Arts and Social Sciences, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Rahimova, Nargiz
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
This study looks into landowners’ motives to initiate a collaborative riparian restoration project in the southern interior of British Columbia, Canada. The project intends to coordinate restoration activities across several adjoining parcels, better aligning activities with the natural riparian processes than would occur through individual, uncoordinated actions. This study provided a number of important insights into the understanding of factors motivating collective restoration projects. The study also helped understand the specific social-ecological context where riparian restoration can be used as an adaptation approach to climate change by farming communities. This analysis highlights that the emergence and execution of this project was the result of a coincidence of enabling conditions. Important initial triggers included impacts from changing weather patterns that increase farming costs and a threat of regulatory action. Landowners’ perception of being in a ‘fishbowl’ in relation to a nearby residential subdivision created a perceived need to act as a group and demonstrate their pro-environmental attitudes. The availability of a funding program targeted at group farm projects enabled this project to proceed. Improved knowledge about climate change and the role of ecosystems in mitigating the impacts, facilitated by the restoration practitioners, served as an important driver for change in motivations and intention to proceed despite regulatory and project management hurdles and delays. Although a supportive regulatory environment was found important to motivating the restoration collective action, institutional barriers do not discourage participation if other enabling factors are present.
“FARMING IN A FISHBOWL” – LANDOWNERS’ MOTIVATIONS TO INITIATE THE COLLABORATIVE RIPARIAN RESTORATION by Nargiz Rahimova Master in Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, 2013 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) August 2022 © Nargiz Rahimova, 2022 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: “Farming in a fishbowl” – landowners’ motivations to initiate the collaborative riparian restoration submitted by Nargiz Rahimova in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. John Janmaat – Irving K.Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisor Dr. Donna Senese - Irving K.Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Kevin Hanna - Irving K.Barber Faculty of Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Adam Wei - Irving K.Barber Faculty of Sciences University Examiner cv iii Abstract This study looks into landowners’ motives to initiate a collaborative riparian restoration project in the southern interior of British Columbia, Canada. The project intends to coordinate restoration activities across several adjoining parcels, better aligning activities with the natural riparian processes than would occur through individual, uncoordinated actions. This study provided a number of important insights into the understanding of factors motivating collective restoration projects. The study also helped understand the specific social-ecological context where riparian restoration can be used as an adaptation approach to climate change by farming communities. This analysis highlights that the emergence and execution of this project was the result of a coincidence of enabling conditions. Important initial triggers included impacts from changing weather patterns that increase farming costs and a threat of regulatory action. Landowners’ perception of being in a ‘fishbowl’ in relation to a nearby residential subdivision created a perceived need to act as a group and demonstrate their pro-environmental attitudes. The availability of a funding program targeted at group farm projects enabled this project to proceed. Improved knowledge about climate change and the role of ecosystems in mitigating the impacts, facilitated by the restoration practitioners, served as an important driver for change in motivations and intention to proceed despite regulatory and project management hurdles and delays. Although a supportive regulatory environment was found important to motivating the restoration collective action, institutional barriers do not discourage participation if other enabling factors are present. iv Lay Summary This study looked into landowners’ motives to initiate a collaborative riparian restoration project in the southern interior of British Columbia, Canada. The project intends to coordinate restoration activities across several adjoining parcels, thus better aligning activities with the natural riparian processes than would occur through individual, uncoordinated actions. Important initial triggers included negative impacts from changing weather patterns that increase farming costs and a threat of regulatory action. Landowners’ perception of being in a ‘fishbowl’ in relation to a nearby residential subdivision created a perceived need to act together to demonstrate their pro-environmental attitudes. The availability of a funding program targeted at group farm projects enabled this project to proceed. Understanding the motivations for participation in this project may facilitate initiation of similar collective projects elsewhere. Applying knowledge from this study can also help introduce the restoration practice as a climate adaptation approach to farming communities facing similar challenges. v Preface This dissertation is based on the original research conducted by the author. Survey design was done collaboratively by Dr. Bernard Bauer and me. The design of the interview and focus group questionnaires was performed by myself and I collected data, both quantitative and qualitative. The analysis of the data and writing was performed primarily by me. Dr. Janmaat helped with editing and performed a quantitative analysis in Chapter 5 and prepared Figures 4, 5, and 6. Figure 2 “Study Cite Location” was prepared by Dr. Janmaat. Dr. Bauer took photos that were used with his permission for Figure 3. The research methods were reviewed and approved by the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioral Research Ethics Board (certificate # H15-01171). The manuscript based on the data analysis and findings from this dissertation and titled “Farming in a Fishbowl: Motivations Behind a Collective Riparian Restoration Project” was written collaboratively by me (lead author) and Dr. Janmaat, who performed quantitative analysis. vi Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. xi Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study background ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem statement .................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Theoretical framework ........................................................................................... 6 2.1 Theoretical framework .............................................................................................. 6 2.2 Climate change and ecological restoration ............................................................... 9 2.3 Collective action and social capital ..........................................................................11 2.4 Humans and the environment ..................................................................................14 2.5 Motivations to participate in ecological restoration ...................................................16 2.6 Institutional framework for collective action ..............................................................19 2.7 Types of knowledge and its role in motivating ecological restoration .......................20 Chapter 3: Methodological approach .................................................................................... 23 3.1 Research question and objective .............................................................................23 3.2 Research methodology ............................................................................................24 3.2.1 Qualitative research ...........................................................................................24 3.2.2 Grounded theory methodology .............................................................................26 3.3 Sampling .................................................................................................................30 3.4 Data collection and analysis ....................................................................................31 vii 3.4.1 Interviews and paper survey ..............................................................................35 3.4.2 Focus group discussion .....................................................................................37 3.5 Ethical considerations ..............................................................................................39 3.6 Research instrument pre-test ...................................................................................40 3.7 Researcher’s role in the study .................................................................................43 Chapter 4: Study site and restoration project ....................................................................... 47 4.1 Study site .................................................................................................................47 4.2 The restoration project .............................................................................................51 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 55 5.1 Perceptions about climate change and environmental attitudes ...............................55 5.2 Alderson Group riparian restoration collective action ...............................................64 5.2.1 Interview results .................................................................................................65 5.2.2 Resource-dependency .......................................................................................68 5.2.3 Specific experience living by the stream ............................................................69 5.2.4 Social environment and networks ......................................................................72 5.2.5 A common interest or the suite of interests leading to restoration ......................74 5.2.6 Role of formal institutional framework ................................................................78 5.2.7 Summary of findings and the rationale for focus group discussion .....................80 5.3 Farming in a “Fishbowl”? .........................................................................................83 5.3.1 Focus group discussion - results ........................................................................83 5.3.2 Knowledge resulting from restoration collective action .......................................85 5.3.3 Hidden motivations to engage in riparian restoration collective action ................87 5.3.4 Institutional support and barriers to restoration ..................................................89 5.3.4.1 Caring for environment everyone’s responsibility .......................................93 5.3.4.2 Regulatory integrity or “midnight pond” .......................................................95 Chapter 6: Contributions and conclusions ........................................................................... 99 viii 6.1 Riparian restoration as an adaptation approach ..................................................... 100 6.2 Socio-ecological context as a trigger to riparian restoration ................................... 101 6.3 Institutional barriers to riparian restoration ............................................................. 103 6.4 Limitations and future research .............................................................................. 105 6.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 108 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 112 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 118 Appendix A Consent Form .............................................................................................. 118 Appendix B Survey Instrument ........................................................................................ 121 Appendix C Interview Protocol......................................................................................... 122 Appendix D Focus Group Discussion – guide .................................................................. 127 Appendix E(1) – Survey Results: Perceptions about Climate Change ............................. 130 Appendix E(2) – Survey Results: Environmental Attitudes ............................................... 135 ix List of Tables Table 1 Alderson Creek Restoration project and research implementation timeline ..................33 Table 2. Select demographics for Alderson group and Kendry group. .......................................51 Table 3 Coding families developed from interview data .............................................................67 Table 4 Concepts related to participants’ experience and knowledge in both groups. ...............70 Table 5 Concepts related to factors that influenced participation in group restoration project for Alderson group, and analogous factors for Kendry group. .........................................................75 Table 6 Institutional framework .................................................................................................79 Table 7 Themes emerging from focus group discussion analysis. .............................................84 x List of Figures Figure 1 Theoretical framework for examining landowners’ motivations to participate in the restoration .................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2 Study site location. ©J. Janmaat, 2021. Used with permission. ...................................48 Figure 3 Annual recurrence of instream aquatic vegetation growth (left); livestock access to creek (right) ©B. Bauer, 2016. Used with permission. ...............................................................50 Figure 4 Initial survey results – perceptions about climate change. ...........................................56 Figure 5 Climate measures for the Vernon North climate station ...............................................59 Figure 6 Initial survey results – NEP .........................................................................................61 Figure 7 Emerging conceptual framework .................................................................................81 xi Acknowledgements I offer my sincere gratitude to the faculty, staff and my fellow students at the UBC-Okanagan, who have supported and inspired me to continue and complete my work. I owe particular thanks to my academic supervisor, Dr. John Janmaat, who has supported me, provided guidance and was patient and encouraging throughout the entire duration of the program. I thank Dr. B.Bauer who asked tough questions at a very early state and motivated me to work harder to focus my research questions and objectives. I thank my committee, Dr. K.Hanna and Dr. D.Senese. I also extend special thanks to the Farm Adaptation Innovation Fund, which funded my research, and study participants – a group of landowners from Spalumcheen, BC. Special thanks to the restoration practitioners, Lee Hesketh and Pete Spencer for supporting me with information and answering my endless questions. Special thanks to my parents and family for believing in me and for their continuous moral support and encouragement. xii Dedication To my son Ayden, who grew up watching me “doing science” and who will, hopefully, take it over some time in the future. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Study background In 2014 a small group of landowners residing along Alderson Creek collectively agreed to initiate the riparian restoration project. The initiative was carried out with assistance from environmental restoration practitioners from BC Agriculture Research & Development Corporation (BC Ardcorp) and Farmland-Riparian Interface Stewardship Program. Six landowners joined together to establish the Alderson Creek Rehabilitation Environmental Society (ACRES) – a non-profit society, formed to implement the Group Environmental Farm Plan (GEFP). The ACRES applied for a funding under GEFP to develop and implement the restoration plan for their portion of Alderson Creek. The GEFP is a program sponsored by B.C. Provincial Government that intends to assist participating landowners with improving and enhancing environmental health of their land through adopting beneficial management practices (BMPs) and other changes in on-farm operations. GEFP is a voluntary program administered by BC Agriculture Council (BCAC) that is open for application by the interested groups of farmers, willing to act collectively to improve the health of their natural resource base. The difference between a standard Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) and the GEFP is that while EFP is administered by individual landowners, GEFP involves commitments by multiple landowners, thus extending the potential for improvement to a larger geographic area and supporting environmental processes that extend beyond property boundaries. The application process includes verification that planned management practices at each land holding are consistent with planning and management guidelines established by BC government. The Alderson Creek restoration project aimed at stream naturalization, improvements in drainage and subsequent increases in crop production on adjacent fields. Apart from the stream of 2 private benefits, the project also generates a number of benefits to society at large. Restoration activities around Alderson Creek can potentially contribute to meeting provincial goals of addressing hydrological and land use issues and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. This and other similar initiatives have potential to solve drainage issues at a watershed level and build an overall watershed’s resilience in the face of climate change. At the very least, expected improvements in water quality and flow regime on the sub-basin level will help create better and healthier habitat in the main watershed - Fortune Creek - contributing to restoring culturally and economically important fisheries values in the region. The interdisciplinary team of researchers from the University of British Columbia’s, Okanagan campus, undertook a multi-disciplinary three-year study to evaluate the changes in biophysical conditions in the stream and in participants’ attitudes, motivations and knowledge resulting from implementation of the riparian restoration project. The study consisted of three components aiming at evaluating the: (1) potential for improvements in riparian ecosystems health and water quality resulting by riparian improvements on six participating land holdings; (2) costs and benefits associated with such rehabilitation and broad perspective on whether riparian restoration is cost effective considering the societal benefits that accrue as a result of rehabilitation; and (3) social context in which restoration project has been conceived and implemented, including the nature of the relationships among participants at each level and the institutional framework that enabled or inhibited this collaborative initiative. This study focuses on social component of the interdisciplinary research. 3 1.2 Problem statement There is an increasing consensus that climate change is happening in the Okanagan, British Columbia (Pinna Sustainability 2020). Current climate projections point at major increases in mean temperatures, changes in patterns of precipitation, resulting changes in weather patterns, and increasing incidence of extreme weather events. In some parts of B.C., the effects of extreme weather conditions have already been observed in the form of increased incidence of droughts and floods that had undesirable negative consequences for landowners in the region (Climate Action Initiative 2016a; 2016b). Therefore, climate-dependent industries, particularly agricultural producers, might face a need to constantly adjust to a changing climate. Restoring or enhancing the resilience of natural ecosystems as a mechanism to improve the adaptive capacity of social systems is an emerging adaptation approach for communities that depend on these ecosystems or are impacted by them (Adger 2000). This approach is receiving growing recognition because it has the potential to provide significant co-benefits for biodiversity, while also reducing social vulnerability to a range of climate change impacts. Riparian ecosystems, for example, are dynamic systems that are naturally resilient and capable of adapting to changes caused by natural and anthropogenic perturbations (Seavy et al. 2009; Capon et al. 2013). Healthy properly functioning riparian ecosystems have an incredible capacity to buffer against extreme weather events and conditions induced by climate change. Riparian ecosystems produce a wide range of services, including carbon sinks and climate control, regulating flood and improving plant water and nutrient intake. A changing climate in British Columbia is expected to have many effects on watershed processes that will affect water quality, availability, and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Pike 4 et al. 2010). At the same time, many water bodies have been significantly altered or degraded by impacts from past or current management activities on channel morphology, flows, water table dynamics, and water quality. Livestock grazing alone is believed to be the most prevalent cause of stream and lake degradation in many parts of British Columbia (Pike et al. 2010). Restoring riparian ecosystem seems to be an effective adaptation approach that can benefit farming communities whose land parcels intercept with these ecosystems. Given that riparian ecosystems are not limited to individual property boundaries, successful restoration is subject to collaboration among landowners in these communities. Furthermore, social and environmental benefits from such restoration might not be realized unless public agencies and private landowners are sufficiently motivated to engage collaboratively in restoring and maintaining ecosystem’s health and resilience. Collaborative ecosystem restoration as an adaptation approach by farming communities in developing countries is well documented by scholarship studying agricultural adaptation where provision of climate security by government is absent or limited. However, little research was documented on what would motivate farming communities to engage in riparian restoration collaborations in the developed world, where citizens traditionally rely on publicly supplied security and where the environment is protected by government regulation. This study examined motivations to participate in group riparian restoration initiative in the context of several land parcels dominated by agricultural activities that are adjacent to a short 1.2km reach of Alderson Creek watershed, located near the Township of Spalumcheen, BC, Canada. A non-participating group of landowners located in the neighboring Kendry Creek sub-5 basin with similar biophysical characteristics was also examined to understand factors that can affect motivations as well as barriers and opportunities to such collaboration. Motivations to participate in restoration were examined based on the results of the field study. Results were analyzed within the broader scholarship on social capital and collective action theories as they relate to collaborative environmental restoration or climate adaptation initiatives. The study observed past and emerging motivations, both individual and collective. The study elucidated barriers to collaborative participation and adoption of practices leading to environmental improvement and increased social resilience in the face of climate change. The collaborative restoration effort involved multiple negotiating agents, including regulators, restoration practitioners and landowners. By looking into the outcomes of that negotiation, this study attempted to understand the institutional framework around the riparian restoration initiative, and the role various agencies played in influencing landowners’ perceptions and motivations. The study was conducted using a qualitative research methodology, constructivist grounded theory, and a combination of data collection methods, including a survey, interviews, and a focus group discussion. Even though the study was limited to only two groups of famers, the results of this study can benefit farming communities with similar characteristics in other parts of BC facing similar challenges. Government agencies can also benefit from this study by using its insights to build stronger incentives for communities to participate in riparian restoration practice and support environmental stewardship on agricultural landscapes. 6 Chapter 2: Theoretical framework 2.1 Theoretical framework Motivations to participate in environmental improvement initiatives, and the ultimate outcomes of such participation, can be closely related to the community’s past experience with the natural resource, their means of creating and exchanging knowledge, and the compatibility of their interests and expectations with the societal interests in a broader institutional, ecological and climate change context (Reed 2008; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Ostrom 1990; 2007; Berkes 2004). Therefore, it was imperative to understand both the process and the context in which motivations emerged and changed. This included understanding land-owners’ perceptions of climate change impacts on ecosystems, their livelihoods, farm management practices, and ecosystems, and their common adaptation strategies. Examining land-owners’ knowledge about the role that natural systems play in preserving social and ecological resilience (Brody 2003), and the complexity of the restoration process and its possible outcomes, was also important for understanding their initial motivations. Furthermore, considering the conflicting nature of farmers’ relationship with the natural environment (Sullivan et al. 1996; Rosenberg and Margerum 2008), I also looked at landowners’ environmental attitudes and their economic stakes. Figure 1 represents a conceptual framework delineating the theoretical approach to examining motivations to participate in the restoration project. The topics explored included literature on social capital and collective action in the context of climate change and environmental restoration, and various factors affecting motivations to participate in ecological restoration. 7 Figure 1 Theoretical framework for examining landowners’ motivations to participate in the restoration The following sections 2.2 – 2.7 explore in more detail the theoretical framework described in Figure 1. Some of the key concepts referred to throughout this thesis include: 1. Climate change and potential for ecological restoration as an adaptation approach Scholarship reviewed for the purpose of exploring this topic include: • ecological restoration as an adaptation for farming communities, i.e. ecosystem-based adaptation by Vignola et al. (2015). • adaptation decision-making process by agricultural communities by Rosenzweig et al. 2001, Smit and Skinner (2002). • role of healthy ecosystems in buffering from the impacts of climate change by Travers et al. (2012), Seavy et al. (2009), Capon et al. (2013). 2. Role of knowledge in motivating environmental collective action and types of knowledge 8 • integration of local and scientific knowledge for environmental management by Raymond et al. (2010), Rhoads et al. (1999). 3. Collective action and social capital Concepts explored in this section informed my approach to examining relationships and networks: • role of social capital in triggering or inhibiting the collective action – Ostrom (1990; 2007); Pretty and Ward (2001); Adger (2003); Putnam (1995); Landman (2004). 4. Institutional framework for environmental action: • role of formal institutions in enabling collective action by Ostrom 1(990; 1998); Adger (2003). • facilitating the place-specific or ecosystem-based restoration by Vignola et al. (2015); Wamster et al. (2014). • institutional framework for environmental projects by Rydin and Pennington (2010). 5. Stakeholders participation in environmental collective action: • impacts from stakeholder involvement in environmental management by Reed (2008). • interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management by Rhoads et al. (1999). 6. Motivation to participate in ecological restoration: • types of stakeholder motivations to participate in ecological restoration by Clewell and Aronson (2006). • community characteristics and motivation to participate, connecting role of natural resources by Wandersman (1981). • defining restoration needs as specific to socio-ecological context by Wyatt et al. (1997). 9 This theoretical framework informed research questions and objectives, and it was used to construct the initial survey and interview questions. Concepts were further refined throughout the research process based on the data analysis and changes in motivations and perceptions occurring as a result of participation. 2.2 Climate change and ecological restoration Impacts on agricultural production in semi-arid environments originate from increasing temperature and changes in hydrologic conditions. Likelihood of extreme weather events occurrence, largely due to their increased unpredictability and potential frequency is a growing threat to agricultural production and a major cause of crop loss worldwide (Smit and Skinner 2002). There is indication that flooding and associated damages to crops, dams and reservoirs, are likely to become a serious problem in many semi-arid regions in temperate zones (Ragab and Prudhomme 2002; Smit and Skinner 2002). Flood risks will magnify in the regions where elevated temperatures increase rain to snow ratio in winter months or result in early snowmelt and increased spring peak runoff. Reducing vulnerability and increasing adaptive capacity and resilience to the unavoidable impacts from climate change is important for agricultural communities. There is no universal definition for effective adaptation. However, literature suggests that effective adaptation will be one that attains to its goals as defined in the context of existing climatic, economic and market conditions, regulatory arrangements, available technologies, policies, and social norms (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Rosenzweig et al 2001; Smit and Skinner 2002; Howden et al. 2007). It is also posited that adaptation decisions are rarely made in response to climate stimuli or one risk and/or opportunity alone or in isolation from other decisions (Smit and Skinner 2002; Adger et al. 2005; 10 Howden et al. 2007). Well-being of agricultural sector and ultimately its ability to adapt depend on availability of various resources, i.e. economic, social, regulatory and ecological, as well as flexible and adaptive management options (Smit and Skinner 2002; Climate Action Initiative 2016b). Research has examined whether restoring and maintaining the health of ecological systems, riparian in particular, can benefit farming communities by improving the health of their land base, reduce flooding and waterlogging (Rhoads et al 1999; Travers et al. 2012). Ecosystems provide a wide array of goods and services that are essential for humans, including food, water quality and flow regulation, soil formation and stabilization, carbon storage, cultural and social relations (Travers et al. 2012). For example, riparian ecosystems alone provide for ecological resilience within and beyond riparian areas (Seavy et al. 2009; Capon et al. 2013). Moreover, there is growing recognition that effective adaptation to climate change of both ecological and social systems may depend on riparian ecosystems capacity to adapt to changing conditions in the future (Seavy et al. 2009). Riparian ecosystems evolved through exposure to continuous disturbance and, therefore, are characterized by relatively high adaptive capacity, i.e. the ability to adjust to external changes and moderate the consequences of these changes (Capon et al. 2013). Ecosystem’s natural ability to adapt though can be compromised if they are damaged by agricultural and other development. Healthy riparian ecosystems might be more resilient to increased flooding and droughts and even buffer adjacent systems from extreme flooding, run-off and storms projected for many regions, particularly in semi-arid environments. In general, there is a growing interest in adaptation approaches that include enhancing or restoring ecosystem services. This interest is based on the belief that farmers and society can 11 benefit from these approaches as they are based on conservation or restoration of natural ecosystems and improve farming conditions despite climate change by buffering from extreme weather events (Vignola et al. 2015). However, adopting such adaptation approaches can be challenging due to the potentially conflicting nature of public policies and regulations, lack of awareness by agricultural communities, and lack of understanding of what drives the uptake of these approaches. Lack of guidance or supporting legislation from higher level decision-making agencies and an absence of mainstreaming strategies by local governments who benefit from such place-based adaptation approaches, was pointed out as a potential obstacle by Wamsler et al. 2014. Other factors can add to the complexity of the restoration practice. Conflicts between communities of resource-users and objectives set by restoration practitioners and scientists might arise due to the difference between local and scientific knowledge (Higgs 1997). If left unreconciled, these fundamental differences in worldviews and motivations might potentially hinder the success of restoration. Similarly, although seemingly beneficial, ecosystem-based adaptation practices will not be widely adopted and implemented without supportive and integrated agriculture, climate change and environment protection policies that facilitate their recognition within broader climate change adaptation program (Vignola et al. 2015). 2.3 Collective action and social capital The concept of collective action and social capital appear to be central across the range of disciplines that study institutions governing human relationship with natural environment. This study builds on interdisciplinary scholarship that include institutional economics and human ecology. In my work I refer to threads of research that focus on the social and legal norms and rules, organizations or regulations, which underlie the economic and social activity. 12 Collective decision-making is complex and subjected to numerous exogenous and endogenous factors. Despite some similarities in mechanisms that drive collection action to a successful completion or failure, most collective decision-making institutions evolve as a result of a messy process of interaction between individuals and institutions within the specific contextual and geographical boundaries (Adger 2003). Decisions are often influenced by limited knowledge, experience, information processing capability, and context in which decisions are made. In resource management the decision-making process is further complicated by the inherent uncertainty of the collective action outcome, particularly in the face of changing climate. The idea central to the basic theory of motivation is that humans have certain needs, and they choose to behave in a way that helps them to satisfy those needs (Maslow 1943). Also, there is growing recognition that human motivations and resulting actions are largely influenced by the contexts or situations in which people are situated (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Pretty and Ward 2001 ; Adger 2003). As the context or external triggers alter, so do motives and behaviors. Placing human motivations in the context of the collective action requires a thorough understanding of the ways that individual needs and multiple perspectives interweave within a specific context into a common need that enables that action. Numerous attempts have been made to identify and examine mechanisms that facilitate the process of integrating the needs of multiple individuals into a common interest. The theory of collective action is concerned with situations where there is a “group of people, a common interest among them, facing alternative courses of actions between short-term selfish choices and one that, if followed by a large number of individuals in a group, benefits all” (Ostrom 2007, p.5). Collective action occurs when two or more people engage in an action to achieve a collective good or 13 eliminate a collective bad, and when community members share a perception of harm if no action is taken (Ostrom 1990). An idea that all individuals in the group will act to achieve a common objective follows from the premise of rational and self-interested behaviors (Olson 1971). However, effects from collective action can extend beyond the group of private agents and lead to greater societal benefits or losses. It is, therefore, said that rational self-interested individual within the group might choose not to cooperate, unless the size of the group is relatively small or cooperation is fostered by coercion (Olson 1971). On the other hand, Ostrom (1990, 2007), Pretty and Ward (2001), Adger (2003), Putnam (1995), Landman (2004) have argued that various forms of social capital, can work together to alter underlying incentive structure and breed cooperation among rational, self-interested individuals in the group. Social capital can be defined as “the presence of effective human networks and social cohesion, which are manifested in effective institutions and processes where people can cooperate for mutual advantage” (Landman 2004, p.38). Aspects central to the concept of social capital include relations of trust, reciprocity, common rules and sanctions, and networks and groups. It is believed that relationships of trust and reciprocity can have potential to enhance social networks governed by common rules with benefits extending to individuals, communities and beyond. Ties and relationships among individuals, communities and institutions enabled by these social networks encompass sharing of knowledge, the sharing of risk, information, claims of reciprocity in times of crisis, and sanctions for non-compliance (Adger 2003). According to Ostrom (1990) and Adger (2003) the combination of various types of social capital, if equipped with properly-devised informal and formal institutions, might create incentive structure for socially desirable collective action in the presence of a common interest shared by the 14 members of community and beyond. Ostrom (1990, 1998) has further elaborated on the role of the institutions, such as internal and external formal and informal rules and norms that govern relationships between individuals in a given community and with the society at large. These norms and rules are devised to regulate interactions among individuals involved in collective action to lead such action to the desirable outcome. Ostrom (1990) and Adger (2003) argued that in the absence of the common interest or crisis and properly devised formal and informal institutions, social capital can constrain the socially desirable collective action and create incentives to free-ride or inhibit action, thus driving the action to an ultimate failure. 2.4 Humans and the environment Human attitudes toward the environment were shaped by decades-long practices of converting more lands into agricultural production to support population growth and development. Larger areas of land were used for growing crops, while streams that once ran freely through naturally-vegetated undisturbed landscapes, were stripped of natural vegetation, dried up or ended up serving as drainage basins for receiving wastewater from croplands. As more natural areas were converted into human-dominated landscapes, ecosystems’ ability to resist the disturbance, recover and adapt has diminished. Overexploitation and consequently degradation of natural resources happened due to public good characteristics of the natural resources (Costanza et al. 1998). Although some goods and services produced by natural resources are private, and, therefore, have market price, many other services, e.g. biodiversity, climate and flood control, are public goods. Public goods are services which are non-rival and not excludable and, therefore, can be consumed by anyone who can access them. Unless the use of natural resources is regulated, individuals might have no incentives to invest into protecting these resources and resulting damage can cause an 15 irreversible loss of the natural resource and deprive society of the benefits it would otherwise provide (Ostrom 1990). The state has increasingly taken responsibility for natural resource management because of the understanding that public good characteristics of natural resources can prevent resource-dependent communities from managing it properly (Ostrom 1990; Ghimire and Pimbert 2013). State uses regulations and incentives, such as taxes and fines, regulations for erosion and emissions control, or adoption of conservation farming, to encourage change in individual behavior (Pretty and Hine 2000). Similarly, government can reduce social vulnerability resulting from changes in resource condition by providing financial mechanisms or technologies to reduce risks associated with environmental issues, e.g. flood control infrastructure or subsidized crop insurance (Adger 2003). A number of studies suggest that well-organized groups of people can effectively engage in resource management collective action (Cernea 1987; Pretty and Ward 2001; Adger 2003; Stringer et al. 2006). Community-based environmental collective action can happen where government provision of security is absent, undersupplied or poorly enforced (Adger 2003). It can also emerge in jurisdictions where well-functioning government regulation effectively enables environmental collective action (Ostrom 1990; Pretty and Ward 2001; Adger 2003; Vignola et al. 2015). Ecological restoration is one example of environmental collective action that can be enabled and motivated by government regulation, either independently or in collaboration with external institutions, or take place in the absence of government provision of security. In jurisdictions where natural resources are protected by government regulation, 16 supportive regulatory framework is essential for effective and successful restoration collective action (Vignola et al. 2015). 2.5 Motivations to participate in ecological restoration Wandersman (1981) defined participation as a process, where individuals, groups or organizations choose to participate in any action that affect them. Recognition that most ecological restoration initiatives are human centered highlighted a necessity for including into restoration planning process people that can be affected by existing or proposed changes in the ecosystem function or services (Wyant et al. 1995). It has been also pointed out that public benefits from restoration activity might be maximized if public interests are consistent with the private interests of people directly affected by restoration process (Ostrom 1990; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003; Berkes 2004). Communities of resource users dependent on ecosystems for their livelihoods or otherwise affected by these ecosystems are primarily concerned with the recovery of ecological services that yield benefits to these communities (Rhoads et al. 1999; Adger 2003). On contrast, public agencies aim at preventing a public bad or delivering a greater good for greater number of people (Clewell and Aronson 2006). Restoration from state perspective targets recovering public goods that were once provided by ecosystems, such as source water quality and quantity, restoring natural capital, and improving socio-ecological resilience to climate change (Clewell and Aronson 2006). The rationale behind these approach rests on the understanding that nature and complex healthy ecosystems, if well-maintained, will produce essential services and products to meet broader societal needs at a relatively low cost. Therefore, Campbell and Vainio-Mattila (2003) suggested defining ecological restoration needs as a combination of incentives to participants immediately affected by restoration and ecological benefits yielded by the society at large. 17 Most collaborative restoration projects begin in response to emerging and prominent needs of a group of individuals. Therefore, a restoration project is a social process embedded into socio-ecological context in which such restoration is implemented (Wyatt et al. 1995; Higgs 1997). Understanding socio-ecological context involves identification and manifestation of ecological characteristics desirable by affected communities that, if found to be substantially damaged, will indicate an unsatisfied need and point to expected restoration outcomes (Wyatt et al. 1995). However, communities are heterogeneous and consist of individuals with different goals, perspectives, experiences, expectations, and perceived costs and benefits from the proposed project. It has been posited that larger heterogeneous communities might find it more challenging to negotiate what outcomes are beneficial to a greater number of community members (Irvin and Stansbury 2004; Rydin and Pennington 2000). Not all the members in the group of stakeholders are driven by the same goal and have similar stakes in the restoration outcomes and each group might insist on restoring ecosystems to serve their particular interests (Wyatt et al. 1995; Pretty and Ward 2001; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003; Berkes 2004). Wandersman (1981), Ostrom (1990), Adger (2003), Stringer et al. (2006) suggested that collaborative action in resource-dependent community works best when the group of stakeholders is small and homogenous, where individuals can provide essential feedback with very little possibility that conflict of interests that will be prohibitively costly to resolve. Free-riding or rent-seeking, core issues in the problem of collective action, are less of a concern or frustration in a smaller community, where the existence of longstanding social ties and the desire to maintain good relationships with the neighbors can encourage cooperation (Dwyer and Hodge 1996). Also, repeated interaction and communication in smaller groups enables the monitoring of each other 18 actions and allow these groups to devise sanctions to prevent non-cooperative or undesirable behavior (Pretty and Ward 2001). Communities do not exist as isolated agents. They are always embedded in larger systems (Pretty and Ward 2001). According to Woolcock and Narayan (2000) and Ostrom (1998) the ability of groups and individuals to pursue their collective interests depends on quality of the formal institutions enabling this collective action. Policies or regulations can enable collective action by not inhibiting it (Adger 2003) or by providing a direct incentive for initializing it (Pretty and Hine 2000). Therefore, in addition to examining stakes and relations within the communities of interest and other community characteristics, it is important to understand what exogenous factors, e.g. government regulations, interests of community at large, funding availability, could have influenced the decision-making process and what consequences this influence might have for the successful implementation of the collective action. And finally, Miles et al. (1998) and Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) described situations when people’s participation in environmental restoration or conservation initiatives was driven by merely psychological benefits from taking care of environment. Rosenberg and Margerum (2008) study of landowners’ motivations to participate in riparian restoration practice found that landowner’s personal land ethic and responsibility to give back to nature and preserve resources for future generations can influence land management decisions. However, studies also highlighted that such motivations are also influenced by economic viability and human resource availability, and quite often landowners are concerned about long term economic implications from adopted conservation practices. Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) argued that volunteering in the environmental restoration without economic benefits can only take place if satisfaction derived from this 19 participation does not hinder the economic development. It can be particularly relevant where land-owners’ livelihoods are dependent on natural resources. Although farmers are often regarded as people who possess deeper knowledge of natural processes resulting from their ties to the land, they often tend to overexploit and degrade their land (Sullivan et al. 1996). 2.6 Institutional framework for collective action Maintaining proper institutional frameworks around collaborative environmental projects might be an important consideration for the effective organization of activities and people. The institutional framework includes regulatory tools, organizational matters, such as defining ways of engaging people, defining their roles and responsibilities, establishing proper communication channels, and establishing the rules for participation (Rydin and Pennington 2010). Well organized collaborative restoration practices are equipped with the practical tools for facilitating the process, mitigating differences in values, interests, and helping to eliminate conflicts and promote cooperation. These resources are essential for successful collaboration and insufficient resourcing in one or more institutional areas might frustrate the efforts, and substantially limit the uptake or even inhibit the program. An inherent complexity of collective action in the context of ecological restoration requires building the proper institutional framework for meaningful organization of stakeholders involved into restoration practice. It has been posited that depending on restoration purpose and ultimate objectives of stakeholders’ participation, engagement approaches are selected to give stakeholders enough power to accomplish their designated role in restoration (Reed 2008). However, where stakeholders are affected communities that have the ability to influence the outcomes, limited stakeholders’ involvement might cause their frustration and lack of interest in restoration practice. 20 Motivating key stakeholders is particularly important where long-term ecological benefits are difficult to achieve without participation of communities that are expected to maintain the conservation practice over time (Chimire and Pimbert 2013; Reed 2008). Therefore, governments increasingly chose to work in partnership with affected communities and switch to the most inclusive and empowering ways of involvement by these communities, (Rydin and Pennington 2000). A meaningful engagement with community includes community participation in decision-making and negotiating the outcomes. Communities need to understand restoration benefits, risks and impacts, and their role and responsibilities in delivering the negotiated outcomes (Ostrom 1990; Rydin and Pennington 2000; Raymond et al. 2010). Truly collaborative participation can lead to building stronger and more resilient communities, and strengthen stakeholders’ capacity to self-organize and cope with ecological and social change. As communities or groups engaged in collective action mature, newly acquired environmental literacy translates into new worldviews that are unlikely to reverse (Cairns 1995; Pretty and Ward 2001; Brody 2003). Those who actively participated in the restoration activity from its planning to implementation have fewer incentives to return to damaging practices. They become good environmental stewards and often encourage other communities to participate in similar initiatives. Communities stay connected with external agencies and are likely to expand networks by initiating new groups or spreading their knowledge to other communities (Pretty and Ward 2001). 2.7 Types of knowledge and its role in motivating ecological restoration Knowledge and mechanisms for its exchange remain an important element of the institutional framework and a critical tool for motivating communities to undertake restoration and 21 maintain adopted conservation practices over time. Knowledge can be gathered through interaction and integration of multiple types of knowledge (Rydin and Pennington 2000). Rhoads et al. (1999), Glicken (2000) and Raymond et al. (2010) point out several types of knowledge, of which scientific and experiential knowledge are two types commonly described in studies of environmental collective action. Each form of knowledge varies in the ways in which it is constructed, validated, and, even more importantly, in ways in which it can be shared and articulated (Glicken 2000). Scientific knowledge is formal and generalizable. It is often communicated in ways that are difficult for local stakeholders to understand. Experiential knowledge is based on personal experience, and within the context of that experience is ‘common sense’. This includes local knowledge, which is often implicit. Such knowledge is not easily articulated. People might find it difficult to explicitly explain why they know what they know. Furthermore, types of knowledge used for decision-making also depend on the nature of relationships between the members of the community and the relevant external institutions. Interaction seems to be a critical component to the process of restoration planning. According to Raymond et al. (2010) interaction and knowledge sharing between local communities and scientists facilitates learning and the ability of participants to learn from each other and ecosystems being restored. Knowledge which is believed to be generated while restoration partners interact in an attempt to manage the scope, complexity and uncertainty of issues arising in the process of ecological restoration, is referred as ‘hybrid’ knowledge or the new understanding which emerges through the integration of local and scientific knowledge and continuous feedback from ecosystems (Raymond et al. 2010). 22 Garnering local knowledge is essential for understanding local values and practices as they are often reflective of existing social capital, rules of reciprocity and responsibilities. Rhoads et al. 1999 argued that conflict in negotiating restoration works and outcomes often derive from different valuations of the ecosystem goods and services by local people and technical experts. Therefore, it is essential to begin with the attempt to understand these differences before the restoration project is designed and implemented. Goals of restoration must have meaning to affected communities, which implies that restoration activities should lead to the outcomes that include desirable goods and services whose recognition is ultimately dependent on the social and cultural context (Wyatt et al. 1995). Whenever these differences cannot be accommodated, the limitations should be properly communicated to all affected stakeholders. External facilitating agency have a role to play in eliciting implicit conflicting values and ensuring that different voices are heard (Stringer et al. 2006). Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) emphasized people’s informational needs as critical to greater cooperation and restoration success. Stakeholders should understand and agree with restoration objectives, particularly, why specific works were chosen, what it will take to implement those works, and a range of possible outcomes (Kauffman et al. 1997). In this respect, garnering knowledge from local communities can be useful for understanding the range of desirable as well as technically achievable outcomes. Scientific knowledge has limitations, particularly when envisioning restoration outcomes in complex and dynamic ecosystems that have once been subjected to severe anthropogenic influence. In assessing ecological conditions and future restored state of ecological resources it is hard to distinguish between human -induced disturbances and normal cyclic disturbances and instabilities that affect resources, such as local climatic or hydrological conditions (Wyatt et al. 1995). 23 Chapter 3: Methodological approach 3.1 Research question and objective The purpose of this study was to examine the concept of collective action in the context of the collaborative riparian restoration project implemented by a small group of landowners, understand barriers and opportunities to such collaboration, and potential impact such collaboration might have on motivations, knowledge and attitudes. The study consisted of the following research questions: ▪ What are the factors that drive or inhibit collaborative participation in group ecological restoration projects in a small farming community? ▪ How do motivations change as a result of participation in restoration project? The research has been structured to address the following objectives and analytical questions: Research objective #1: Determine whether there are differences between participating and non-participating communities with respect to: knowledge about climate change impacts and adaptation approaches, riparian hydrology, their experience living by the stream, and environmental attitudes. This will help understand if and how attitudes, knowledge and experience factored into decision to participate (or not): - How participants’ experiences living and managing land by the stream differ? - What do they know about climate change in the region? Do they have any climate adaptation experience? Do they relate that experience to climate change? - What are their environmental attitudes? 24 Research objective #2: Examine specific experiences and/or elements of social and ecological context that shaped participating group’s knowledge, attitudes, motivations and expectations: - How do these two groups describe their experience living by the creek? - What are their perceived benefits from participation? How do they know this? - What are the relationships within communities? How do they communicate among themselves? With external agents, including government? Research objective #3: Examine the impact that the restoration process has had in shifting attitudes, motivations, perceptions and relationships (for participating group only): - How did landowners’ understanding of watershed processes change over the course of the project? How did knowledge change? Did this new knowledge cause a shift in attitudes? - Does the project process unfold as expected by farmers? - Were there any conflicts? How conflicts were resolved? 3.2 Research methodology 3.2.1 Qualitative research In this study I attempted to understand the evolution of the motives, knowledge and perspectives of the study participants involved in the Alderson Creek restoration project. An attempt by researchers to study and interpret the social world from the perspective of the interacting individual falls under the category of qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). Therefore, in my study I used a qualitative research approach. Qualitative research is primarily 25 used to gain an in-depth understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, behaviors, and motivations. It is used to understand changes in thought and opinions and explore deeper into studied phenomena. Such in-depth investigation is usually performed with relatively small sample size (Bernard 2013). Qualitative methods are effective ways to garner culturally specific information about human behaviors as well as social contexts where these behaviors take place (Charmaz 2006). Textual descriptions produced by qualitative research allow understanding of how people experience a given research issue (Morse and Richards 2002). An advantage of qualitative methods is that they are effective in capturing such intangible factors as social norms and relationships that are not apparent but play an important role in understanding human behavior (Bernard 2013). Results obtained from qualitative inquiry can be transferred to studying phenomena elsewhere, provided that studied population and contexts possess similar characteristics. However, generalization is not a primary objective of the research. Rather, assuming that no existing theory can provide a complete explanation of the complex reality in the specific and unique context (Creswell et al. 2007, 2012), the qualitative researcher is seeking an understanding of this complex reality and context (Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Morse and Richards 2002). Undertaking qualitative research in the areas that are poorly understood, either due to dynamic nature of the issue or complexity of the context in which this issue takes place, allows generating hypotheses based on experiencing a phenomenon rather than testing theories based on existing thinking (Morse and Richards 2002). Results obtained from qualitative research often lead to formulating new perspectives that are born from researcher’s direct experience with the researched world (Morse and Richards 2002). 26 3.2.2 Grounded theory methodology Qualitative researchers may use various methodological approaches to study human interaction and experience. Methodological approaches are ways of conducting research, collecting and analyzing data, and understanding a role that researchers play in conducting study (Corbin and Strauss 2008). There are common strategies and similarities across all qualitative approaches. These approaches are similar in that they all study human experience as it occurs in natural setting, attempt to understand world from the perspective of participants, and often employ similar methods to collect data (Morse and Richards 2002). Differences account for the research questions those approaches seek to answer, various lenses they use to view the world and interpret data, different perspective on knowledge and reality, and different ways of handling and conceptualizing data. According to Morse and Richards (2002) the researcher should begin from the position that for any given study no method is superior to another and, then, selects a methodology based on his/her research objectives. All qualitative approaches describe and interpret the studied world. It has been established that a process of social interaction can be best understood if examined in the specific sociocultural context (Charmaz 2006). Furthermore, time and place specific theoretical understanding is needed in order to interpret study participants experience in the process of such interaction and if and how this experience factors into creating new constructs that trigger shifts, if any, in their attitudes and motivations. Various qualitative approaches might be used to study motivations to engage in the collective action as it relates to natural resource management and climate adaptation. I used a grounded theory approach to understand what motivated landowners to participate in the program and how 27 their attitudes, knowledge and motivations changed as a consequence of participating in restoration project. Grounded theory approach is a method that provides a set of logically consistent strategies for collecting and analyzing data to construct theories that are grounded in the empirical data (Charmaz 2006; Corbin and Strauss 2008). According to Creswell et al. (2007) and Creswell (2012) no existing theory can suit ideally a purpose of describing individual and collective experience of a change as a process in a unique context. Grounded theory answers questions about interaction, process and change over time (Morse and Richards 2002; Charmaz 2006). This approach offers a combination of descriptive and interpretive methods as it focuses on describing process, interaction and change as experienced by participants, and reaches beyond description to conceptualizing and theorizing discovered processes and experiences. Grounded theory approach can be used to identify experiences that triggered collective action, the process of negotiating the collective action, i.e. how the reality has been socially constructed, and how peoples’ perceptions or behavior changed as a result of this action or other factors. According to Glazer (2002), striving to resolve their issues or meet their needs is what motivates and organizes people in the given context. Researcher must identify and analyze the motivations behind the participants’ behaviors and action in order to understand participants’ common issues or needs. Grounded theory is equipped with tools necessary to identify research participants’ common issue, concern or needs, and then explain conceptually the ongoing action by which research participants attempt to meet their needs or resolve their issues or concerns (Breckenridge et al. 2012; Creswell et al. 2007). I focused my research on the production of meanings based on the perspectives of interacting individuals. Interacting is a process that takes place in a context; “context” is referred to as conditions or events that cause circumstances to which people respond by means of their actions and interactions, whereas a “process” refers to ongoing change in response to the circumstances 28 arising out of context (Corbin and Strauss 2008). Charmaz (2006) defines “process as unfolding temporal sequence that may have identifiable markers with clear beginnings and endings and benchmarks in between”. As time and context changes, social and temporal processes induce change, wherein present emerges as new and different from the past (Charmaz 2008). Participation in collective action is often specific to time, site, and issue (Glicken 2000). Because of this specificity, stakeholders engage in the process and negotiate an agreement to deal with specific issues in particular circumstances at a particular time. Negotiated agreement might change as people, values, circumstances or issues change. Ecological restoration, for example, is a collective action taken to address an undesirable adverse change in the ecosystems, on which communities rely for production of essential goods and services (Clewell and Aronson 2005). Change in social and ecological contexts takes place as people engage in collection action, learn from each other and ecosystems. The context of my study is unique as it allows reconstruction of the collective experience by the relatively small group of landowners that led them into initiating a restoration collective action. The real-time nature of the project allowed to track down the intertemporal change in experience and motivation as well as identify some institutional and other barriers to collaborative restoration initiative and look at its potential as a climate adaptation approach. I used constructivist grounded theory, which is rooted into the epistemology of social constructionism, wherein knowledge is constructed through the interactions of individuals within society (Schwandt 2003). Constructivist grounded theory stemmed from fundamental principle of interpretivist philosophy, which is referring human action as meaningful in a sense that it has a certain intentional content that can be understood only in terms of the system of meanings in which 29 it takes place (Schwandt 2003). Constructivist takes relativist and interpretivist stances in understanding the meaning of social phenomena and aims at interpreting human action in terms of the system of meanings to which it belongs (Schwandt 2003), as well as understanding the phenomena relative to time, place and situation (Charmaz 2008). Similar to interpretivists constructivist grounded theorist focuses on understanding the process by which meanings are created, negotiated, sustained and modified (Charmaz 2006; Andrews 2012). Constructivists view knowledge and truth as created not discovered by mind, and reflexive to historical, cultural and temporal context (Schwandt 2003). Charmaz (2008) summarizes the following four fundamental principles and assumptions of constructivist grounded theory: “(1) Reality is multiple, processual, and constructed – but constructed under particular conditions; (2) the research process emerges from interaction; (3) it takes into account the researcher’s positionality, as well as that of the research participants; (4) the researcher and researched co-construct the data, therefore data are a product of the research process, not simply observed objects of it.” Constructivists study what people construct, why they construct meanings and how this process unfolds (Charmaz 2006; 2008). Constructivist approach extends to examine those constructs as embedded within larger hidden networks, situations and relationships (Charmaz 2006). Researchers are part of the research process, and, therefore, their positions, perspectives and values affect the outcomes of the research (Charmaz 2006). Researcher that takes on constructivist stance will come into his researched world with broader understanding of the phenomena or understanding that is based on his own experience with studied issue. The 30 interpretive nature of a research makes the process value-laden. A subjective nature of constructivist grounded theory is well acknowledged (Charmaz 2006; Charmaz 2008; Glazer 2002) and, therefore, identifying researcher’s position and its effect on research process is important. According to Schwandt (2003) everyone is a constructivist who believes that the mind plays an active role in constructing knowledge. Human mind invents concepts to explain the experience, but we also continuously test and modify those concepts in the light of the new experience (Schwandt 2003). Researcher’s self-reflectivity implies not only acknowledging his or her biases and their potential influence on research outcomes, but also reflecting how, when and why researcher’s position changes in the process of interaction with the studied world. In addition to self-reflectivity member-checking (reviewing the results with the study participants) is commonly used to improve the validity of findings in grounded theory research. Both researcher’s self-reflectivity and member-checking have been incorporated into this research. Tentative conceptual frameworks and findings were presented to participants who could share their feelings and concerns about consistency of researcher’s interpretations with their original experience and perceptions. 3.3 Sampling The sampling for this study was based on the specific subject area of landowners participating or not participating in the restoration project. There are approximately eight land holdings along the studied reach of the Alderson Creek, of which six participated in the restoration project. For this study, “Alderson Group” is a group of landowners with farmland located along 31 the reach of the Alderson Creek in Fortune Creek watershed. All six landowners or individuals currently using the land along this reach of the Alderson Creek have been included in this study. Kendry Creek is another tributary for Fortune Creek, located further to the north from Alderson Creek. Both creeks drain into the same alluvial fan complex, intercept with private agricultural lands and share similar biophysical characteristics. A reach of Kendry creek was selected for a biophysical assessment study to enable using paired watershed approach (Bauer et al. 2018). Given similar demographic characteristics of land-owners in both groups, the community of six land-owners residing on Kendry Creek sub-basin was included in the social study as a control group. Participants in both groups were required to sign the consent form (Appendix A Consent Form) to be eligible for participation. Works in and around the stream require that permits are granted prior to the commencement of the work to ensure that no negative impacts are generated as a result of the project. An expert oversight is often involved to ensure that regulatory requirements are met, and private and public interests are reconciled. Therefore, the sample of studied group was extended to include restoration practitioners – experts that provided an oversight throughout planning and implementation, and whose participation enabled and influenced the implementation of the program. 3.4 Data collection and analysis In grounded theory the researcher frames interview questions to study the process. Since researcher has not been involved at the time when restoration initiative was conceived and planned, seeking participants detailed account of the process was the main interviewing focus for data collection. 32 Assuming that the restoration timeline aligns with this research study and that restoration works will proceed as initially planned, I planned to conduct two to three rounds of interviews with the landowners in the Alderson Creek group. The first round of interviews was supposed to take place prior to the commencement of the project works, followed by at least another round approximately one year later. This strategy was selected to better understand the nature of land-owners’ engagement in the restoration project and the process of change in their attitudes and/or behaviors. First round with both groups of landowners was conducted as planned prior to the commencement if the project works when landowners from Alderson Creek group were still in the process of obtaining authorizations. Although researchers had followed-up with study participants in person and over the phone several times over two years following the initial round of interviews, a second round with the participants in both groups never took place as planned. This happened mainly due to significant delay in the implementation process, funding issues and project management hurdles that, according to study participants and restoration practitioners, had stalled the restoration process. Occasional encounters with participants were limited to hearing out landowners’ frustration over regulatory constraints. A delayed implementation had a somewhat negative impact on landowners’ motivation and these conversations did not yield any new data related to landowners’ knowledge about climate change or riparian processes. Therefore, at a later stage it has been decided to replace the individual interviews with the focus group discussion where participants were given a chance to review study findings and engage in recollection of their collective experience before and during the restoration process with the support from researchers and restoration practitioners. Table 1 below lays out a timeline for restoration work and this research project. 33 TIMELINE Project Works Research Study 2014 Summer, 2014 Alderson Creek Rehabilitation Environmental Society (ACRES) formed Fall, 2014 GEFP Application Climate Action Initiative Proposal submitted 2015 March 15, 2015 Funding approved Summer, 2015 GEFP funding approved Field monitoring initiated September 8, 2015 Certificate of Approval – Research Ethics Board, UBC O Fall, 2015 FLNRORD approval for some in-stream works Winter, 2015 Questionnaire distributed and participant interviews conducted 2016 Spring, 2016 Field drainage ditching initiated Year 1 Project Report Summer, 2016 Creek excavated in upper reaches Field monitoring continued Cost-Benefit Analysis I Follow –up interviews with selected participants Fall, 2016 Fence posts installed; no wire strung Splatsin Indian Band involvement 2017 Spring, 2017 Wire strung and fencing completed on upper section of reach; some trees planted Year 2 Project Report Summer, 2017 Field monitoring continued Cost-Benefit Analysis II Follow-up interviews with selected participants Fall, 2017 Wire strung and fencing completed on upper reach; more trees planted Winter, 2017 Fencing completed on two properties; other properties not yet addressed; off stream watering and cattle crossings yet to be completed; 2018 February 8, 2018 Focus group discussion February 15, 2018 Final Project Report Table 1 Alderson Creek Restoration project and research implementation timeline Additional data was collected through a paper survey, administered along with the initial interviews. In addition, time was also spent reviewing project reports summarizing biophysical 34 and cost–benefit analysis studies, and interviewing restoration practitioners. Data was further refined during focus group discussion with project participants – landowners and restoration practitioners. Government perspective was largely reconstructed using data from interviewing the official from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), restoration practitioners and my experience working at the Okanagan Basin Water Board (OBWB) and provincial government. In grounded theory, the analytic process is accomplished through coding. Coding accompanies data collection and is defined as the process of categorizing the pieces of data to enable its conceptualizing (Charmaz 2006). Codes are fragments of data, such as words, lines, segments, or incidents that show how the researcher selects, separates, and sorts data to begin an analytic process. Qualitative codes are used to take apart the segments of data, name them with short labels, and provide an analytic lens to develop abstract ideas for interpreting these segments of data and subsequent categorization (Charmaz 2006). Data collected through interviews and focus group discussion were analyzed by coding. Charmaz (2006) identifies two stages of coding – initial coding and focused coding. Codes generated through initial and focused coding are used to compare data within and across studied groups. The process begins by conducting the initial coding. In labeling emerging codes Charmaz (2012) recommends staying close to the data and, if necessary, engage in line-by-line coding. The initial coding does not limit the number of codes and usually generates numerous codes in various categories. The codes from initial coding are used by researcher to capture the emerging ideas about the studied world and group them under relevant categories. The focused coding is the process of further refining the initial codes to create codes that are more selective and conceptual. The process is not entirely a linear process. It can prompt an unexpected discoveries or topics that 35 are too implicit and require additional examination. In this study focused coding of interviews transcripts identified emerging topics that required further investigation. Consequently, missing data was supplied through follow-up interviews with select participants and by conducting focus group discussion and analyzing the obtained data using the same coding technique. 3.4.1 Interviews and paper survey The initial data for this study was collected through in-depth, open-ended, semi-structured interviews supplemented by paper survey. In general, the role of the researcher in the process of interviewing would be the listener who encourages participants to talk. Although an open-ended format is preferred, Charmaz (2006) recognizes the usefulness of semi-structured interviews in exploring specific topics or areas of interest. Charmaz suggests using existing guiding principles and disciplinary perspectives as “tentative tools for developing ideas about processes that researchers define in their data” (Charmaz, p.16), and departure points for developing the ideas for interview questions. Charmaz defines the process as thinking analytically about the data while listening to participants’ stories. Survey questions targeted the understanding of landowners’ knowledge about climate change and its impacts, biophysical processes and riparian systems functionality, adaptation experience, and landowners’ environmental attitudes. Survey questionnaire consisted of several written statements followed by answer options using a scale of 1 to 5 and open-ended questions (Appendix B Survey Instrument). Questionnaire also included a group of questions adopted from other studies examining environmental attitudes. This widely used standard measure of pro-environmental orientation was based on New Environmental Paradigm scale that is often used to tap a wide range of ecological 36 worldviews and how these worldviews change over time (Dunlap et al. 2000). While survey questions aimed at capturing the climate change knowledge and environmental attitudes across the sampled population, interview probes were specifically designed to encourage participants to share what they know about climate change and its local impacts, describe how they learned that and to understand what experience shaped their attitudes toward the natural environment and their feelings about the presence of the stream on their property (Appendix C Interview Protocol). Given the semi-structured interviewing format, researcher used a set of probing questions to initiate the conversation. Probing questions were structured around three major topics: (1) knowledge about climate change and environment in the local context; (2) experience living around the creek, motivations to engage in restoration; (3) social context and relationships. Interview questions also sought the understanding of participants’ utility from stream presence, and perceived costs and benefits, direct and indirect, from participation in the stream restoration project. Interview questions aimed to garner information about existing and evolving internal and external social networks and connections, within which farmers interacted, shared information and made collective decisions. Although this study obviously sought exploring some tentative concepts, it remained open to different ideas that participants might have elaborated on during the interview. Participants from both Alderson Group and Kendry Group were interviewed and asked to complete a paper survey. Interview questions covered similar concepts for participants from both groups. The only difference in approaching these two groups was exploring Alderson Group actual experience of participating in the project, whereas Kendy Group participants were asked to describe their thoughts about opportunity to participate in similar initiative. 37 In grounded theory the sample size is dependent on the saturation of the emerging data (Charmaz 2006). Therefore, follow-up interviews and sampling usually continue until fresh data no longer “spark new theoretical insights” (Charmaz, p.113). Following the initial data analysis, I conducted follow-up interviews with two participants from Alderson Group. Several site visits took place in summer 2016 and 2017. I spoke with participants about creek issues and project progress. I also hoped to conduct interviews with individuals and agencies that according to the participants influenced the restoration project. Interviewing restoration practitioners, who interacted with landowners throughout the entire project, provided an alternative insight into land-owners motivations and behaviors prior and during the restoration process, and barriers to implementation from practitioners’ perspective. Although no formal interviews with regulatory agencies were conducted, the data gap related to government perspective was addressed by connecting landowners and practitioners’ stories with my own knowledge about regulatory processes in British Columbia. 3.4.2 Focus group discussion The unexpected delay in restoration works affected the data collection and analysis process. Interviews and consequent follow-ups provided with some data to understand participants’ account of institutional barriers to collaboration that boiled down mainly to project management issues and exogenous regulatory hurdles. However, participants’ motivations remained poorly understood and interview data analysis provided only marginal understanding of shared or common interests that triggered collaboration. Slow progress in restoration works also affected the dynamics of change in motivations, knowledge and attitudes. Therefore, additional work and data were needed to conceptualize common motives, knowledge change, and if that change can trigger motivation. To ascertain the process of collective decision-making in full detail and understand factors that 38 would influence a group’s decision to collaborate on restoration or adaptation initiatives, I followed the advice from my research committee and conducted a focus group discussion with Alderson Creek group. Focus group discussion is another data collection method that yields both qualitative and observational data and can be analyzed using grounded theory approach (Nyumba et al. 2018). It is often used to examine impacts of climate change and climate change adaptation measures, and to understand people perspectives about impacts from conservation measures. According to Nyumba et al. 2018, studies conducted using focus group discussions often reported that discussion resulted in discovery of “unexpected”. Another benefit from using focus groups discussion in community-based research included obtaining indigenous or local knowledge from local communities. Focus group discussion took place in February 2018, approximately 3 years after the onset of this research study and over 4 years into restoration work planning and implementation. Focus group discussion included four families of landowners from Alderson Creek, restoration practitioners, and group of researchers from UBC Okanagan. One family chose to quit the project because of their plans to sell their land and move away from the area. Another landowner that was previously interested in restoration process didn’t respond to the invitation. This participant was one whose 100% income was earned from sources other than farming. Focus group discussion pursued three main objectives: (i) member check to verify initial findings and conclusions, and (ii) look at the previously hidden motivations, if any, and (iii) changes in knowledge, motivations, and attitudes as a result of participation. The discussion was semi-structured and facilitated by the lead researcher (Appendix D Focus Group Discussion – 39 guide). Participants were presented with the opportunity to discuss the results and provide their feedback. As expected, the presentation triggered discussion, in which landowners engaged with researchers and practitioners and reflected on their collective journey toward restoration initiative. Providing the landowners with the opportunity to engage in collective recollection of their experience before and during the restoration initiative, helped collect the insights that were not explicit in individual interviews. This productive discussion and feedback ended the data collection loop. 3.5 Ethical considerations Contemporary research ethics principles are designed so as to achieve a balance between research objectives, overall benefits and participants’ interests. Fundamental ethical principles emphasize the importance of protecting human participants in any kind of research and a need to weigh expected benefits against potential harm (Ramcharan and Cutcliffe 2001). For researchers these principles constitute general ethical guidelines that are supposed to guide them in designing research, developing research instruments, planning field access strategies, establishing and maintaining relationships with potential participants, and interpreting and reporting the results. In constructivist grounded theory the emergent nature of design makes it difficult to assess the balance between risks and benefits prior to data collection and to describe these risks and benefits in the consent letter. Some of the issues, e.g., identity disclosure, can be addressed by committing to maintain confidentiality. It is also imperative to commit to maintaining participants’ right to withdraw at any point when further participation may cause discomfort or any other harm. Seeking participants’ informed consent requires that research objectives are duly disclosed, and all potential benefits and risks are identified and described in plain language to ensure that 40 participants have been informed about the consequences and had a choice to freely decide whether to participate in the study (Orb et al. 2001). Whenever all risks and benefits cannot be identified at the initial research stage, there is a need to continuously update participants and seek their consent as the study unfolds to create awareness of potential risks and benefits. Participants were provided with a statement of informed consent describing the research objectives, how the data would be used, and our assessments of any risks to them. They were asked to sign the statement to indicate their understanding. This signature was required of all participants who continued to be part of the research. Their right to withdraw has been acknowledged and they were assured of the confidentiality of the process. It was also communicated that confidentiality might be difficult to maintain following the focus group discussion where participants can see each other. Focus group discussion participants were encouraged to respect the confidential nature of the discussion and refrain from sharing its content outside the group. Restoration practitioners also signed the consent form for focus group discussion. This study, including proposed topic, methodology, sampling methods, participants’ recruitment procedure, survey questionnaire and interview protocol, underwent a review by the UBC Okanagan Behavioral Research Ethics Board (BREB). At a later stage, the ethics application was re-submitted to include focus group discussion protocol. Recommendations received from the UBC Okanagan BREB were duly incorporated into the research process. 3.6 Research instrument pre-test Both survey and interview questions were pre-tested with 5 volunteers, representatives of farming and landowners community located in different parts of Kelowna. Pre-test helped to identify several issues with paper survey questions, associated mainly with difficulties to 41 understand questions, as well as issues of navigating between questions and response scale. Below is a detailed description of specific issues as well as changes made to survey’s content and format. One of the obvious drawbacks in the initial format was difficulty to navigate between survey questions and suggested response scale. Response scale under each statement included numbering but not the actual response label on the Likert scale (i.e. 1-strongly disagree; 2-mildly disagree; 3-mildly agree; 4-strongly agree; 5-I have insufficient information to form an opinion). Although proper labels were provided in the beginning of each section, respondents found it difficult to focus on the question while they struggled to position their response along the scale. Following participants comments changes were made to the response scale format. Several changes have been made to the survey content, based on participants’ answers and concerns that were raised during pre-test sessions. For example, all participants agreed that time periods suggested for reporting their observations of climate change effects was inadequate and recommended to either extend the time frame to cover greater period or to eliminate it completely. It was decided to eliminate the time frame and let participants decide and specify periods within which they observed or did not observe any changes. This revision was particularly relevant considering the age difference among participants and that not all of them might have spent their entire lives in the region. A few changes were made to improve the easiness of interpreting some statements by respondents with different backgrounds. This included re-wording some questions to improve understanding. For example, statement “The extent of glaciation is strongly associated with climate change” was amended to read as “The extent of glaciation is influenced by climate change”. Another statement “I would prefer to manage my farm/ranch operations in a manner that is 'environmentally friendly', but other factors are more important” was expanded to include an 42 explanation of what “the other factors” could be, “I would prefer to manage my farm/ranch operations in a manner that is 'environmentally friendly', but other factors, e.g. financial, are more important”. The following statement was broken down into two separate statements as participants struggled to respond to the original version due to the contradictory nature of both statements. The initial statement “I anticipate that the amount of precipitation received during the winter will decrease in the next 20 years, but I also expect that the average farmer will experience less extreme drought conditions in the late growing season (i.e., August)” was amended to read as “I anticipate that the amount of precipitation received during the winter will decrease in the next 10 years” and “I expect that the average farmer will experience less extreme drought conditions in the late growing season (i.e., August)”. No changes have been made to the last section of paper survey and open-ended questions. NEP is standard surveying method, and its advantages and limitations are well documented by the literature (Dunlap et al 2000). Pretesting also helped to improve the main body of the interview to expand the number of potential concepts to be explored with the participants. Since the main purpose of this study was to examine respondents’ motivations to participate in a collaborative ecological restoration project, it was important to understand their perception of what healthy environments should look like, impacts from climate change and adaptation strategies, their understanding of ecological restoration process, restoration scope and effects as well as distribution of costs and benefits. Several probes were added to seek respondents’ understanding of healthy environments, role that healthy environment might play in mitigating undesirable climate change effects, their understanding of restoration process, possible challenges and obstacles. Other questions such as “how did you learn this” or “how do you know that” had been used throughout the interview to 43 understand participants’ means of creating, building and sharing the knowledge. Thus, the pretest helped to improve both the clarity of interview protocol content and survey’s format. 3.7 Researcher’s role in the study In the beginning of this study, I was new to British Columbia and my knowledge about the study subject area was limited to rather broad understanding of various theoretical collaborative ecological and environmental management concepts learned in the course of my enrolment in master’s Program at the University of Saskatchewan, School of Sustainability and Environment. Therefore, my initial assumptions were anchored mainly in existing theories and previous knowledge and experience researching stakeholders’ responses to water-related issues. A common argument by classic grounded theory followers is that researcher should come to the field “uncontaminated” by extant ideas known as “received theories” (Glaser and Strauss 1967). However, Charmaz (2006) claims that extant concepts are needed to enable researcher’s critical stance toward earlier discourses. To gain a better understanding of studied phenomena researcher can look into explanations offered by existing theories. Subjecting preconceived theories to rigorous scrutiny becomes a natural outcome of researcher’s interaction with data and researched world (Charmaz 2008). Few months into the study, I got fully emerged in another collaborative natural resource management initiative, involving greater number of diverse stakeholder community situated in a broader context. Between November 2015 and March 2019, I worked at the Okanagan Basin Water Board - a collaborative initiative instituted by local governments in the Okanagan to promote coordinated water management throughout the basin. The multi-stakeholder council – a technical advisory body - engages in regular collaborative dialogues that includes representatives from all 44 levels of government - federal, provincial, local and First Nations, as well as academic, agricultural and professional groups. In the following 3 years that overlapped with my research study, I gained a substantial knowledge about practical, scientific and institutional aspects of water resources management in British Columbia. I also was a part of the working group that reviewed new provincial Water Sustainability Act. The new Act strengthened the ability of the government to protect surface and ground water but also put an additional strain on water users and authorities to ensure the compliance. As a result, I could understand better the challenges experienced by regulatory agencies as well ‘on the ground” issues experienced by various groups of stakeholders affected by the natural resource and regulations. A number of issues have been discussed that are relevant to my research study, including wicked nature of water resources, and the complexity of its interaction with other natural resources and ecosystems. Interaction between water resources and humans remained an important topic for discussions that ranged from human access and competition over the essential goods and services produced by ecosystems to devastating impacts water can have on human systems due to past and present human or natural perturbations. On many occasions regulators and stakeholders emphasized a need for adaptive management and more holistic approaches to climate adaptation that would account for complexity of natural and social systems as well as climate change impacts. Studies and discussions have been carried out that indicated the importance of developing flexible and inclusive institutional framework for decision-making as it relates to natural resources management and climate change adaptation. According to Schwandt (2003), everyone is a constructivist who believes that the mind plays an active role in the constructing of knowledge. Human mind invents concepts to explain the experience, but we also continuously test and modify those concepts in the light of the new experience (Schwandt 2003). During my life I had numerous opportunities to evidence the process 45 of constructing meanings by individuals and groups exposed to new experience or events. My personal experience can be described as a process of understanding its meaning through continuous interaction with other people within the social structures in which I have been placed, either as a result of assimilating in new cultures, learning foreign languages, experiencing career shifts or pursuing another graduate degree. Considering my life-long experience as a social constructivist that I bring to this study, I also believe that researcher’s self-reflectivity implies not only acknowledging his or her bias or absence thereof and its potential influence on research outcomes, but also reflecting how, when and why researcher’s position changes in the process of interaction with the studied world. My position has changed several times in the course of this study and this change was influenced by my experience working at OBWB and interacting with research participants and restoration practitioners. Being a part of OBWB and its work in the Okanagan improved my understanding of landowners’ struggle resulting from their interaction with the creek and regulatory system that influenced, both positively and negatively, their motivation to engage in restoration. My work in OBWB helped me understand challenges experienced by regulatory agencies, whose perspectives would be otherwise missing from the study. Regulatory and environmental pressures on agricultural and other communities are well understood and acknowledged by decision-makers in the Okanagan. A few mechanisms are already available to communities to improve their resilience and protect the environment, funding under Environmental Farm Program being one of those mechanisms. However, recent changes in regulatory system, such as changes in Federal Fisheries Act and adopting new B.C. Water Sustainability Act, has left government agencies adjusting to shifted jurisdiction over fisheries resources in the province and closing resulting gaps in responsibilities. As a result, largely under-staffed and under-resourced, provincial government has been struggling 46 to integrate efforts and resources across agencies in order to establish efficient institutions that would facilitate environmental stewardship and shared responsibility for natural resources. Thus, my involvement in the OBWB work has afforded me a unique opportunity to collect rich data that covered multiple perspectives in a broader context. On the other hand, this involvement allowed me to share the knowledge and lessons learned from Alderson Creek restoration project with the broader range of stakeholders that are willing and have a capacity to implement positive change. Finally, I had an opportunity to experience government decision-making process firsthand when I started working as a policy analyst with provincial government since April 2019. Working in government’s policy shop gave me an opportunity to understand how government decisions are driven by policy objectives. As a professional, involved in policy-making, I witness in my day-to-day work the challenge of balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders with a need to protect public safety and environment. I believe that my personal, academic and professional experience has shaped my understanding of my study world, a conflicting nature of relationships between regulators and resource users, and potential ways to reconcile those conflicts. Even though I made an effort to remain objective, my personal and professional experience, however, has also influenced the way I analyzed and interpreted my research data. 47 Chapter 4: Study site and restoration project 4.1 Study site The study site is located near the Township of Spalumcheen in the south-central interior of British Columbia. Alderson Creek, part of the Fortune Creek Watershed (Figure 2), is a small stream, with a reach of approximately 2.4 km length included in the study. Fortune Creek drains through a canyon with steep gradient before flowing on to the broad alluvial fan that covers the main valley. Arising from groundwater emanating from beneath a small housing subdivision, Alderson creek runs in a northerly direction. Figure 2 illustrates the alluvial fan complex upon which Alderson Creek flows. An alluvial fan is a triangle-shaped deposit of gravel, sand, and even smaller pieces of sediment, such as silt. This sediment is called alluvium. Alluvial fans are usually created over thousands of years as flowing water interacts with mountains, hills, or the steep walls of canyons. As a consequence, the hydrogeology is extremely complex. There are numerous zones where flowing surface water infiltrates into the substrate, often drying up the stream completely, and then re-surface somewhere else as a spring or marshy area. Alderson Creek appears to be sourced from exactly such a process, where some of the water flowing in the Fortune Creek canyon infiltrates into the shallow gravel and sand substrate, migrates along the shallow aquifer system, and comes back to the surface immediately downslope of the small housing subdivision at the head of Alderson Creek (Bauer et al. 2018). Wet zones resulting from upwelling of shallow groundwater have been reported by landowners, and these water-logged areas pose significant challenges for animals, machinery, and crop production. 48 The creek and surrounding riparian area have been altered substantially to reduce the impact on agricultural activities, minimize the land area taken up by the creek and its banks and simplify the operation of farm equipment. At several locations a creek drains into culverts, which partial blockage is a recurring problem, often leading to flooding and water-logging upstream from culverts. In some places the creek channel has been straightened. In other places, removal of natural streamside vegetation has exposed the stream channel to direct sunshine, enabling plants Figure 2 Study site location. ©J. Janmaat, 2021. Used with permission. Data sources: RDNO (2021) and GeoBC (2021). 49 such as watercress to grow and fill the channel, slowing stream flow even further (Figure 3). The problem is exacerbated as creek passes through several private land parcels used primarily for the production of forage, livestock grazing, and poultry production with the resulting damage to stream banks structures and pollution. The channel bed is raising progressively due to watercress growth, enhanced sedimentation and erosion. Consequently, any precipitation event leads to overflowing, flooding and further water-logging (Bauer et al. 2018). As such, Alderson Creek and its complex hydrology cause a variety of issues on adjacent land parcels. Water-logged areas pose significant challenges to land management. Livestock is more prone to hoof rot and other diseases. Land that is perpetually wet often has limited capacity to produce profitable crops and tends to be quickly degraded if used for grazing. Wet swampy areas break up the landscape that reduces the accessibility by modern farm equipment. 50 Figure 3 Annual recurrence of instream aquatic vegetation growth (left); livestock access to creek (right) ©B. Bauer, 2016. Used with permission. In addition to challenges resulting from complex hydrogeology, changing climate in B.C. and resulting extreme weather events can lead to greater likelihood of agricultural fields being flooded or staying water-logged during the planting season, increased soil loss due to floods and stronger wind storms, greater heat stress on livestock and crops during the growing and harvesting seasons, greater risk of wildfires, increased incidence of infectious disease among livestock, as well as greater need for irrigation water and more upland storage, all of which will lead to the likelihood of increased costs of agricultural practice (Bauer et al. 2018; Pinna Sustainability 2020). The local area consists mainly of agricultural parcels, with a small residential subdivision upstream of the study reach. Farmland along both Alderson and Kendry creeks is used for growing hay, tree fruits, vegetables, raising livestock, and chicken farming. For most residents farming does 51 not constitute the primary source of income. Table 2 summarizes some demographic variables. While not identical – Kendry Creek residents are somewhat younger and more educated – the lack of extreme differences together with the spatial proximity is taken to be sufficient to make Kendry Creek residents a useful comparison group. These groups are referred to as the Alderson group and the Kendry group. Table 2. Select demographics for Alderson group and Kendry group. Alderson Group Kendry Group Age range 35-65 31-53 University degree 2/6 4/6 Land providing ≥50% income 0/6 1/6 Years living here 1-45 1-53 4.2 The restoration project This restoration project was initiated following years of landowner challenges with the creek. These included numerous failed attempts to reduce flooding impacts, and the threat of an enforcement action for the illegal removal of sediments. At the time of this research, the Alderson group had formed the Alderson Creek Rehabilitation Environmental Society and prepared an Environmental Farm Group Plan. Such group plans were a new initiative under the provincial Environmental Farm Plan program at the time (BC Agricultural Research and Development Corporation 2010). This initiative implicitly recognized that ecological services are not naturally confined by property boundaries, and ecological objectives could be more effectively achieved by coordinating activities on nearby parcels. Completion of the plan enabled the landowners to apply 52 for government funding to assist with undertaking the works set out in the plan. The project works include: 1. Stream bank stabilization to reduce erosion, 2. Fencing to exclude livestock from a riparian buffer, 3. Planting native vegetation, 4. Constructing low impact stream crossings, 5. Installing off stream livestock watering, 6. Installing tile drainage in water affected lands near the stream. Understanding that climate change might affect agricultural producers whose economic well-being depends on climate conditions and its effects on land and water resources, various agencies in BC engaged in developing tools and resources to enhance the ability of the BC agriculture to adapt to climate change. The BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative (CAI), for example, has been providing strategic guidance for BC agriculture’s climate change adaptation programming. The projects initiated under CAI include research, outreach and capacity building. The current research study was funded and implemented with the financial support from one of the CAI programs, Farm Adaptation Innovator Program (FAIP). In addition to academic research, the project included development of educational materials and implementation of workshops to share the results and foster knowledge mobilization. Apart from the programs administered by BC Agriculture and Food, other organizations, including professional agricultural groups, have been actively collaborating building their resilience and adaptation capacity. Up until 2012 any works that could potentially affect riparian ecosystems, freshwater habitat or any other bodies of water were subject to assessment and approval by DFO - federal agency 53 mandated with protection and managing national fisheries, oceans and freshwater resources, under the federal Fisheries Act. Development applications around the riparian zone were looked into by regional DFO agencies that undertook assessment to determine whether proposed development could potentially cause any harm to riparian ecosystems. Based on the result of assessment, DFO had power to prevent development or request preventive measures. Provincial and local governments would consider DFO recommendations while authorizing the use of natural resources or issuing permits regulating development and other activities. Once permits were issued, implementation of proposals related to ecological remediation or restoration was often delegated to local environmental practitioners, who maintained quasi-formal working relationships with DFO regional officers. In 2012 the federal government undertook several changes to the Fisheries Act, which spurred concerns over DFO’s legal capacity to protect freshwater and other riparian ecosystems from damage caused from development and other activities on private and public lands. As a result, provincial governments were urged to devise alternative legal and enforcement mechanisms to protect provincial freshwaters and riparian ecosystems from the adverse impacts of development. In British Columbia, responsibility to protect riparian ecosystems was passed on to the Ministry of Forests, Land, Natural Resources and Rural Development (FLNRORD) – an agency responsible for administration of the new Water Sustainability Act (WSA 2015) and regulations. In particular, any instream works, including restoration works, are subject to change approval (WSA 2015, Works in and around the stream) that is written authorization to make complex changes in and about a stream. For change approval to be issued, the applicant has to demonstrate that changes will have no or minimal impact on the environment or third parties. Other conditions attached to such authorization envisage measures that protect the aquatic ecosystems, the hydraulic integrity 54 of the scream channel and the rights of water users and landowners downstream. All applications are submitted through the FrontCounter BC – a window service for clients of provincial natural resource ministries and agencies, reviewed by water managers from FLNRORD and other relevant provincial and federal agencies. The process is completely anonymous, wherein applicants are unaware of who is processing their application. FLNRORD natural resources licensing department has regional representation at several geographic locations and applications are being presumably processed at a location that is in immediate proximity to the affected area. FrontCounterBC is responsible for guiding customers through required permitting and licensing procedures, liaising between ministries, agencies and governments, and following up the status of filed applications. Notifications and third-party assessments are typically used to ensure that all potentially affected parties are notified of proposed works and due diligence has been exercised to avoid any adverse effects. In order to launch a riparian restoration project, Alderson Group landowners had to undergo the approval process described above. Earlier in 2015, when the ACRES was just founded and the GEFP application was submitted and approved, landowners had had greater support from the DFO, who contributed to planning the restoration project. However, the DFO support and participation neither guaranteed the approval of the restoration works, nor sped up approval. 55 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion 5.1 Perceptions about climate change and environmental attitudes The discussion in this section is based on the results of the paper survey. The results of the survey are summarized in Appendix E(1) – Survey Results: Perceptions about Climate Change and Appendix E(2) – Survey Results: Environmental Attitudes. In the beginning of the study I examined whether the Alderson Group’s decision to participate in the restoration project was motivated by a need to adapt to a changing climate, or landowners’ ecological knowledge and environmental attitudes. This question was answered by looking at the results of the paper survey, with some insights taken from analyzing interview transcripts. The survey’s first part, dealing with climate change knowledge and adaptation approaches, was measured by looking at the distribution of responses between ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree” using a scale of 1 to 5. The climate change perception questions are divided into a set of five capturing a broad awareness about climate change, a further six capturing an awareness of and/or experience of local climate change impacts and projections, and one statement (12) measuring support for ecologically minded land management (see Appendix E(1) – Survey Results: Perceptions about Climate Change). 56 Figure 4 Initial survey results – perceptions about climate change. Figure 4 report level of agreement with statements about climate change. Statements 1 – 5 describe possible global changes and impacts, while statements 6 – 11 capture describe possible local changes and impacts. Item 12 captures preference for ecologically sensitive land management. For the first five items, variation within and between groups is low. People along each stream reach hold similar opinions, and those opinions are similar across the reaches. With respect to global changes, respondents tend to agree that climate change is happening. The following six items are more closely related to climate change impacts that may directly affect landowners, such 57 as changes in day-to-day local weather conditions or seasonal precipitation. The median respondent in both groups expects a different future weather normal. However, there is large variation in how respondents within both groups see this impacting their land. The total number of responses is well below the threshold generally considered appropriate for assuming normality in statistical tests. A Wilcoxon test was applied to understand if the differences observed in the data reflected ‘real’ differences in a population that this sample might represent. Applying a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the responses for each item, only question 10 showed a significant difference between the groups (𝑊 = 31.0, 𝑃 = 0.0394 for all responses and 𝑊 = 15.0, 𝑃 = 0.0515 with neutral dropped). Question ten offered to agree or disagree with the statement that “the impacts of global warming with respect to average annual temperature are likely to be felt differently in different areas of the globe. In other words, some regions will become much hotter whereas others may only warm a little bit.” This variation may be partly due to differences in the specific context of the responder and their land. Some reflects differences in perspectives of how climate change will manifest itself locally. In their verbal reflections many participants shared their observations, which they regarded as consistent with natural cyclical climatic changes inherent to this part of British Columbia. Both groups reported the following observations: - Higher summer temperatures - Extreme snowfalls in winter (in 24 hours) but less snow cover throughout the winter season - Shorter / warmer winters - Early snowmelt - Crop losses in summer due to drought / water restrictions - Increased incidence of flooding on the field (Alderson group only) 58 Even though most respondents do not associate these observations with climate change, observations are reflective of climate forecasts for the region. The Fortune Creek watershed is in the northern portion of the Okanagan Valley. Based on the Köppen-Geiger climate classification system (Peel, Finlayson, and McMahon 2007), the valley bottom in the southern portion of the valley is classified as warm summer, Mediterranean (Csb), with the higher elevation sides and northern portions of the valley classified as warm summer humid continental (Dfb). This climate has warm, but not hot, summers and long, cold and severe winters (Ahrens and Henson 2015). Figure 5 plots several climate measures for the Vernon North climate station (latitude 50.34, longitude -119.27) (Environment Canada 2021), approximately 15 kilometers southwest of the center of the study site. The temperature and precipitation levels are clearly consistent with the classification: average summer temperatures below 20 C and above 10 C for at least four months, and average for the coldest winter month below -3 C, and without a distinct dry season. The figure plots average daily maxima and minima, with the average temperature falling about midway between these. 59 Figure 5 Climate measures for the Vernon North climate station The trends are consistent with climate change projections for the area. Minima and maxima are increasing in both seasons, although more pronounced for summer temperatures. Winter precipitation is trending upwards, while summer precipitation is trending down. Consequently, a summer moisture deficit trend, calculated with the ClimClass package (Eccel et al. 2016) in R (R Core Team, 2020), suggests an almost doubling of the average summer moisture deficit. These seasonal averages show considerable variation over the plotted history, and in most cases the trend lines are not statistically significant. Further, hourly data was not available for this station. Therefore, trends in extremes, particularly precipitation extremes, are not reported. 60 It is therefore possible that landowner perceptions of climate change are shaped by a combination of knowledge about these long-term trends together with personal experience of weather events that are salient enough to be retained. Climate projections forecast that winter precipitation will increase (Pinna Sustainability 2020). The summer moisture deficit is expected to increase. The difference in responses to this item suggest that the Kendry group is more aware of the climate change projections of the Okanagan, and perhaps less inclined to have recent, memorable extremes that drive perceptions of longer-term trends. When asked about sources of information about climate change, both groups referred to mass media, such as TV programs, news and popular social media portals for sources about changes globally. Landowners in both groups pointed out the abundance of information about climate change globally. However, landowners had no recollection of any consistent flow of information about climate change and potential vulnerabilities of local agricultural communities. The difference in perceptions about local impacts can be also explained by the lack of locally provided consistent and easy-to-understand information. Lacking that consistent supply of reliable local information, landowners draw their own conclusions about local climate trends that are largely influenced by their personal experience. The second part of the survey that aimed to measure landowners’ environmental attitudes was conducted using a standard survey questionnaire referred as a New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale. The questionnaire consists of 15 items, eight of which are pro-trait (favouring) and seven are con-trait (disfavouring) the environment. Although many factors, including sample size and composition affects the score, in general, the agreement with the eight pro-trait and disagreement with con-trait, indicate respondents’ pro-environmental attitudes (Hawcroft et al 2010). 61 Appendix E(2) – Survey Results: Environmental Attitudes summarizes the results of NEP survey obtained from analyzing the responses in both groups. Figure 6 report responses to the New Ecological Paradigm items (Dunlap 2000), arranged to reflect agreement with the eco-centric paradigm. Individual responses for each question are marked by points, median values by triangles, with the larger triangles inclusive of the “Neither Agree nor Disagree” category, and smaller triangles median values without including these responses. Lines connect median indicators for the two groups, for the same item. Responses to the NEP items are ordered so that agreement always aligns with the eco-centric paradigm. Most respondents in both groups agree or strongly agree with the items in the NEP scale, thereby describing themselves as aligning with the more eco-centric paradigm. A Wilcoxon test showed no significant difference between the two groups. Visually, median responses to items 6 and 11 stand out as more different between the groups than those for the other items, although within both groups there is considerable heterogeneity. Items 1, 6 and 11 measure the ‘limits to growth’ dimension of the NEP (for the item wording, see R. E. Dunlap et al. 2000). The difference observed may reflect the somewhat older and lower educational attainment of the Alderson group. Kendry group members Figure 6 Initial survey results – NEP 62 are more likely to have had an education emphasizing the limited capacities of the planet to support humans. The overall similarity of environmental attitudes between the groups suggests these attitudes did not factor prominently in motivating the Alderson group to initiate a restoration project. Other motivators that differ between the two stream reaches, which directly impact Alderson group members, likely played a more important role (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982). Above differences and similarities in responses were further compared against responses to open –ended questions garnering information about current and recent on-farm management practices. When asked about recent improvements in farm management or infrastructure and reasons for those improvements, no landowner regarded the described activities as an adaptive action in anticipation of future climate-related impacts. Most of the activities listed below were undertaken either as a part of routine farm management practice or in response to conditions or events not directly related to climate change adaptation. Practices included: • Improving irrigation technologies and securing more water, • Diversifying crops and herd sizes, land fallowing, changes in planting and harvesting times, • Improving soil fertility • Resolving drainage problems (Alderson Creek) • Purchasing proper firefighting equipment At a later stage, during the interviews participants were specifically requested to share their understanding of climate adaptation approaches. When elaborating about potential adaptation approaches, respondents in both groups emphasized the importance of sound infrastructure solutions and application of appropriate on-farm management practices. The on-farm management 63 practices were very similar to practices described by respondents in their survey responses. In addition, respondents pointed out a need for better maintenance of culverts and resented township’s inability to do their part maintaining the infrastructure. In general, these finding are consistent with the literature on climate change adaptation, wherein adapting communities rely on combination of adaptation approaches that are available to them (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Rosenzweig et al 2001; Smit and Skinner 2002; Howden et al. 2007). Various practices, such as improving irrigation infrastructure, switching crops, adopting innovative resource management solutions and enhancing ecological resiliency of agricultural and adjacent lands, might be available to agricultural communities to help reduce their vulnerability to climatic change and variability and mitigate social and economic shocks. Study results also suggest that the initial motivations for participation by the Alderson group members were not triggered by climate change concerns. While recognizing that climate change was happening, there was no strong commonly held perception that it would impact them directly. This is consistent with other work findings that local observations and scientific evidence are not necessarily driving farm management decisions, particularly if this knowledge conflicts with local stakeholder beliefs (Raymond et al. 2010; Rhoads et al. 1999). Probing beyond the survey questions revealed that landowners’ concerns vary based on the impacts along their particular reach. The Alderson group was mostly concerned about flooding and consequent challenges for farming their land. The Kendry group’s concerns emphasized water availability, wildfire and pest risks. Individual adaptation actions reflected these context specific concerns. Alderson group actions aimed to improve drainage and reduce flooding impacts. Kendry group actions related to conserving water, managing water quality, and enhancing soil fertility. 64 Actions being taken by people along both reaches appeared to be motivated by immediate concerns, be those biophysical (drainage issues, a need to improve soil fertility or protect themselves from wildfire) or socioeconomic (regulations). Previous work has also shown that farmers address first those things that are most limiting (Niles et al. 2015), and that farmers are continually responding to changing economic and climatic conditions, especially where the climate variability is high (Smit and Skinner 2002). Adaptation is reactive, reflective of a local context, based mainly on experiential knowledge, and limited to addressing factors that limit their ability to operate their farmland. Study findings are also consistent with the literature positing that adaptation decisions are rarely made in response to climate stimuli or one risk and/or opportunity alone or in isolation from other decisions (Smit and Skinner 2002; Adger et al. 2005). Understanding agricultural adaptation response also requires considering non-climatic conditions, such as social, economic, political and institutional, that can exacerbate climate risks and/or affect sector willingness to adopt certain adaptation strategies (Bryant et al. 2000; Smit and Skinner 2002; Climate Action Initiative 2016b). Providing communities with appropriate information about climate impacts is necessary to identify accurately the impacts and vulnerability as well as the most effective coping mechanisms to address these vulnerabilities (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Howden et al. 2007). Understanding and providing for information needs is also important for stimulating the uptake of the most relevant adaptation practices (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Vignola et al. 2015). 5.2 Alderson Group riparian restoration collective action Collaboration occurs when two or more people engage in an action to achieve a collective good or eliminate a collective bad (Ostrom 1990). In this case various forms of social capital work 65 together to breed cooperation among individuals in the group that chose to engage in collaborative initiative. Social capital includes effective social networks and relationships that lubricate a wheel of interaction among individuals, thus enabling their cooperation for mutual advantage (Adger 2003). Furthermore, collaboration in given community is believed to be effective in the presence of a compatible common interest shared by the members of community (Ostrom 2007). Using the data collected during interviews, both study groups were investigated to understand the role that social capital and formal and informal networks played in motivating or discouraging the riparian restoration collective action. Interview data also provided enough information to determine whether compatibility of concerns shared by all participants in the restoration effort factored into initiating the collaborative riparian restoration action. 5.2.1 Interview results In grounded theory, analysis begins with the initial data collection and continues throughout the entire research process. Using this approach allows researcher to identify concepts, generate questions to clarify those concepts/theories, then return to the field to collect additional data, a process referred as theoretical sampling (Charmaz 2006). As research proceeds, the researcher narrows the interview questions, focusing them increasingly to address analytic questions while moving to another stage of conceptualization in the process of developing his/her theoretical framework (Charmaz 2006; 2012). Constructivists view theorizing as a process of breaking down data into units of meaning in order to find commonalities and differences while being alert to conditions under which these differences and similarities arise (Charmaz 2006). Only initial coding for this study was performed using RQDA – R package for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. Even though a use of software played an important role assisting 66 with sorting, marking up and reorganizing the initial large amount of data, the actual coding and analysis were performed manually to accommodate grounded approach to categorizing and analyzing the data (Basit 2003). As a result, the initial coding produced 470 codes for Alderson Creek group and 242 codes for Kendry Creek group. After sorting out the initial codes I conducted focused coding and grouped initial codes into coding families that fell into five broader categories (Table 3), consistent with research questions and objectives. 67 Table 3 Coding families developed from interview data Category Code family (subcategory) Content Climate change and adaptation Climate change outlining knowledge about climate change and observations on local scale, information flow among landowners and beyond, knowledge or observations as possible motivation for collective action Climate change adaptation outlining information about adapting strategies and / or knowledge Information sources source of knowledge and information Knowledge about ecosystems and ecosystems services Healthy stream perceptions about healthy stream and healthy aquatic ecosystems Experience living by the stream outlining landowners’ perceptions about advantages and disadvantages of having a stream on their land Factors affecting stream health based on landowners’ experience and perceptions Social context Demographics source of income, farming type, residency period Attitudes Environmental attitudes Relationships and networking relationships with neighbours and external agencies, support and reciprocity, social capital Social environment social dynamics around Alderson Creek collective action issue Restoration project Motivation for collective action motivation to work as a group as opposed to individual effort and conditions factoring into collective action Planning understanding project purpose and scope Common interest or a mix of interests Individual motives and interests to participate in the project Change in motivation effect from experience participating in restoration Expectations expectations as perceived by participating landowners Institutional framework Regulatory context Perceptions about regulations and enforcement affecting restoration Facilitation funding, expert support, role of government Communication channels Move of information and feedback In the next step I undertook a focused coding in which I integrated most significant codes into broader concepts. Considering the large number of codes, I decided to define and focus the 68 most relevant ones, followed the method recommended by Charmaz and re-visited initial codes to see if they offer any insights or sparkle new ideas (Charmaz 2006). I sorted out my data to focus further study on relevant ideas emerged as a result of my interaction with data. Refining data and codes at all levels of analysis is performed by means of constant comparison, in which data is compared with data, data with codes, codes with codes and codes with more abstract categories (Charmaz 2006). Comparison is conducted to sort similarities and differences within a single interview, between interviews within the Alderson Group, and with interviews from the Kendry Group (Boeije 2002). 5.2.2 Resource-dependency It is a general perception that resource-dependent communities, such as agricultural communities, need to exercise greater care in managing their natural resource base (Rosenberg and Margerum 2008). All but one landowner in both groups had other sources of income but chose to engage in farming for various reasons. Receiving substantial tax breaks for a portion of landholdings occupied by farming activities was named as one of the reasons for engaging in farming. Other reasons included enjoyment of farming as a hobby, and emotional satisfaction from growing food or breeding animals. In some cases, income generated from farming was not sufficient to cover the costs of farming and one participant even confessed he had to re-invest earnings from other sources to support his farming activities. Slightly greater emotional dependence on farming was observed among older longer-term residents from Alderson Group. All landowners, for whom farming did not constitute a primary source of income, cared for their land base for various reasons. This included maintaining land’s recreational value, hobby farming, and growing their own food or forage for their cattle. Furthermore, landowners affected by 69 flooding and waterlogging resulting from creek proximity, experienced higher costs of farming due to occasional crop and animal losses. 5.2.3 Specific experience living by the stream Data was further analyzed to investigate specific experience by both groups living and farming by the creek. Both groups demonstrated an excellent knowledge of social and individual benefits associated with healthy riparian ecosystems (Table 4). Benefits articulated by the landowners included healthy habitat for fish, recreational and educational values, and better water quality. Both groups acknowledged anthropogenic impacts on riparian ecosystems and recognized the past and present negative effects from farming. Decades of unsustainable development in riparian areas, forestry operation upstream from landholdings, intensive grazing, vegetation clearing, and channel-straightening left both systems largely modified and substantially damaged. Culverted areas that were often clogged created barriers for fish, whereas open areas were either choked with watercress or water moved too fast for fish to pass safely. 70 Table 4 Concepts related to participants’ experience and knowledge in both groups. Alderson group Kendry group Ecosystem knowledge and experience living by the stream Healthy creeks look natural and have fish; Healthy creeks have educational and recreational value; Watercress choking creek, causing flooding; Cattle in the stream causing bank erosion; Trying to resolve drainage issues and keep the creek clean; Blaming development upstream for further degradation; Township does not take care of its culverts Respecting environment; Good practices result from experience; Unaware of what riparian practices are illegal Healthy creeks look natural and have fish; Farmers care for ecosystems they depend on; Farming and environment can conflict; Health riparian systems benefit humans; Creek modified by farming and development; Degraded creek not a suitable fish habitat; Enjoying living by the creek; No direct negative impact from creek; No residential development along the creek, only farms; Respecting environment; Being too pro-environmental will alert other landowners Social context – demographics Mixed land use; Income other than farming; Short-to-long term residents Mixed land use; Income from other sources; Short-to long term residents Relationships with neighbours and networks Resentful of larger agricultural operations; Reciprocal relationships; Connected by ACRES; Rapidly changing social environment; Growing residential development upstream Reciprocal relationships; Connected by irrigation district; Rapidly changing social environment; Growing number of land parcels There was a relative consensus among all landowners in both groups regarding ecological and social implications from streams degradation, such as loss of fish habitat and possible cumulative effects at a watershed level. However, opinions and experience largely differed across groups with regard to stream impacts on residents, their land use and enjoyment from farming activities. Having a creak running through their land was perceived as generally positive experience by the residents from Kendry Group, who in addition to using it as a water source, enjoyed its recreational values. On contrast, creek was regarded as “nothing but a problem” by landowners in Alderson Group. Waterlogging, loss of productive land, loss of animals to drowning 71 and disease, inability to operate farm equipment and other ongoing issues were described by landowners from the Alderson Group. Furthermore, one landowner faced charges for unauthorised stream work while using an excavator to remove watercress clogging the waterway. Participants from both groups emphasized the importance of protecting and restoring natural ecosystems. All agreed that action needed to improve the health of riparian ecosystems in both creeks. Participants in both groups appeared to be well-informed about common practices used to protect streams from adverse impacts resulting from adjacent land uses. Participants from both groups mentioned the possibility of implementing various remediation activities, such as re-vegetation, improving stream channel, improving farming practices, limiting cattle access and fencing. Residents mentioned a mix of environmental and other benefits from such practices, including improved drainage conditions, better regulatory compliance, enhanced habitat and creek aesthetics. Improving drainage conditions while complying with environmental regulations seemed to be an immediate and pressing need for some landowners in Alderson Group. Widespread degradation of stream channel and riparian zone have substantially limited landowners ability to utilize their land for farming. At the same time, only one resident from Kendry Group reported a minor nuisance, such as manure along the stream bank, and thought that addressing this issue might be worth considering at some point. This part of the study has largely confirmed what was already known from the literature. Resolving an issue of environmental degradation alone is unlikely to trigger landowners interest to implementing restoration and adopting conservation practices (Rosenberg and Margerum 2008). Ostrom (1998) describes that adaptation can emerge as a response to undesirable environmental change when environmental degradation induces greater social vulnerability by a majority of 72 community members. Results of this study indicate that such actions may take the form of ecological restoration. Once convinced that improving ecosystems health would reduce their perceived vulnerability, affected landowners were more likely to engage in restoration initiative. The differences between the two groups and the actions taken are consistent with these insights. Despite recognizing benefits, the Kendry Group that experienced no direct impact from degraded riparian did not face an immediate need for restoration action. On contrary, Alderson Group chose to engage in restoration action because of direct and substantial negative impact some landowners along the creek experienced as a result of riparian ecosystem degradation. Threat of an enforcement action against of one of the landowners for illegal creek excavation served as a catalyst for initiating the action. 5.2.4 Social environment and networks To understand the dynamics of social interaction in both study groups and its potential impact on motivations to engage in collaborative environmental initiatives, landowners were requested to describe their relationships with neighbours, formal and informal communication channels for exchanging information and knowledge, and their means for conflict-resolution. The analysis of the interview data reveals the existence of both formal and informal network connections among people in both study groups. Landowners in both sub-basins seem to know their neighbours, communicate with them on a regular basis and provide assistance whenever needed. Borrowing equipment, in-kind exchanges of farming products, helping in time of crisis seem to be common practices in both neighborhoods. These findings revealed a strong presence of a bonding social capital described by Adger (2003) as relationships among members, which are built on reciprocity and mutual support. Bonding social capital is based on locality and relates to 73 ties formed within a defined socio-economic group. This form of social capital refers to institutions that are often embedded in the cultures in which they emerge, e.g., community of farming neighbours. Bound by bonding social capital groups or communities can help each other in times of crisis and act together to overcome common problems. The nature of formal networks was slightly different. Landowners in Alderson Creek were connected through ACRES, whereas residents in Kendry Creek are connected through inclusion in their irrigation district administrative activities. All residents from Kendry Group rely on the creek for their irrigation water supply and, therefore their regular interaction is facilitated by irrigation district manager. On contrast, landowners in Alderson Group never use creek water for irrigation but established the society for coordinating the restoration works. Restoration planning and coordination was implemented through continuous interaction between landowners and environmental practitioners who were involved throughout the process. It appears that social capital and associated formal networks along both creeks were established with the purpose to either effectively manage the use of the creek, or to averse the crisis caused by the creek. Regardless of the purpose, formal networks were built to exchange information, provide help and support and develop long-term obligations among participants (Coleman 1994; Pretty and Ward 2001; Adger 2003). Despite some obvious difference in the nature of utility derived from the creek by these two groups of landowners, geographic connectivity along the creek was apparent in both cases. Both groups showed strong connectivity along geographic boundaries created by Alderson and Kendry creeks. Formal networks and collaborative action have been established for solving creek-related existing or potential issues in both groups. The connecting nature of geographic features, 74 such as creeks, was discussed by Wandersman (1981). Ecosystems management or restoration activities often follow ecological or geographical boundaries, within which impacted communities or individuals are situated and interact. Communities are connected by the natural resource and, therefore, people in these communities are more likely to engage in collective action if this action is critical for effective resource management or mitigating its impact on affected communities. Understanding that social capital and formal networks can develop within the boundaries of the natural resource has an important implication for motivating community participation in riparian restoration participants. It is particularly relevant where group’s needs associated with the riparian ecosystems can be satisfied by means of restoration, as is in the example of Alderson Creek restoration initiative. 5.2.5 A common interest or the suite of interests leading to restoration This study confirm that specific experience has indeed factored into Alderson Group’s decision to initiate the riparian restoration project (Table 5). Responses from both groups have more or less resembled findings already revealed through previous studies related to collective action in the context of environmental management and ecological restoration. Namely, respondents agreed that common interests and issues, such as damage from flooding, can trigger collective action, whereas differences might hinder or compromise an effort. Facilitation and financial support by government agency was found of crucial importance to initiating and sustaining the action. They also suggested that collective action is likely to be successful in the communities, such as farming, where members depend on each other’s support. When asked about possibility of initiating the restoration project on Kendry Creek, landowners agreed that although ecosystems and the society at large might benefit from such action, there is currently no pressing private (among landowners) need for restoration. This experience in quite an opposite to 75 landowners in Alderson Group, where landowners pointed out numerous negative impacts some of them had been experiencing over the past decade. Table 5 Concepts related to factors that influenced participation in group restoration project for Alderson group, and analogous factors for Kendry group. Alderson Group Kendry Group Working as a group Working together to resolve creek issues; Advice from enforcement agency to hire restoration practitioners (RP); Inspired by successful restoration projects presented by RPs; Both riparian landowners and regulators want a healthy creek; Landowners have been in this problem together; Common issues trigger and different interests hinder collaboration; Farmers cooperate if they depend on each other; Government agency should be facilitating; Satisfactory creek management by the irrigation district Motivation, costs and benefits Experiencing drainage problems; Existing coping methods conflict with regulations; Restoration as an environmental compliance; Improved drainage, recreation, education, fisheries, positive image Restoring habitat takes time and effort; Passive restoration might work as well; Recreational and fisheries benefits could be enhanced; Potentially high costs Subject to funding availability Interview and survey data was further analyzed to investigate additional motives to participate in the restoration project by the Alderson Group. It turned out that apart from negative impacts from the creek and unsuccessful attempts to mitigate them, there were number of additional motives to participate in restoration. This finding suggested that even though group’s common goal was to restore the creek, individuals in this small group of participants pursued different interests that factored into their decision to invest their time, labour and cash into the initiative. In order to elucidate the individual benefits from participating in this collaborative action, participants from Alderson Creek were asked to elaborate more about the reasons they chose to 76 participate and the interests they pursued. On individual scale the rationale for being included into the collaborative restoration project included: - Resolving drainage issues on individual land; - Avoid enforcement action for illegal creek excavation; - Increase crop yield / productive land; - Secure safe access to water for cattle; - Resolve possible flooding issues in the future as creek hydrology changes all the time; - Take advantage of funding availability; - Be good neighbours and support others in time of need; - Improve aesthetics and enhance creek’s educational value; - Demonstrate compliance with environmental regulations. Motives similar to both groups included a need for restoration action to reverse damage to a farmland, availability of funding and facilitation, and mutual support in time of need. These were rather consistent with Ostrom (1990) that collective action occurs when people engage in an action to eliminate a collective bad, such as riparian degradation with the potential widespread damage at a watershed level. Similarly, availability of funding is believed to be critical for fostering participation and cooperation. However, as it can be seen in an example of Kendry Group, riparian degradation, not affecting riparian landowners directly but causing economic and social damage in a broader geographical context, would not spark an interest in riparian restoration even if funding is available to offset the costs. Not surprisingly, a list of motives to engage in restoration by Alderson Group, which experienced actual impacts from the damaged ecosystem, substantially exceeded a list of potential motives provided by the Kendry Group. Alderson Creek is characterized by the complex hydrology and the root causes of drainage problems extend beyond land parcels of most affected 77 individuals. Impacts from drainage issues are distributed unevenly among landowners, with some lands flooded more while other experienced little or no drainage issues. Any attempts by affected individuals to manage the problem on their land might fail unless specific remediation measures are taken on neighboring lands. Individual landowners experiencing no impact have no legal obligation to undertake works that would help remediate drainage problems on their neighbour’s land. Moreover, even though funding was available to partially reimburse the costs, the restoration practice required substantial investments and time-commitment on behalf of the landowners yielding little to no direct short-term benefits from participation. Out of six landowners participating in the initiative, only three were directly impacted by flooding and waterlogging, and suffered from land and animal loss. Other landowners chose to participate either to support neighbours, or to take an advantage from funding to prevent problems from happening in the future while buildings. Furthermore, all six landowners in Alderson Group explained that participation was also driven by the opportunity to demonstrate environmental stewardship and claim GEFP designation on completion of restoration. Several conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First of all, findings suggest that even though group’s common goal was to restore the creek, individuals in this relatively homogenous and small group of participants pursued different interests that factored into their decision to invest into the collective initiative. This finding is potentially important when there is a need to motivate more landowners to participate by leading them into identifying a variety of unsatisfied needs that can be achieved by participating in the restoration. It is particularly important when larger number of participants need to be involved in the restoration project to achieve greater public benefits, for which public funding is allocated. 78 5.2.6 Role of formal institutional framework The informal and formal networks established by the Alderson and Kendry Groups do not exist in isolation from larger formal institutions that govern the use of the natural resources in Canada. State is often assumed to provide an institutional framework for regulating the relationships between individuals and agents (Ostrom 1990; Adger 2003; Vignola et al. 2015). Formal institutions play a vital role in leveraging positive interaction by individuals and groups with institutional agents. According to Woolcock and Narayan (2000) and Ostrom (1998) the ability of groups and individuals to pursue their collective interests often depends on availability and quality of the formal institutions under which this collective action takes place. This study attempted to investigate the opportunities and barriers resulting from existing formal institutional framework surrounding the restoration initiative by agricultural communities (Table 6). The elements of institutional framework explored during the interviews included regulations and enforcement capacity, project authorization process, facilitation, and availability and access to funding. 79 Table 6 Institutional framework Category Alderson Group Kendry Group Authorization and decision-making Changing enforcement procedure delays authorization Group application affects waiting time Varying nature of work at different parcels makes authorization process more complex; Pointing to conflicts in decision-making by different agencies; Claiming limited knowledge used by government agency; Emphasizing government duty to take care of public property; Claiming government prioritizing fish interests over farmers; Landowners assume decision-making takes place within the same government entity; Government inaction causes delays, discourages compliance and transparency Insufficient and untimely communication resulting in wrong expectations and disappointment; Lack of inter-agency communication and coordinated decision-making Facilitation and funding Empowering role of RP and DFO; Building trust with RP and DFO; Emphasizing the importance of funded program for encouraging and communicating the initiative Claiming no knowledge of programs enabling / funding restoration work; Concerned about distributional effect even if funding is available – conflicts are still possible Enforcement and environmental / riparian regulations) Claiming enforcement is inefficient in capturing illegal activity on most private lands; Claiming difficulties in keeping up with changing environmental regs; Enforcement action resulting from subdivision resident’s report to DFO Claiming enforcement is inefficient in capturing illegal activity; Relatively new regulations can have negative impact on farmers whose past practices were consistent with regs at that time; Probably enforcement issue in the past but not recently In general, both groups emphasized the regulatory burden on farming community from increasingly tightening environmental regulations that often conflict with regulations enabling destructive practices in the past. It also appeared that although environmental regulations could 80 influence landowners’ decision-making, difficulties to enforce regulations on private lands could affect compliance. It has been long established that apart from reaction to a perceived threat or crisis, a need to comply with tightening government regulations has been another common trigger for cooperation and formation of partnerships aimed at overcoming collective action problems in the context of environmental management (Rhoads et al. 1999; Lubell et al. 2002; Pretty and Ward 2001). Indeed, decision to participate in the restoration activity was partially driven by the threat of enforcement against one of the landowners from Alderson Group. However, strict regulations seldom have a positive effect on attitudes, and once regulations are no longer or weakly enforced, people are likely to return to old destructive practices (Pretty and Ward 2001). Landowners in both groups were well aware of enforcement difficulties and could engage in illegal practices whenever perceived costs of compliance were too high and the risk of enforcement limited. This finding suggested that participation in restoration activity is voluntary and cannot be effectively mandated by the government regulation. Rather, in the context of the Alderson Creek restoration initiative, the restoration action was enabled through facilitating intervention by the enforcement officers who introduced affected landowners to the restoration practitioners. Restoration practitioners convinced landowners of the restoration benefits and helped with planning and implementation. Thus, findings from this research provide yet another evidence that formal institutions striving to maximize the compliance with environmental regulations, can potentially play a vital facilitating role in leveraging positive interaction by individuals and groups with institutional agents (Adger 2003; Stringer et al. 2006). 5.2.7 Summary of findings and the rationale for focus group discussion Survey and interviews findings that were found critical to answering the research questions were combined into the following emerging conceptual framework. 81 Figure 7 Emerging conceptual framework Alderson Creek restoration project and climate change adaptation Landowners understand the meaning and climate change implications globally but seem to be uncertain and unsure about local implications and effects on their livelihoods Most landowners are interested in pragmatic solutions to immediate issues (e.g., poor drainage, adequate water supply, soil fertility) rather than long-term environmental planning or climate change adaptation (restoration as one of the solutions). Focused communication efforts (customized to highlight local vulnerabilities and solutions) can help raise awareness about climate change and the role of healthy ecosystems. Likewise, knowledge can improve through participation in restoration. Provision of environmental benefits alone may not trigger the restoration effort. However, when presented with options, landowners with pro-environmental attitudes might chose to engage in practices that yield environmental co-benefits, provided that benefits exceed costs. Motivations to restoration collective action Landowners are likely to engage in ecological restoration if there is a direct benefit to each of landowner from the restoration effort – benefits can vary in size and nature. Landowners will have to be convinced of such benefits. Shared natural resources (such as streams running through several adjacent farms) tend to connect people due to the interdependence of people and their environment Proper institutional support or “midnight pond” Regulatory controls can be essential for triggering action, but successful outcomes depend on good will, adequate resourcing, and possibility of enforcement. Potential for involvement and collaboration is greater if the process is facilitated by local (independent) restoration practitioners and / or government agencies who are fully engaged and knowledgeable. Creating a ‘fishbowl’ can motivate participation Potential for inter-agency government collaboration to establish a separate climate adaptation program to support riparian restoration on ag lands, educate farmers, and remove barriers. 82 Survey and interview data provided sufficient information to answer only partially research questions. Data gaps were identified in every component of the above framework. For example, a considerable delay in implementation of restoration work made it more difficult to understand the change in landowners’ knowledge about ecosystems’ role in climate change adaptation. Also, demonstrating environmental stewardship and claiming GEFP designation by the landowners from Alderson Group appeared to be conflicting with their previous statements that enforcing government regulations on private lands was challenging. That suggested the presence of unrevealed latent motivations to engage in restoration. Environmental regulations are made by the state to protect and maximize environmental benefits, as perceived by the public. In case of riparian restoration this includes flood and climate regulation, recreational values, and maintenance of suitable fish habitat. Understanding triggers to comply with regulations and specific circumstances enabling these triggers, is important for devising mechanisms for motivating greater number of landowners to enhance public benefits from natural resources intersecting their land parcels. Therefore, eliciting hidden motivations constructed by landowners connected by the stream and a nature of these connections was another question that needed further examination. And, finally, when reflecting on their ongoing experience implementing the restoration works, Alderson group complained about excessively bureaucratic process of obtaining permits necessary to initiate restoration works. However, data collected through interviews was insufficient to analyze in detail the barriers to implementation once the restoration project was planned and initiated. To close the gaps under all three thematic areas I organized a focus group discussion with only Alderson group participants and restoration practitioners that helped them plan and 83 implement the restoration works. A focus group was used to explore collectively constructed motives not explicitly articulated by means of a survey and interviews. It was also used to understand in more detail the regulatory and other institutional barriers to successful implementation of riparian restoration collective action. 5.3 Farming in a “Fishbowl”? 5.3.1 Focus group discussion - results Questions for focus group discussion were intended to stimulate a discussion that would yield additional data to fill the gaps related to a change in knowledge and motivations and help understand collectively constructed complex relationships, hidden motives, and decision-making process (Appendix D Focus Group Discussion – Guide). Restoration practitioners were invited to fill in gaps related to institutional framework and engage in project-related discussion with the landowners. Data obtained during focus group discussion were organized using RQDA to conduct initial coding with resulting 149 codes grouped under coding families as follows: 1. Climate change knowledge and adaptation practices – interaction with restoration practitioners, change in knowledge, new observations and adaptation practices; 2. Restoration collective action –advantages and disadvantages from landowners and RPs perspective; 3. Motivation – law enforcement vs “Fishbowl” 4. Ecosystem -based adaptation – knowledge building resulting from landowners and RPs/scientists interaction 5. Institutional framework – government position elaborated on by the RPs 6. Institutional framework formal – ACRES, RPs and different levels of government 7. Institutional framework informal – landowners and “Midnight pond” Focus group discussion took place two years after the interviews, including the Alderson group and restoration practitioners associated with the project. Participants were presented with 84 anonymized results from the survey and interviews, and were asked to reflect on their experience of involvement with project activities, interactions with group members and the restoration practitioners, and impacts of the restoration activities. Completed activities at this date included cattle-excluding fencing and channel naturalization and revegetation on some parts of the shared stream. The focus group was recorded and transcribed. Emerging themes resulting from focus group codes analysis are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Themes emerging from focus group discussion analysis. Climate change adaptation Infrastructure solutions might be ineffective and costly; Recognizing signs of climate change locally Restoration collective action Expected greater attention and support from public agencies; Restoring environment is everyone’s responsibility, incl. government; Varying scope of work on individual parcels equates longer authorization process; Getting everyone involved is critical but difficult Knowledge building resulting from landowners and RPs/scientists interaction Naturalized portions are drier; Hydrological change is a result of natural and anthropogenic perturbations; Riparian health is the only viable solution to current drainage problems Motivation – law enforcement vs “Fishbowl” Digging ditches as an act of “preserving their land”; “Preserving their land” is a common practice; Riparian alterations on private land are rarely detectable by regulators; Enforcement action was driven by subdivision resident report; “Living in a fishbowl” – Feeling “watched” by subdivision residents; Restoration as manifestation of group’s pro-environmental attitude Institutional barrier and opportunities Rapidly changing regulatory environment; Empowerment vs. strict enforcement; Remote government agency – limited local knowledge; “Midnight pond” as an undesirable alternative to restoration. 85 5.3.2 Knowledge resulting from restoration collective action Interaction between landowners and restoration practitioners took place ever since the inception of the restoration project in 2013, throughout its implementation, and during the focus group discussion in February 2018. Landowners, restoration practitioners and researchers from the University of British Columbia engaged in discussing the Alderson Group’s recent experience with the creek and their latest observations related to climate change. Other topics included contrasting scientific knowledge about riparian systems in given hydro-geological conditions with landowners’ observations and changes in creek hydrology resulting from restoration work. This discussion provided an opportunity to observe the process of knowledge construction in the context of riparian restoration. The resulting knowledge was reflective of landowners’ experience adapting to ever-changing creek hydrology, their recent climate observations as well as knowledge built as a result of interaction with restoration practitioners and an overall experience implementing creek restoration works. This focus group discussion, two years after the interviews, revealed how participation in the project had built knowledge. Working with the restoration practitioners helped them to better understand the processes taking place on their land, and how changes to the stream channel would change those processes. Planning the project was a cooperative activity involving the owners and restoration practitioners, and implementation required regular coordination between these same practitioners, any laborers, and the owners. Restoration practitioners took their time educating the landowners about weather variability and extreme events resulting from changing climate. Early in the project, before the works were in place, Alderson Group witnessed two consecutive years of flooding, which challenged their view that such events were part of natural variation. They observed the stream drying up and resurfacing at previously dry locations and described their 86 failing attempts to maintain proper drainage. The insights about the hydrology of alluvial fans provided by the restoration practitioners resonated with their own experience. Their experience, complemented by the professional expertise, lead to a realization that short-term solutions like clearing culvert blockages and excavating watercress from the channel is not a long-term, cost effective solution. Moreover, observing the functioning of the first restored stream segment further convinced the owners that this was the best approach. From a participant: “But let's go back a few years, we didn't know all this stuff. You (restoration practitioners) weren't around, you weren't around yet”. The discussion revealed a significant shift in Alderson Group’s knowledge as a result of participating in restoration collective action and, more notably, due to their continuous interaction with restoration practitioners. Their perception about local impact from climate change has changed and they acknowledged the benefits from riparian restoration as means to adapt to changing climate. Knowledge has proven to be critical to successful restoration and can be effectively gained through interaction and integration of multiple types of knowledge (Rydin and Pennington 2010). Therefore, interaction between scientists and local actors continues to be a critical component to the process of restoration planning. Knowledge sharing between local stakeholders and scientists benefits both as it facilitates better learning outcomes through continuous feedback between restoration participants. This type of knowledge is referred to as hybrid as it results from integration of local and scientific knowledge. It is generated in the process of interaction between participants as they observe changes in ecosystems resulting from restoration (Raymond et al. 2010). In the context of this study, the place-specific knowledge about climate change, adaptation 87 approaches and ecosystems was created by contrasting the scientific knowledge delivered by restoration practitioners with landowners’ past and evolving experience interacting with the surrounding environment and the stream. Similarly, for restoration practitioners, the interaction with the Alderson Group presented an opportunity to elicit locally specific experiential knowledge that might be applied to motivate participation in similar initiatives in the broader geographic context. 5.3.3 Hidden motivations to engage in riparian restoration collective action Discussion during focus group exercise revealed participation motives not clearly articulated during the interviews. The idea of a “Fishbowl” emerged clearly during the focus group recollection. Residents in the small subdivision upstream of the Alderson creek reach were in a position to watch how the farmland along the reach was managed. Several residents regarded agricultural practices in their neighborhood as a nuisance. Some Alderson group members suspect that one or more subdivision residents reported the illegal excavation, initiating the threatened enforcement action. The Alderson group viewed the restoration as demonstrating their environmental compliance, shielding them from future complaints and enforcement actions. As stated by one participant: “That was just an example, one example, but how many other people are working on the ... trying to preserve their farmland that you and I are not aware of because they're not in the fishbowl. They're up in an area where no one sees them”; “We live in a fishbowl…and as such are being watched…”. In contrast, the Kendry Group resided in a relatively homogenous social environment without outside observers. The Kendry group members were more inclined to feel watched by each other. For example, “… if I were to champion like friends of the Creek or whatever. I could 88 see some people like …watch out …like I am kind of worried about you gonna try to take my ability to water my field from me…”. This pressure mitigated against group members with strong pro-environmental attitudes engaging in obvious pro-environmental behaviors. Thus, the study revealed the Alderson Group’s common interest was built on the years of living in a fishbowl while battling flooding and other negative impacts from the creek. According to interviewed landowners, an intention to participate in the group restoration activity was partially driven by interpersonal ties in the community of landowners, claims of reciprocity and mutual responsibility. Landowner’s quote: “Good neighbours agree we all have the same problem…”. Through the years of observation and experience living near the water, participants learned that damage on one land parcel might not be properly mended unless remediation action is taken at another land parcel. Therefore, drainage issues on one land parcel were addressed collectively by all landowners whose contribution could help resolve the issue. Understanding that initiating group restoration project will yield greater benefits to affected landowners and themselves, landowners agreed to participate in the initiative. Prior to participating in the formal restoration initiative, they were supporting their neighbours by helping to clean the creek. Not reporting the illegal excavation of creek sediments was another form of support accepted by the members of the group. It appears that in addition to complying with regulations and mitigating drainage issues, willingness to act collaboratively can be driven by a need to reverse a negative perception about the group practices by external stakeholders. In the case of Alderson Group, there was a need to resolve drainage issues in view of ongoing conflict between the rural community and residential subdivision located upstream from the study area. As in the Kendry Group example, where residents did not share a perception of harm from the creek, strict regulations and strong pro-environmental attitudes might not be sufficient to motivate individual or collective action. 89 Moreover, individual stewardship initiative might be perceived as inimical to a group’s interest unless a need for this initiative is collectively agreed upon by the majority in this group. The role of social influence was found important to initiating or inhibiting the collective action, watershed restoration in particular. This study has presented an opportunity to observe the dynamics of such influence in two groups of landowners facing different perceptions of their impact on the surrounding ecological landscape. 5.3.4 Institutional support and barriers to restoration Thoughts about opportunities and barriers for collaborative restoration initiative have been repeatedly brought about by landowners and restoration practitioners during initial and follow-up interviews. Therefore, focus group discussion provided an additional and insightful material for understanding potential opportunities and barriers. This restoration initiative was conceived as a result of an encounter between one of the landowners with enforcement officers from DFO. After responding to a call reporting an illegal activity around Alderson Creek, instead of exercising their enforcement powers and punishing the landlord, DFO officials encouraged the landowner to consider restoration and introduced him to professional restoration practitioners capable of providing a legitimate support. Landowner’s quote: “We walked with a DFO person and I showed him my field …I can’t farm here. And then he said – I know someone who can help you – and I received a call the very next day…”. The introduction led to the establishment of the ACRES and landowners planned restoration works collaboratively with practitioners and DFO fisheries biologists. It is not uncommon that environmental remediation action is triggered by regulations and enforcement action (Rhoads et al. 1999; Lubell et al. 2002; Pretty and Ward 2001). However, even 90 during my relatively short employment with the government, I evidenced situations where positive impact on compliance resulted not from enforcement action but from informal interaction between regulators and regulated communities. Therefore, I believe that the idea of forming the ACRES and consequent restoration project was only partially conceived in response to enforcement action against one of the landowners. The interaction between enforcement officers and landowners resulted in revealing the previously unknown resources for landowners, namely the opportunity to engage in facilitated and funded restoration activity to solve the drainage problem while staying in line with the law. Landowners were introduced to environmental practitioners, knowledgeable of local environmental challenges with a vast experience in environmental farm planning. Presence of experienced facilitators amplified landowners’ confidence in the legitimacy of the proposed group activity, substantially improved their knowledge about ecosystem services, and helped reconcile differences and reduce skepticism. Funding under GEFP provided an opportunity to effectively engage landowners in the restoration planning and implementation activities, under supervision and guidance of competent and certified restoration practitioners. This suggests the importance of the facilitating role of the regulators as opposed to strictly enforcing the regulations in an attempt to improve compliance. Encouraging and facilitating compliance instead of imposing administrative or criminal charges against the landowner saved the regulators time and other resources that would be otherwise spent enforcing sanctions and dealing with landowner’s appeal. Moreover, if successful, such positive intervention and interaction, can help build better relationships between regulators and regulated communities in the long term. Water bodies in British Columbia are public property and, therefore, any works around streams running through private lands, are regulated by provincial Water Sustainability Act (Province of British Columbia 2014). Every instream work, including works funded under GEFP, 91 are subject to prior statutory authorization. Recent changes in federal and provincial regulations and subsequent institutional adjustments have influenced the dynamics of relationships and communication in the context of the Alderson Creek Restoration project, and, as a result, landowners were subjected to a relatively lengthy authorization process. Landowners’ confidence and perception about the legitimacy of their restoration approach has been adversely affected by frustration once the authorization procedure became more formal and DFO lost their historical influence over the process. Under new procedure restoration practitioners and landowners were required to undergo a more formal application and authorization process implemented through provincial centralized application uptake system, FrontCounter BC. Implementation of assessment procedures by certified environmental professionals under Professional Reliance Model (PRM), described by landowners and restoration practitioners as time-consuming and costly, has become mandatory for everyone applying for authorizations. Most assessment work by professional organizations aims at a better control over development projects with potentially negative environmental impact. Third-party assessments are conducted under Professional Reliance Model (PRM), wherein proposed works are reviewed and verified by qualified professionals who are certified by one of the professional associations. Apart from imposing a significant financial burden on some applicants, the lack of government oversight over the qualified professionals has led to the loss of public trust in decision making around industrial activity. The accuracy of riparian work assessment has been questioned at least on one occasion, when a permit was granted following the professional assessment of on-farm works. Consequently, government had to re-visit the permit after local biologist supplied the evidence that the stream that would be adversely affected by proposed development, was fish-bearing (The Abbotsford News, Nov. 30, 2018) The professional 92 reliance model was subsequently under review and the recommendations collected from Indigenous peoples, business community, environmental groups and other public stakeholders will be taken into account for restructuring the governance of professional organizations. In the case of the Alderson Creek restoration project, clerks from FrontCounter BC that reviewed applications describing proposed restoration works, had no representation in the region where the project was initiated, and had no prior knowledge of local challenges and opportunities. Local DFO agency, on the other hand, with its mandated commitment to science-based decision making and an ecosystem approach, could potentially close the knowledge gap. However, further facilitation by DFO was made difficult due to the lack of jurisdictional certainty and delayed implementation of recent changes to federal Fisheries Act. Unlike DFO officers, clerks from FrontCounterBC had no previous encounters or experience working with restoration practitioners in charge of restoration project. Moreover, they were obliged to treat all applications impartially and as one stream with any other application proposing changes in and around the stream, whether for development or restoration purposes. Handling environmental stewardship applications in one stream with applications related to development projects was perceived by restoration practitioners and landowners as unfair and unreasonable. However, the need to comply with emerging regulations was challenging not only for communities that struggled to adjust their practices but also for government agencies that were expected to properly enforce these regulations or authorize activities that required statutory authorizations. According to restoration practitioners, the provincial government agency issuing the authorization lacked the resources and local knowledge to commit to reviewing and authorizing the riparian stewardship initiatives outside the PRM. Local governments that could benefit from 93 local restoration projects, are also under-resourced and generally lack the capacity to oversee and support these initiatives. An issue of a regulatory challenge and knowledge has been raised repeatedly by the representatives from the provincial government during Water Stewardship Council meetings. It appears that recent legislative changes presented regulators with challenges associated with interpreting and enforcing the regulations. From my experience in the provincial policy shop I learned that where there is a difficulty interpreting the law, those in charge of enforcement tend to underutilize their authority to exercise discretion. Even though discretionary power is embedded into regulations, the actual use of this option is limited due considerations of equity and lack of specific knowledge. The resulting implication for this restoration project was a lengthy authorization process administered in one stream with other applications, including those involving development. 5.3.4.1 Caring for environment everyone’s responsibility In addition to elaborating on regulatory barriers to restoration, landowners and restoration practitioners pointed out other advantages and disadvantages resulting from group application and implementation of the project. Both landowners and restoration practitioners pointed out advantages from applying as a group when each participant plays a role in restoring the ecosystem based on their capacity to contribute. They further emphasized that “environment is everyone’s responsibility” and elaborated on collective responsibility for damage and resulting need for restoration. When asked about the meaning of “everyone’s responsibility” they explained that damage in the past was done because government regulations had not effectively prevented and, in some cases, even authorized the damage. At the same time, the degradation of waterways rarely 94 results from impacts from a single community. It is usually a result of long-term cumulative effect from multiple sources and operations in the watershed. In the case of the Alderson creek, many factors, such as unsustainable forestry practices, rapid sub-urban growth, improper infrastructure maintenance, and farming operations, have contributed to poor stream health and drainage issues. It is well known that availability of sound and enforceable environmental laws and regulations is critical for establishing environmentally desirable behaviors, encouraging best practice, and maintaining natural resources’ health and resiliency (Rhoads et al. 1999; Lubell et al. 2002; Pretty and Ward 2001). However, limited scientific knowledge in the past coupled with the need to support rapid economic growth and development have led to significant environmental degradation and depletion of the natural resource base. This trend was largely facilitated by rather loose environmental regulations and weak enforcement (Rhoads et al. 1999). Environmental regulations have evolved as new science and knowledge became available, and presently provide a relatively strong foundation for protecting the environment and natural resources from unsustainable practices. Assuming that unsustainable farming practices in the past were a result of insufficient knowledge, enforcing rigid environmental regulations on farming communities without resourcing properly their transition to best practices may translate into burdensome responsibility for some communities. Not surprisingly, Alderson Group, for whom farming yielded insufficient income to cover their farming costs, claimed it would be unfair if they were to bear the entire costs of restoration. One practical way of recognizing this common responsibility for the health of natural resources would be properly resourcing private landholdings that are willing to invest their time and resourcing into enhancing environmental health to everyone’s benefit. The Group 95 Environmental Farm Plan (GEFP) – a government-operated program, offered funding to offset some cost inequality across landowners. Thus, lessons learned from implementing Alderson Creek restoration via GEFP have revealed that the program brings about many opportunities. Participants believed that riparian restoration collective action would attract greater attention and stronger support from regulators. Although not all expectations have been fully realized, restoration practitioners pointed out that collaborative nature of the initiative enabled additional financial support by local indigenous communities. In fall 2016, some restoration work, including animal fencing, was financed by the Splatsin Indian Band on the condition that these works would be performed by the staff hired by the Band. Thus, apart from enhancing relationships within the community of landowners, the collaborative restoration effort helped build local adaptive capacity to cope with the impacts from changing climate. These advantages can potentially outweigh the drawbacks, including a longer authorization process. 5.3.4.2 Regulatory integrity or “midnight pond” The landowners had years of experience with the stream reach, during which they had repeatedly attempted to reduce the flooding problems they were experiencing. One typical short-term strategy is using machinery to remove the watercress blocking the channel. This at best provides temporary relief. The landowners understood that this activity was illegal, but as enforcement actions were challenging and mainly complaint driven, the perception was that the risk of enforcement was limited. Digging ditches and drainage ponds to resolve drainage issues while avoiding charges for illegal work in the creek was referred to by landowners as a “midnight pond”. A “midnight pond” is an arrangement whereby affected landowners excavate the creek in the middle of the night when illegal activity around the creek is less likely to be detected and reported. According to landowners, rural residents in the area often consider it appropriate to adjust 96 the surrounding landscape to enhance the services they value. One of the landowners recalled driving in the neighborhood and taking pictures of multiple ‘midnight ponds’ on various landholdings adjacent to other tributaries to Fortune Creek. It appears that landowners felt morally, if not legally, entitled to take actions for “preserving their land”. Therefore, as landowners pointed out, if the drainage issue is unresolved through this project, the Alderson Group will likely resume their earlier interventions, irrespective of impacts on the environment and broader societal objectives. One of the observations made by researchers during focus group discussion was that “government” was seen by the landowners as a single entity, responsible for environmental regulation, overseeing enforcement and compliance, as well as providing financial support to partially cover the costs of restoration. Based on landowners’ recollection of the situation, the term “government” encompassed several agencies, including DFO, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of FLNRORD, and even Ministry of Environment that has not been directly involved in financing or authorization process. From landowners’ perspective, who once again regarded “government” as one entity, a change in enforcement procedure and delay were attributed to inconsistent decision-making, incompetence, lack of knowledge, and, in general, lack of sensitivity to farmers’ needs and challenges. The inconsistency in decision-making by one “government entity” as perceived by the landowners in fact originates from involvement of several agencies with conflicting objectives, overlapping mandates and varying resource availability to meet their respective goals and enforce regulations. The Ministry of Environment enacted a new Water Sustainability Act that provided various government agencies with discretionary powers to enforce the Act in the best interest of 97 the society. The Ministry of FLNRORD, whose mandate is to balance human and environmental needs, dedicates resources for identifying potential negative impacts on natural resources, and in doing so, subjects any proposed development to scrutinized assessment through PRM. The Ministry of Agriculture focuses on efforts to help agricultural communities adapt to changing climate and comply with environmental and other regulations by offering financial and expert support. DFO has knowledge and local resources to determine riparian conservation and rehabilitation needs and facilitate stewardship practices locally but lacks legal power to authorize these practices. As revealed in the example of Alderson Creek Restoration Initiative, the institutional roadblocks to implementation of riparian restoration initiative result not from inconsistency in decision making by “one entity type of government authority” but from lack of integration and coordination between agencies whose jurisdictions overlap in balancing human and environmental interests. Regulations can be conflicting and reflect policy objectives pursued by various agencies. In the context of this study, the goals pursued by different government agencies include protecting and enhancing riparian ecosystems and improving farmers’ adaptive capacity while rewarding them for environmental stewardship. If clearly articulated and coordinated between agencies involved in natural resource management, these objectives could be reflected in the regulations to align them better with an overarching provincial goal of enhancing social and ecological capacity to withstand impacts from changing climate. However, an inherent disintegration between government agencies, lack of coordination and knowledge-sharing, have resulted in a poorly designed institutional framework that was unable to effectively support the collaborative restoration effort. Unless government agencies that oversee different aspects of ecological restoration integrate their efforts to motivate greater uptake by farming communities, the collective 98 action by affected communities will increasingly take the form of the “midnight pond”, thus depriving society from the benefits of restoration practice as an effective tool for climate adaptation. 99 Chapter 6: Contributions and conclusions Using qualitative research methods and grounded theory approach I attempted to conceptualize the intertemporal attitudinal, behavioral and knowledge changes that occurred as a result of the collaborative riparian restoration project. Examining drivers that motivated participation in the environmental collaborative effort, potential barriers, and the context in which this collaboration took place can help broaden the understanding of potential approaches to motivate collaborative restoration. Understanding institutional and regulatory barriers and public and private incentives can help build proper institutional framework for such collaboration and create opportunities for including stakeholders beyond the Alderson Group. It can also help agricultural policy-makers to develop programs to support watershed-wide restoration efforts as a part of climate resilience-building effort. Examining land-owners experience participating in this collaborative riparian restoration project expanded the existing knowledge in several fundamental ways, which are summarized below: - In a specific social-ecological context, riparian restoration can be used as an adaptation approach to climate change by farming communities; - Motivation to participate in riparian restoration stems from the combination of enabling conditions embedded into the social-ecological context; - Regulatory environment is important to motivate the restoration, but institutional barriers do not discourage participation if other enabling factors are present. 100 6.1 Riparian restoration as an adaptation approach Members of farming communities can take care of their land as they maintain and improve land health and productivity. However, improving the conditions of natural resources adjacent to agricultural lands has rarely been a resilience building practice, let alone an adaptation to climate change. In developed countries, such as Canada, governments assume the role of a guardian for publicly owned natural resources and establish rules and regulations to protect resources from damage resulting from private and public use. Such intervention and regulation by the government is often perceived by affected stakeholders as excessive and even compromising the economic growth. Agricultural landowners possess a sense of entitlement to an unfettered use of resources on their land as a part of their right to farm. It is only in agriculture that landowners are able to farm right up to the edge of a water source and allow their livestock to enter the water source. Legally, there are limited regulatory tools that can be used to manage how agricultural landowners use land next to a stream. At the same time, the government has long been providing security to communities, protecting them from adverse impacts caused by natural disasters or climate impacts. Such security is provided in the form of technological solutions and infrastructure, or direct financial support. There is growing concern that climate change increases the potential for damage to ecological and human systems unless both systems build greater resilience and ability to withstand the impacts or recover from extreme events. Hard adaptation solutions, such as dikes, dams, or culverts, prove to be increasingly costly, as climate variability and unpredictability demand relatively frequent infrastructure upgrades to mitigate the impacts. On the other hand, soft 101 adaptation solutions, ecological restoration among them, could be a low cost and feasible solution implemented by resource-dependent or affected communities in places where government-supplied security is insufficient. This adaptation approach can be particularly attractive for its potential to create environmental co-benefits that can benefit communities beyond participating groups. This study has shown that initially landowners’ decision to initiate the restoration project was not triggered by a need to adapt to a changing climate. However, the collaborative and facilitated riparian restoration action can play a role in climate change adaptation as participants’ knowledge about climate change and ecosystem services improves. Although provision of environmental benefits alone might not motivate restoration, landowners can become environmental stewards once they are convinced that such stewardship is beneficial to their farms. Participation can also facilitate a process of building trust and stronger relationships with external partners. In this case this form of adaptation may be facilitated by a combination of government funding and regulation, inter-agency collaboration and knowledge outreach delivered directly to affected communities. 6.2 Socio-ecological context as a trigger to riparian restoration A body of literature on collective action in a context of environmental management suggests that such action can succeed if it is driven by the common interest shared by all parties to such collaboration. Furthermore, collaboration will yield socially desirable outcomes if this common interest is compatible with societal interests. In this case, various forms of social capital work together to foster collaboration among parties that pursue an agreed upon common interest. These concepts informed initial assumptions with regard to landowners’ motivations to engage in this collaborative riparian restoration project. Namely, continuous negative impact from the creek, 102 threat of enforcement and funding availability were assumed as main motivating factors fostering cooperation by this small group of landowners. This study has shown that interests can vary significantly even in relatively homogenous groups of people. While improving drainage constituted a higher-level common goal, flooding problems, costs and potential benefits from restoration were distributed unevenly among participating landowners. Moreover, even though funding was available to partially reimburse the costs, restoration activities required substantial investments and time commitment on behalf of some landowners yielding little to no direct short-term benefits from participation. Analyzing data revealed both individual and collective interests in the group of participating landowners. On an individual scale, interests varied from resolving drainage issues to increasing crop yields and maintaining regulatory compliance. Group rationale reflected collectively negotiated interest that included building stronger relationships within the community, securing support by scientific and government agencies and reconciling conflicting worldviews with the residents from neighboring subdivision. The connecting nature of natural resources as a basis for collaboration was one of the studies highlights. Both studied groups were connected by their respective creeks and formed informal and formal networks aimed at managing collective issues resulting from those creeks. It was also concluded that even though original interest in restoration has been sparked by the opportunity to resolve occasional flooding issues around the creek, motivation that evolved as a result of participation in restoration initiative might be related to landowners newly acquired knowledge that engaging in further learning and collaboration might help them build capacity to manage impacts in a long term. 103 6.3 Institutional barriers to riparian restoration Farming communities can utilize natural resources as units of production, e.g. land for planting or water bodies for watering their crops. They can be negatively impacted due to the presence of natural resources on their land, e.g. from waterlogging or regulatory restrictions related to farming operation in the proximity to public water bodies. Any attempt to enhance private benefits from the use of natural resources as well as attempts to eliminate the damage can result in negative spillover effects on the environment or society. Riparian restoration, for example, is an initiative that can potentially yield a few benefits for society, such as better flow regulation, reduced erosion, improved water quality, healthier fisheries or improved recreational values. However, restoration that focuses on yielding only private benefits, i.e. benefits to affected landowners, might result in environmental damage. In this case government regulation or another form of oversight is necessary to prevent the damage. Where natural resources are protected by government regulation, any restoration activities involving these natural resources are subject to the oversight by regulating agencies. This study has shown that the group’s cooperation has been largely influenced by the early intervention by local enforcement agency. The regulator’s decision to encourage restoration instead of exercising their enforcement powers has established the collaborative nature of the restoration project. Inspired by the support from the DFO and local restoration professionals, landowners became well informed about the potential benefits and risks of restoration. Landowners also felt confident with regard to the legitimacy of their proposed restoration action as opposed to their previous illegal attempts to resolve their problems by excavating the creek. Guided by the DFO and restoration practitioners, landowners were able to access the funding under GEFP. The DFO staff participated in the assessment and restoration planning, whereas the 104 implementation was delegated to local restoration practitioners and landowners. This quasi-formal institutional arrangement was built on trust, reciprocity and collaborative decision-making, wherein public interests have been protected through DFO participation at the earlier stage, and coordination by trained restoration practitioners throughout the implementation. At a later stage the change in enforcement procedure caused by the weakening of the federal Fisheries Act and implementation of new provincial Water Sustainability Act (WSA) resulted in vesting greater enforcement powers to the provincial government. Even though initiative’s objectives remained the same, i.e. allowing landowners to solve their issues while protecting public interests, the entire relationships framework has changed. Remote government agency with no local representation and any substantive knowledge of the local situation, subjected the restoration initiative to a formal process of authorization under the WSA, thus delaying restoration works. This study found out that in addition to providing funding to finance such initiatives the government could benefit from developing the authorization processes supportive of restoration practice. Possible barriers can result from the lack of knowledge about potential benefits and relatively high costs of obtaining that knowledge unless central decision-making authority has strong local representation either through agency or through collaboration with local stewardship leaders. Collaborative institutional frameworks can be built around practices that yield substantial benefits to agriculture while ensuring a stream of environmental benefits as consistent with the goals of agencies issuing authorizations and providing funding. This study also suggested that any decisions related to agricultural land management should be consistent with farmers’ understanding of factors that limit or enhance their ability to 105 perform their farming activities. This type of decision-making framework is hardly implementable in the current context of centralized decision-making. Therefore, even though the government continues to play an important role in protecting public and private interests vested in natural resources, there is a need of moving away from centralized authority toward more decentralized and inclusive models of decision-making. Decision-making by central government authority may not be accurately addressing collective issues unless undertaken collaboratively with communities affected by these decisions. One of the policy recommendations resulting from this study would be encouraging decision-making practices inclusive of the agencies and communities that interact directly with the natural resources and, therefore, possess place-specific knowledge about local challenges and opportunities. 6.4 Limitations and future research The original assumption under this study was that the three-year timeframe for the research study would be sufficient for examining changes in motivations and knowledge as a result of participation in restoration initiatives. However, I started my research after ACRES was formed and initial project planning has been completed by landowners with the help from restoration practitioners. As a result, I could not observe the initial planning and could only reconstruct the process from the narratives presented by the landowners and restoration practitioners. Also, due to numerous project management lapses, budgetary issues and regulatory hurdles, the actual in-stream and riparian works have been delayed substantially beyond the initially planned timeframe. Therefore, only a portion of works have been implemented that could have influenced landowners’ understanding of the extent to which improved ecological conditions resolve their drainage and other land management issues. 106 Understanding that a three-years project timeframe might not be sufficient to gather data needed for this study, I followed the advice from my committee and organized a focus group discussion with Alderson Group landowners and restoration practitioners. Focus group discussion took place three years after the inception of the project (two years after the start of this study) and helped understand the evolution of landowners’ knowledge and motivation prior the restoration and as a result of participation. The majority of project works were at that point still far from complete. Another limitation is related to examining the institutional framework. The research was limited to working with landowners and restoration practitioners only. A DFO official who took part in the project was also interviewed. A DFO official helped understand DFO’s perspective and permit-related issues that delayed the restoration works. However, this study did not include interviewing officials from the provincial government that played a critical role in authorizing works and providing funding under GEFP. All applications involving changes in and around the stream in British Columbia are submitted through the FrontCounter BC online application service. To eliminate the possibility of political and other pressure, the process is supposed to be completely anonymous, wherein applicants are unaware of who is processing their application. Therefore, it was impossible to track down the decision-making authorities that influenced the authorization process. Therefore, the role and perspective of the provincial government described in this study was constructed using the recollection of experience by restoration practitioners and landowners. Conversation with a DFO official has also added clarity to the process. My work with the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council helped to augment the missing data and understand the role of the provincial government. Some of the provincial employees sitting in the Council were familiar with the authorization process that affected this restoration process and other water 107 management decisions. Furthermore, my understanding of the government role has substantially improved since I accepted the position of the policy analyst with the BC Public Service and experienced first-hand the centralized decision-making challenge faced by the government. The primary limitation of this study remains its scale. All but one participant engage in farming as a hobby and have other primary sources of income. Therefore, their livelihoods do not depend on income generated as a result of farming. This limits the applicability of findings from this study to examine potential to motivate landowners with farmland for whom farming is not a primary source of income. Furthermore, this study covered only participating landowners along a short reach of one creek and non-participating landowners along a reach of another creek. This further limits a potential for generalization unless more studies are conducted to examine socio-ecological context of riparian restoration undertaken by small groups of landowners with farmland. However, findings are instrumental as they indicate a potential for implementation of riparian restoration initiative in similar social ecological contexts and within the wider context of climate change adaptation by farming communities. Results from biophysical study and cost-benefit analysis also suggested the possibility of cumulative benefits at a watershed level from restoration projects in smaller systems. In British Columbia there are many small creeks and systems intercepting agricultural lands. Scale-related limitations can be addressed if results from this study are used for studying more groups of landowners affected by riparian ecosystems connecting their land parcels. Better understanding of opportunities for greater uptake can be achieved if institutional barriers identified by this study are further researched and addressed. 108 6.4 Conclusions This study examined motivations of the small group of landowners with farmland along the short reach of a creek located in the southern interior of British Columbia to participate in a riparian restoration collective action. A similar group of non-participating landowners in the neighboring watershed was included in the study for comparison. In both watersheds, landowners span a broad range of age, education levels and years spent farming in the area. For all but one, farming is a lifestyle choice but not a primary source of income. Restoring riparian ecosystems on agricultural land is the approach that can provide farming with a wide range of opportunities to build greater resilience while facing uncertain and unpredictable impacts from changing climate. Riparian restoration can present the landowners with the opportunity to take advantage of natural resilience of riparian ecosystems in buffering their land from extreme weather events and other impacts. This knowledge alone could be a powerful motivating factor leading many affected communities into initiating restoration collective action. However, this study results strongly suggest that the initial motivations for participation by the Alderson group members were not triggered by climate change adaptation. This study has shown that knowledge gaps, social and ecological conditions and institutional constraints constitute barriers to effective integration of restoration practice into long-term environmental and climate change adaptation planning. Even though farmers adapt to changing economic, social or climatic conditions, they do not always relate their action to a need to adapt to changing climate. Furthermore, they adapt using their best knowledge, tools available to them and in a manner that serves their private interests. A resulting experiential knowledge, although valuable for understanding farmers needs and limiting factors, is often in conflict with scientific 109 knowledge and does not necessarily lead to adaptation practices that are compatible with public climate adaptation or environmental protection objectives. Even though farmers and ranchers have a strong land-stewardship ethic that compels them to be environmentally conscious, restoration will not be their first choice unless the benefits are clearly communicated and acknowledged by the landowners whose participation is critical to the success of the approach. Focused communication efforts that are designed to highlight local issues and possible solutions, can help landowners properly interpret local climate change observations and raise their awareness about the role of healthy ecosystems. Engagement in an environmental restoration project is more likely to occur when expert facilitation is made available, involving someone who is knowledgeable about farming/ranching, about local environmental history and science, about the practicalities of implementing best-management practices, and about available programs of support. This study provided a number of important insights into the understanding of factors motivating collective restoration projects. This analysis highlights that the emergence and execution of this project by Alderson Group was the result of a coincidence of enabling conditions. First of all, the inability of the landowners to successfully address their drainage issues created the opportunity for a new approach. The potential legal action foreclosed simply scaling up the previous unsuccessful approach. The presence of the suburban observers created a “fishbowl”, a risk of further unexpected actions, impacting on the choices the landowners could make, creating an additional motivation for working cooperatively. The existence of the group environmental farm plan provided a means of accessing funding and technical support to create and implement 110 the restoration project, and through that an opportunity for the landowners to learn more about the creek and to deepen their commitment to stewardship and to their neighbours. In nearby Kendry creek, the only enabling condition present was the environmental farm group plan. The creek was not negatively impacting desired land use in the way it was on Alderson creek. There had not been any observed illegal activity that was leading to enforcement actions, and no suburban residents nearby to observe what landowners were doing on their land, leaving landowners wary of how departures from normal practice may be interpreted by their peers. Thus, while there are certainly environmental and societal benefits that would be generated as a result of restoring a more natural system along Kendry creek, the conditions are not presently in place for such an action to take place. Another important finding of this study is understanding that riparian ecosystems create conditions for effectively connecting people and groups of people. Formal and informal networks tend to form along the geographically connected features that define member interaction rules reflective of their experience living by the riparian ecosystem. In the context of this study, decisions made by the Alderson Group were reflective of rules devised following the unsuccessful attempts to fix drainage issues and the presence of upstream suburban development that placed them in a fishbowl, resulting in enforcement action and, eventually, in initiation of restoration projects. Proper institutional frameworks around collaborative environmental projects might be an important consideration for the effective organization of activities and people. Strong government regulation, if enforced, can motivate landowners with the farmland to implement best management practices to improve riparian ecosystems. This study showed that strong enforcement action or 111 environmental regulations can fail to serve their purpose, considering difficulty to enforce on private land and landowners’ ability to engage in illegal activity undetected. Likewise, landowners whose livelihood does not depend on farming can quit farming altogether, thus leaving existing hydrological issues and resulting wider scale social and ecological impacts unresolved. A need to obtain the authorization prior to initiating the project has drawn attention to the group’s problems but it also involved various government agencies as observers to the fishbowl. Therefore, even though participating landowners faced numerous barriers to their collective action, including the internal challenge of reconciling differences in works and impacts among the neighboring participants, the external challenge of the regulatory hurdles in securing required permits and financial support, they were still determined to proceed with restoration efforts. Landowners expressed a high degree of frustration with extensive regulatory barriers that prevent rapid completion of project works. One of the observations made by researchers was that “government” was seen by the landowners as a single entity, responsible for environmental regulation, overseeing enforcement and compliance, as well as providing financial support to partially cover the costs of restoration. In reality, these distinguished operations are performed by different agencies with varying, often conflicting, interests and mechanisms to enforce their regulations. Greater integration and coordination between these agencies can help reconcile inter-agency interests and establish institutional framework that support environment-friendly adaptation practices by farming communities. In the absence of supportive institutions landowners are likely to return to “midnight pond’-like destructing “land preserving” practices. 112 Bibliography Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related?. Progress in human geography, 24(3), 347-364. Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387-404. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global environmental change, 15(2), 77-86. Ahrens, C. Donald., and Robert. Henson. 2015. Meteorology Today : An Introduction to Weather, Climate, and the Environment. 11th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning. Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism. The grounded theory review, 11(1), 39-46. Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational research, 45(2), 143-154. Bauer, Bernard, John Janmaat, Nargiz Rahimova, and Noelle Richardson. 2018. “Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits of Riparian Restoration as a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Agriculture: Final Project Report.” Kelowna. B.C. Agricultural Research and Development Corporation. 2010. “Reference Guide: The Canada - British Columbia Environmental Farm Plan Program.” B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. 2016a. “BC Agriculture & Climate Change Okanagan Regional Adaptation Strategy.” B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. 2016b. “BC Farm Practices & Climate Change Adaptation Summary Report & Additional Findings.” Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (No. 10). Penguin UK. Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2002). Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation ecology, 5(2), 18. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation biology, 18(3), 621-630. Bernard, H. R., & Bernard, H. R. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and quantity, 36(4), 391-409. 113 Breckenridge, J. P., Jones, D., Elliott, I., & Nichol, M. (2012). Choosing a Methodological Path: Reflections on the Constructivist Turn. Grounded Theory Review, 11(1). Brody, S. D. (2003). Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of planning education and research, 22(4), 407-419. Bryant, C. R., Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Johnston, T. R., Smithers, J., Chiotti, Q., & Singh, B. (2000). Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. In Societal adaptation to climate variability and change (pp. 181-201). Springer, Dordrecht. Cairns Jr, J. (1995). Ecosocietal Restoration: Re-establishing Humanity's Relationship with Natural Systems. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 37(5), 4-33. Campbell, L. M., & Vainio-Mattila, A. (2003). Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned?. Human Ecology, 31(3), 417-437. Capon, S. J., Chambers, L. E., Mac Nally, R., Naiman, R. J., Davies, P., Marshall, N., ... & Catford, J. (2013). Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: hotspots for climate change adaptation?. Ecosystems, 16(3), 359-381. Cernea, M. M. (1987). Farmer organizations and institution building for sustainable development. Regional Development Dialogue, 8, 1-24 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Sage. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. Handbook of constructivist research, 397-412. Charmaz, K. (2012). The power and potential of grounded theory. Medical Sociology Online, 6(3), 2-15. Clewell, A. F., & Aronson, J. (2006). Motivations for the restoration of ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 420-428. Coleman, J. S., & Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Harvard university press. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Paruelo, J. (1998). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25(1), 3-15. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. 114 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). The Sage. Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442. Dwyer, J. C., & Hodge, I. (1996). Countryside in trust. Land Management by Conservation. Eccel, E., Cordano, E., & Toller, G. (2016). ClimClass: Climate classification according to several indices R package version 2.1. 0. Environment Canada. (2021). “Historical Data.” https://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html. GeoBC. (2021). Study Site Location [Map]. Retrieved from URL: Geographic data and services - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca) Ghimire, K. B., & Pimbert, M. P. (Eds.). (2013). Social change and conservation. Routledge. Glaser, B. G., A. L. Strauss (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, 81. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38. Glicken, J. (2000). Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(6), 305-310. Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental psychology, 30(2), 143-158. Higgs, E. S. (1997). What is good ecological restoration?. Conservation Biology, 11(2), 338-348. Howden, S. Mark, et al. "Adapting agriculture to climate change." Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 104.50 (2007): 19691-19696. Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?. Public administration review, 64(1), 55-65. Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R., (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Un- certain World. Praeger, New York 115 Kauffman, J. B., Beschta, R. L., Otting, N., & Lytjen, D. (1997). An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries, 22(5), 12-24. Landman, J. P. (2004). Social capital: a building-block in creating a better global future. foresight, 6(1), 38-46. Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J. T., & Mete, M. (2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American journal of political science, 148-163. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370. Miles, I., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Ecological restoration volunteers: the benefits of participation. Urban Ecosystems, 2(1), 27-41. Morse, J., & Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative research. CA, US: Sage Publications Thousand Oaks Niles, M. T., Lubell, M., & Brown, M. (2015). How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 178-185.Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, rev. ed. New York: Schocken. Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and evolution, 9(1), 20-32. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of nursing scholarship, 33(1), 93-96. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press. Ostrom, E. (1998). “The Institutional Analysis and Development Approach.” In Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management. Ostrom, E. (2007). The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. Available at SSRN 1304823. Peel, M. C., B. L. Finlayson, and T. A. McMahon. 2007. “Updated World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11 (5): 1633–44. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007. Pike, R. G., Redding, T. E., Moore, R. D., Winkler, R. D., & Bladon, K. D. (2010). Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. Land Management Handbook-Ministry of Forests and Range, British Columbia, (66). Pinna Sustainability, Regional District North Okanagan, Regional District of Central Okanagan, and Regional District Okanagan Similkameen. (2020). “Climate Projections for the Okanagan 116 Region.” http://www.rdno.ca/docs/200303_OK_ClimateReport_Final.pdf. Pretty, J., & Hine, R. (2000, May). The promising spread of sustainable agriculture in Asia. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 107-121). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World development, 29(2), 209-227. Province of British Columbia. 2014. Water Sustainabilty Act. Canada. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/14015. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1), 65-78. R Core Team. (2020). “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Ragab, R., & Prudhomme, C. (2002). Sw—soil and Water: climate change and water resources management in arid and semi-arid regions: prospective and challenges for the 21st century. Biosystems engineering, 81(1), 3-34. Ramcharan, P., & Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering the ‘ethics as process’ model. Health & social care in the community, 9(6), 358-366. Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of environmental management, 91(8), 1766-1777. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. Regional District of North Okanagan GIS Department. (2021). Study Cite Location [Map]. Retrieved from URL: Maps and Digital Data | Regional District of North Okanagan (rdno.ca) Rhoads, B. L., Wilson, D., Urban, M., & Herricks, E. E. (1999). Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental management, 24(3), 297-308. Rosenzweig, C., Iglesius, A., Yang, X. B., Epstein, P. R., & Chivian, E. (2001). Climate change and extreme weather events-Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Rosenberg, S., & Margerum, R. D. (2008). Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: lessons from five watersheds. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(4), 477-496. 117 Rydin, Y., & Pennington, M. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local environment, 5(2), 153-169. Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretativism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In Denzin, N. and Norman, Y (Eds.), The Landscape of qualitative research: Theories and Issues. (pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seavy, N. E., Gardali, T., Golet, G. H., Griggs, F. T., Howell, C. A., Kelsey, R., ... & Weigand, J. F. (2009). Why climate change makes riparian restoration more important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration, 27(3), 330-338. Smit, B., & Skinner, M. W. (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 7(1), 85-114. Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., & Reed, M. S. (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 39. Sullivan, S., McCann, E., De Young, R., & Erickson, D. (1996). Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 9(2), 123-143. The Abbotsford News Nov. 30, 2018, Province changes course after scientist finds fish in ‘not fish bearing’ stream – Abbotsford News (abbynews.com). Travers, A., Elrick, C., Kay, R., & Vestergaard, O. (2012). Ecosystem-based adaptation guidance: moving from principles to practice. Working Document prepared for United Nations Environment Program. Vignola, R., Harvey, C. A., Bautista-Solis, P., Avelino, J., Rapidel, B., Donatti, C., & Martinez, R. (2015). Ecosystem-based adaptation for smallholder farmers: Definitions, opportunities and constraints. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 211, 126-132. Wamsler, C., Luederitz, C., & Brink, E. (2014). Local levers for change: mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation into municipal planning to foster sustainability transitions. Global Environmental Change, 29, 189-201. Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework of participation in community organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(1), 27-58. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The world bank research observer, 15(2), 225-249. Wyant, J. G., Meganck, R. A., & Ham, S. H. (1995). A planning and decision-making framework for ecological restoration. Environmental Management, 19(6), 789-796. 118 Appendices Appendix A Consent Form Consent Form Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Riparian Rehabilitation as a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Agriculture Who is conducting the study? The principal investigator is Dr. John Janmaat, Regional Innovation Chair in Water Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, I.K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences, the University of British Columbia Okanagan. john.janmaat@ubc.ca, 250-807-8021; Dr. Bernard Bauer, Professor, UBC/UBCO IKE Barber School of Arts & Sc/UBCO Admin Unit 7 Arts & Sci, bernard.bauer@ubc.ca; and Nargiz Rahimova, PhD Candidate, Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies, the University of British Columbia Okanagan, nargiz.rahimova@ubc.ca, 778-214-8989, are co-investigators on this project. This focus group discussion forms the part of Ms. Rahimova’s doctoral thesis. Why are we doing this study? Working with landowners and helping landowners to work together to improve ecological conditions has been recognized as an important part of building a community’s adaptive capacity. By participating in this discussion, you will help us better understand landowners and your own experience implementing a group restoration project. We hope that our results will help program designers more effectively engage with those impacted by such projects. How is the study done? We are inviting all landowners who participate in Alderson Creek restoration GEFP to take part in this focus group discussion. The purpose of this discussion will be to share the results of the study that were obtained so far and provide the participants with the opportunity to comment 119 and express their opinions. As restoration practitioners who helped plan and implement works you will have a chance to answer questions raised by the landowners and have an opportunity to reflect on your own experience doing the restoration work around the creek. The session will take no more than 90 minutes. It will be digitally recorded, and a note taker will make written notes during the session. Written notes will be typed and stored with the digital recording on a secure server at the University of British Columbia. For analysis, recordings will be transcribed, and participants identified as person #1, person #2, etc. Any names or other person identifying information in the recordings will be changed to protect privacy. Is there any way being in this study could be bad for you? If you participate in this study, there are no risks greater than what you would experience in your daily life. Your responses are valuable to us, and we will protect your confidentiality and privacy. What are the benefits of participating? Our results may help to spur more successful environmental initiatives by identifying ways that decision makers can better work with landowners and ways that cooperation between landowners can be enhanced. The results may be useful to various communities facing similar challenges. How will your privacy be maintained? The session will be recorded using a digital recorder, transcribed and stored at the University of British Columbia. Data will be stored for a minimum of five years after publication of research results, including Ms.Rahimova’s doctoral thesis. After this, files will be deleted, and records destroyed. Information that can identify you will be removed before the data is used for any analysis. Considering that you will participate as a part of the group, we encourage all participants to refrain from disclosing the contents of the discussion outside of the focus group. In most sessions conducted this way, participants do respect each other’s privacy. However, we cannot 120 control what other participants do with the information discussed and as such please be aware that there is a risk your privacy will not be respected by other participants. You can withdraw from this study at any time. If you choose to withdraw the data provided by you during this discussion will NOT be deleted considering the nature of group discussion and the inability to identify speakers. Who can you contact if you have questions about the study? If you have any questions, please contact Dr. John Janmaat, either by email at john.janmaat@ubc.ca, by phone at 250-807-8021 or by mail, Dr. John Janmaat, Unit 8, I.K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences, The University of British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7 or Dr. Bernard Bauer by email: bernard.bauer@ubc.ca or by phone at 250-807-9595. Who can you contact if you have complaints or concerns about the study? If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Services toll free at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca). Informed Consent You must be at least 19 years old to be legally able to give informed consent. By signing this letter, you are assumed to have provided your consent for us to record and use the answers you have provided. □ Please, check this box if you are aware and consent to the discussion being recorded. Signature _______________________ Name (printed) ____________________ Signature _______________________ Name (printed) ____________________ Date_______________________ 121 Appendix B Survey Instrument Perceptions about climate change and climate change implications 1 When scientists speak of 'climate change' they are referring to trends or shifts in average climatic conditions (e.g., air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, wind) that are projected into the future, but have also occurred for millions of years into the past. 2 Most people understand that North America, including south-central British Columbia, was covered with glaciers several thousands of years ago. The extent of glaciation is influenced by climate change. 3 Today, most people use the term 'climate warming' as having the same meaning as 'climate change'. 4 There is little doubt that humans have had a major influence on accelerating the rate of climate warming over the past 100 years. 5 The impacts of global warming with respect to average annual temperature are likely to be felt differently in different areas of the globe. In other words, some regions will become much hotter whereas others may only warm a little bit 6 I anticipate that over the next 20 years, the day-to-day weather conditions on my property will not be much different from what they were in the past 20 years. 7 I anticipate that the number of extreme storms (i.e., large snowfalls in 24 hours, intense winds, flash floods, hailstorms) will decrease in the future. 8 I expect that the amount of water needed by agricultural crops in the Armstrong area will increase over the next 10 years, even if the amount of land in crop production stays the same. 9 I anticipate that a smaller proportion of my property will be useable for agriculture in the future because of permanent changes in soil moisture conditions (wetter or drier) 10 I anticipate that the total amount of precipitation received during the winter (December – March) in the Armstrong area will decrease in the next 20-30 years 11 I expect that the average farmer will experience less extreme drought conditions in the late growing season (i.e., August) 12 I would prefer to manage my farm/ranch operations in a manner that is 'environmentally friendly', but other factors (e.g., financial pressures) are more important Environmental Attitudes - New Environmental Paradigm 1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support 2 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 3 Humans are seriously abusing the environment 4 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 5 Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature 6 The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources 7 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 8 If things continue their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe 9 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 10 Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the Earth unlivable 11 The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them 12 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations 13 The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated 14 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature 15 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it 122 Appendix C Interview Protocol The first round of interviews will take place immediately upon receiving the responses from participants willing to contribute to the study. Participants will contact researchers by phone or any other way preferred by participant. Place and time of the interview will be selected based on the interviewee’s preferences. If participant in his/her correspondence wishes to be contacted by phone, researchers will make a phone call to set up the interview time and location. Draft of the phone conversation script “We are contacting you in relation to your participation in the study examining the Group Environmental Farm Plan. Thank you once again for expressing your willingness to participate in our study. The first interview will take place next month (e.g. Sep. 1st-30th 2015) and last approximately 1 hour or 1 hour 30 minutes. You can select any of dates below depending on your availability and to your best convenience. You can also specify the most convenient location for conducting the interview.” Interviews Interviews will be conducted separately with each selected participant at a time at a time and place agreed upon with the participant. Interviews will be documented through the use of digital voice recorder. Interviewees will be asked to agree that interview is recorded while any information obtained will remain confidential. In addition to recording notes will be taken to remind the interviewer to return to earlier points and suggest how to frame follow-up questions. Introduction: Hello. Thank you for your time meeting with me / us. (Casual conversation – ice breaker) Before we begin the interview, we need to talk about the interview and to make sure that you are informed and feel Ok about the study and the way we will use the information collected as a result of today’s interview. We need to have your informed consent to record and use the information that you provide. Briefly go through consent form (updated if there were any changes). There will be two copies – one for the respondent to keep and one signed and kept by interviewer. 1. Do you have any questions? 123 2. Are you willing to continue with this interview? 3. Can we start recording? Main body: Start recorder. Questions common for treated (participating) and control (non-participating) groups: Streams often cross many land parcels, with choices made on one parcel impacting others. Sometimes an effective way to manage a stream is for neighbors to work together. However, sometimes it is also difficult for neighbors to work together. Our goal is to explore the opportunities for and challenges to cooperation for projects that protect and enhance stream health. As a resident with farmland, we would like to hear your thoughts about a local stream, how that stream affects you and your property, and your views on potential efforts to protect and enhance the health of the stream. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about you, your experience living and farming on this land, and any challenges or impacts you might have experienced in relation to the stream running through your land and. We are particularly interested in hearing your views on how neighbours might work together to improve the stream health and if there are any barriers to such cooperation. In our conversation we will talk about different topics that I will introduce to you. There are no wrong answers, you are free to answer only questions you feel comfortable with. You may choose not to answer a question if you feel not comfortable with that or if you are not familiar with the topic. Feel free to share other thoughts that occur to you or ask questions as we talk. We are collecting information about how the decision to participate was made by participating communities, what knowledge / experience may factor in deciding to participate and how this knowledge/information was originated (either obtained through experiencing events first hand or provided by external agents). We also seek to understand if there is currently any difference among these two groups, including their experience / challenges and communication channels / networking. We will try to keep questions open-ended “What? How? Why?” format but will be providing a number of non-directive probes throughout the process. (In order to identify farmers’ incentives, it is necessary to examine farmers’ experience and attitudes, forms of social capital and networks in the participating sub-watershed and compare them with the experience, attitudes, and networks in one of non-participating sub-watershed. It is also important to understand what information about costs and benefits from participating was available / should be available to farmers in the process of decision-making and the source of information. Topics to examine: 124 - Farmers’ knowledge / awareness of climate change impacts (in general) - Farmers’ understanding of watershed processes in general - Attitudes toward natural systems (the stream) - Farmers’ experience with farming / challenges on land including flooding - Perceptions about participation or possible participation costs and benefits - Communication / relationships between farmers and their social networks - Knowledge origin (Probes) General 1. How long do you live here? 2. If recently moved – Why? Plan to stay here in a long run? Pass the land to the children? 3. How do you use you land? 4. Do you work somewhere else or is this land is the main source of your household income? 5. Why did you choose farming? 6. What do you think about your neighbours? Do you know your neighbours? How do you interact with your neighbours? How often? (try to identify the geographic extent of possible networks) Environment related –attitudinal and behavioral questions 7. What do you know about climate change? What are the impacts on the local scale? 8. Questions related to watershed processes in general - Role in flood control? Wildlife preservation? Who benefits from wildlife preservation? 9. How this place changed since you moved/settled here? Natural environment? Changes in stream channel? Alterations? By whom/ why? Were those alterations good/bad? Who benefited? Who lost (including environment; or if there was any impact from residential communities upstream)? 10. Was he/she affected/ someone else affected? Neighbours? Beyond their community? How does he/she know that? Anything was done to improve? Who initiated? Who participated? What happened? What were the consequences? What happened it had on your decision to participate? 11. What do you like about this stream / don’t like? Possible themes: - Increasing / decreasing aesthetic value of my property - Maintaining streams health is important for preserving fish - Natural streams play an important role in mitigating the effects of extreme weather conditions, e.g. flood control - Presence of a stream on a private land increases a risk of the flood - Alteration of streams is necessary to accommodate the needs of land owners - Alteration of streams lead to consequences that might impose high costs on land owners and society - Damage to properties from flooding 125 - Damage because of impacts by neighboring farms Social structures, relationships and networks 12. How often land changes the ownership? 13. Ever since you settled here what do you think changed in the ways people interact? 14. Do above changes affected what happened to environment? How? How do you know that? 15. If yes, then what kind of relationships in the community do you think contribute to improving natural environment? Understanding costs and benefits and cost-benefit distribution 16. What are the costs of restoration? How costs will be distributed among farmers? How do you know that? How do you feel about that? 17. What are the expected benefits? How these benefits will be distributed? How do you know that? How do you feel about that? (Possible expected benefits): - Benefits from improved flood control - Improved habitat and as a result more fish and wildlife - Adopting BMPs will attract more subsidies - Improved cooperation with neighbours in managing resources Project related (only participating group) 18. How have you heard about this project? 19. Do you remember how it started? 20. Who approached you? What they said? 21. How did you feel at that time? 22. Whom did you talk to before you made a decision? Possible emerging themes: - Approached by external authorities - Heard about the opportunity from other community members and approached initiators - Talked to neighbours - Talked to family - Felt proud - Felt that action is inevitable - Felt pressure from outside / other community members – because others decided to join (Possible reasons for participation): 23. because everyone else has agreed 24. my decision will motivate others to join 25. participation will decrease chances of legal action against landowners 26. participation will create more subsidized BMPs 126 27. environmental degradation called for some action 28. will have less issues with flooding / groundwater percolation Contact recommendations 29. Are there any other people in this community who you think we should interview? Could you contact them on our behalf? Demographic and personal information: 1. In which year were you born? 2. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 3. In 2012, half of BC families earned around $71,000 per year. Is your household income near what the middle income household warns? Somewhat above? Somewhat below? Well above? Well below? 4. What share of your income is earned as a result of land use? Interview conclusion: “Thank you for your time and your valuable input. We may want to contact you again to follow up on some of the answers you have given. Would this be all right?” “If you have any questions for me, I can try to answer them. Also, feel free to follow up if you have questions. There is my supervisor’s contact information on your copy of the consent form.” “Can we contact you again if we have more question? Can we contact you again in one year in the second round of the interview “? Stop recorder and leave. Second round of interviews: Examine the impact that the GEFP process had in shifting attitudes and perceptions. Topics to explore: - Any changes in attitudes? - How and when change took place? (Intertemporal markers) - Does the project process unfold as expected by farmers? What impact this process and actual distribution of costs and benefits had on willingness to participate? 127 Appendix D Focus Group Discussion – guide Three (3) main themes: 1. Climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation Relevant conclusions • Most landowners are interested in pragmatic solutions to immediate issues (e.g., poor drainage, adequate water supply) rather than long-term environmental planning or climate change adaptation • Focused education efforts can help raise awareness about climate change and the role of ecosystem-based adaptation. Education sessions need to provide the opportunity for sharing experience from existing GEFP projects to improve the process and increase the uptake. • Landowners understand the meaning and climate change implications globally but seem to be underestimating local implications and effects on their livelihoods. Questions: This is what I observed and what do you think???? • Is this the issue of knowledge? WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO YOU THINK IS MISSING? WHAT IS THAT YOU KNOW NOW THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE? o about local climate change impacts, risks to their land? WHAT HAVE YOU NOTICED HAS CHANGED? WHAT WILL CHANGE IN THE FUTURE? o about ecosystems – flood control? ROLE OF ECOSYSTEMS IN FLOOD CONTROL? • Any changes in climate change knowledge in 2 years? Recent flood experience? • will see maintaining a healthy creek as an adaptation strategy? • regional flood control benefits? Benefits to the society at large vs individual / sub-basin? Healthy ecosystem: Everyone agreed that restoration result in healthy ecosystem. If not, why? (not everyone involved? Uncertainty associated with the development upstream? Was V the one who approached the township or township approached him? (responses might be driven by their experience. What they say can be compared to another group – not participating; I plan interview them again and my only question will be: since most of them stated that they would sooner or later commit to some sort of environmental improvement action, I can ask them if in the past 2 years any of those actions have been implemented and why?) Education – field visits with Pete and Lee? Role to play? How do they feel sharing their experience? Do they want to share their experience with the public? 2. Motivation to work as a group – a common interest or not necessarily a common interest? • Land-owners are likely to engage in ecological restoration if there is a direct or perceived benefit to each land-holding from the restoration effort – benefits can vary in size and nature 128 • Provision of environmental benefits alone may or may not trigger participation in a restoration effort. However, provision of environmental co-benefits is required for GEFP funding • Shared natural resources (such as streams running through several adjacent farms) tend to connect people due to the interdependence of people and their environment Question: so, the goal of this project is to restore the environment…the environmental restoration, right? “yes, it same for everybody else…K., D. and B. they all signed the agreement that this is what they …and each one of us got a list of what is going to be done at each particular property. D. is different from mine. D. has a nursery there and he is the one who got all that soil come in and now they put drain ditches in, drain ditches in the central location. K. loses her cows, she has cows and she lost two cows last year, hers is going to be a little different – they gonna put fencing, then I think the municipality is involved because the pipe that goes under the road has to be bigger now. So, the municipality is involved…so there is certain a few people involved. Do they all get along? Absolutely. We all want the same thing, we all want to contribute…” My understanding: People want to get involved because: • Flood issues, land and crop lost • Enforcement issues and lost land • Too close to the creek – might be problems some day • There were issues in the past, it can happen again • Township? Culverts need to be replaced? • Right thing for the environment? • Building stronger relationships with neighbours? Rely on each other In this respect: • Stream played a role connecting people? Why? If they were to prioritize their interest then what it will look like? Why? Dropping out by some residents? Discouraging? Feelings? 3. Institutional framework Regulatory controls can be essential for triggering action but successful outcomes depend on good will, adequate resourcing, and enforcement. • If not for enforcement issue, would the project still take place? If not why? • What was V’s role in initiating the collaboration? • If not V but someone else was caught by DFO? Same action? • What was the point of appeal with DFO? Could they enforce on any other land (from Vic’s interview – evidencing digging the creek on other land parcels)? Taking pictures (from another interview? Was there any court action? • What was V’s point of appeal to other land-owners? Only upstream his land? But not downstream? ☺ 129 • Is financing essential? If no financial support, then what? (selling land and moving on) • If action is induced by regulatory requirement? Regulatory barriers can frustrate efforts and prevent projects from being completed in timely fashion. They are perceived as being at odds with the BMPs implemented under the GEFP. Problem of communication? If they knew better would they be less frustrated? Financial implications from delay? - Reasons for delay as perceived by landowners. - Reasons for delay as perceived by practitioners. How this initial delay influenced the relationship between people? Landowners and practitioners? Potential for involvement and collaboration is greater if the process is facilitated by local (independent) restoration practitioners who are fully engaged and knowledgeable - Role in bringing people together in a collaborative discussion? Who had the township involved? Still involved? - Taking care of permits etc.? Did participant suspect it might take long time and hoped involving practitioners might expedite the process? - - Clear explanation about the dynamics of the issue and how restoration might help? - Three landlords pointed out the impact from sub-division upstream? Was it discussed with practitioners? Uncertainties and associated risks explained? The knowledge can be limited – even by people who are experienced and knowledgeable? - Project process: - How relationships unfolded? Unforeseen obstacles after permits were obtained? What happened? Whose fault? Anything can be done better? - How initial delay in permitting affected relationship between landowners and restoration practitioners? What’s next? 130 Appendix E(1) – Survey Results: Perceptions about Climate Change SD – strongly disagree; D – disagree; U – unsure or insufficient information; A – agree; SA – strongly agree Climate change SD D U A SA SD D U A SA Alderson Group Kendry Group When scientists speak of 'climate change' they are referring to trends or shifts in average climatic conditions (e.g., air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, wind) that are projected into the future, but have also occurred for millions of years into the past. 1 2 3 1 4 1 Most people understand that North America, including south-central British Columbia, was covered with glaciers several thousands of years ago. The extent of glaciation is influenced by climate change. 3 3 2 4 Today, most people use the term 'climate warming' as having the same meaning as 'climate change'. 1 2 2 1 2 4 There is little doubt that humans have had a major influence on accelerating the rate of climate warming over the past 100 years. 1 3 2 2 3 1 The impacts of global warming with respect to average annual temperature are likely to be felt differently in different areas of the globe. In other words, some regions will become much hotter whereas others may only warm a little bit 1 3 2 4 2 I anticipate that over the next 20 years, the day-to-day weather conditions on my property will not be much different from what they were in the past 20 years. 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 I anticipate that the number of extreme storms (i.e., large snowfalls in 24 hours, intense winds, flash floods, hail storms) will decrease in the future. 3 1 2 3 3 I expect that the amount of water needed by agricultural crops in the Armstrong area will increase over the next 10 years, even if the amount of land in crop production stays the same. 1 1 1 3 1 5 I anticipate that a smaller proportion of my property will be useable for agriculture in the future because of permanent changes in soil moisture conditions (wetter or drier) 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 131 Climate change SD D U A SA SD D U A SA Alderson Group Kendry Group I anticipate that the total amount of precipitation received during the winter (December – March) in the Armstrong area will decrease in the next 20-30 years 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 I expect that the average farmer will experience less extreme drought conditions in the late growing season (i.e., August) 3 1 2 2 3 1 I would prefer to manage my farm/ranch operations in a manner that is 'environmentally friendly', but other factors (e.g., financial pressures) are more important 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 Open-ended questions: Alderson Creek residents Kendry Creek Residents Based on what you have seen or witnessed in the Armstrong area, what sorts of events or trends (or other evidence) convince you that climate change is or is not happening. Please be very specific and list as many examples as you can think of Observations that are CONSISTENT with climate change flooding on field (J) less snow on the hills compared to 20 years ago (D) less crops / drier due to less precipitation (J) dry spring 2015 (lost 4K of crop due to warm weather) (S) extreme weather events (N) less snow cover (S) record breaking 24-hour snowfall (N) extended drought summer 2015 (D) sudden strong wind storms (N) creek almost run dry - this happened in the past (D) shorter winters (J) large snowfall in January 2015 (24-hour) (D) warmer winters (J) warmer winter temps (R) less snowfall (J) summer drought (R) warm late winter followed by outbreaks of frost in spring (V); higher temps in summer (R) withering grazing land due to summer heat (V) early snowmelt (R) 132 less snow in winter - less summer soil moisture (V) water restriction in some areas - yearly, no restrictions in other areas (D) crop yield changes (V) noticeable increase in pests and weeds Observations that are NOT CONSISTENT with climate change drought years followed by overly wet years (N) weather might be due to regular climate pattern (R) no climate change here (K) some years crops don't grow due to too much moisture (D) hard to distinguish between naturally different season and too dry some other years (lack of moisture) (D) climate change (V) not lived here long enough (D) inability to predict weather (V) Whether the cause is due to climate change or not, what sorts of unusual conditions have you noticed on your property that have influenced your farming/ranching operations in one way or another? higher temperatures (K) low creek level mid-summer (D) less precipitation in summer (K) lots of new weeds variety (S) dry soil (K) precipitation - need more detailed planning to adapt (S) increased runoff and flooding (J) drying off Kendry creek emphasized a need to protect less hay due to hot summers (J) riparian vegetation, fencing from cattle access (D) burning fields (J) lower streamflow - water access to cattle (R) protecting water for future use (N) erosion of the creek bed (D) reduced snowpack in last few years (V) changes of the creek channel and path due to erosion less spring runoff and lower creek levels (V) and stream flow levels (D) warmer and drier spring and summer (V) less crops from apple trees (V) extra CO2 from forest fires (V) 133 What sorts of 'improvements' on your property or farming/ranching operations, if any, have you invested in recently? If possible, list the primary reason for making the investment (e.g., because of annual flooding on the field or poor crop yield, etc.) need to put in irrigation; flood control (K) new irrigation system (expect bad fire season) (S) drainage channel to manage run-off (B) firefighting equipment (S) fertilizers and manure spreading (J) drainage improvement + ability to tap water from field (S) fencing creek area / livestock access (N) heat using more renewable???? (S) weed control (N) securing water supply (W) improved pasture management (N) fencing around the creek (will do) (R) no tillage techniques (V) fencing around property (R) fallowing land (V) fence around creek (will do with Steve) (D) irrigation improvement (V) just bought the place - none (D) changes in planting and harvesting times (V) diversifying crops and herd sizes (V) use of herbicides and fertilizers needed (V) (Adapting to climate change will be an ongoing issue as changes in precipitation, temperatures and extreme weather is expected to increase in magnitude (V) Your property sits in a 'watershed' or 'drainage basin', which is a natural system that integrates water flow, sedimentary processes, and ecological functions. List the ways in which your occupation and use of the land (as a farmer or rancher) is (i) consistent with (in harmony) and/or (ii) contrary to (in conflict with) the natural functioning of the watershed. Consistent or in harmony with the natural functioning of the watershed outflow to manage runoff (B) ensuring water flow back to the creek (Darin) outflow of the pond (N) put in hay as it needs less water (Darin) alternative water supply (V) better practices in soil fertilizers (Steve) wintering and feeding locations away from the creek (V) leaving a strip of riparian vegetation (Dorian) 134 fencing cattle (V) watering lawn using groundwater (Dorian) Will plant vegetation (V) to improve filtering and aware of things being put into or near the creek (Doug) reduce bank erosion maintaining free-flowing creek (Doug) Contrary to or in conflict with the natural functioning of the watershed cattle unlimited access to watercourse (N) interfere with natural flow/vegetation (Steve) cattle access cause pollution and bank erosion (V) cattle grazing disrupt creek function (Dorian) trees logged off years ago resulted in sedimentation and changes in creek channel, erosion (Doug) 135 Appendix E(2) – Survey Results: Environmental Attitudes SD – strongly disagree; D – disagree; U – unsure or insufficient information; A – agree; SA – strongly agree Alderson Group Kendry Group Environmental attitude SD D U A SA SD D U A SD We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support 1 3 3 2 4 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 3 1 4 1 5 1 Humans are seriously abusing the environment 5 5 1 3 3 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 7 3 3 1 3 2 Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature 9 1 3 2 3 3 The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources 11 3 3 1 1 4 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 13 1 2 3 1 4 1 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe 15 2 4 2 2 2 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unlivable 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations 8 2 4 3 3 The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated 10 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature 12 3 1 2 3 3 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it 14 1 5 1 4 1 136
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Janmaat, John
"Farming in a fishbowl"- landowners' motivations to initiate the collaborative riparian restoration
Text