Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda.

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.

A meta-analysis of agricultural conservation intentions, behaviors, and practices: Insights from 35 years of quantitative literature in the United States.

Conservation practices (CPs) are integral to maintaining the long-term viability of agro-ecological systems. Because farming systems and farmers' values and attitudes are heterogeneous, factors that consistently predict conservation behaviors remain elusive. Moreover, heterogeneity is present among studies regarding the type of CPs examined, and whether behavioral intentions or actual behaviors were measured. This study considers the characteristics of each CP, and whether a given study measured behavioral intention or actual behavior, to better understand farmers' adoption of CPs. We reviewed and analyzed 35 years (1982-2017) of quantitative conservation adoption literature in the United States. We categorized CPs based on their primary purpose, the type of benefit they provide, and whether they are operational or structural. We also examined the following five CPs: conservation tillage, buffers or borders, soil testing, grassed waterways, and cover crops. In our behavioral intention and actual behavior analysis, we found that attitudinal factors predicted both conservation intention and action (actual behavior), whereas current or previous use of practices only influenced actions, not stated conservation intentions. In our analysis focusing on CP characteristics, we found that having specific knowledge about and positive attitudes toward the CP, adoption of other CPs, seeking and using information, larger farm size, and vulnerable land predicted actual adoption across nearly all CP categorizations. Nuances emerge when comparing predictors of CPs that share a particular characteristic. For example, we found farm characteristics to be comparatively more important in predicting adoption of soil management CPs than nutrient and livestock management CPs, and farmers' stewardship identity to be more important for permanent practices than operational practices.

Understanding scientists' communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture.

In the United States, a public debate remains about the existence and effects of anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism is present in the agricultural sector, rendering climate science communication challenging. Due to the polarization of climate change issues and the concurrent need for agricultural adaptation, we sought to examine how scientists communicate in this sector. A survey, administered to climate scientists and pertinent U.S. federal agency staff (response rate = 43%), was conducted to examine perspectives on communicating with five agricultural stakeholder groups: agribusinesses, crop advisors, general public, producers, and policymakers. We focused on three aspects of the communication process with these stakeholders to evaluate if scientists, as messengers, were following best practices-communicator training, knowledge of stakeholder, and terminology use. We found scientists valued communication training; however, the majority had not attended formal training. Scientists had different views on climate change than producers and crop advisors but understood their perspective and were deliberate with their communication with different audiences. This suggests stakeholder knowledge and terminology use do not hinder communication between scientist and stakeholder. We also highlight three communication challenges present across stakeholder groups-stakeholder knowledge, timescale, and scientific uncertainty-and others that were specific to each stakeholder group. Future research should support scientists by identifying and resolving barriers to training and effective communication strategies for each stakeholder group that addresses these challenges.

Do scientists have a responsibility to provide climate change expertise to mitigation and adaptation strategies? Perspectives from climate professionals.

Although the scientific community has reached a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is a severe and pressing issue, climate change remains a contentious debate with the United States public. Through a survey (N = 273), we explored climate professionals' perspectives on their role and responsibility to promote climate change adaptation/mitigation strategies related to agroecosystems. They believed that climate professionals have a social responsibility to provide scientific input to both policymakers and the public. There was strong agreement that media, political, and public support is necessary for development, and near unanimous agreement for implementation, of climate change mitigation/adaptation strategies. This study highlights the climate professionals' perceptions of their responsibility to provide scientific input, but also demonstrates that they believe the responsibility does not rest solely on their shoulders. Further research should explore scientists' perceptions of their and others' policy roles and scientists' interactions with different influencers of adaptation/mitigation policy.

Public perception towards river and water conservation practices: Opportunities for implementing urban stormwater management practices.

The effectiveness of urban stormwater management practices (SMPs) on local water quality is dependent on adoption rates reaching a critical mass. While numerous studies have measured the effectiveness of practices on controlling water quantity and improving water quality, few have focused on the perspective of the public. The purpose of this study was to identify individuals' perceptions of urban SMPs implementation in the public and private realms, and how longitudinal perceptions about the local river could inform future water resource management. Through the lens of environmental behavior theories, we performed statistical analyses on four surveys - 2006, 2009, 2014 and 2016 - administered to urban residents in the Wabash River watershed in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Our findings show that residents' water quality awareness and sense of personal responsibility increase over the ten years studied. In particular, rain garden adopters have higher appreciation of the Wabash River and care about how the river functions than other SMP adopters and non-adopters. In terms of urban SMP adoption, results indicate that residents are supportive of integrating rain barrels and rain gardens into public spaces. Perceptions of SMP benefits related to functional benefits, rather than environmental benefits, are prevalent when considering implementing SMPs on personal property. In addition, respondents support reducing stormwater charges for adopters of such practices on private property. Although cognitive barriers exist in those who have yet to adopt the practices, including concerns about SMP effectiveness, maintenance, aesthetics, and risk of bugs and insects, adopters are less likely to perceive such barriers. This research suggests that making resources (i.e., skills, knowledge, equipment, funding) more accessible to the public is essential, but not sufficient to encourage pro-environmental behaviors. Promoting public involvement in watershed activities, increasing their awareness about how urban SMPs function, and emphasizing the functional benefits of practices can be effective in motivating adoption.