Skip to main content

TMDL Implementation in Agricultural Landscapes: A Communicative and Systemic Approach

Environmental Management volume 48, pages 1–12 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Increasingly, total maximum daily load (TMDL) limits are being defined for agricultural watersheds. Reductions in non-point source pollution are often needed to meet TMDL limits, and improvements in management of annual crops appear insufficient to achieve the necessary reductions. Increased adoption of perennial crops and other changes in agricultural land use also appear necessary, but face major barriers. We outline a novel strategy that aims to create new economic opportunities for land-owners and other stakeholders and thereby to attract their voluntary participation in land-use change needed to meet TMDLs. Our strategy has two key elements. First, focused efforts are needed to create new economic enterprises that capitalize on the productive potential of multifunctional agriculture (MFA). MFA seeks to produce a wide range of goods and ecosystem services by well-designed deployment of annual and perennial crops across agricultural landscapes and watersheds; new revenue from MFA may substantially finance land-use change needed to meet TMDLs. Second, efforts to capitalize on MFA should use a novel methodology, the Communicative/Systemic Approach (C/SA). C/SA uses an integrative GIS-based spatial modeling framework for systematically assessing tradeoffs and synergies in design and evaluation of multifunctional agricultural landscapes, closely linked to deliberation and design processes by which multiple stakeholders can collaboratively create appropriate and acceptable MFA landscape designs. We anticipate that application of C/SA will strongly accelerate TMDL implementation, by aligning the interests of multiple stakeholders whose active support is needed to change agricultural land use and thereby meet TMDL goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Aggett G, McColl C (2006) Evaluating decision support systems for PPGIS applications. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 33:77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Kodmany K (2000) Public participation: technology and democracy. Journal of Architectural Education 53:220–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Balram S, Dragicevic S, Feick R (2009) Collaborative GIS for spatial decision support and visualization. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1963–1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Batie S (2008) Sustainability science: statement of the Friibergh workshop on sustainability science. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(5):1176–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Batie SS (2009) Green payments and the US Farm Bill: information and policy challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(7):380–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister RF, Newman LS (1994) Self-regulation and the cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(11):3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgärtner S, Quaas MF (2010) Managing increasing environmental risks through agrobiodiversity and agrienvironmental policies. Agricultural Economics 41:483–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentrup G, Wells G (2005) Picture this. Journal of Soils and Water Conservation 60:144A–149A

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1692–1702

    Google Scholar 

  • Boody G, Vondracek B, Andow DA, Krinke M, Westra J, Zimmerman J, Welle P (2005) Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. BioScience 55:27–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Born SM, Sonzogni WC (1995) Integrated environmental management strengthening the conceptualization. Environmental Management 19(2):167–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan BA, Kandulu JM (2009) Cost-effective alternatives for mitigating Cryptosporidium risk in drinking water and enhancing ecosystem services. Water Resources Journal 45:W08437

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan BA, King D, Wang EL (2010) Potential of woody biomass production for motivating widespread natural resource management under climate change. Land Use Policy 27(3):713–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Burby RJ (2003) Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association 69(1):33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Burris R, Canter L (1997) Cumulative impacts are not properly addressed in environmental assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17:5–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:8086–8091

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin R, Brown P, Venkatesh S, Vidal A (2007) Building community capacity. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Connick S, Innes JE (2003) Outcomes of collaborative water policy making applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46:177–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy MM, Gordon SI (2004) Utility of interactive computer-based materials for enhancing public participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47:19–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16:71–102

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision-making. Ecological Complexity 7:260–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Devaux A, Horton D, Velasco C, Thiele G, Lopez G, Bernet T, Reinoso I, Ordinola M (2009) Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy 34(1):31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Deyle RE, Slotterback CS (2009) Empirical analysis of mutual learning in consensual planning processes: an exploratory analysis of local mitigation planning in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(1):23–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Deyle RE, Slotterback CS (In press) Group learning in participatory planning processes: an exploratory quasi-experimental analysis of local mitigation planning in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research

  • Drew CH, Nyerges TL, Leschine TM (2004) Promoting transparency of long-term environmental decisions: the Hanford decision mapping system pilot project. Risk Analysis 24:1641–1664

    Google Scholar 

  • Duinker PN, Greig LA (2006) The importance of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management 37(2):153–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck DL (1993) The challenge of Pluralism. Nieman reports. The Nieman Foundation at Harvard University XLVII(2)

  • Elwood SA (2002) GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environment and Planning 34:905–922

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhendler I, Heikkila T (2010) Does integrated water resources management support institutional change? The case of water policy reform in Israel. Ecology and Society 15(1):4. Accessed online July 27, 2010 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art4/

  • Foster BL, Kindscher K, Houseman GR, Murphy CA (2009) Effects of hay management and native species sowing on grassland community structure, biomass, and restoration. Ecological Applications 19:1884–1896. doi:10.1890/08-0849.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Girvetz EH, Thorne JH, Berry AM, Jaeger JAG (2008) Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: a statewide multi-scale case study from California. USA Landscape and Urban Planning 86(3–4):205–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Water Partnership (2000) Integrated water resources management. Global warming potential (GWP), Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan G, Negri MC, Wang M, Wu M, Snyder SW, Lafreniere L (2009) Biofuels, land, and water: a systems approach to sustainability. Environmental Science and Technology 43:6094–6100

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haas MJ, McAloon AJ, Yee WC, Foglia TA (2006) A process model to estimate biodiesel production costs. Bioresource Technology 97:671–678

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haklay M, Tobón C (2003) Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centered design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17:577–592

    Google Scholar 

  • Han SS, Peng Z (2003) Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for town council management in Singapore. Environment and Planning B 30(1):89–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press. Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry AD (2009) The challenge of learning for sustainability: a prolegomenon to theory. Human Ecology Review 16:131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine DW, Gifford RW (1996) Individual restrain and group efficiency in commons dilemmas: the effects of two types of environmental uncertainty. Journal of Social Psychology 26(11):993–1009

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton D, Akello B, Aliguma L, Bernet T, Devaux A, Lemaga B, Magala D, Mayanja S, Sekitto I, Thiele G, Velasco C (2010) Developing capacity for agricultural market chain innovation: experience with the ‘PMCA’ in Uganda. Journal of International Development 22:367–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes JE (1992) Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association 58:440–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison RL (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The sage handbook of action research participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London, UK, pp 139–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison R, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science and Policy 10:499–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey P, Gearey M (2006) Integrated water resources management: lost on the road from ambition to realisation? Water Science and Technology 53(1):1–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiggins J, van Slobbe E, Roling N (2007) The organisation of social learning in response to perceptions of crisis in the water sector of The Netherlands. Environmental Science and Policy 10:526–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan N, Warner K (2010) Enhancing the multifunctionality of US Agriculture. BioScience 60:60–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan N, Bawden R, Bergmann L (2008) Pedagogy for addressing the worldview challenge in sustainable development of agriculture. Journal of Natural Resources and Life-Sciences Education 37:92–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Kaplan R (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL (1998) With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesting S (2010) Boulding’s welfare approach of communicative deliberation. Ecological Economics 69:973–977

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass & Bioenergy 29:426–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek S, Kemmermann A, Steinmann H, Freese J, Isselstein J (2008) Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biological Conservation 141:2888–2897

    Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman RE (1999) The what if? Collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning 26:393–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucharik CJ (2003) Evaluation of a process-based agro-ecosystem model (Agro-IBIS) across the US corn belt: simulations of the interannual variability in maize yield. Earth Interactions 7:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Leduc S, Lundgren J, Franklin O, Dotzauer E (2010) Location of a biomass based methanol production plant: a dynamic problem in northern Sweden. Applied Energy 87:68–75

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire LA (2003) Interplay of science and stakeholder values in Neuse River total maximum daily load process. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 129:261–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandarano LA (2008) Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: restoring and protecting habitat in New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research 27:456–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (2002a) Collaborative planning: building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21:237–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (2002b) Evaluating collaborative planning: implications from an empirical analysis of growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association 68:179–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Medema W, McIntosh BS, Jeffrey PJ (2008) From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society 13(2):29

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow J (1996) Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly 46:158–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell B (2005) Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environment and Planning A 37(8):1335–1352

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer J, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23:633–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi F (2002) Ecological planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Neitsch S, Arnold J, Kiniry J, Williams J (2005) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation, version 2005. USDA Agricultural Research Service and Texas A&M Blackland Research Center, College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble B (2008) Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: a case study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(2):78–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble R, Ramirez R, Lightfoot C (2008) Linking hard and soft systems in local development. In: Waltner-Toews D, Kay JJ, Lister N (eds) The ecosystem approach: complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. Columbia University Press series: complexity in ecological systems. Columbia University Press, pp 141–156

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2006) Adaptive co-management for building resilience in socialecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1):75–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M (2004) Process of social learning in integrated resource management. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology 14:193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington DD (2008) Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecology and Society 13:(8)

  • Pickett S, Cadenasso M, Grove J (2005) Biocomplexity in coupled natural-human systems: a multidimensional framework. Ecosystems 8:225–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahaman MM, Varis O (2005) Integrated water resources management: evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 1(1):15–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson GP, Swinton SM (2005) Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson GP, Dale VH, Doering OC, Hamburg SP, Melillo JM, Wander MM, Parton WJ, Adler PR, Barney JN, Cruse RM, Duke CS, Fearnside PM, Follett RF, Gibbs HK, Goldemberg J, Mladenoff DJ, Ojima D, Palmer MW, Sharpley A, Wallace L, Weathers KC, Wiens JA, Wilhelm WW (2008) Agriculture—sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322:49–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Ulloa R, Paucar-Caceres A (2005) Soft system dynamics methodology (SSDM): combining soft systems methodology (SSM) and system dynamics (SD). Systemic Practice and Action Research 18:303–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe RL, Street NR, Taylor G (2009) Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13:271–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter JD, Campbell C, Journeay M, Sheppard SRJ (2009) The digital workshop: exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2090–2101

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffran J, BenDor T (2009) Bioenergy and land use: a spatial-agent dynamic model of energy crop production in Illinois. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 39:4–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt Olabisi LK, Kapuscinski AR, Johnson KA, Reich PB, Stenquist B, Draeger KJ (2010) Using scenario visioning, participatory system dynamics modeling to investigate the future: lessons from Minnesota 2050. Sustainability 2(8):2686–2706

    Google Scholar 

  • Serveiss VB (2002) Applying ecological risk principles to watershed assessment and management. Environmental Management 29(2):145–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard S (2006) Bridging the sustainability gap with landscape visualization in community visioning hubs. The Integrated Assessment Journal 6:79–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber S, Zander P, Verburg PH, Van Ittersum M (2010) Model-based systems to support impact assessment-methods, tools and applications. Ecological Modeling 221(Spring):2133–2135

    Google Scholar 

  • Snary C (2004) Understanding risk: the planning officers’ perspective. Urban Studies 41(1):33–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiertz JHJ, Ewert F (2009) Crop production and resource use to meet the growing demand for food, feed and fuel: opportunities and constraints. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 56:281–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert P, Barzman M, Billaud JP, Brives H, Hubert B, Ollivier G, Roche B (2007) The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environmental Science and Policy 10:537–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64:245–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabara JD, Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management. Ecology and Society 12:(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162:265–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel AE (1999) Trust as an obstacle in environmental-economic disputes. American Behavioral Scientist 42(8):1350–1367

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 15(1):34–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornley P, Upham P, Tomei J (2009) Sustainability constraints on UK bioenergy development. Energy Policy 37:5623–5635

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA, Hill J, Larson E, Lynd L, Pacala S, Reilly J, Searchinger T, Somerville C, Williams R (2009) Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325:270–271

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toderi M, Powell N, Seddaiu G, Roggero P, Gibbon D (2007) Combining social learning with agro-ecological research practice for more effective management of nitrate pollution. Environmental Science and Policy 10:551–563

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tress B, Tress G (2003) Scenario visualization for participatory landscape planning—a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner C, Becker D, Taff SJ, Domke G, Gauto G (2010) Assessing forestation opportunities for carbon sequestration in Minnesota. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, pp 1–49

  • Turton AR, Hattingh HJ, Claassen M, Roux DJ, Ashton PJ (2007) Towards a model for ecosystem governance: an integrated water resource management example. In: Turton AR, Hattingh HJ, Maree GA, Roux DJ, Claassen M, Strydom WF (eds) Governance as a trialogue: government-society-science in transition. Springer, Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Updegraff K, Baughman MJ, Taff SJ (2004) Environmental benefits of cropland conversion to hybrid poplar: economic and policy considerations. Biomass and Bioenergy 27(5):411–414

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA NIFA (2011) Sustainable bioenergy. http://nifa.usda.gov/fo/afrisustainablebioenergy.cfm

  • Van Herzele A (2004) Local knowledge in action: valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24(2):197–212

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:445–477

    Google Scholar 

  • von Haaren C, Bills N (2009) Agri-environmental programs in the US and the EU: lessons from Germany and New York State. In: Goetz SJ, Brouwer F (eds) New perspectives on agri-environmental policies: a multidisciplinary and transatlantic approach. Routledge, London, pp 52–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss A, Densovich I, Gatalsky P, Gavouchidis K, Klotz A, Roeder S, Voss H (2004) Evolution of a participatory GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28:635–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15:443–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PRD, Inman D, Aden A, Heath GA (2009) Environmental and sustainability factors associated with next-generation biofuels in the US: what do we really know? Environmental Science and Technology 43:4763–4775

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA (2007) Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. CABI, Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JP, Gallant JC (1998) Terrain-based approaches to environmental resource evaluation. In: Lane S, Richards K, Chandler J (eds) Landform monitoring. Modelling and analysis, Wiley, Chichester, pp 219–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamboni A, Shah N, Bezzo F (2009) Spatially explicit static model for the strategic design of future bioethanol production systems. 1. Cost minimization. Energy and Fuels 23:5121–5133

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Development of this manuscript was supported by a grant from the Institute on the Environment Synthesis Grant Program, University of Minnesota. We thank a number of colleagues for manuscript review.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, Saint Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Nicholas R. Jordan

  2. Urban and Regional Planning Program, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 130 Humphrey Center, 301 19th Avenue S, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Carissa Schively Slotterback

  3. Department of Geography, University of Minnesota, 414 Social Sciences, 267 19th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Kirsten Valentine Cadieux

  4. Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    David J. Mulla & Jin-Oh Kim

  5. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    David G. Pitt

  6. Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, 151 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1222, USA

    Laura Schmitt Olabisi

Authors
  1. Nicholas R. Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carissa Schively Slotterback
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kirsten Valentine Cadieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David J. Mulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David G. Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Schmitt Olabisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jin-Oh Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas R. Jordan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jordan, N.R., Slotterback, C.S., Cadieux, K.V. et al. TMDL Implementation in Agricultural Landscapes: A Communicative and Systemic Approach. Environmental Management 48, 1–12 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9647-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9647-y

Keywords

  • IWRM
  • Collaborative
  • Spatial modeling
  • Landscape design
  • Decision support
  • Multifunctional agriculture