Communication strategies for the effective delivery of landscape-scale conservation schemes.

ESRC：艾米莫尔斯：ES/P00069 X/1本研究将建立在马尔等人（2016年）的论文基础上，该论文探讨了安大略和英格兰农业环境政策的差异。虽然英国已经摆脱了生产主义框架，但安大略采用了节约土地的战略，以确保其农业用地能够发挥其生产潜力（马尔等人，2016）。在鼓励环境管理的地方，这只是在自愿的基础上，而不是在联合王国，农民因管理他们的土地而获得报酬。尽管存在差异，但两国现在都认识到景观保护合作的价值，并以多种方式鼓励合作项目。考虑到这一点，我提出了一个项目，旨在了解如何有效的沟通，可以促进成功的合作工作，提供大规模的保护计划。 沟通是成功合作的重要组成部分;因此，为了充分发挥合作潜力，土地管理者团体或环境组织的具体目标和动机必须明确，并传达给所有成员（Ostrom，1998年;米尔斯等人，2011年; Emery和Franks，2012年）。如果缺乏沟通，就会对群体的社会资本和他们共同努力保护的环境产生不利影响。 拟议的项目将发现在安大略（贷款地理新奇性这项工作）的潜在成功的潜在利益相关者的观点，通过采访促进教师之间的强大的工作关系在圭尔夫大学，政策制定者和顾问在加拿大农业食品和众多的农业和环境组织在安大略。特别是，我会集中在他们的意见，关于环境计划的目标在三个方面的沟通：在自己的组织;自己和其他组织之间;和农民和土地管理者。在了解他们提出的关于沟通的问题后，我将评估他们的沟通策略对他们参与的保护工作的积极和消极影响。如果这些都是负面的，我的目标是建议这些障碍可能被克服，以促进多个利益相关者的景观规模保护的成功交付的方法。 我将把他们的观点与我将在英国进行博士研究的土地管理者和促进者的观点进行比较，以便对这项工作有一个比较的了解。对英国CSFF的早期评估反映了对该计划结果的广泛积极反应（ADAS，2018），但是通过我的研究，我希望通过评估小组成员对协作工作的看法以及他们从资助小组中获得的关系和技能，更多地了解这些合作是如何以及为什么工作的。这将包括讨论该小组在获得资助期间如何很好地传达其观点和意图。

ESRC : Aimee Morse : ES/P00069X/1This research will build on Marr et al's (2016) paper which explores the differences in agri-environment policies in Ontario and England. While the UK has moved away from a productivist framework, Ontario employs a land-sparing strategy to ensure its agricultural land can be used to its productive potential (Marr et al, 2016). Where environmental stewardship has been encouraged this is only on a voluntary basis, as opposed to the payments farmers receive for stewarding their land in the UK. Despite their differences, both countries now recognise the value of collaborative working in landscape protection and encourage collaborative projects in a number of ways. With this in mind, I propose a project which seeks to understand how effective communication can facilitate successful collaborative working for the delivery of landscapescale conservation schemes. Communication is an essential part of successful collaboration; thus, for collaborative working to reach its full potential the specific goals and motivations of land manager groups, or environmental organisations, must be clear and communicated to all members (Ostrom, 1998; Mills et al, 2011; Emery and Franks, 2012). Where communication is lacking, there can be detrimental effects, both to the social capital of the group and also to the environment they are working together to conserve. The proposed project would discover multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the potential success of landscape-scale conservation in Ontario (lending geographic novelty to this work) through interviews facilitated by the strong working relationships among faculty staff at the University of Guelph, policy makers and advisers in Agri-Food Canada and a multitude of agricultural and environmental organisations in Ontario. In particular I would focus on their views regarding the communication of environmental program aims in three areas: within their own organisation; between themselves and other organisations; and with farmers and land managers. After gaining an understanding of the issues they raise with regards to communication, I will assess the positive and negative impacts of their communication strategies on the conservation efforts they are involved in. Where these are negative, I would aim to suggest means by which these barriers might be overcome to promote the successful delivery of landscape scale conservation by multiple stakeholders. I will compare their perspectives with those of the land managers and facilitators I will be interviewing for my doctoral research in England to lend a comparative insight to the work. An early evaluation of the CSFF in England reflected a broadly positive response to the outcomes of the scheme (ADAS, 2018), however through my research I hope to discover more about how and why these collaborations have worked through assessing group members' perspectives on collaborative working and the relationships and skills they have gained from being a part of a funded group. This will include discussions around how well the group have communicated their views and intentions during the period in which they were funded.