Participatory approaches to natural resource management have become increasingly popular in recent years, signaling a shift from traditional top-down, centralized planning approaches. Landowner-led workshops are one such... [ view full abstract ]
Participatory approaches to natural resource management have become increasingly popular in recent years, signaling a shift from traditional top-down, centralized planning approaches. Landowner-led workshops are one such approach developed by Partners for Conservation, a grassroots movement of landowners working with diverse stakeholders to achieve private land conservation. With private lands comprising approximately two-thirds of the United States, engaging landowners is critical for conservation effectiveness and finding innovative, place-based solutions. Landowner-led workshops create a space for landowners to discuss private land conservation successes and challenges, what is and is not working with conservation programs, and provide recommendations for conservation efforts moving forward. Although this consultation-based approach to stakeholder engagement has been used in a variety of locations and contexts, landowner-led workshops have not been empirically evaluated. It is important to understand the often-nuanced social dynamic of a participatory process in practice to maximize its effectiveness.
We evaluated a landowner-led workshop used to engage landowners in a discussion about how conservation programs and policies can better support flood irrigation and working wet meadow conservation. We conducted a one-day, 6-hour workshop in November 2017 with ranchers (n=12) from across the Southern Oregon and Northeastern California (SONEC) region. Although conservation professionals (n=6) were present and included in the conversation, the primary goal of the workshop was to hear local landowners’ voices via informal landowner-led discussions and panels. A local extension professional with extensive experience with the agricultural community of the region facilitated the workshop. Audio recordings of the workshop, participant observations during the workshop, and a short participant survey administered at the end of the workshop provided for a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the process.
To evaluate the workshop, we developed eight criteria based on previous evaluations of community-based participatory research (CBPR) that fit the objectives for our landowner-led workshop. They included: satisfaction, focus on objectives, spread of voices heard, absence of conflict, conflict resolution, relationship development, benefit to participants, and social learning. We evaluated the degree to which each criterion was met during the workshop using a mixed methods analysis of survey results, participant observations, and thematic analysis of the workshop transcript. According to this analysis, six of eight criteria were met. Notably, all participants (landowners and practitioners) were satisfied with the workshop. They particularly appreciated the format, which leveled the playing field among stakeholders, fostering candid, trust-filled discussion, and cultivating social learning among landowners and between practitioners and landowners. Two criteria (focus on objectives and spread of voices heard) showed mixed results, based on evidence from the survey and participant observations. In conclusion, this landowner-led workshop was effective for increasing stakeholder involvement in this contested issue of water and natural resource management. We recommend further application and evaluation of the method for stakeholder engagement.
