个人和集体的政治效能对农民参与和支持地下水政策的预测:《加利福尼亚州可持续地下水管理法》的启示

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Meredith T. Niles, Courtney R. Hammond Wagner, Natalia Aristizábal, Carolyn R. Hricko, Adam N. Petrucci, Luis Alexis Rodríguez-Cruz
{"title":"个人和集体的政治效能对农民参与和支持地下水政策的预测:《加利福尼亚州可持续地下水管理法》的启示","authors":"Meredith T. Niles, Courtney R. Hammond Wagner, Natalia Aristizábal, Carolyn R. Hricko, Adam N. Petrucci, Luis Alexis Rodríguez-Cruz","doi":"10.5751/es-14673-290105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Common-pool resource theory suggests that the direct participation of local natural resource users in the management of common-pool resources can lead to effective management regimes. Nevertheless, the drivers of participation in common-pool resource management, including policy decision processes, and the effects of participation on stakeholder attitudes and policy preferences are relatively understudied. Here, we combine the social-ecological system (SES) framework with the political science concept of political efficacy to examine both contextual and personal drivers of farmer participation in California, USA’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), as well as the effect of participation on support for policy mechanisms from the SGMA. We surveyed a total of 553 farmers in three counties across the California Central Valley and Central Coast. Overall, we find that < 50% of the farmers surveyed have participated in any SGMA-related events, with attending a meeting being the most common (45%), and testifying before a board being the least common (6%). Participation in any type of SGMA policy event was associated with multiple characteristics of the groundwater SES context, including the resource system (farm size) and actor attributes (farm bureau membership and receiving information about the policy), that likely combine to indicate a higher level of social, financial, and built capital. Higher participation was also associated with higher internal efficacy ratings, i.e., an individual’s self-assessment of their ability to understand and participate in the political process. Higher levels of internal efficacy were also correlated with support for both incentive- and regulatory-based policy mechanisms, as well as the perception that groundwater impacts are occurring now or soon, and exclusive reliance on groundwater. These results demonstrate that political competence and experience with policy processes and programs are not only associated with participation in current policy issues, which is widely recognized in existing research, but are also associated with policy mechanisms, in particular, with potentially more costly regulatory-based mechanisms.\n</p>\n<p>The post Individual and collective political efficacy predict farmer engagement and support for groundwater policies: implications from the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":51028,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual and collective political efficacy predict farmer engagement and support for groundwater policies: implications from the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act\",\"authors\":\"Meredith T. Niles, Courtney R. Hammond Wagner, Natalia Aristizábal, Carolyn R. Hricko, Adam N. Petrucci, Luis Alexis Rodríguez-Cruz\",\"doi\":\"10.5751/es-14673-290105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Common-pool resource theory suggests that the direct participation of local natural resource users in the management of common-pool resources can lead to effective management regimes. Nevertheless, the drivers of participation in common-pool resource management, including policy decision processes, and the effects of participation on stakeholder attitudes and policy preferences are relatively understudied. Here, we combine the social-ecological system (SES) framework with the political science concept of political efficacy to examine both contextual and personal drivers of farmer participation in California, USA’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), as well as the effect of participation on support for policy mechanisms from the SGMA. We surveyed a total of 553 farmers in three counties across the California Central Valley and Central Coast. Overall, we find that < 50% of the farmers surveyed have participated in any SGMA-related events, with attending a meeting being the most common (45%), and testifying before a board being the least common (6%). Participation in any type of SGMA policy event was associated with multiple characteristics of the groundwater SES context, including the resource system (farm size) and actor attributes (farm bureau membership and receiving information about the policy), that likely combine to indicate a higher level of social, financial, and built capital. Higher participation was also associated with higher internal efficacy ratings, i.e., an individual’s self-assessment of their ability to understand and participate in the political process. Higher levels of internal efficacy were also correlated with support for both incentive- and regulatory-based policy mechanisms, as well as the perception that groundwater impacts are occurring now or soon, and exclusive reliance on groundwater. These results demonstrate that political competence and experience with policy processes and programs are not only associated with participation in current policy issues, which is widely recognized in existing research, but are also associated with policy mechanisms, in particular, with potentially more costly regulatory-based mechanisms.\\n</p>\\n<p>The post Individual and collective political efficacy predict farmer engagement and support for groundwater policies: implications from the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-14673-290105\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-14673-290105","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

共用资源理论认为,当地自然资源使用者直接参与共用资源的管理,可以形成有效的管理制度。然而,对参与共用资源管理的驱动因素(包括政策决策过程)以及参与对利益相关者态度和政策偏好的影响的研究相对较少。在此,我们将社会生态系统(SES)框架与政治科学的政治效能概念相结合,研究了农民参与美国加利福尼亚州 2014 年《地下水可持续管理法案》(SGMA)的背景和个人驱动因素,以及参与对支持 SGMA 政策机制的影响。我们对加利福尼亚州中央河谷和中央海岸三个县的 553 名农民进行了调查。总体而言,我们发现小于 50% 的受访农民参加过任何与 SGMA 相关的活动,其中参加会议的比例最高(45%),在委员会作证的比例最低(6%)。参与任何类型的 SGMA 政策活动都与地下水 SES 环境的多个特征有关,包括资源系统(农场规模)和行为者属性(农场局成员资格和接收政策信息),这些特征可能共同表明了较高的社会、财务和建设资本水平。较高的参与度还与较高的内部效能评分相关,即个人对其理解和参与政治进程能力的自我评估。较高的内部效能还与对基于激励和监管的政策机制的支持、对地下水影响正在或即将发生的看法以及对地下水的完全依赖相关。这些结果表明,政治能力和政策过程与计划方面的经验不仅与参与当前政策问题相关(这一点在现有研究中已得到广泛认可),而且还与政策机制相关,特别是与潜在成本更高的基于监管的机制相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Individual and collective political efficacy predict farmer engagement and support for groundwater policies: implications from the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Common-pool resource theory suggests that the direct participation of local natural resource users in the management of common-pool resources can lead to effective management regimes. Nevertheless, the drivers of participation in common-pool resource management, including policy decision processes, and the effects of participation on stakeholder attitudes and policy preferences are relatively understudied. Here, we combine the social-ecological system (SES) framework with the political science concept of political efficacy to examine both contextual and personal drivers of farmer participation in California, USA’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), as well as the effect of participation on support for policy mechanisms from the SGMA. We surveyed a total of 553 farmers in three counties across the California Central Valley and Central Coast. Overall, we find that < 50% of the farmers surveyed have participated in any SGMA-related events, with attending a meeting being the most common (45%), and testifying before a board being the least common (6%). Participation in any type of SGMA policy event was associated with multiple characteristics of the groundwater SES context, including the resource system (farm size) and actor attributes (farm bureau membership and receiving information about the policy), that likely combine to indicate a higher level of social, financial, and built capital. Higher participation was also associated with higher internal efficacy ratings, i.e., an individual’s self-assessment of their ability to understand and participate in the political process. Higher levels of internal efficacy were also correlated with support for both incentive- and regulatory-based policy mechanisms, as well as the perception that groundwater impacts are occurring now or soon, and exclusive reliance on groundwater. These results demonstrate that political competence and experience with policy processes and programs are not only associated with participation in current policy issues, which is widely recognized in existing research, but are also associated with policy mechanisms, in particular, with potentially more costly regulatory-based mechanisms.

The post Individual and collective political efficacy predict farmer engagement and support for groundwater policies: implications from the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act first appeared on Ecology & Society.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology and Society
Ecology and Society 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
109
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecology and Society is an electronic, peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of current research. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled on the Internet. Software developed for the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review, facilitates a double-blind peer review process, and allows authors and editors to follow the progress of peer review on the Internet. As articles are accepted, they are published in an "Issue in Progress." At four month intervals the Issue-in-Progress is declared a New Issue, and subscribers receive the Table of Contents of the issue via email. Our turn-around time (submission to publication) averages around 350 days. We encourage publication of special features. Special features are comprised of a set of manuscripts that address a single theme, and include an introductory and summary manuscript. The individual contributions are published in regular issues, and the special feature manuscripts are linked through a table of contents and announced on the journal''s main page. The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience that includes an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human wellbeing ultimately depends.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信