Advertisement

Relationships, Connections, Influence, and Power

Chapter

Abstract

Nonpoint source pollutants are the number one cause of impaired waters in the United States. In many regions, agriculture contributes excessive nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to creeks, rivers and lakes creating unintended and severe negative consequences to our water bodies. Solutions to nonpoint source agricultural pollution must reach beyond ecological science and technical intervention to engage citizens and activate the public will to invest personal and public resources. In this introduction, we offer an overview of the theoretical pathways and scientific evidence chapters that follow.

Keywords

Status Belief Trust Relationship Core Belief Natural Resource Conservation Service Watershed Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Wheatley, M.J. 1999. Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publisher. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pfeffer, J. 1994. Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Willer, D., M.J. Lovagila, and B. Markovsky. 1997. “Power and Influence: A Theoretical Bridge.” Social Forces. December 76(2):571–603. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coplin, W.D. and M.K O’Leary. 1972. Everyman’s Prince: A Guide to Understanding Your Political Problems, p. 4. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grumbine, R.E. 1997. “Reflections of ‘What is Ecosystem Management?” Conservation Biology 11(1):41–47. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Machiavelli, Niccolo 1532, a Florentine, Italy public servant and political theorist who wrote Principe (The Prince) a political treatise; Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan, edited by Oakshott, M 1962. London: Collier-Macmillan; Hunter, F. 1953. “Community Power Structure.” In The Search for Community Power 1974, edited by W.D. Hawley and F.W. Wirt. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruins, J. 1999. “Social Power and Influence Tactics: A Theoretical Introduction.” Journal of Social Issues 55(1):7–14. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    French, J.R.P. Jr. and B. Raven. 1968. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Group Dynamics, pp. 259–269, edited by D. Cartwright and A. Zander. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Minkler, M. 1999. Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook, K.S., C. Cheshire, and A. Gerbasi. 2006. “Power, Dependence, and Social Exchange.” Chapter 9. In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by P.J. Burke. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Correll, S.J. and C.L. Ridgeway. 2006. “Expectation States Theory” Chapter 2. In Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by J. Delamater. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Correll, S.J. and C.L. Ridgeway. 2006. “Expectation States Theory” Chapter 2. In Handbook of Social Psychology, p. 44, edited by J. Delamater. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ridgeway, C.L. and S.J. Correll. 2006. “Consensus and the Creation of Status Beliefs.” Social Forces 85(1):431–453. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    HUC is the acronym for Hydrologic Unit Code. Every hydrologic unit is identified by a unique HUC consisting of 2–12 digits based on the levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. A hydrologic unit describes the area of land upstream from a specific point on the stream (generally the mouth or outlet) that contributes surface water runoff directly to this outlet point. Another term for this concept is drainage area. It is delineated by starting at a designated outlet point (usually the river mouth) and proceeding to follow the highest elevation of land that divides the direction of surface water flow (usually referred to as the ridge line). Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) data describe watersheds as polygons, defined by digital elevation model data. HUC basins decrease in size with an increase in levels. For example, HUC6 watersheds are major river basins while HUC12 watersheds are 10,000–40,000 acres or 15–62 mi2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morton, L.W. and C.Y. Weng. 2009. “Getting to Better Water Quality Outcomes: The Promise & Challenge of the Citizen Effect.” Agriculture and Human Values. In special issue on Civic Engagement and Alternative Rural Development 26 (1):83–94.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Weber, E.P. 2003 “Bringing Society Back.” In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber, E. P. 2003. “Bringing Society Back.” In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities, p. 137. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morton, L.W. and S. Brown. 2007. Water Issues in the Four State Heartland Region: A Survey of Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Water. The Heartland Regional Water Coordination Initiative Bulletin #SP289 Iowa State University Extension. http://www.heartlandwq.iastate.edu.
  20. 20.
    Genskow K. and L.S. Prokopy. 2008. The Social Indicator Planning and Evaluation System (SIPES) for Nonpoint Source Management: A Handbook for Projects in USEPA Region 5. Great Lakes Regional Water Program. Publication Number: GLRWP-08-SI01.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sabatier, P.A. and H.C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by P. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weaver, M. and R. Moore. 2004. “Generating and Sustaining Collaborative Decision-making in Watershed Groups.” Presented at 67th annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society Sacramento, August 11–15.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lower Big Sioux River Watershed Survey Nov 2007; 4,439 surveys mailed by 3 county Soil & Water Conservation District offices to all landowners. Single mailing, no follow-up. N = 1,110 completed surveys 25.2% response rate.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Filipovitch, A.J. 2005. PRINCE Analysis. (http://Krypton.mnsu.edu/∼tony/courses/609/Frame/PRINCE.html) Retrieved April 6, 2008.
  25. 25.
    Coplin, W.D. and M.K. O’Leary. 1972. Everyman’s Prince: A Guide to Understanding Your Political Problems, pp. 168–170. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coplin, W.D. and M.K. O’Leary. 1972. Everyman’s Prince: A Guide to Understanding Your Political Problems, p. 43. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Habron, G. 2003. “Role of Adaptive Management of Watershed Councils.” Environmental Management 31(1):29–41.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber, E.P. 2003. “Bringing Society Back.” In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT; Morton, L.W. 2008. “The Role of Civic Structure in Achieving Performance-based Watershed Management.” Society & Natural Resources 21(9):751–766.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations