TMDL Implementation in Agricultural Landscapes: A Communicative and Systemic Approach

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. 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 

  23. 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 

  24. 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

  25. 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 

  26. 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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/

  30. 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 

  31. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

  34. 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 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. 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 

  41. 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 

  42. 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 

  43. 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 

  44. 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 

  45. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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 

  52. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  54. 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 

  55. 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 

  56. 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 

  57. 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 

  58. 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 

  59. 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 

  60. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  65. 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 

  66. 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 

  67. 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

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

    Google Scholar 

  69. 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  72. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  74. 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 

  75. 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 

  76. 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 

  77. 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 

  78. 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 

  79. 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 

  80. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  83. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  85. 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 

  86. 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 

  87. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  89. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  91. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  93. 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 

  94. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  96. 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

  97. 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 

  98. 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 

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

  100. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  102. 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 

  103. 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 

  104. 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 

  105. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  107. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  109. 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

Authors

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

Keywords

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