Targeting is not a strictly biophysical methodology: sufficiently addressing nutrient pollution will require working at a social and institutional level as well. As such, targeting frameworks are dynamic and depend not just on physical factors within a watershed such as land use, soil types, and waterway transport pathways, but also more complex social network factors that will shape who carries authority in the watershed, what type of support nutrient reduction schema will have, and what types of resources are available to the watershed to implement the schema. During the 2007 targeting conference, many presenters identified stakeholder engagement as one of the greatest barriers to implementing a targeting schema.
In a 2007 presentation (which is accessible online HERE), Adam Kiel of the Iowa DNR observed that, while interest in targeting was growing in the state, three major issues would need to be addressed to see targeting on the scale that would be necessary to address current pollutant concerns. These barriers are:
|1. Technical||Lack of adequate data regarding water quality problems, sources and solutions|
|2. Institutional||Need to reform traditional conservation programs from being first come/first serve to focusing funding and staffing on concentrated, carefully selected parcels/landowners; also need to shift the cost share calculus to account for individual versus societal benefit|
|3. Individual||Need active participation by landowners who are contributing the most to nutrient pollution; May not be users traditionally involved in conservation projects|
With the technical aspects of targeting outlined in the modeling and data acquisition sections, this section seeks to provide an overview of social and institutional arrangements that are supportive to a targeting framework, including.