File:Lipsky 2010 whidbey stakeholder preferences.pdf

Product

A product is any output of an effort, including datasets, documents, graphics, or websites.

Last Ten Documents

• Blevins et al. 2024 freshwater mussel survey.pdf
• Murphy 2020 no one asked for ethnography
• NOAA 2022 mitigation policy.pdf
• Gaydos et al 2008 principles design healthy ecosystems
• Barnhardt & Kawagley 2005 indigenous knowledge systems alaska
• Ecology 1991 public trust doctrine and coastal zone
• WDOE 2024 climate guidance shoreline management
• Adopt-A-Stream Foundation 2024 wetland stream ecology training.pdf
• Imai 2012 continuous improvement strategy
• Waterman-Hoey 2022 washington greenhouse gas emissions inventory.pdf

Product Categories

Dataset‎ (1 P)

Document‎ (2 C, 139 P, 506 F)

Graphic‎ (2 C, 1 F)

Website‎ (23 P)

Google scholar search

Linked To This Product

Wiki Rules

• Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
• Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
• Complain here, and be nice.

Citation

Abstract (Extracted from Lipsky 2010; closed to editing)

The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) proposes strategic, Sound-wide shoreline restoration. PSNERP would change Puget Sound restoration from a small-scale, bottom-up approach to a large-scale, top-down one. I investigated PSNERP as a “nascent policy subsystem” per the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). I elicited input from 12 PSNERP stakeholder categories in the Whidbey Sub-Basin region. I examined three questions:

1. What are the overall values and preferences of Whidbey Sub-Basin stakeholders?
2. How do Whidbey Sub-Basin stakeholders trade off priorities?
3. Around what groups of shared values might coalitions of stakeholders form?

Findings can inform PSNERP’s restoration planning and future stakeholder involvement and outreach activities.

Using mixed methods, I spoke with 38 respondents. I used survey and interview data to identify respondents’ overall values and preferences, and to group respondents into potential coalitions. I used ranking exercises to understand how respondents trade off priorities.

Respondents’ overall values were:

1. The environmental quality of the nearshore is poor
2. It is worth investing in restoration
3. Pollution is a major problem

Respondents’ overall preferences were:

1. Manage impacts of stressors, rather than removing them
2. Focus on wildlife habitat for multiple species
3. Protection is more important than restoration

Respondents traded off private homes and shops to give high priority to natural habitat features. They gave high priority to water quality, ecosystem services and natural processes as objectives, and traded off preservation of commerce.

I identified five potential coalitions, based on respondents’ shared values about causes, severity, types and solutions of problems. I labeled these coalitions: No Government Intervention; Property Rights and Development; Private Land Stewardship; Protect Undeveloped Areas; and Large-Scale Restoration.

Overall, I found support for ACF hypotheses, in that potential coalitions were identifiable by shared values, but coalition members did not share preferences or demographics. I recommend that PSNERP focus on these values, and not stakeholder categories, in future outreach activities. I also recommend that PSNERP proceed with its proposed restoration approach, with two caveats:

1. Conduct outreach about specific aspects of the program
2. Give higher weight to sites with anticipated water quality and wildlife benefits

Analysis

Description of importance of document in relation to other efforts including links to any other documents found in this wiki