs

Our job

Requirements:

1) Respect between researchers and stakeholders – willingness to accommodate and adapt.

2) Ongoing, effective communication between the stakeholders and researchers:

2-way flow of information;i) for stakeholder to be able to inform research directions, they

must also be aware of the capability and limitations of researchers and the scope of the project

ii) For researchers to be able to make informed decisions re. research priorities and directions, they must be aware of the priorities of stakeholders


Approach: We will simultaneously:

1. develop frequent, regular, two-way interactive communication between model developers and decision-making stakeholders workshops, meetings, and virtual internet forum

2. Analyze the perceptions of utility to decision-making of both stakeholders and scientists through-out process (surveys & interviews)


BioEarth Extension:Agriculture & Forestry Stakeholder Interaction

Prior stakeholder processes

• Ag, Forestry and Water Preparation and Adaptation Working Groups (PAWGS) – 2007

• Climate Advisory Team; Ag and Forestry Technical Work Groups (TWGS) – 2007

• Climate Action Team; Agriculture and Forestry Sector Carbon Market Workgroups (ASCMW / FSCMW) – 2008

• Working Lands Technical Advisory Committee (Agriculture, Forest and Water) – 2010 . . .

• State Energy Strategy (energy issues related to water and terrestrial energy sources) – 2010 – 2011

• Oregon Global Warming Commission

• USFS Forest Landowners Climate Change Needs Assessment (2010 – 2011)


Prior research project engagement of stakeholders

• Climate Friendly Farming Project – 2004 – current

• Prior biomass inventory / assessment projects (Dept. of Ecology – WSU)

• Washington Climate Change Impact Assessment Project (Agriculture, Water chapters) – 2007-2009

• Columbia River Supply and Demand Forecast Project – 2009 - 2011


Diversity of Stakeholder (ie. “Decision-making” complex) audiences

• “Growers”, Forest Managers

• Landlords

• Labor (Depends on the issue)

• Industry service and product suppliers (include financial, marketing / crop consultants, fertilizer / pesticide dealers, processors / mills, etc.)

• Industry Technology Providers

• Water managers

• “Organics” Management Industry

• Grower / Industry organizations / representatives

• Government Agency (Regulatory / Conservation Assistance)

• Extension (County / community based)

• Environmental Organizations

• Communities

• Markets (depends on product, but becoming a powerful driver of change)


Concerns to expect from stakeholders vs. desired outcomes

• Lack of understanding and concerns about Reliability of Models

• Concern that models might give the “wrong answers”

• Lack of “belief” in climate change / “fatigue” about climate change / resistance to regulation

• Lack of understanding of the relevance of climate change to their enterprise

• How can these modeling tools improve our management capacity, planning and decision-making?


Current “parallel” research efforts with engagement of stakeholders

• REACCH PNA – Regional Approaches to Climate Change for Pacific Northwest Agriculture – “Wheat-based USDA Climate Change CAP”

• Various ongoing biomass inventory / assessment projects (Dept. of Ecology - WSU, Dept. of Natural Resources - UW)

• Various “agriculture & climate change” research projects – OFOOT, Site-Specific CFF, CIG Nutrient Recovery


Design questions to still be answered

• “Pre-selected” stakeholders vs. random sampling – probably the single most important design question to answer

• “Repeat” audiences vs. different audiences for each workshop. [*Proposal stressed “consistency in workshop participants over time will be encouraged”, but we’ve also cut from 4 annual workshops to 2.]

• Geographic vs. industry vs. “role” of stakeholders

• Research and Educational “Needs Assessment” for agriculture (proposals under development) – [USFS project underway for Forests]

Overarching Project Goal: To improve understanding of the interactions among C, N, and H2O at the regional scale in the context of global change to inform decision makers’ strategies regarding natural and agricultural resource management

Relevance and utility to decision-makers will be enhanced through integrated stakeholder input throughout model development

BioEarth: Communications Research


Analyze perceptions and understandings of both stakeholders and scientists throughout the integrated model development process

You are being studied – or we are studying ourselves throughoutthe process

Critical Assumptions of Our Approach

Ultimate goal of this project is to inform regional decision-makers/practitioners.

Stakeholders have relevant knowledge that model developers may not have (Kainer et al 2009)


Building on Previous WorkWorkshops could include “mediated modeling” activities that foster shared systems learning among stakeholders and scientists (Thompson et al 2010)

Interactive computer-aided decision-making Integrated shared visioning and principles learned from others on models for planning purposes (Palmer, 2006)


Communication Research

Research questionHow does regular interaction between model developers and land-use stakeholders influence the perceived relevance and utility to decision-making?

OutcomeMap out changes in stakeholder and scientists perceptions over time. Contribute to sustainability science literature on stakeholder engagement

MethodsPre and post workshop surveys

Interviews between workshops

Communication Research

Analyze perceptions and understandings of both stakeholders and scientists throughout the integrated model development process

You are being studied – or we are studying ourselves throughoutthe process

Initial Questions to Model-Developers

How do you currently envision this integrated model informing decision-making?

Who do you think might be able to use this integrated model to inform their decision-making?

What stakeholder knowledge can you imagine might be helpful in the development of this integrated model?


….. a sophisticated tool to help decision-makers deal with climate impacts.

….. to breaking down barriers

between scientists and decision-

makers

This project will contribute……

bioearth – extension and communications research chad kruger, fok-yan leung, and andy perleberg...

Documents

stakeholder groups

research priorities

research directions

hostility bioearth extension

climate change fatigue

climate change resistance

relevance of climate

real integrated research