Advertisement

Social Science Contributions to Multiple Objective Decision Making within Watersheds

  • Ted L. Napier

Abstract

Practically all natural resources development programmes have been implemented at the watershed level in recent years because it has been repeatedly observed that watersheds are integrated socio-environmental units whose component parts are interdependent. The well-being of the components is dependent on the viability of the whole. To achieve improvement in environmental quality in specific components of a watershed requires a holistic planning and programme implementation approach.

Keywords

Water Conservation Community Development Farm Level Natural Resource Conservation Watershed Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Batte, M.T. and Bacon, K.L., 1995. Economic evaluation of three production regimes at the Ohio MSEA project. In: Clean Water-Clean Environment, 21st Century. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
  2. Bridges, T.R. and Napier, T.L., 2003. Factors that influence farm women to advocate the adoption of environmentally benign agricultural production practices. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 2(2): 201-219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camboni, S.M. and Napier, T.L., 1993. Factors affecting use of conservation practices in east central Ohio. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 45: 79-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. El-Swaify, S.A. and Yakowitz, D.S. (Eds), 1997. Multiple Objective Decision Making for Land, Water, and Environmental Management. Lewis Publishing Company, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Fleishman, R., 2004. Watershed Groups in Ohio: The Effects of Organizational Characteristics on political behavior, Accomplishments, and Perceived Effectiveness. Master Thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  6. Halcrow, H.G., Heady, E.O. and Cotner, M.L., 1982. Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives. Soil and Water Conservation Society Press, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
  7. Koontz, T.M. and Johnson, E.M., 2004. One size does not fit all: Matching breath of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences, 37: 185-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koontz, T.M., Steelman, T.A., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K.S., Moseley, C. and Thomas, C.W., 2002. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Lasley, P., Duffy, M., Kettner, K. and Chase, C., 1990. Factors affecting farmer’s use of practices to reduce commercial fertilizers and pesticides. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 45(1): 132-136.Google Scholar
  10. Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L., 1986. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil and Water Conservation Society Press, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
  11. Moseley, C. and KenCairn, B., 2000. Institutional problem solving or social change: The Applegate and Grand Canyon Forest Partnerships. Paper presented at the Steps Toward Stewardship Conservation Conference, April 2000. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar
  12. Mueller, D.H., Klemme, R.M. and Daniel, T.C., 1985. Short- and long-term cost comparisons of conventional tillage systems in corn production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(5): 466-470.Google Scholar
  13. Napier, T.L., 1998a. Conservation coalitions cannot overcome poor conservation programming. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(4): 300-303.Google Scholar
  14. Napier, T.L., 1998b. Soil and water conservation policy approaches in North America, Europe, and Australia. Water Policy, 1(1): 51-565.Google Scholar
  15. Napier, T.L., 1998c. North American and Western Europe conservation policies: contrasts in strategies. Conservation Voices, 1(5): 34-36.Google Scholar
  16. Napier, T.L., 2000. Use of soil and water protection practices among farmers in the North Central Region of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(4): 723-735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Napier, T.L., 2003. Muskingum River Watershed Natural Resources Development Needs Assessment Study Report, pp. 39.Google Scholar
  18. Napier, T.L., 2004. Public conservation policy and agricultural sustainability. In: Svatos, M. and Bohackova, I. (Eds) Sustainable Development of an Agrarian Sector: Challenges and Risks. Czech Agricultural University Press, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  19. Napier, T.L., 2005a. Soil and Water Conservation Policies in the United States: Evolutionary Trends and Future Options. Accepted for publication in an edited text on Agrodiversity. M.A. Zoebisch (ed.). (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  20. Napier, T.L., 2005b. Environmental assessment of conservation initiatives within the Darby Creek watershed in Ohio. Accepted for publication in Monitoring and Evaluation of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development Projects, J. de Graff, P. Christian, S. Sombatpanit and J. Cameron (eds.). IBSRAM. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Napier, T.L. and Bridges, T.R., 2002. Adoption of conservation production systems in two Ohio watersheds: A comparative study. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 57(4): 229-235.Google Scholar
  22. Napier, T.L. and Bridges, T.R., 2003. Adoption of conservation production systems within the upper region of the Scioto River watershed in Ohio. Food, Agriculture, and Environment, 1(2): 287-294.Google Scholar
  23. Napier, T.L., Camboni, S.M. and El-Swaify, S.A., 1994. Adopting Conservation on the Farm: An International Perspective on the Socioeconomics of Soil and Water Conservation. Soil and Water Conservation Society Press, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
  24. Napier, T.L., Henry, C. and Yang, X., 2004. Impacts of conservation policies and programs on farm level adoption behaviors in the United States. Trends in Soil Science, 3: 47-58.Google Scholar
  25. Napier, T.L., Napier, S.M. and Tvrdon, J., 2000. Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs: Successes and Failures. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  26. Napier, T.L. and Johnson, E.J., 1998. Impacts of voluntary conservation initiatives in the Darby Creek watershed of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(1): 78-84.Google Scholar
  27. Napier, T.L., Scott, D., Easter, K.W. and Supalla, R. (Eds), 1983. Water Resources Research: Problems and Potentials for Agriculture and Rural Communities. Soil and Water Conservation Society Press, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
  28. Napier, T.L., Thraen, C.S., Gore, A. and Goe, W.R., 1984. Factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39(3): 205-209.Google Scholar
  29. Napier, T.L. and Tucker, M., 2001. Factors affecting adoption of nutrient application rates within three Midwestern watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56(3): 220-228.Google Scholar
  30. Putman, J. and Alt, K., 1987. Erosion control: How does it change farm income? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 42(4): 265-267.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, J.R. and Napier, T.L., 2002. Adoption of nutrient management techniques to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Agricultural Systems, 72: 197-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swanson, L.E. and Clearfield, F.B., 1994. Agricultural Policy and the Environment: Iron Fist or Open Hand. Soil and Water Conservation Society Press, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Capital Publishing Company 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted L. Napier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human and Community Resource DevelopmentThe School of Natural Resources Ohio State UniversityOhioUSA

Personalised recommendations