IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v38y2021i2d10.1007_s10460-020-10177-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How water quality improvement efforts influence urban–agricultural relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah P. Church

    (Montana State University)

  • Kristin M. Floress

    (Northern Research Station)

  • Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad

    (Utah State University)

  • Chloe B. Wardropper

    (University of Idaho)

  • Pranay Ranjan

    (Purdue University)

  • Weston M. Eaton

    (Pennsylvania State University)

  • Stephen Gasteyer

    (Michigan State University)

  • Adena Rissman

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Abstract

Urban and agricultural communities are interdependent but often differ on approaches for improving water quality impaired by nutrient runoff waterbodies worldwide. Current water quality governance involves an overlapping array of policy tools implemented by governments, civil society organizations, and corporate supply chains. The choice of regulatory and voluntary tools is likely to influence many dimensions of the relationship between urban and agricultural actors. These relationships then influence future conditions for collective decision-making since many actors participate for multiple years in water quality improvement. In this policy analysis, we draw on our professional experiences and research, as well as academic and practitioner literatures, to investigate how different types of water quality interventions influence urban-agricultural relationships, specifically examining policy tools on a regulatory to voluntary spectrum. Interactions between farmers and other rural agricultural interests on one hand, and urban residents and their stormwater managers and wastewater treatment plants on the other, influence dynamics relevant for water quality improvement. We suggest that the selection of policy tools within complex governance contexts influence urban–agricultural relationships through financial exchange, political coalitions, knowledge exchange, interpersonal relationships, and shared sense of place. Policy tools that provide a means to build relationships and engage with people’s emotions and identities have potential to influence personal and community change and adaptive capacity, while processes such as lawsuits can catalyze structural change. Engaging these relationships is particularly critical given the need to move out of polarized positions to solve collective problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah P. Church & Kristin M. Floress & Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad & Chloe B. Wardropper & Pranay Ranjan & Weston M. Eaton & Stephen Gasteyer & Adena Rissman, 2021. "How water quality improvement efforts influence urban–agricultural relationships," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 481-498, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-020-10177-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-020-10177-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-020-10177-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-020-10177-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Rissman, Adena R. & Kohl, Patrice A. & Wardropper, Chloe B., 2017. "Public support for carrot, stick, and no-government water quality policies," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 82-89.
    3. Tomas M. Koontz, 2014. "Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(10), pages 1572-1593, October.
    4. Stephen Gasteyer, 2008. "Agricultural transitions in the context of growing environmental pressure over water," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(4), pages 469-486, December.
    5. Gutman, Pablo, 2007. "Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural-urban compact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 383-387, May.
    6. Michael Hibbard & Susan Lurie, 2006. "Some community socio-economic benefits of watershed councils: A case study from Oregon," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(6), pages 891-908.
    7. Karen Fisher-Vanden & Sheila Olmstead, 2013. "Moving Pollution Trading from Air to Water: Potential, Problems, and Prognosis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 147-172, Winter.
    8. James Shortle, 2017. "Policy Nook: “Economic Incentives for Water Quality Protection”," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-11, April.
    9. Hite, Diane & Hudson, Darren & Intarapapong, Walaiporn, 2002. "Willingness To Pay For Water Quality Improvements: The Case Of Precision Application Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    10. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    11. Bigelow, Daniel & Borchers, Allison, 2017. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2012," Economic Information Bulletin 263079, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Christopher M. Chini & James F. Canning & Kelsey L. Schreiber & Joshua M. Peschel & Ashlynn S. Stillwell, 2017. "The Green Experiment: Cities, Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lijing Gao & J. Arbuckle, 2022. "Examining farmers’ adoption of nutrient management best management practices: a social cognitive framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 535-553, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Cook, Aaron & Shortle, James, 2018. "Intertemporal Trading Ratios for Nutrient Pollution Control," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274845, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Anna Ernst, 2018. "Does Participation Foster Transformation Processes towards Sustainable Energy Systems? A Case Study of the German Energy Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    4. Maddison, Jonathan & Watts, Richard, 2011. "The technological fix as a frame in media debates about tailpipe emissions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-303.
    5. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    7. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    8. Bruch, Sarah K. & van der Naald, Joseph & Gornick, Janet C., 2022. "Poverty Reduction through Federal and State Policy Mechanisms: Variation Over Time and Across the U.S. States," SocArXiv jz5xp, Center for Open Science.
    9. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    10. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    11. Rebecca Page & Lisa Dilling, 2020. "How experiences of climate extremes motivate adaptation among water managers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 499-516, August.
    12. Sarah K. Bruch & Janet C. Gornick & Joseph van der Naald, 2020. "Geographic Inequality in Social Provision: Variation across the US States," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Distribution and Mobility of Income and Wealth, pages 499-527, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    14. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    15. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    16. Thu T. Nguyen & Weijun Yu & Junaid S. Merchant & Shaniece Criss & Chris J. Kennedy & Heran Mane & Krishik N. Gowda & Melanie Kim & Ritu Belani & Caitlin F. Blanco & Manvitha Kalachagari & Xiaohe Yue &, 2023. "Examining Exposure to Messaging, Content, and Hate Speech from Partisan News Social Media Posts on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    17. David A. Keiser & Joseph S. Shapiro, 2019. "US Water Pollution Regulation over the Past Half Century: Burning Waters to Crystal Springs?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 51-75, Fall.
    18. Rachel M. Shellabarger & Rachel C. Voss & Monika Egerer & Shun-Nan Chiang, 2019. "Challenging the urban–rural dichotomy in agri-food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 91-103, March.
    19. Kovacs, Kent F. & Wailes, Eric & West, Grant & Popp, Jennie & Bektemirov, Kuatbay, 2014. "Optimal Spatial-Dynamic Management of Groundwater Conservation and Surface Water Quality with On-Farm Reservoirs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1-28, November.
    20. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-020-10177-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.