The social context of water quality improvement evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2012, Issue 135, 2012, Pages 41-58

  Thurston, Linda P ^a   Smith, Christa A ^a   Genskow, Kenneth ^b   Stalker Prokopy, Linda ^c   Hargrove, William L ^d  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Center for Environmental Research and Management   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866282767     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.20026     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Birnbaum, M., & Mickwitz, P. (2009). Editors' notes. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 1-7.
2. Born, S. M., & Genskow, K. D. (2000). The watershed approach: An empirical assessment of innovation in environmental management. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
3. Bruyninckx, H. (2009). Environmental evaluation practices and the issue of scale. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 31-39.
4. Duriancik, L. F., Bucks, D., Dobrowolski, J. P., Drewes, T., Eckles, S. D., Jolly, L., Weltz, M. A. (2008). The first five years of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63, 185A-197A.
5. Genskow, K., & Prokopy, L. (2010). Lessons learned in developing social indicators for regional water quality management. Society and Natural Resources, 23, 83-91.
6. Hildén, M. (2009). Time horizons in evaluating environmental policies. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 9-18.
7. Hooper, B. P., McDonald, G. T., & Mitchell, B. (1999). Facilitating integrated resource and environmental management: Australian and Canadian perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42, 747-766.
8. Kaplowitz, M., & Witter, S. (2008). Agricultural and residential stakeholder input for watershed management in a mid-Michigan watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 20-27.
9. Koontz, T. M., & Johnson, E. M. (2004). One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences, 37, 185-204.
10. Koontz, T. M., Steelman, T. A., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K. S., Mosely, C., & Thomas, C. W. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
11. Leach, W. D., & Pelkey, N. W. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127, 378-385.
12. Margerum, R. D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: The foundations for successful practice. Environmental Management, 24(2), 151-166.
13. Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Salafsky, N., & Brown, M. (2009). Design alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation projects. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 85-96.
14. Morton, L. W., & Padgitt, S. (2005). Selecting socio-economic metrics for watershed management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 103, 83-98.
15. Mullen, M. W., & Allison, B. (1999). Stakeholder involvement and social capital: Keys to watershed management success in Alabama. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35, 655-662.
16. Prokopy, L., Genskow, K., Asher, J., Baumgart-Getz, A., Bonnell, J., Broussard, S., Wood, D. (2009). Designing a regional system of social indicators to evaluate non-point source water projects. Journal of Extension, 47.
17. Pullin, A. S., & Knight, T. M. (2009). Data credibility: A perspective from systematic reviews in environmental management. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 65-74.
18. Pulver, S., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2009)."Thinking about tomorrows": Scenarios, global environmental politics, and social science scholarship. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 1-13.
19. Rog, D. (2012). When background becomes foreground: Toward context-sensitive evaluation practice. In D. J. Rog, J. L. Fitzpatrick, & R. F. Conner (Eds.), Context: A framework for its influence on evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 135, pp. 25-40.
20. Sabatier, P. A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., & Matlock, M. (Eds.). (2005). Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2009). National water quality inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 reporting cycle (Publication EPA 841-R-08-001). Washington, DC: USEPA.
22. USEPA. (1996). Watershed approach framework. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/framework.cfm
23. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2010). The quality of our nation's waters-Nutrients in the nation's streams and groundwater, 1992-2004 (USGS Circular 1350). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
24. Wood, C. (2008). Dry spring: The coming water crisis of North America. Berkeley, CA: Raincoast Books.