Using communication research to gather stakeholder preferences to improve groundwater management models: A South Texas case study

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Jensen, Ric ^a   Uddameri, Venkatesh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649344556     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.08010202     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. K. Buysse and A. Verbeke (2003), Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Perspective, Strategic Management Journal 24, 453-470.
2. D. Clark et al. (2007), Rocky Flats Closure: The Role of Models in Facilitating Communication with Stakeholder Groups, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 444, 11-18.
3. N. Darnell and G. Jolley (2004), Involving the Public: When Are Surveys and Stakeholder Interviews Not Effective?, Review of Policy Research 21, 581-593.
4. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (1998), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California.
5. J. Hocking, D. Stacks and S. McDermott (2005), Communication Research, Allyn & Bacon Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
6. S. Jamieson (2004), Likert Scales: How to (Ab)use Them, Medical Education 38, 1217-1218.
7. R. Jensen (2005), Use of Qualitative Methods to Obtain Stakeholder Preferences to Support Groundwater Modeling in South Texas, Technical report submitted to the Center for Environmental Research in Science and Technology, August 2005.
8. A. Jonsson (2005), Public Participation in Water Resources Management: Stakeholder Voices on Degree, Scale, Potential, and Methods in Future Water Management, Ambio 34, 495-500.
9. Klamath River Basin: Reclamation Met its Water Bank Obligations, but Information Provided to Water Bank Stakeholders Could be Improved. 2005. United States Government Accounting Office.
10. M. Kuchanar (2006), A Decision Support System to Develop Sustainable Groundwater Management Policies for a Multi-County Single Aquifer System, Proposal funded by the Texas Water Resources Institute. On the web at http://twri.tamu.edu.
11. M. McBeth, E. Shanahan and M. Jones (2005), The Science of Storytelling: Measuring Policy in Greater Yellowstone. Society and Natural Resources 18, 413-429.
12. M. Moore (2006), I, Me, Mine: On the Rhetoric of Water Wars in the Pacific Northwest, The Environmental Communication Yearbook, 1-19.
13. J. Olsson and K. Berg (2005), Local Stakeholders' Acceptance of Model-Generated Data Used as a Communication Tool in Water Management: The Ronnea Study, Ambio 34, 507-512.
14. P. Pahl-Wostl (2002), Participative and Stakeholder-Based Policy Design, Evaluation, and Modeling Processes, Integrated Assessment 3, 3-14.
15. The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation (2002), National Science Foundation.
16. V. Uddameri and M. Kuchanur (2007), Simulation-Optimization Approach to Assess Groundwater Availability In Refugio County, Texas, Environmental Geology 51, 921-929.
17. V. Uddameri and V. Honnungar (2007), Interpreting Sustainable Yield of an Aquifer Using A Fuzzy Framework, Environmental Geology 51, 911-919.
18. V. Uddameri, M. Kuchanur and N. Balija (2006), Optimization Approaches for Groundwater Management, Chapter 11 in Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas, Texas Water Development Board Report 365, 205-216.
19. V. Uddameri (2003), Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selecting an Appropriate Fate and Transport Model for Risk-Based Decision Making at Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 7, 139-146.
20. L. Wagenet and M. Pfeffer (2004), Stakeholder Participation in Watershed Management, Environment and Society 5, 1-13.