Chart1
0.34
0.333
0.313
0.287
0.267
0.213
0.073
Extremely Serious
Extremely Serious Barriers to Cooperative Riparian-Wetland
Restoration and Management (Identified by PFC Workshop Survey
Respondents)
Sheet1
NRSTState CadreCombinationDon't Know
26.70%42.70%16.70%20%
Sheet2
Sheet2
0.267
0.427
0.167
0.2
Workshop Instructors
Sheet3
year 96year 97year 98year 99year 00
22.70%32%30%26%5.40%
Sheet5
Sheet5
0.227
0.32
0.3
0.26
0.054
Workshop Year
Sheet4
KnowledgeAvailabilityTwo-Way ExchangeProfessionalism
Extremely Dissatisfied0.70%0.00%0.00%0.00%
Somewhat Dissatisfied0.70%1.30%1.30%0.70%
Slightly Dissatisfied1.30%2.00%6.00%1.30%
Slightly Satisfied11.30%14.00%6.70%10.00%
Somewhat Satisfied34.00%38.00%28.70%26.70%
Extremely Satisfied44.70%36%47.30%52%
Sheet7
Sheet7
0.0070.0070.0130.1130.340.447
00.0130.020.140.380.36
00.0130.060.0670.2870.473
00.0070.0130.10.2670.52
Extremely Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Slightly Dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Satisfaction with Instructors
Sheet8
effective outreachquality conservation educationcommited to
working cooperatively
Strongly Disagree0%0%0.70%
Somewhat Disagree2.00%2.00%0%
Slightly Disagree3.30%0.00%3.30%
Slightly Agree9.30%4.00%4.00%
Somewhat Agree28.70%23.30%26.00%
Strongly Agree31.30%58.70%51.30%
Don't Know
Sheet11
Sheet9
able to participateinput valuedaccessible
informationunderstandablegood assessment toolcommon language
tooltecnhically accuratemet needs
strongly disagree0%0.70%0%0%2.70%2.00%0.70%2.00%
somewhat disagree2.00%2.70%1.30%3.30%5.30%2.00%2.00%4.00%
slightly disagree3.30%1.30%4.00%3.30%8.70%5.30%3.30%6.00%
slightly
agree7.30%14.00%12.00%11.30%16.70%20.00%10.70%19.30%
somewhat
agree32.70%36.00%42.00%41.30%36.70%37.30%33.30%38.00%
strongly
agree51.30%39.30%34.70%36.70%26.00%30.70%42.00%27.30%
Sheet10
Sheet10
00.020.0330.0730.3270.513
0.0070.0270.0130.140.360.393
00.0130.040.120.420.347
00.0330.0330.1130.4130.367
0.0270.0530.0870.1670.3670.26
0.020.020.0530.20.3730.307
0.0070.020.0330.1070.3330.42
0.020.040.060.1930.380.273
strongly disagree
somewhat disagree
slightly disagree
slightly agree
somewhat agree
strongly agree
Workshop Design
Sheet16
OregonIdahoColoradoWashingtonMontanaNew MexicoWyomingSouth
Dakota
30.70%28.70%11.30%10.00%5.30%5.30%2.70%1.30%
Sheet15
Sheet15
0.307
0.287
0.113
0.1
0.053
0.053
0.027
0.013
Workshop State
Sheet14
specific problemriparian areasmy propertygov't toolsjobother
0.70%35.30%4.70%20.70%10.70%10.70%
Sheet13
Sheet13
0.007
0.353
0.047
0.207
0.107
0.107
Why Attend Workshop?
Sheet79
relationship between stream attributes and processesdetermining
functionalitydetermining minimum conditions relative to stream
potential and capabilitydesigning monitoring strategiesimportance
of experienced ID teamrelationship between functions and values
use information at least a few times per
year88%68%70%64%55%83%
use information less than a few times per
year12%32%30%36%45%17%
Sheet78
Sheet78
0.427State Cadre
0.167Combination
0.2Don't Know
0.267
Graph 6: Participant Use of Workshop Information
Sheet77
Sheet77
0.1330.84
0.0870.873
0.0730.873
0.1870.767
0.2070.74
0.20.744
no
yes
Did Particpant Knowledge Increase?
Sheet76
relationship between stream attributes and processesdetermining
functionalitydetermine minimum conditions relative to stream
potential and capabilitydesign monitoring strategiesimportance of
experienced ID teamrelationship between function and values
no13.30%8.70%7.30%18.70%20.70%20%
yes84%87.30%87.30%76.70%74%74.40%
Sheet12
prior knowledgeknowledge increased after workshop
no22%13.30%
yes76.70%84%
Sheet17
Sheet17
0.220.767
0.1330.84
no
yes
Relationship Between Stream Attributes & Processes
Sheet27
neveronce per yearfew times per yearmonthlyweeklydaily
4.00%5.30%32.00%18.00%18.70%5.30%
Sheet26
Sheet26
0.04
0.053
0.32
0.18
0.187
0.053
Use of Information
Sheet25
prior knowledgeincreased knowledge after workshop
no82.70%8.70%
yes16.00%87.30%
Sheet24
Sheet24
0.8270.16
0.0870.873
no
yes
Determining Functionality
Sheet23
neveronce per yearfew times per yearmonthlyweeklydaily
16.70%11.30%34.00%16.70%6.00%2.70%
Sheet22
Sheet22
0.167
0.113
0.34
0.167
0.06
0.027
Use of Information
Sheet21
prior knowledgeknowledge increased after workshop
no62%7.30%
yes34.70%87.30%
Sheet19
Sheet19
0.620.347
0.0730.873
no
yes
Detrmine Minimum Conditions Relative to Stream Potential &
Capability
Sheet20
neveronce per yearfew times per yearmonthlyweeklydaily
12.70%14.70%33.30%18.70%6.70%2.00%
Sheet18
Sheet18
0.127
0.147
0.333
0.187
0.067
0.02
Use of Information
Sheet41
prior knowledgeknowledge increased after workshop
no60%18.70%
yes37.30%76.70%
Sheet40
Sheet40
0.60.373
0.1870.767
no
yes
Design Monitoring Strategies
Sheet39
neveronce per yearfew times per yearmonthlyweeklydaily
14.70%14.00%32.70%10.70%4.70%1.30%
Sheet38
Sheet38
0.147
0.14
0.327
0.107
0.047
0.013
Use of Information
Sheet37
prior knowledgeknowledge increased after workshop
no40%20.70%
yes56.70%74.00%
Sheet36
Sheet36
0.40.567
0.2070.74
no
yes
Importance of Experienced ID team
Sheet35
neveronce per yearfew times per yearmonthlyweeklydaily
12%19.30%28%10.70%4.00%1.30%
Sheet34
Sheet34
0.12
0.193
0.28
0.107
0.04
0.013
Use of Information
Sheet33
prior knowledgeknowledge increased after workshop
no16.70%20%
yes80%74.70%
Sheet32
Sheet32
0.1670.8
0.20.747
no
yes
Relationship Between Function & Values
Sheet31
neveronce per yearfew times per yearmonthlyweeklydaily
4%8.70%29.30%18.70%12.70%2.70%
Sheet30
Sheet30
0.04
0.087
0.293
0.187
0.127
0.027
Use of Information
Sheet28
understand factors affecting riparianimportance of cooperative
mgmt.communicate with diverse groupsdevelop common visionwilling to
cooperateincreased local cooperation
Strongly Disagree2%2%2.00%2%8%8.70%
Somewhat Disagree0.00%0%0%0.70%7.30%11.30%
Slightly Disagree1.30%0%2.70%2.70%8%9.30%
Slightly Agree6.00%5.30%14.70%15.30%20%34.70%
Somewhat Agree21.30%14%36%43.30%26%14.70%
Strongly Agree66.70%75.30%42%33.30%18.70%6.30%
Sheet29
Sheet29
0.0200.0130.060.2130.667
0.02000.0530.140.753
0.0200.0270.1470.360.42
0.020.0070.0270.1530.4330.333
0.080.0730.080.20.260.187
0.0870.1130.0930.3470.1470.063
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Slightly Disagree
Slightly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Behavioral Changes
Sheet6
PFC conducted by ID teamDesign of Cooperative Restoration
PlanDesign of Cooperative Management PlanDesign of Cooperative
Monitoring Plans
no50%49.30%58.70%74%
yes48.70%49.30%40%24.70%
Sheet42
Sheet42
0.50.487
0.4930.493
0.5870.4
0.740.247
no
yes
On-The-Ground Change
Sheet71
lack of communication/trustpersonality differencestechnical
issuesconflicting objectivespublic oppositionfundamental
differencespower imbalancesno interpersonal skillsresistance to
cooperative mgmtnot all stakeholders represented
Extremely
Serious34%8.70%7.30%31.30%11.30%26.70%12%8%10%21.30%
Somewhat
Serious32%30.70%25.30%34%22.70%37.30%28%24%29.30%40%
Sheet47
lack of communication/trustpersonality differencestechnical
issuesconflicting objectivespublic oppositionfundamental
differencespower imbalancesno interpersonal skillsresistance to
cooperative mgmtnot all stakeholders represented
Extremely
Serious34%8.70%7.30%31.30%11.30%26.70%12%8%10%21.30%
Somewhat
Serious32%30.70%25.30%34%22.70%37.30%28%24%29.30%40%
Slightly
Serious16.70%34.70%36.70%20%31.30%19.30%24%40%37.30%22.70%
Not at all Serious8%15.30%20%6%20%6%10%14%11.30%6.70%
Don't Know4%5%3.30%2.70%7.30%4.70%15.30%6.70%4%3.30%
Sheet46
Sheet46
0.340.320.1670.080.04
0.0870.3070.3470.1530.053
0.0730.2530.3670.20.033
0.3130.340.20.060.027
0.1130.2270.3130.20.073
0.2670.3730.1930.060.047
0.120.280.240.10.153
0.080.240.40.140.067
0.10.2930.3730.1130.04
0.2130.40.2270.0670.033
Extremely Serious
Somewhat Serious
Slightly Serious
Not at all Serious
Don't Know
Barriers to Coppoerative Riparian Mgmt.
Sheet45
stereotypespolarizationpoliticslimited understandingconflicting
goalsagency culturelimited supportresource
constraintspoliciesdiffering decision making authority
Extremely
Serious14.70%16%28.70%10.70%15.30%8%14.70%33.30%14.70%10.70%
Somewhat
Serious36.70%31.30%26.70%38%37.30%34.70%22%36%27.30%26%
Slightly
Serious30%28.70%23.30%26.70%22%32%28.70%16%28.70%38%
Not at all
Serious8.70%8.70%8.70%14.70%14.70%12.70%21.30%4%14%8%
Don't Know3.30%8%6.70%3.30%4%6%5.30%4.70%6%7.30%
Sheet44
Sheet44
0.1470.3670.30.0870.033
0.160.3130.2870.0870.08
0.2870.2670.2330.0870.067
0.1070.380.2670.1470.033
0.1530.3730.220.1470.04
0.080.3470.320.1270.06
0.1470.220.2870.2130.053
0.3330.360.160.040.047
0.1470.2730.2870.140.06
0.1070.260.380.080.073
Extremely Serious
Somewhat Serious
Slightly Serious
Not at all Serious
Don't Know
Barriers to Cooperative Riparian Mgmt. (con't)
Sheet43
riparian mgmtI am involved in decision makingall aprties are
involved in decision making
Not at all Important0%6%0.70%
Slightly Important2.70%4%4%
Somewhat Important8%20%16.70%
Very Important38.70%40%47.30%
Extremely Important46%25.30%26.70%
Sheet48
Sheet48
00.0270.080.3870.46
0.060.040.20.40.253
0.0070.040.1670.4730.267
Not at all Important
Slightly Important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
Extremely Important
Personal Importance
Sheet58
agriculturebiologycommunity developmentcooperative watershed
managementecologyengineeringfire/fuelsfish
biologyforestrygeologyhydrologyprotectionrange
managementrealtyrecreationsoilvegetationwater
qualitywildernesswildlife
44%42.70%15.30%43.30%53.30%14%18.70%46.70%24%10.70%56%32%51.30%2.70%29.30%42.70%58%66.70%10%52%
Sheet57
Sheet57
0.44
0.427
0.153
0.433
0.533
0.14
0.187
0.467
0.24
0.107
0.56
0.32
0.513
0.027
0.293
0.427
0.58
0.667
0.1
0.52
Interests
Sheet56
20s30s40s50s60s70s
4.70%17.40%43.40%24.70%0.70%1.40%
Sheet55
Sheet55
0.047
0.174
0.434
0.247
0.007
0.014
Age
Sheet54
femalemale
27.30%66.70%
Sheet53
Sheet53
0.273
0.667
Gender
Sheet52
employedunemployedretiredfull-time homemakerstudent
93.30%0.70%0.70%0%0%
Sheet51
Sheet51
0.933
0.007
0.007
0
0
Employment
Sheet50
FederalStateLocalTribal
68.70%16%2.70%0%
Sheet49
Sheet49
0.687
0.16
0.027
0
Goverment Employees
Sheet63
farm or ranchcountry, but not on farm/ranchsmall town
(100,000ppl)
where grew up18.70%10%12.70%18.70%12.70%6%8%
where live now10.70%19.30%14.70%21.30%13.30%2.70%10.70%
Sheet62
Sheet62
0.1870.107
0.10.193
0.1270.147
0.1870.213
0.1270.133
0.060.027
0.080.107
where grew up
where live now
Residence
Sheet61
$90,000
0%0%4%10.70%22%16.70%9.30%8%0%6.70%
Sheet65
Sheet65
0
0
0.04
0.107
0.22
0.167
0.093
0.08
0
0.067
Income
Sheet68
increased local cooperation
Strongly Disagree8.70%
Somewhat Disagree11.30%
Slightly Disagree9.30%
Slightly Agree34.70%
Somewhat Agree14.70%
Strongly Agree6.30%
Sheet67
Sheet67
0.087
0.113
0.093
0.347
0.147
0.063
increased local cooperation
Sheet70
PFC conducted by ID teamDesign of Cooperative Restoration
PlanDesign of Cooperative Management PlanDesign of Cooperative
Monitoring Plans
yes48.70%49.30%40%24.70%
no50%49.30%58.70%74%
Sheet72
Sheet72
0.340.32
0.0870.307
0.0730.253
0.3130.34
0.1130.227
0.2670.373
0.120.28
0.080.24
0.10.293
0.2130.4
Extremely Serious
Somewhat Serious
Barriers to Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management
Sheet80
Sheet80
0.34
0.333
0.313
0.287
0.267
0.213
0.073
Extremely Serious
Extremely Serious Barriers to Cooperative Riparian-Wetland
Restoration and Management (Identified by PFC Workshop Survey
Respondents)
Sheet75
stereotypespolarizationpoliticslimited understandingconflicting
agency goalsagency culturelimited supportresource
constraintspoliciesdiffering decision making authoritylack of
communication/trustpersonality differencestechnical
issuesconflicting objectivespublic oppositionfundamental
differencespower imbalancesno interpersonal skillsresistance to
cooperative mgmtnot all stakeholders represented
Extremely
Serious14.70%16%28.70%10.70%15.30%8%14.70%33.30%14.70%10.70%34%8.70%7.30%31.30%11.30%26.70%12%8%10%21.30%
Somewhat
Serious36.70%31.30%26.70%38%37.30%34.70%22%36%27.30%26%32%30.70%25.30%34%22.70%37.30%28%24%29.30%40%
resource constraintsconflicting objectiveslack of
communication/trustfundamental differencesnot all stakeholders
representedpoliticsconflicting agency goalsstereotypeslimited
understandingpolarizationagency culturegov't
policies/procedurespower imbalancesresistance to cooperative
mgmtpersonality differencesdiffering decision making
authoritylimited supportpublic oppositionno interpersonal
skillstechnical issues
Extremely
Serious33.30%31.30%34%26.70%21.30%28.70%15.30%14.70%10.70%16%8%14.70%12%10%8.70%10.70%14.70%11.30%8%7.30%
Somewhat
Serious36%34%32%37.30%40%26.70%37.30%36.70%38%31.30%34.70%27.30%28%29.30%30.70%26%22%22.70%24%25.30%
lack of communication/trustresource constraintsconflicting
objectivespoliticsfundamental differencesnot all stakeholders
representedtechnical issues
Extremely Serious34%33.30%31.30%28.70%26.70%21.30%7.30%
Sheet74
Sheet74
0.1470.367
0.160.313
0.2870.267
0.1070.38
0.1530.373
0.080.347
0.1470.22
0.3330.36
0.1470.273
0.1070.26
0.340.32
0.0870.307
0.0730.253
0.3130.34
0.1130.227
0.2670.373
0.120.28
0.080.24
0.10.293
0.2130.4
Extremely Serious
Somewhat Serious
Barriers to Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management
Sheet73
Sheet73
0.3330.36
0.3130.34
0.340.32
0.2670.373
0.2130.4
0.2870.267
0.1530.373
0.1470.367
0.1070.38
0.160.313
0.080.347
0.1470.273
0.120.28
0.10.293
0.0870.307
0.1070.26
0.1470.22
0.1130.227
0.080.24
0.0730.253
Extremely Serious
Somewhat Serious
Barriers to Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management
Sheet69
Sheet69
0.4870.5
0.4930.493
0.40.587
0.2470.74
yes
no
Participant Application of PFC
Healthy Streams Through Bringing People Together
Start off with a series of before & afters...
It has been demonstrated since the 1970s that riparian
improvement is possible.
Explain situation in photo - season long to 3 pasture late
winter/early spring use period.
Another example - season long to spring use periodRiparian
restoration is possible in even the harshest environments.
Explain situation in photo - year long to rotation
So, why arent examples of riparian improvements more
widespread?
Because riparian-wetland management, like most other resource
management issues, has been traditionally seen as a technical issue
that could be solved through a reliance on scientific
information.
We now realize that there are a number of social factors that
also influence management decisions (and, as a result, the health
of these areas).
The previous photos represent the vision of whats possible. The
key is working with people to achieve these results over time.
As Timothy Duane said, information does not resolve social
conflicts, people do.
Since water resources are often geographically nested within a
complex maze of jurisdictions and agencies, the need for the
cooperative management of these areas is clear. In response to this
need a number of watershed initiatives that sprung up during the
1990s.
Watershed initiative refers to a situation where stakeholders
from a variety of governmental levels and jurisdictions have joined
with non-governmental stakeholders to seek pragmatic solutions to
the problems associated with stream restoration and management.
We now realize that effective solutions arise from the workings
of stakeholders who, in addition to using technically correct
information, engage in processes that address the human and social
dimensions of riparian-wetland issues.
Although riparian-wetland management efforts and activities
typically emphasized the importance of technical issues, there is
increasing emphasis that a reliance on technical information is not
enough.
Recent research (conducted by NRST) shows that increased numbers
of people identify lack of communication/trust, resource
constraints, conflicting group objectives, politics, fundamental
differences between stakeholders, and the fact that not all
stakeholders are always represented as extremely serious barriers
facing cooperative riparian restoration and management.
Interestingly, technical issues were viewed as a considerably less
serious barrier.
The Initiative for Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Restoration
and Management is an example of a Federal-level, interagency
strategy designed to address the social, as well as the scientific
and technical, aspects of riparian-wetland management.
The initiaitve was created in 1996, and the participating
agencies are the BLM, USFS and NRCS.
The initiatives mission is Healthy Streams Through Bringing
People Together.
The initiatives philosophy is best represented by a quote from
its founders, who recognized the importance of social factors in
regards to riparian-wetland areas.
Riparian restoration will not happen by regulation, changes in
the law, more money, or any of the the normal bureaucratic
approaches. Rather, it will occur through the integration of
ecological, economic and social factors; as well as through the
participation of affected interests. Because riparian-wetland areas
often pass through or are shared by numerous landowners, a
collaborative approach, applied at the ground level, in a watershed
context, is the only avenue to successful restoration and future
management.
The overriding goal of this initiative is to create and engage a
critical mass of people, representing diverse interests and
affiliations, in the cooperative restoration and management of
riparian areas across jurisdictional boundaries.
This goal is accomplished in a variety of ways.
First, we work to bring diverse groups of stakeholders together
on the ground, looking at a particular area.
Important to get people who can read the land...together with
public so can reach agreement on definition of problems and
alternative solutions.Second, we use the Proper Functioning
Condition Method. This method gives people the chance to examine
the interaction between the vegetation, hydrology and soil present
within a system. It allows them to synthesize this information in
order to determine the overall health of these systems. The PFC
method helps people discern what is working well in a particular
system, what may be limiting. Once the group reaches agreement on
the factors that are keeping streams from functioning properly,
management changes or restoration activities can then be be
designed and implemented . When working with groups it is important
to remember that individuals do not all see the same thing, even
though they may be looking at the same piece of ground. Everyone
brings their own perceptions and biases based on educational
training, as well as personal experiences and individual
concerns.
Another critical element of PFC is the fact that it is a way to
explain complex concepts in plain English, and it provides common
terms, definitions and concepts important to building understanding
among stakeholder groups.
The PFC method provides a way for people to discover and work to
advance their common interest, which is properly functioning
riparian-wetland areas, despite their conflicting values. Rather
than automatically pointing fingers at user groups, or arguing
about what benefits people want to see produced on the ground, or
designing solutions to whatever people perceive to be broken -- PFC
is used establish a common understanding within a group regarding
the physical processes of riparian-wetland areas and what they need
to function.
[season long to exclosure]Come to recognize common interest =
functioning riparian-wetland areas.
Allowing individuals to communicate and discuss (negotiate)
these differences there are processes that allow this type of
conversation where people can air their concerns or perspectives in
a forum that fosters respect and mutual learning and
understanding,It is important to facilitate or engage in
conversations where individual participants can better understand
and challenge the assumptions underlying competing
perspectives.
Our approach is a way to incorporate science and technical
information into collaborative decision-making as a way to
structure the debate, negotiate decisions, challenge assumptions of
others, and identify tradeoffs and acceptable levels of risk.It
gives participants the ability to develop a foundation of
understanding and create a transparent discussion for decision
making.
Goal is not to dispel conflict (it is an important factor in
societal change), but to manage it. The objective is to reach
enough agreement to do something on the ground.
Ownership in the problem definition and chosen solution leads to
individual commitment, which leads to change on the ground. We use
the PFC assessment tool, up-front participation of necessary
stakeholders, on-the-ground problem solving to build this ownership
and commitment within individuals and groups who must voluntarily
choose to implement recommended changes on the ground.Our biggest
successes come from what we call service tripsComponents of service
trips:All interested attend.Address both the biophysical and social
dimensions or riparian-wetland management.Training on physical
function for common understanding/vocabulary.Provide expertise in
assessment, management, restoration and monitoring, as well as
meeting facilitation.Agree on problem, develop solutions.Build
capacity or increase ability of group to carry out these
solutions.Follow up or other services to get what they need to get
work done and cope with problems.They fix it.How increase capacity
or ability?Help them understand the bio-physical reality of the
situation,Help them manage conflict, build relationships, trust,
and create a common vision,Help them mobilize (or get access to)
resources necessary for implementing change on the ground (money,
supplies, workers, additional scientific information, political
support).Increased participation in the Riparian Coordination
Network and State Riparian Cadres.Vision statement: Healthy streams
through bringing people together.
