Relationship Building and People Work

Abstract

Environmental activism is often studied as a social movement that advocates on behalf of marginalized populations who are faced with environmental injustices. We expand on previous environmental activism scholarship by focusing on a chronic, widespread environmental hazard affecting more communities not traditionally emphasized in such scholarship: phosphorus pollution and subsequent blue-green algae blooms. This is a socioenvironmental problem of increasing significance worldwide due to both its prevalence and the challenge of dealing with the numerous sources of such pollution. This article offers insight into the social networks of activists who work alongside government agencies on this issue in the Red Cedar Basin of Wisconsin, and how these networks may lead to civic engagement through mechanisms of social capital. Social network analysis is used here, coupled with binary logit regression, and an exploration of different types of social capital and the likelihood of civic engagement. We find that variation in leadership trait values is dependent on cultivation of different types of social capital. The type of social capital also relates to environmental activism and organization of or attendance at farm field days. In addition, government agents are particularly central to these social networks and thus are perhaps in the best position to help mobilize environmental civil society. However, findings here show that effectiveness of network expansion is inhibited by neoliberalizing forces and subsequent community capacity constraints.

Keywords

environmental activism water pollution social networks environmental governance social capital

Personal Reflexive Statement

Alison Anson: Ever since I began studying sociology, my passion was always to use sociology where one would not expect to find it. Because of this, my work is often directed toward natural sciences. I am interested in environmental issues, and much of my research focuses on the human interactions within the natural environment, particularly in the areas of water governance, energy, and social networks. I take a systemic perspective on environmental problems, exploring how human interactions within the natural environment are just one piece of a larger, more complex system. Systems thinking emphasizes that any force applied to a system has consequences, therefore my passion lies in determining how environmental activism can be utilized within a network to positively absorb and adapt these external forces rather than contribute to a system’s collapse.

Nels Paulson: My work typically focuses on civil society as a way to mobilize more sustainable relationships between humanity and nature. When I arrived in Menomonie, WI, as a freshly minted assistant professor, I noticed the massive problem of blue-green algae in the local lakes and idealistically told a colleague, “I’m going to fix that!” Of course, as an environmental sociologist, I knew it would not be easy to change the massive, dispersed land use producing such pollution. But I also knew that, through the combined research on and engagement in civil society, change is possible. I joined the board of a local nongovernmental organization, put together grant applications to National Science Foundation (NSF), and several years later, I began directing an interdisciplinary research project that attempts to mobilize the community to address pollution as much as study it. This combination of applied research and advocacy drives me as an academic and as a citizen, and it certainly was central to the substance of this article.

Introduction

Environmental activism traditionally focuses on two categories: (1) disproportionate harm or environmental injustices to marginalized communities and (2) the responses by activists within those communities. Diverging from these traditional investigations of environmental activism may present a broader way of understanding its substance and relationship to governance. We build on the traditional focus of environmental justice and environmental activism scholarship, shifting our focus to how “environmental justice” is understood and pursued beyond the contexts of environmental harm to those most marginalized. Often causes of environmental injustices are in plain sight such as locations of industrial plants or dump sites for toxic waste; however, injustices can also be diffused and difficult to pinpoint (e.g., Auyero and Swistun 2009). It is therefore necessary to acknowledge that each unique injustice requires a unique form of environmental activism. We explore a widespread environmental problem, phosphorus pollution, and how communities and government agencies might mobilize in ways to clean watersheds while prioritizing fair and equitable governance strategies. Specifically, this article focuses on how extant social networks and differences in social capital shape environmental activist efforts in pursuing environmental justice in nontraditional contexts (and, presumably, in traditional contexts as well).

Areas of intensive agriculture often have large quantities of phosphorus runoff which result in degraded water quality. This poor water quality in turn has significant negative economic and social impacts. In the United States, the extent of phosphorus loss through runoff and groundwater transport is stunning, resulting in 175,000 tons annually transported from Midwest farms into the Mississippi River alone (Aulenbach et al. 2007; McDowell et al. 2004). Due to phosphorous mismanagement, this nutrient excess is an agricultural issue that many regions face worldwide (Rogalus and Watzin 2008). Throughout the North American heartland, communities bear the cost of agricultural productivity through surface water eutrophication, blue-green algal blooms, and loss of aquatic biodiversity. Compared to natural sources, phosphorus loads from human activities contribute much more to water quality degradation (Falkowski et al. 2000). Economic factors, education levels, social networks, weather patterns, soil type and topography, water dynamics, and adoption of new food production techniques all interact to determine the rates of phosphorus application and loss (Sharpley et al. 1994). The negative social and economic outcomes from phosphorus pollution include decreased health of lake residents, lower property values, and decreased tourism revenue for local businesses (Liu et al. 2008; Morse, Lester, and Perry 1993).

This article explores how environmental activists can use their social networks to influence environmental governance and land use change regarding phosphorus pollution. Public engagement with conservation agencies is analyzed here in a mixed methods exploratory study of one Midwestern U.S. watershed, where we offer insight into the constraints and opportunities for addressing nonpoint source runoff. While point source polluters are held responsible for pollutants and regulated by government policies, nonpoint source pollution comes from storm water runoff and agricultural runoff that are not easily regulated. This makes nonpoint source pollution one of the most difficult pollutants to manage, as it could be caused by a “wider range of human activities which may be: long term in nature; socially, politically and institutionally complex; spatially diverse; and difficult to influence” (Patterson 2013:442). In order to better understand the constraints that prevent environmental activism related to remediation of water pollution, it is necessary to evaluate (1) the differences in types of social capital among those in the social network and (2) resources available for government workers’ consultations with farmers and other land users. These are perhaps most driven by the broader cultural forces of the local and global political economy, which largely disregard practical human capital needs for reducing nonpoint phosphorus pollution in preference for deregulation according to neoliberal paradigms of governance.

Environmental Activism

Scholarship on environmental justice often contributes a unique and specific perspective on environmental activism. Mohai, Pellow, and Timmons Roberts (2009) describe how environmental justice research arose from studies in which ethnic minorities, indigenous persons, people of color, and low-income communities experienced the greatest environmental burdens and worst conditions. Robert Bullard more generally defines environmental justice as the principle that “all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations” (Mohai, Pellow, and Timmons Roberts 2009:407). Traditional environmental activism imagined as the response to environmental injustices often contextualizes and makes visible harmful processes such as toxic waste disposals and direct air pollutions. In terms of responses, modes of environmental activism include “litigation in national and international courts to blockades of transport routes, from involvement of Green parties in electoral and legislative politics to lobbying by conservation groups” (Roberts 2007:677). Activism is generally political in nature, necessitating legal expertise within the network of activists. These movements emphasize the importance of the role of state, as “it can legislate, both for the protection of the environment and in ways that are at least potentially detrimental to the environment” (Roberts 2007:681).

Activists within communities interpret their role in fighting environmental injustices in many ways. For example, Farrell (2013) argues individuals typically engage in activism dependent on their perceptions of nature: unenchanted (do not believe nature is sacred), intrinsic (nature is sacred in itself), or creational (nature is sacred because it is a divine creation). Such varied reasons for engagement mean different avenues for engagement, but these have all increasingly changed in terms of their formal rationalization, wherein “the contentious actions of earlier times have seemingly given way to a more institutionalized pattern of group action that continues to generate policy reform, albeit in the halls of government more than in the streets of capital cities” (Dalton 2015:547). Consequently, this suggests an increasing focus on activists’ support from and relationship with government.

Faysse et al. (2014) claim that weak governance is directly related to the weak social interactions between actors who use the natural resource under debate. In these cases, they assert that governance exists but lacks the institutional capacity necessary to create successful natural resource management. The authors suggest that where strong environmental governance does not previously exist, dialogue is created through environmental advocacy actions which explicitly link government agencies with other stakeholders. These dialogues promote healthy discussion and mutual learning. However, these are often merely a “short-lived dialogue among local stakeholders in a situation of weak governance” (Faysse et al. 2014:262). Collaborative meetings, while helpful for a short time, do not create sustainable communities over the long term. Therefore, environmental activism must be evaluated in terms of its capacity to shape governance in less episodic ways. Picou et al. (2008:523) argue for a stronger focus on environmental problems from the perspective of public environmental sociology wherein a “policy-focused environmental sociology needs to involve more public constituencies in the twenty-first century.”

It is not sufficient to focus solely on environmental movements that mobilize in highly visible ways against the most egregious environmental injustices and governance practices. Academic scholarship and research can also be quite integral in understanding and cultivating environmental activism. Pacheco-Vega (2015:146) argues that knowledge sharing is a powerful tool necessary to modern environmental activism. Similarly, Epstein (2005:47) argues that knowledge can be an effective tool in environmental activism and illustrates the place of “science as a key weapon in the arsenal of environmental activism.” However, Laurance et al. (2012) suggest that scholars and scientists are disconnected from conservation practitioners and are therefore less able to facilitate productive change through knowledge production on behalf of environmental activists. Laurance et al. show that “two-thirds of the conservation assessments published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature did not deliver any conservation action…this disconnect promotes misconceptions about how conservation works and what practitioners actually need” (2012:165). It is therefore necessary to evaluate the kinds of connections made within the network of knowledge producers, activists, polluters, and regulators in order to better understand how this transfer of science and knowledge can be applied to the environmental problem at hand. What kinds of connections exist among activists, scientists, government agencies, land users, and polluters? In answering this question, we can perhaps begin to understand how social movements can be less episodic and more a function of community capacity to promote environmental justice and sustainability.

Social Capital and Social Networks

As a way to understand how environmental activists engage in efforts to create social and environmental change, we explore their social networks and social capital developed through those networks as explanations for variation in activists’ efforts. A social network refers to “the set of social relations or social ties among a set of actors (and the actors themselves thus linked)” (Emirbayer and Goodwin 1994:1448). Social network analysis generally is “not a formal ‘theory’ but rather a broad strategy for investigating social structure” (Emirbayer and Goodwin 1994:1414). Within social network analysis, much emphasis is typically placed on social capital. Robert Putnam defines social capital as the “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (1995:66). Promoting social capital among policy makers and practitioners can lead to greater community involvement and inclusive decision-making, even though some aspects of social capital (e.g., trust) may act as a barrier to social inclusion or mobility (Olson 1982).

To look at social capital as an isolated measurement, or a one-size-fits-all term, does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of the impacts it may have on a community. As Putnam has argued elsewhere, “there are some forms of social capital that are good for some things and not for others” (2001:2), therefore making the distinction between varieties of social capital exceptionally important within a given context. We must acknowledge that social capital may not be seen as a positive, as “recent studies have identified at least four negative consequences of social capital: exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedoms, and downward leveling norms” (Portes 1998:15). Therefore, the existence of social capital alone is not a means for productive community development. So while Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti show in their earlier scholarship that “life is easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital” (1993:66), life may be easier in a community with certain types of social capital as opposed to others.

Since “the most common function attributed to social capital is as a source of network-mediated benefits” (Portes 1998:12), we must interpret both social capital and social networks in order to understand the most effective interpretation of these concepts. While social capital has inherent value, diverse network capacity also contributes to the success of communities overall, as Mix (2011:176) argues “one way to enhance the existence of social capital is by building networks among groups and creating coalitions to help achieve community goals.” From here we acknowledge the mutually dependent relationship of social networks and social capital, which Harper (2001:14) argues in that “social capital is generally understood as the property of the group rather than the property of the individual.”

The necessity of addressing social capital within the context of environmental problems is particularly defended by Bridger and Luloff (2001) and Pretty and Ward (2001). In the Red Cedar Basin, agricultural practices of farmers are the main contributor to water pollution, yet farmers are often missing from the policy implementation process. Warner found that some of the most effective social networks in terms of influencing agriculture policies are those that are actually initiated by farmers (2007:100). Furthermore, Mix (2011:175) argues that “one limitation of the Environmental Justice Movements (EJM)’s success relates to limited social capital, a lack of resources required for successful political pressure.” As we search for ways to create more sustainable communities in an era of declining public resources, social capital will continue to attract attention. But before we endorse it as sound public policy, a great deal of work remains to be done in terms of developing more articulate definitions of and measures for the concept, situating social capital within extant theories of community organization, documenting the kinds of civic organizations and networks of engagement most likely to promote social capital, and gaining an understanding of the forms of social capital that are most important in developing sustainable communities. By addressing these issues, policy prescriptions in which social capital plays a central role can be more firmly rooted in empirical evidence.

Method

Our research setting was the Lake Menomin region of the Red Cedar River Basin in Wisconsin (Figure 1). The River Basin is a 1,893 square mile watershed that encompasses parts of eight counties and is situated between woodland and prairie biomes (Omernik and Gallant 1988). Lake Menomin is a 710-ha impoundment at the far southern end of this basin. This lake suffers from severe phosphorus pollution and has been listed as highly eutrophic since 1972 (Schreiber, 1992; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). Most of the watershed exists between Barron County in the north and Dunn County in the south. The town of Menomonie is situated on the shores of Lake Menomin. It is a former lumber town now turned college community with a population of approximately 16,000 people. While this town’s population may be small, the smelly and unsightly blue-green algal blooms in the center of this community have large socioeconomic implications.

Figure 1.

Map of the Red Cedar Watershed in West Central Wisconsin. Used with permission from University of Wisconsin-Extension, Dan Zerr.

We sent an online questionnaire via e-mail to an initial sample of environmental activists, researchers, and agency workers. These people included local civil society actors such as those involved in the Tainter Menomin Lake Improvement Association, members of the Dunn and Barron Counties’ Conservation Divisions, the Menomonie City Council, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin (UW)-Extension conservation workers, political leaders, university researchers, and organizers of farmer-led councils. We then utilized a snowball-style sampling method to recruit further participants for the study. Initial respondents were asked to list their five closest colleagues who work on water quality improvement along with the e-mails of those individuals. We used the information provided from the first round of respondents to send the same survey to the listed colleagues. This method allowed us to pool responses into a cohesive social network.

Survey respondents answered a variety of questions related to the watershed and their local community. These included questions about their views on environmental issues, using pro and antienvironmental statements with Likert-type scale responses. This survey also asked whether the respondent is seen as a leader or sought out for advice (and who among their colleagues is), frequency of attending or organizing community events, and values placed on different leadership skills. Respondents identified their job position, listed whether they were on the local farmer-led council, and whether they were a farmer in the Red Cedar Basin. Finally, respondents answered through Likert-type scale statements if they feel they have adequate knowledge, funds, time, people, or authority in their job to improve water quality. All questions, except for the listing of colleagues and job occupation, were closed-ended.

Some questions were grouped together to create measures for each respondent’s level of social capital. These indexes were divided into general social capital, leadership social capital, and diverse social capital. General social capital was defined by how frequently the respondent attended community events such as political, volunteer, religious, social, organizational, or farm field days. Diverse social capital was defined by the respondent’s desire to have a diverse network of individuals in their work and support for diverse perspectives. Finally, leadership social capital was defined as the frequency that the respondent organized any social events as well as how they were seen by their colleagues (e.g., the answer to the question about whether others sought out their advice or see them as a leader). The division of types of social capital into general social capital, diverse social capital, and leadership social capital reflects scholarship by Larsen et al. (2004) that measured different types of social capital they labeled as “bonding” and “bridging.”

Overall, 147 of the 203 people who were e-mailed the survey responded (72 percent response rate). One hundred and ninety-five people were identified within the social network map, as some people were identified by respondents as members within their own network but did not respond to the survey themselves. While we had 147 respondents, most correlations were inclusive of only 64 respondents (32 percent of the overall target population), as many respondents did not answer all the questions in the survey. The average age of respondents was 45. Sixty-eight percent were male and 32 percent were female. Half of the respondents were residents of Dunn County (where the eutrophic Lakes Tainter and Menomin reside). Ninety-seven percent were white, and 92 percent had completed at least a four-year college degree. Forty-nine percent of respondents attended local community building events several times a year and 42 percent attended local events several times a month.

We ran bivariate correlations and binary logit regressions on respondents’ answers to evaluate network dynamics and social capital. A p value threshold of .10 was used to determine statistical significance. The researchers involved in data collection included both students from across the United States and faculty from the UW-Stout working on a variety of research projects related to the watershed. This research included qualitative ethnographic fieldwork and economic analyses as well as limnologic, geomorphology, and geochemistry research. Survey results provided here are informed by those other projects, and qualitative data from 43 separate interviews contextualize our quantitative results. This research was conducted within an interdisciplinary NSF-sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates site titled the Linking Applied Knowledge in Environmental Sustainability project (i.e., LAKES).

Results

Findings here show that an individual’s network and the social capital within that network are linked to the ways environmental activism and governance are understood and constrained. Two interrelated processes shape the social network of environmental activism and governance in the Red Cedar Basin: (1) divergent prioritizations of leadership according to social capital characteristics among those in the social network and (2) insufficient resources for government workers’ time spent in consultations with farmers and other land users.

Divergent Characteristics of Social Capital

First, focusing on leadership qualities allowed us to find distinct differences in visions of community organizing and activism, as it relates to the respondents type and quantity of social capital (see Table 1). The type of social capital these respondents have is significantly correlated with certain prioritizations of important leadership characteristics. General social capital is positively correlated with confidence as one of the most important characteristics in a leader, significant at the .10 level. When these variables were ran within a binary logit regression, respondents with a one-unit increase in general social capital are 27.3 percent more likely to value confidence in a leader compared to all other leadership characteristics, significant at the .10 α level. Diverse social capital is significantly correlated with prioritizing communication-oriented leadership characteristics. Respondents with a one-unit increase in diverse social capital are 58.7 percent more likely to see good listening and communication skills as one of the most important characteristics in a leader, significant at the .01 αlevel. Furthermore, respondents with a one-unit increase in diverse social capital are 23.8 percent less likely to see empowering others as one of the most important characteristics in a leader, significant at the .05 α level. Finally, leadership social capital correlates with yet another, different leadership characteristic than the other two types. Those with a one-unit increase in leadership social capital are 10.5 percent less likely to see trustworthiness and dependability as one of the most important characteristics in a leader, significant at the .01 α level. It also seems that those with high leadership social capital operate differently from those with high diverse social capital. While general social capital is positively correlated with both leadership social capital and diverse social capital, significant at the .01 level, there is no relationship beyond chance between leadership social capital and diverse social capital here.

Table 1.

Correlations: Social Capital by Leadership Traits (LAKES REU Social Network Policy and Activist Survey).

		Good Listening/Communication	Empower Others	Trustworthy/Dependable	Confidence	Diverse Social Capital	Leadership Social Capital	General Social Capital
Diverse social capital	Pearson correlation	.383**	−.250*	.158	.187	1	.049	.383**
	Significance (two-tailed)	.002	.047	.213	.138		.699	.002
	N	64	64	64	64	64	64	64
Leadership social capital	Pearson correlation	−.039	−.087	−.215	.070	.049	1	.654**
	Significance (two-tailed)	.755	.485	.082	.579	.699		.000
	N	66	66	66	66	64	66	65
General social capital	Pearson correlation	−.003	.029	−.111	.229	.383**	.654**	1
	Significance (two-tailed)	.983	.818	.377	.067	.002	.000
	N	65	65	65	65	64	65	65

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

The respondents’ type of social capital is related to not just values but behaviors. Specifically, given the relevance of connecting with farmers, we measured type of social capital with the frequency of attending and planning farm field days or similar activities. These activities are key events to the stakeholders within the Red Cedar Basin, as they provide an opportunity for direct communication between farmers and other stakeholders in addressing water pollution. To note, the overall social network measured here does not include many farmers, which is likely problematic, given how integral farmers are to reducing water pollution. Of the 195 individuals within this social network, only 3 are farmers in the Red Cedar Basin. Attending farm field days is positively correlated with diverse social capital, and organizing farm field days is positively correlated with leadership social capital (see Figures 2 and 3). Using binary logit regression, a one-unit increase in diverse social capital makes a respondent 23.5 percent more likely to attend a farm field day, significant at the .05 level. A one-unit increase in leadership social capital makes a respondent 15 percent more likely to organize a farm field day, significant at the .05 level.

Figure 2.

Social network diagram: Diverse social capital and farm field day attendance.

Figure 3.

Social network diagram: Leadership social capital and farm field day organization.

Interestingly, the desire to make others feel empowered as one of the most important characteristics in a leader is absent among those with any high social capital. Those with the type of social capital who attend more farm field days (diverse social capital) in fact value empowerment less than other leadership characteristics. This means that, perhaps, those most likely to interact and work with farmers value empowerment as a leadership skill less than other leadership skills. Much discussion among farmers and conservationists focuses on initiatives that emphasize empowerment, like farmer-led councils. These farmer-led initiatives are proposed as an ideal way to both communicate with and empower farmers in the Red Cedar Basin, yet these may be unlikely to work within the current social network of environmental advocacy here.

Insufficient Resources

Next, those surveyed generally felt disempowered and underfunded in fighting for water quality (see Figure 4). This is not unique to environmental activists or environmental agencies, but it points to a need to explore what this means for connecting to land users’ social networks and changing their land use practices. An important aspect to this underfunding is the availability of funds for government actors to spend more time building trust and talking with farmers face-to-face. As an individual in this network noted,

If you’re with people who you can trust, sometimes it allows you a little flexibility to have more candid conversation because you know they’re not going to be misrepresenting something.

Figure 4.

Perceived resources, survey responses by percentage (LAKES REU Social Network Policy and Activist Survey).

Another member of this network discussed the positive influence of these face-to-face interactions:

When you can send somebody out on the farm and talk about soil health and how to improve their soil health, or take them out one-on-one and take them on the farm for a 3 or 4 hour walk, and talk with them and get to understand what they’re doing, you form more of a relationship with them, you start to gain their trust.

Most conservation workers and environmental activists regularly link this need for both funding and time for face-to-face interactions. Practically speaking, the human capital for such relationship building is certainly not possible without the funds available to pay for conservation workers’ time. Furthermore, often the funding that does go into conservation agencies is not spent on relationship building. One participant explained it in this way,

The government funding sources tend to want to pay for practices and not for people. It’s just the philosophy. A lot of what we’re talking about is people work. The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough money to cost-share the practices, it’s all this relationship building and people work…I mean, going out and knocking on doors, talking to people. Increasingly, there is not money for that. The money is all to pour concrete and put up fences and put up gutters and plant stuff and put in structures…And…there is one [planner] and he has a lot of plans that are on his plate.

There appears to be a need to expand the diversity and scope for this social network of environmental advocacy and management in an effort to effectively improve water quality, but this involves both a quantitative change in funds provided conservation agencies and a qualitative change to focus more on social processes and empowerment.

As stated previously, our nontraditional approach to environmental activism here seeks to explore why communities that are otherwise advantaged still suffer from environmental calamities. We argue that institutional capacity and access to resources are large factors that allow for or inhibit environmental activism within a community. This is compounded by a lack of focus on empowerment by those with strong network ties and high social capital. In general, the expansion of farmers in the social network, an increased emphasis on empowerment, the establishment of more funds for trust building, and the reallocation of funds to support trust building over infrastructure may be the best ways moving forward for environmental activism and governance to be effective in mediating water pollution.

Discussion

Policy reform is arguably possible only through the buildup of social capital in the social network of individuals working on issues like water quality both inside and outside of government. In other words, environmental activism matters, but only insofar as it is diversely integrated with government agencies, businesses, land users, researchers, and other stakeholders. This is as true for more frequently studied social movements surrounding environmental justice and marginalized communities as it is for communities like we see here in the Red Cedar Basin. With an exploratory case study of one watershed, the results we found here can help direct the analytical gaze and shape questions for other environmental activists’ efforts and academics’ research endeavors across the United States and beyond. Our research shows that identifying key stakeholders, while necessary, is not the only piece needed in implementing effective environmental change. Practitioners and researchers must look closely at the types of social capital being cultivated within a network in order to create the most successful partnerships and transfer of knowledge.

These network dynamics in advocacy are further complicated when we link it to other scholarship on the political economy of our social and environmental problems. What we can perhaps see above all else is the influence of neoliberalized culture on environmental advocacy and governance (Heynen et al. 2007). In the words of critical theorist David Harvey, “neoliberalization has meant, in short, the financialization of everything. This deepened the hold of finance over all other areas of the economy, as well as over the state apparatus and…daily life” (2005:33). From this perspective, neoliberal ideology argues that “government intervention was the problem rather than the solution” (Harvey 2005:54). This ideology has driven much of the reduction in resources for conservation agencies in Wisconsin in the past 20 to 30 years. For example, since 1997, Wisconsin county conservation departments’ funding alone has been reduced by 38 percent (Berquist 2015). This ideologically driven defunding is illustrated above as a key constraint for government agencies to work with land owners and for mobilizing social capital within the larger environmental advocacy network in the Red Cedar Basin to be more inclusive and empowering of farmers. Findings here suggest that government intervention is not part of the problem but could in fact be part of a solution, with a focus more on rerouting agency workers’ time for building social networks among farmers and other relevant water policy stakeholders.

Evaluating both access to funding resources and divergent social capital characteristics of individuals within a social network are essential for understanding the effectiveness of environmental activism. Future research can expand on this study to explore the myriad ways in which forces of neoliberalization may be constraining the mobilization of social capital and the diversification of social networks in terms of addressing complex environmental problems like blue-green algal blooms. This article was, of course, limited by focusing on just one case study. While certainly the Red Cedar Basin is not likely unique in terms of the findings here, exploring variation in the breadth and qualitative differences in social networks and social capital elsewhere will give further insight into how environmental activism might be more or less successful in resisting neoliberalizing forces and addressing environmental problems. Furthermore, longitudinal studies of changes among activists and conservation workers and other community members and changes in the given network itself would be useful for tracking causal forces behind such network dynamics over time. Finally, this study was limited in terms of linking social network and social capital dynamics to changes in policies or changes in land use. The more that this kind of work can be done in tangent with more ecological research and/or other social science research longitudinally, as the LAKES REU project attempts to do, the more we will be able to understand and show the applied utility (or, certainly at times, ineffectiveness) of social networks and social capital in addressing our social and environmental problems.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declared the following financial support for the research, authorship, and /or publication of this article: Authors received financial support from the National Science Foundation: NSF SMA Award #1357387. This was funding for a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) interdisciplinary research site at University of Wisconsin-Stout, focused on phosphorus pollution and named the LAKES (Linking Applied Knowledge in Environmental Sustainability) REU.

References

Aulenbach

Brent T.

Buxton

Herbert T.

Battaglin

William A.

Coupe

Richard H.

. 2007. “Streamflow and Nutrient Fluxes of the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin and Subbasins for the Period of Record Through 2005.” Retrieved September 19, 2016 (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20071080).

Auyero

Javier

Swistun

Debora Alejandra

. 2009. Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Berquist

Lee

. 2015. “Scott Walker’s Budget Cuts $5.7 Million from Runoff Pollution Remedies.” Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Retrieved September 19, 2016 (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walkers-budget-cuts-57-million-from-pollution-control-efforts-b99474740z1-298625491.html).

Bridger

Jeffrey C.

Luloff

A. E.

. 2001. “Building the Sustainable Community: Is Social Capital the Answer?” Sociological Inquiry 71:458–72.

Dalton

Russell J.

2015. “Waxing or Waning? The Changing Patterns of Environmental Activism.” Environmental Politics 24:530–52.

Emirbayer

Mustafa

Goodwin

Jeff

. 1994. “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency.” American Journal of Sociology 99: 1411–54.

Epstein

Charlotte

. 2005. “Knowledge and Power in Global Environmental Activism.” International Journal of Peace Studies 10:47–67.

Falkowski

Scholes

R. J.

Boyle

Canadell

Canfield

Elser

Gruber

Hibbard

Högberg

S., P.

Linder

Mackenzie

F. T.

Moore

I. B.

Pedersen

Rosenthal

Seitzinger

Smetacek

Steffen

. 2000. “The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System.” Science 290:291–96.

Farrell

2013. “Environmental Activism and Moral Schemas: Cultural Components of Differential Participation.” Environment and Behavior 45:399–423.

10.

Faysse

Nicolas

Errahj

Mostafa

Imache

Amar

Kemmoun

Hassane

Labbaci

Taha

. 2014. “Paving the Way for Social Learning When Governance Is Weak: Supporting Dialogue Between Stakeholders to Face a Groundwater Crisis in Morocco.” Society & Natural Resources 27:249–64.

11.

Harper

Rosalyn

. 2001. “Social Capital: A Review of the Literature.” Social Analysis and Reporting Division. London, UK: Office for National Statistics.

12.

Harvey

David

. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: OUP.

13.

Heynen

Nik

McCarthy

James

Prudham

Scott

Robbins

Paul

. 2007. Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. London, UK: Routledge.

14.

Larsen

Larissa

Harlan

Sharon L.

Bolin

Bob

Hackett

Edward J.

Hope

Diane

Kirby

Andrew

Nelson

Amy

Rex

Tom R.

Wolf

Shaphard

. 2004. “Bonding and Bridging: Understanding the Relationship between Social Capital and Civic Action.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:64–77.

15.

Laurance

William F.

Koster

Harko

Grooten

Monique

Anderson

Anthony B.

Ziudema

Pieter A.

Zwick

Steve

Zagt

Roderick J.

Lynam

Antony J.

Linkie

Matthew

Anten

Niels P.R.

. 2012. “Making Conservation Research More Relevant for Conservation Practitioners.” Biological Conservation 153:164–68.

16.

Liu

Villalba

Ayres

R. U.

Schroder

. 2008. “Global Phosphorus Flows and Environmental Impacts from a Consumption Perspective.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 12:229–47.

17.

McDowell

R. W.

Biggs

B. J. F.

Sharpley

A. N.

Nguyen

. 2004. “Connecting Phosphorus Loss from Agricultural Landscapes to Surface Water Quality.” Chemistry and Ecology 20:1–40.

18.

Mix

Tamara L.

2011. “Rally the People: Building Local-Environmental Justice Grassroots Coalitions and Enhancing Social Capital.” Sociological Inquiry 81:174–94.

19.

Mohai

Paul

Pellow

David

Timmons Roberts

. 2009. “Environmental Justice.” Annual Review of Environment & Resources 34:405–30.

20.

Morse

Gary K.

Lester

John N.

Perry

. 1993. The Economic and Environmental Impact of Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater in the European Community. Chiswick, UK: Selpar Limited.

21.

Olson

Mancur

. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

22.

Omernik

J. M.

Gallant

A. L.

. 1988. Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest States, EPA/600/3-88/037. Corvallis, OR: U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory.

23.

Pacheco-Vega

Raul

. 2015. “Transnational Environmental Activism in North America: Wielding Soft Power through Knowledge Sharing? Transnational Environmental Activism in North America.” Review of Policy Research 32:146–62.

24.

Patterson

James J.

2013. “Understanding Enabling Capacities for Managing the ‘Wicked Problem’ of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in Catchments: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Environmental Management 128:441–52.

25.

Picou

J. Steven

Bullard

Robert D.

Gunter

Valerie

Kroll-Smith

Steve

Whiteside

Kerry H.

. 2008. “In Search of a Public Environmental Sociology: Ecological Risks in the Twenty-First Century.” Contemporary Sociology 37:520–23.

26.

Portes

Alejandro

. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:1.

27.

Pretty

Jules

Ward

Hugh

. 2001. “Social Capital and the Environment.” World Development 29:209–27.

28.

Putnam

Robert D.

1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6:65–78.

29.

Putnam

Robert D.

2001. “Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences.” Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2:41–51.

30.

Putnam

Robert D.

Leonardi

Robert

Nanetti

Raffaella Y.

. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

31.

Roberts

Geoffrey K.

2007. “Modes of Environmental Activism.” Environmental Politics 16:677–82.

32.

Rogalus

M. K.

Watzin

M. C.

. 2008. “Evaluation of Sampling and Screening Techniques for Tiered Monitoring of Toxic Cyanobacteria in Lakes.” Harmful Algae 7:504–14.

33.

Schreiber

Ken

. 1992. Red Cedar River/Tainter Lake Phosphorus Assessment. Eau Claire, WI: WDNR West Central Region.

34.

Sharpley

A. N.

Chapra

S. C.

Wedepohl

Sims

J. T.

Daniel

T. C.

Reddy

K. R.

. 1994. “Managing Agricultural Phosphorus for Protection of Surface Waters: Issues and Options.” Journal of Environmental Quality 23:437–51.

35.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Report on Tainter Lake, Dunn County, Wisconsin EPA Region v. National Eutrophication Survey. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

36.

Warner

Keith

. 2007. Agroecology in Action: Extending Alternative Agriculture through Social Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT.