Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building Common Ground for Environmental Flows using Traditional Techniques and Novel Engagement Approaches

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite increased understanding of the science of environmental flows, identification and implementation of effective environmental flow policies remains elusive. Perhaps the greatest barrier to implementing flow policies is the framework for water management. An alternative management approach is needed when legal rights for environmental flows do not exist, or are ineffective at protecting ecosystems. The research presented here, conducted in the U.S. state of Arizona, provides an empirical example of engagement to promote social learning as an approach to finding ways to provide water for the environment where legal rights for environmental flows are inadequate. Based on our engagement process we propose that identifying and then building common ground require attention to the process of analyzing qualitative data and the methods for displaying complex information, two aspects not frequently discussed in the social learning or stakeholder engagement literature. The results and methods from this study can help communities develop an engagement process that will find and build common ground, increase stakeholder involvement, and identify innovative solutions to provide water for the environment that reflect the concerns of current water users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angus Webb J, Miller KA, King EL, de Little SC, Stewardson MJ, Zimmerman JKH, LeRoy Poff N (2013) Squeezing the most out of existing literature: a systematic re-analysis of published evidence on ecological responses to altered flows. Freshw Biol 58(12):2439–2451. doi:10.1111/fwb.12234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antunes P, Kallis G, Videira N, Santos R (2009) Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecol Econ 68(4):931–939. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arizona Department of Water Resources (2010) Arizona water Atlas: executive summary, vol 1. Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix, p 190

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizona Department of Water Resources (2014) Arizona’s next century: a strategic vision for water supply sustainability. p 470, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix. http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Arizonas_Strategic_Vision/documents/ArizonaStrategicVisionforWaterResourcesSustainability_May2014.pdf

  • Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16:1311–1318. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006).016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels W, Furman CA, Royce F, Ortiz B, Zierden D, Fraisse C (2012) Developing a learning community: lessons from a climate working group for agriculture in the Southeast USA. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, 12–002

  • Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booker JP (1994) Reconciling anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric environmental ethics. Environ Values 3(3):229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth A, Halseth G (2011) Why the public thinks natural resources public participation processes fail: A case study of British Columbia communities. Land Use Policy 28(4):898–906. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buijs AE (2009) Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents’ support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J Environ Manag 90(8):2680–2689. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgin S, Webb T, Rae D (2013) Stakeholder engagement in water policy: lessons from peri-urban irrigation. Land Use Policy 31:650–659. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr A, Wilkinson R (2005) Beyond participation: boundary organizations as a new space for farmers and scientists to interact. Soc Nat Resour 18(3):255–265. doi:10.1080/08941920590908123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childs C, York AM, White D, Schoon ML, Bodner GS (2013) Navigating a Murky adaptive comanagement governance network: Agua Fria Watershed, Arizona, USA. Ecol Soc 18(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-05636-180411

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley T, Udry C (2001) Social learning through networks: the adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. Am J Agr Econ 668–673

  • Crona BI, Parker JN (2012) Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol Soc 17(1):32. doi:10.5751/ES-04534-170132

    Google Scholar 

  • Cundill G (2010) Monitoring social learning processes in adaptive comanagement: three case studies from South Africa. Ecol Soc 15(3):28

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16(2):71–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental Values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):335–372. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenmark M, Rockström J (2006) The new blue and green water paradigm: breaking new ground for water resources planning and management. J Water Resour Plann Manag 132(3):129–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak AK, Heikkila T (2011) Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: evidence from the everglades restoration program. J Public Adm Res Theory 21(4):619–644. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason M, McCreary S, Miller-Henson M, Ugoretz J, Fox E, Merrifield M, McClintock W, Serpa P, Hoffman K (2010) Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from north central California. Ocean & Coastal Manag 53(2):52–68. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.12.001

  • Harvey N (2015) Colorado’s water plan, then: how we got here. Headwaters Winter 2015. Colorado Foundation for Water Education

  • Innes JE (2004) Consensus building: clarifications for the critics. Plann Theory 3(1):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson P, McCullough E, Finan T (2010) Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/01/06/0813125107.short

  • Koontz TM (2014) Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy. J Environ Plann Manag 57(10):1572–1593. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.820658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Quesne T, Kendy E, Weston D (2010) The implementation challenge: taking stock of government policies to protect and restore environmental flows. World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy

    Google Scholar 

  • McCleskey N (2013) Arizona Statewide poll for environmental defense fund conducted October 3, 6, and 7, 2013. Public Opin Strateg., Denver, CO, p 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Megdal S, Nadeau J, Tom T (2011) The forgotten sector: Arizona water law and the environment. Ariz J Environ Law Policy 1(2):243–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt DM, Scott ML, Poff NL, Auble GT, Lytle DA (2010) Theory, methods, and tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation-flow response guilds: Riparian vegetation-hydrologic models. Freshw Biol 55(1):206–225. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02206.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2001) Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4):478–500. doi:10.1177/016224390102600405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mott Lacroix K, Xiu B, Nadeau J, Megdal SB (2014a) Synthesizing environmental flow needs data for water management in a water-scarce state: The Arizona Environmental Water Demands Database. River Res Appl. doi:10.1002/rra.2858

    Google Scholar 

  • Mott Lacroix K, Xiu B, Megdal SB (2014b) Roadmap for considering water for Arizona’s natural areas. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. http://wrrc.arizona.edu/roadmap

  • Muro M, Jeffrey P (2012) Time to Talk? How the structure of dialogue processes shapes stakeholder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecol Soc 17(1):3. doi:10.5751/ES-04476-170103

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015) Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance. OECD Stud Water. doi:10.1787/9789264231122-en

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Craps M, Dewulf A, Mostert E, Tabara D, Taillieu T (2007a) Social learning and water resources management. Ecol Soc 12(2):2007. http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:9bcb1311-74ac-4400-88e2-e6b816397dfd/

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Sendzimir J, Jeffrey P, Aerts J, Berkamp G, Cross K (2007b) b. Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecol Soc 12(2):30

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Arthington A, Bogardi J, Bunn SE, Hoff H, Lebel L, Tsegai D (2013) Environmental flows and water governance: managing sustainable water uses. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(3–4):341–351. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker J, Crona B (2012) On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Soc Stud Sci 42(2):262–289. doi:10.1177/0306312711435833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson J, Lowe P, Proctor A, Ruto E (2012) Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J Environ Manag 95(1):56–65. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittock J, Lankford BA (2010) Environmental water requirements: demand management in an era of water scarcity. J Integr Environ Sci 7(1):75–93. doi:10.1080/19438151003603159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Stanford JA (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Front Ecol Environ 1:298–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam RD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democr 6(1):65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed M, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey IRA, Glass J, Laing A (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/1624

  • Richter B, Williams K, Aarrestad P (2009) Introduction: featured collection on instream flows-recent advances and the road ahead. J Am Water Res Assoc 45(5):1069–1070. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00359.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach KA (2013) Texas water wars: how politics and scientific uncertainty influence environmental flow decision-making in the Lone Star state. Biodivers Conserv 22(3):545–565. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0443-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (2005) Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. SABATIER, FOCHT, LUBELL, TRACHTENBERG, VEDLITZ, MATLOCK (Ed.). Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology, P1–21

  • Susskind LE, McKearnen S, Thomas-Lamar J (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2012) Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Study Report (p 95). Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Study%20Report/CRBS_Study_Report_FINAL.pdf

  • Vorosmarty CJ, Green P, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Water Resources Development Commission (2011a) Water Resources Development Commission Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, p 161

    Google Scholar 

  • Water Resources Development Commission (2011b) Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, p 215

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaimes G (2007) Understanding Arizona’s Riparian Areas (No. AZ 1432). University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, Tucson. http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1432.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgments

The project has benefited greatly from the assistance of WRRC students Leah Edwards, Christopher Fullerton, Kathryn Bannister, Ashley Hullinger, and Emilie Brill Duisberg and consultant Tahnee Roberson from Southwest Decision Resources. The WRRC is also incredibly thankful for the many hours contributed by the people concerned about water management throughout Arizona, who came to the table to discuss water for natural areas. Among these, many stakeholders were our dedicated Roadmap Steering Committee. Without their questions, critique, and advice, completion of this project would not have been possible. Thanks are also due to Dr. Chris Scott, Dr. Shirley Papuga, Dr. David Breshears, and Dr. Stuart Marsh for their valuable comments and ideas for how to present this research. Finally, thank you to the anonymous reviewers of this article who provided valuable feedback and advice. Funding for this research was provided by the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust and the Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Resources Research Center, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona, 350 N Campbell Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA

    Kelly E. Mott Lacroix, Brittany C. Xiu & Sharon B. Megdal

Authors
  1. Kelly E. Mott Lacroix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brittany C. Xiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon B. Megdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly E. Mott Lacroix.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mott Lacroix, K.E., Xiu, B.C. & Megdal, S.B. Building Common Ground for Environmental Flows using Traditional Techniques and Novel Engagement Approaches. Environmental Management 57, 912–928 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0656-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0656-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation