Matching Items (2)
Description
Landscape restoration is a global priority as evidenced by the United Nations’ 2020 goal to restore 150 million hectares of land worldwide. Restoration is particularly needed in estuaries and their watersheds as society depends on these environments for numerous benefits. Estuary restoration is often undermined by social-ecological scale mismatch, the incongruence between governing units and the bio-physical resources they seek to govern. Despite growing recognition of this fact, few empirical studies focus on scale mismatches in environmental restoration work. Using a sub-basin of Puget Sound, Washington, U.S.A., I analyze scale mismatches in estuary restoration. I take a network science approach because governance networks can bridge scale mismatches. I combine quantitative social network analysis (SNA), geographic information systems (GIS), and qualitative interview analysis.
Spatial network analysis reveals several areas with weak scale mismatch bridging networks. These weak social networks are then compared to ecological restoration needs to identify coupled social-ecological restoration concerns. Subsequent study investigates jurisdictional and sectoral network integration because governance siloes contribute to scale mismatch. While the network is fairly well integrated, several sectors do not interact or interact very little. An analysis of collaboration reasons disentangles the idea of generic collaboration. Among three relationship types considered, mandated relationships contribute almost 5.5 times less to perceived collaboration productivity than shared interest relationships, highlighting the benefits of true collaborations in watershed governance. Lastly, the effects of scale mismatch on individual restoration projects and landscape level restoration planning are assessed through qualitative interview analysis. Results illustrate why human-environment processes should be included in landscape restoration planning. Social factors are not considered as constraints to restoration but rather part of the very landscape fabric to be restored. Scale mismatch is conceptualized as a complex social-ecological landscape pattern that affects the flow of financial, human, and natural capital across the landscape. This represents a new way of thinking about scale mismatch and landscape restoration in complex multi-level governance systems. In addition, the maps, network diagnostics, and narratives in this dissertation can help practitioners in Puget Sound and provide proofs of concepts that can be replicated elsewhere for restoration and broader conservation sciences.
Spatial network analysis reveals several areas with weak scale mismatch bridging networks. These weak social networks are then compared to ecological restoration needs to identify coupled social-ecological restoration concerns. Subsequent study investigates jurisdictional and sectoral network integration because governance siloes contribute to scale mismatch. While the network is fairly well integrated, several sectors do not interact or interact very little. An analysis of collaboration reasons disentangles the idea of generic collaboration. Among three relationship types considered, mandated relationships contribute almost 5.5 times less to perceived collaboration productivity than shared interest relationships, highlighting the benefits of true collaborations in watershed governance. Lastly, the effects of scale mismatch on individual restoration projects and landscape level restoration planning are assessed through qualitative interview analysis. Results illustrate why human-environment processes should be included in landscape restoration planning. Social factors are not considered as constraints to restoration but rather part of the very landscape fabric to be restored. Scale mismatch is conceptualized as a complex social-ecological landscape pattern that affects the flow of financial, human, and natural capital across the landscape. This represents a new way of thinking about scale mismatch and landscape restoration in complex multi-level governance systems. In addition, the maps, network diagnostics, and narratives in this dissertation can help practitioners in Puget Sound and provide proofs of concepts that can be replicated elsewhere for restoration and broader conservation sciences.
ContributorsSayles, Jesse Saemann (Author) / Turner II, B L (Thesis advisor) / Childers, Daniel L. (Committee member) / Janssen, Marco A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Globally, rivers are being heavily dammed and over-utilized to the point where water shortages are starting to occur. This problem is magnified in arid and semi-arid regions where climate change, growing populations, intensive agriculture and urbanization have created tremendous pressures on existing river systems. Regulatory incentives have been enacted in recent decades that have spurred river restoration programs in the United States. But what kind of governance does river restoration require that is different from allocative institutional set-ups? Are these recovery programs succeeding in restoring ecological health and resilience of the rivers? Do the programs contribute to social-ecological resilience of the river systems more broadly? This study aims to tackle these key questions for two Colorado River sub-basin recovery programs (one in the Upper Basin and one in the Lower Basin) through utilization of different frameworks and methodologies for each. Organizational resilience to institutional and biophysical disturbances varies, with the Upper Basin program being more resilient than the Lower Basin program. Ecological resilience as measured by beta diversity (for the Upper Basin) was a factor of the level of hydrological and technological interventions rather than an occurrence of the natural flow regime. This points to the fact that in a highly-dampened and managed system like the Colorado River, the dampened flow regime alone is not a significant factor in maintaining community diversity and ecological health. A broad-scale social-ecological analysis supports the finding that the natural feedback between social and ecological elements is broken and recovery efforts are more an attempt at resuscitating the river system to maintain a semblance of historic levels of fish populations and aquatic processes. Adaptive management pathways for the future need to address and build pathways to transformability into recovery planning to achieve resilience for the river system.
ContributorsSrinivasan, Jaishri (Author) / Schoon, Michael L (Thesis advisor) / Sabo, John L (Thesis advisor) / White, Dave D (Committee member) / Janssen, Marcus A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021