CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Participatory Geography and Dam Removals: Towards a New Paradigm in

Environmental Research

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts in Geography

By

Haylie Burkey

August 2022

ii

The thesis of Haylie Burkey is approved:

_____________________________ ________________

Dr. Ronald Davidson Date

_____________________________ ________________

Dr. James Craine Date

_____________________________ ________________

Dr. Luke Drake, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii

Acknowledgements

I would first like to express my thanks to my advisor, Dr. Luke Drake, for allowing my

thesis to be my own while still providing direction when needed. I would also like to thank my

other committee members, Dr. Jim Craine and Dr. Ron Davidson. I am gratefully indebted to

your very valuable comments on this thesis. I would like to thank you all very much for your

support over these past two years.

I would also like to thank the CSUN Geography department. This department has given

me countless opportunities, from developing as a geographer to teaching lab courses to

scholarships; I will be forever grateful, and I hope to pass on the outcome to my future students.

Personal thanks to David Deis whose comment ‘I wouldn’t bet against you’ in the hallway

became my motivation in the final hours of writing this thesis.

I would like to express my profound gratitude to my parents for providing me with

support throughout my years of study, I could not have accomplished this without your support.

I must also thank my two colleagues Jaclyn Eller and David Lawrence. Jaclyn, your

support and encouragement pulled me through when difficulties seemed insurmountable. David,

your sage advice and friendship have made such an impact on my work and my life. I could not

have done graduate school without the sense of community and friendship you provided.

Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to Manuel Carmona Isla. Your

support and love through this process has meant the world to me.

iv

Table of Contents

Signature Page................................................................................................................................ ii

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vi

List of Tables................................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract........................................................................................................................................ viii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 11

1.3 Research Questions and Hypothesis .............................................................................. 12

1.4 Terms and Definitions .................................................................................................... 12

1.5 Significance .................................................................................................................... 13

2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 15

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Critical Physical Geography........................................................................................... 15

2.3 Participatory Research and Science ............................................................................... 19

2.3.1 Participatory GIS................................................................................................................. 21

2.4 Dams............................................................................................................................... 23

2.5 Gaps in the Literature ..................................................................................................... 26

3. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 28

3.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 30

3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 31

3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 32

3.4.1 Foucauldian Discourse Analysis ......................................................................................... 32

v

4. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 38

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 38

4.2 Manifest Content Analysis ............................................................................................. 38

4.2.1 Participatory research .......................................................................................................... 39

4.2.2 Dam Removal ..................................................................................................................... 41

4.3 Analytic Coding ............................................................................................................. 43

4.3.1 Participatory research .......................................................................................................... 43

4.3.2 Dam Removal ..................................................................................................................... 48

4.4 Convergence and Divergence......................................................................................... 52

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 56

5.1 Significance .................................................................................................................... 56

5.2 Limitations and Future Research.................................................................................... 57

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 59

Appendix A: Datasets ................................................................................................................... 74

Participatory Research .............................................................................................................. 74

Dam Removal ........................................................................................................................... 78

Appendix B: Stop Word List ........................................................................................................ 82

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.. ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2.. ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3.. ....................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4.. ....................................................................................................................................... 30

vii

List of Tables

Table 1.. ........................................................................................................................................ 40

Table 2.. ........................................................................................................................................ 42

viii

Abstract

Participatory Geography and Dam Removals: Towards a New Paradigm in

Environmental Research

By

Haylie Burkey

Master of Arts in Geography

As many dams are reaching the end of their functional life and concerns over their safety and

ecological impact become cause of great concern for communities, river restoration through dam

removal becomes an increasingly common remediation plan. Although monitoring efforts for

specific ecological impacts have occurred for some dam removal projects, long-term,

comprehensive monitoring data for many projects has not occurred. The contribution of

community involvement to scientific monitoring efforts has become increasingly popular in

recent years and participation in these projects has been shown to improve awareness of local

ecological issues as well as democratize the generation of scientific knowledge. However, dam

removal has not yet engaged participatory research. In order to examine both topics through a

critical physical geographic lens, I reviewed peer-reviewed journal articles on both topics. Data

was analyzed using a Foucauldian approach to explore how understanding perceptions of these

topics can be used to determine parameters for participatory monitoring of future dam removal

projects. Discursive practices revealed the asymmetrical relationship between power and

ix

knowledge generation and how it reinforces hegemonic epistemologies. These findings reveal

the challenges and opportunities of using participatory monitoring for dam removal projects and

offer a potential framework for inclusion of community members in the generation of knowledge

in dam removal monitoring.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Construction of dams in industrialized countries saw an exponential increase in the 20th

century (Fujikura and Nakayama 2009; Malmqvist and Rundle 2002). The magnitude of

influence these structures have had on the physical and cultural landscape has resulted in

complex narratives and relationships of how humans relate to the environment. During the 18th

and 19th centuries, western and industrializing countries established a paradigm on human

progress and its link to scientific and technological advancement. For example, as human

societies were transformed by the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, the

postulation emerged that human progress is inextricably linked to economic growth driven by

technological advancement (Du Pisani 2006). Furthermore, anthropocentric ideas in the 19th

century, such as Auguste Comte's 'law of progress', framed humankind's progression as

inevitable, furthering the idea that human mastery over nature through technological

advancement would lead to a "golden age on Earth" (Du Pisani 2006: 84). The construction of

dams in industrialized countries during this time reinforced the ideas that technological

advancement would lead to human progress through the mastery over nature. However, as

paradigmatic shifts occurred in humans’ relationships with nature during the environmental

movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the public perceptions of became increasingly negative

(Sewell 1987). Today, studying dams and their removals through spatial phenomenology, which

highlights people’s experiences with built structures and the environments they occur in, as well

as the changing ideologies related to them, helps geographers to interpret changes in humans’

relationships to the environment (Rogers et al. 2013).

The construction of dams in industrialized countries during the 20th century has helped shape

the physical and cultural landscapes of the global North. While a seemingly apolitical topic,

2

using dams to control the flow of water has long been at the center of power struggles over

control and access to natural resources (Wittfogel 1957). Dams were exceptionally powerful

tools in the urban, industrial, and agricultural expansion of the United States. While small dams

(<15 m in height) in the northeast helped to establish water storage, hydropower, and navigation

during the Industrial Revolution, and levees prompted the urban and agricultural development of

the floodplains in the Midwest, South, and Southeast, the most transformative legislation related

to dams was the formation of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in 1902 (Ho et al. 2017).

Through water management projects the BOR allowed for, and encouraged, the settlement of the

western United States through the taming of nature. As a result, dams were seen as symbols of

power and often characterized as heroic in the taming of nature in pursuit of human progress

(Gregory 1994; Kaika 2004; Duchemin 2009). This was further reinforced by policy such as the

New Deal which used large dam infrastructure projects, such as the Hoover Dam, to employ

people during an economic depression (Sabin 2015) (Figure 1).

3

Figure 1. Pages displaying and describing the Hoover (Boulder) Dam from California Progress: Great Projects Which Overcome

Handicaps of the Past and Prepare the Way for a Greater Future by Herbert Floercky and Lee Shippey, published by California.

State Department of Education (1936). Source: Internet Archive.

The synthesis of increased water management and the ensuing job creation allowed for an era of

dam construction that led to the rapid urbanization of previously uninhabitable areas. This

philosophy that taming nature through water management would lead to human progress allowed

for proliferation of urbanization and community development, as well as the development of

complex cultural dynamics related to dams.

During the emergence of major philosophical changes in research traditions for the

discipline of geography in the 1950s, a paradigmatic shift in the discourse of environmental

impacts was occurring. In the U.S. this shift generated legislation such as the Clean Water Act

(CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that

4

demonstrate a changing relationship between humans and the environment (Devall 2001). This

shift in relationship changed communities’ cultural dynamics with and narratives of dams from

heroic to environmentally detrimental. Moreover, the negative ecological effects of existing

dams were becoming increasingly evident. The fragmentation of rivers by dams led to negative

ecological consequences such as changes in sedimentation, the disruption of natural flow

regimes, and barriers to fish passage (Bednarek 2001; Crook et. al 2015; Jansson et al. 2000;

Nilsson 2005; Tockner and Stanford 2002). Currently, these prolonged effects are becoming

more critical and environmentalists have sought to better understand their social and ecological

aspects.

Critical physical geography is an approach that can help explain these issues in part by

pushing back against Malthusian ideas about environmental change. In his seminal work “An

Essay on the Principle of Population”, Thomas Malthus (1872) argued that as human population

grows beyond the extent of what the environmental system can support, there is a problem for

both humans and nature: humans will suffer as a result of the degraded resources and nature will

not be able to recover these resources (Robbins 2020). This concept is often referred to as

‘ecoscarcity’ (Robbins 2020). This concept, as well as variations of it, were prominent into the

20th century where environmentalists such as Paul Ehrlich (1968) and Meadows et al. (1974)

advocated for measures to limit population growth under the idea that human influence on the

environment is unidirectional.

As many geographers shifted away from environmental determinism in the 1950s, they

began to challenge the idea that ecological issues are independent from the society that forms

them (Morgan 2011). This allowed for the wide acceptance that society is implicit in

environmental issues and the rejection of what Paul Robbins references as ‘apolitical ecologies’

5

(2020). Robbins (2020) identifies several apolitical ecologies and their approaches:

modernization, diffusion, valuation, and ecoscarcity. On a global ecological scale, the key

principles of modernization, diffusion, and valuation approaches are:

(1) Western/northern technology and techniques need to be diffused outwards to

the underdeveloped world. (2) Firms and individuals must be connected to larger

markets and given more exclusive property controls over environmental resources

(e.g., land, air, wildlife). (3) For wilderness and biodiversity conservation, the

benefits of these efficiencies must be realized through institutionalizing some

form of valuation; environmental goods like wildebeest, air, and stream quality

might be properly priced in an open market. (Robbins 2020)

Geographers critiqued these principles for several reasons, yet the unifying theme in the

critiques was the promulgation of hegemonic knowledge relationships—the biggest refutation is

that Malthus’ ideas originated as political and not environmental arguments that justified

removal of social safety nets for the poor in England. Ecoscarcity was of particular interest to

geographers and while several critiques of ecoscarcity arose, they were typically aimed at two

main assumptions. First, the concept assumes that the environment is a fixed source of resources

that limits human actions and second, it assumes absolute numbers have more influence than

technological advancement and wealth. Both of these assumptions have been proven false to a

degree as a small number of the world’s population consumes the most resources and scarcity of

goods has caused innovation in the past, when reductions in consumption occur or alternatives

are generated (Robbins 2020). This supports the postulation that resources are socially

constructed and are susceptible to changing perceptions with paradigmatic shifts. Furthermore,

6

ecoscarcity is an inherently political argument as it reveals power relationships embedded in the

solutions to distribution and control of resources.

Ecoscarcity has been a particularly prevalent concept in the study of water resources and

what some have termed ‘water scarcity’. The idea of a global ‘water crisis’ became prominent in

the 1990s and geographers have sought to examine the social construction of issues of water

resource management and its implications. In their analysis of the ‘water crisis’ narrative, Linton

(2004) showed that, although water scarcity gave rise to tangible constraints in some areas, the

‘water scarcity’ narrative was not a result of a sudden change in biophysical and ecological

changes directly related to water availability. Rather it gained precedence as a result of the

actions of a concomitance of stakeholders that produced misconceptions that allowed it to

emerge for their own benefit. Approaches such as Linton’s have helped glean insight into the

power relationships embedded in seemingly apolitical water issues that have impacts on political

and social policy.

While understanding the nexus of communities and their relationships with water is

central to geographic research on water resources, of particular interest is knowledge that can

inform policy and management decisions of balancing environmental and human needs for

sustainable water resources. Geographers have used political ecology approaches to better

understand that they are organized on “linked axes of money, influence, and control [. . .]” and

“[t]hey are part of systems of power and influence that, unlike the imagined steady march of the

population ‘explosion,’ are tractable to challenge and reform” (Robbins 2020: 10). In

acknowledging this, geographers are demonstrating that the character of these issues is not solely

a result of population increase, rather they are systems pervaded by power relationships and as a

result, they are not politically inert and can be remedied.

7

One area of study in geography that involves water resources and power relationships is

dams. As many dams from the dam building era are reaching the end of their functional life and

concerns over their safety and ecological impact become cause of great concern for communities,

river restoration through dam removal becomes an increasingly common remediation plan (Pohl

2007). While there are many issues related to dam removal and whether it should occur, one of

the largest problems related to approved dam removal projects is the lack of monitoring.

Although monitoring efforts for specific ecological impacts have occurred for some dam removal

projects, long-term monitoring data for many projects is not readily available (Rubin et al. 2017;

Mulligan et al. 2020; Lehner et al. 2011). 10 percent of project records determined any

monitoring took place (Bernhardt et al. 2005) and many of those studies are short (less than five

years) and do not sufficiently represent the wide variety of dam, watershed, removal types, and

social dynamics in dammed landscapes (Foley et al. 2017). Given the coevolution of

communities and dams, there are complex cultural dynamics in how communities experience

dammed landscapes. While experiences with them differ among community members, there is

typically some type of identity related to it.

Understanding the relationship that communities have with the environment and how that

shapes their interactions with it has shaped the discipline of geography. Similar to other social

disciplines, critical physical geographers desire to contribute to human betterment. However,

they emphasize that public and social policy should be determined by the concerns of

communities rather than unilaterally determined by outside agencies (Seamon and Lundberg

2017; Lave et al. 2018). The geographic concept of place has been shown to be connected to

people’s interest in local initiatives, indicating that local community projects could be an

effective tool for understanding how to engage communities in environmental remediation

8

projects (Kasten et al. 2021; Larson et al. 2020). How community involvement contributes to

scientific monitoring efforts related to environmental and ecological degradation has become

increasingly popular, particularly the use of participatory research.

Some of the earliest forms of participatory research came from geographic research on

poverty in Detroit where local neighborhood residents’ perspectives were incorporated into the

collection and analysis of data to generate maps revealing racial inequities in school redistricting

(Bunge 1969) (Figure 2).

9

Figure 2. Proposed high school redistricting maps from the Detroit Geographical Expedition and Institute in response to the

Detroit School Board's proposed plan. Source: Bunge et al. 1969.

Similarly, participatory research can help to remedy the lack of monitoring as well as impel

community involvement in local ecological issues. Participatory research can be used to monitor

a wide range of ecological phenomena and has made contributions to the understanding of bird

migration, water resources, soil, climate, and astronomy (Cooper and Lewenstein 2016; Miller-

Rushing et al. 2012; Silvertown 2009; Storey et al. 2016). Many agencies are exploring

10

participatory research for its comparable quality of research-grade data and its ability to

contribute to long-term monitoring (Conrad and Hilchey 2011; Kosmala et al. 2016; McKinley et

al. 2017).

However, participatory research monitoring can face many obstacles to its efficiency and

perception of the success of projects. Some of the biggest obstacles to participatory research

projects can be (ironically) participation, financing, competing definitions of success, and

governance (Costa et al. 2018; Evans et al. 2019). Yet, as technology advances and

collaboration between citizens, stakeholders, and scientists occurs, participatory research

becomes a viable monitoring option for dam removal projects. While research on participatory

research has helped us understand its benefits and obstacles for monitoring a wide range of

ecological variables, further research is needed to explain how it can benefit monitoring of dam

removal projects, which have not been paired to the extent of other environmental research.

This synopsis of communities’ complex relationships with dams and their landscapes, the

negative ecological consequences of dams, and participation in the scientific knowledge

generation process has shown that there is a ‘window of opportunity’ within the discipline of

geography (Chaffin and Gosnell 2017). This window of opportunity could provide valuable

knowledge on the relationship between impacts of power relations and rigorous knowledge of

biophysical systems to benefit eco-social transformation. Critical physical geographers such as

Rebecca Lave and Brian Lutz have examined this relationship between the social and ecological

in their pioneering work, “Hydraulic Fracturing: A Critical Physical Geography Review” (2014).

In addition, Foucault has examined spatial structures that govern the production of knowledge

and how that relates to power relationships (Couper 2015). Although not used as a discrete

theoretical framework, Foucault’s notion of power relationships and formations of ‘truths’ were

11

used complementarily to analyze discourse within this critical physical lens. Thus, the theoretical

framework for my research is comprised of a critical physical lens that relied heavily on

Foucault’s notion of power relationships.

A recent growing distrust of expertise has occurred, particularly evidenced in the denial of

anthropogenic climate change and opponents of the COVID-19 vaccine, predominantly, in the

global North. Therefore, it should be noted that this thesis is not meant to be a negative exegesis

of scientific practice, rather it aims to involve those who are affected by the socio-ecological

decisions predicated on scientific data. Concerns have been raised which call into question

objectivity and whether the layperson should engage in scientific research when they have a

stake in the results. My thesis takes the approach that investment in the outcome of scientific

research does not equate to a lack of credibility that rigid adherence to neutrality and objectivity

suggest. Conversely, it increases scientific rigor and integrity through the inclusion of data from

a myriad of human perspectives that can then be subjected to scientific practice (Harvey 1984).

As participants engage in the scientific method, it allows for the closing of the gap in knowledge

for both scientists and participants that can broaden scientific understanding.

1.2 Research Objectives

The purpose of my research is to examine how participatory research can be used to monitor

ecological variables in dam removal projects in the global North. My study seeks to determine

main principles that should guide the framework for participatory research monitoring of dam

removal projects by investigating the discourse on the generation of knowledge surrounding

participatory research monitoring and dam removal. The goal of my thesis is twofold: 1) to

identify intersecting themes in the discourse of participatory research and dam removal; 2)

determine the main principles a framework for participatory research monitoring of dam removal

12

projects should be based on. This research will propose a model for participatory dam removal

monitoring in the global North as well as contribute to a broader understanding of the inherent

power-knowledge relationship within ecological issues and may play a role in the crafting of

effective, efficient, and practical solutions for participatory research projects that can be

implemented in dam removal projects.

1.3 Research Questions and Hypothesis

Following an extensive review of the literature, two research questions emerged: What are

the most common themes surrounding participatory research and dam removal projects that

reflect the current power structure in knowledge generation; what are the main principles that

should guide the framework for participatory research monitoring of dam removal based on the

identified themes? While the main goal of my study was an exploratory approach to discourse in

participatory research and dam removal projects, I argue that the shifting paradigm of power-

relationships related to human-environment interaction provides a window of opportunity for

participatory research to be used in the monitoring of dam removal projects. Subsequently,

participatory research can be used in this window of opportunity to move toward a more

democratic form of knowledge generation.

1.4 Terms and Definitions

There are many nuanced terms and meanings associated with the democratization of

scientific research and monitoring. Therefore, it is important to establish what it meant by

participatory research. Some geographers have criticized the use of the term ‘participation’

claiming that it is being deployed to reinforce power relationships and benefit a plethora of

political agendas much like Foucault’s concept of “polyvalence,” the chemical term for an

element’s capacity to develop multiple bonds (Foucault [1978] 2012: 10, Kothari and Cooke

13

2001). Others, however, have acknowledged the power relationship in the use of the term

participation and retheorized it to be consistent with poststructuralism (Kesby 2005). Although

there is no firmly established common definition, participatory research’s purpose within

geography is described as “to democratize research design by studying an issue or phenomenon

with the full engagement of those affected by it. It involves working collaboratively to develop a

research agenda, collect data, engage in critical analysis, and design actions to improve people’s

lives and effect social change” (Breitbart 2016: 198). Typically, this includes the co-ownership

of data between participants and researcher and a social action component that is highlighted for

its value in research. Thus, my study uses the term ‘participatory research’ to mean approaches

where those who are conventionally researched are directly involved in all stages of research and

that consist of co-ownership of the data.

The term discourse is generally understood to mean the study of language and how it is used

in society either in conversation or documents. However, there are also nuanced meanings

associated with the term and its influence on the type of research employed. Typically, there are

two major approaches to discourse analysis: ethnomethodological or Foucauldian. The

ethnomethodological concept of discourse is principally focused on the structures of interaction

that produce meaning, whereas the Foucauldian concept of discourse is concerned with how

historically and socially established sources of power affect the construction of knowledge

through language (Given 2008). My use of the term ‘discourse’ refers to the Foucauldian concept

of discourse, a topic I will discuss in more detail in Chapter 2.

1.5 Significance

It is clear that participatory research is becoming widely considered in monitoring projects

not only for its benefits in data contribution, but for increasing awareness of local ecological

14

issues within communities as well. A study of the synthesis of discourse surrounding

participatory research and dam removal projects is important for several reasons. First,

understanding the discourse around participatory research and dam removal can help

geographers understand the power relationships that shape the social realities around these

topics. This will help to elucidate what parameters will be successful in future projects.

Additionally, analysis of more than one topic can allow for the synthetization of knowledge for

practical applications. A framework of practical parameters with a high likelihood of success,

will help to improve policy and decision making related to community monitoring of dam

removal projects.

15

2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Research on community involvement in science and the impact of dams have been studied

across a variety of disciplines. The field of social science has detailed the emergence of

democratized scientific practices as an increasingly viable practice for monitoring ecological

projects (Burke and Heynen 2014). Comparably, the field of natural science has responded to the

increase in dam removals with an emerging body of research on the ecological and social effects

of dams (Doyle et al. 2003; Kondolf 1997; Carlson et al. 2018). My research will elucidate

geographic issues by referencing research on participatory research and dam removals within the

discipline. Through discourse analysis, my research aims to integrate theory and method of these

two topics. This chapter investigates participatory action research within the discipline of

geography, explores dams and their significance, and lastly, explores the theoretical framework

of critical physical geography and its relevance to these topics.

2.2 Critical Physical Geography

Historically, geography was proselytized for its bridging of the social and natural worlds

(Herbert and Matthews 2004; Unwin 1992; Johnston 2005). This coalescence was propelled

largely by the regional specialization of geographers prior to the 1950s (Couper 2015).

Succeeding the 1950s, the discipline of geography saw a shift toward the precedence of

systematic geography over regional specialty (Rogers et al. 2013). This furthered the division of

geography into physical and human branches. Toward the end of the 20th century, geographers

began to call for the reintegration of human and physical geographic research (Thornes 1981;

Goudie 1986; Massey 1999; Clifford 2002) and some attempted to bridge this divide within the

discipline (Raper and Livingstone 2001). A recent attempt that has gained precedence is the field

of critical physical geography (henceforth CPG). CPG is an emerging field that seeks crucial

16

awareness of social power and extensive knowledge of biophysical science through the synthesis

of physical geography and critical geography (Lave et al. 2018).

Physical geography as a subdiscipline emerged in the mid-19th century and dominated the

discipline into the mid-20th century. Although it encompasses a variety of branches, the term

physical geography is generally understood as the study of the spatial and environmental

processes that shape the Earth’s surface (Rogers et al. 2013; Lave et al. 2018). During this time

pioneering work occurred in areas such as paleoclimatology (Koppen and Wegener 1924

[2015]), geomorphology (Davis 1899), and human-nature relationships (Marsh 1864 [1965]).

However, environmental deterministic assertions emphasizing the unidirectional influence of the

environment on the social world advanced physical geography’s loss of precedence (Huntington

1915; Ratzel 1901; Semple 1911). Furthermore, after World War II critiques of geography

emerged citing a lack of systematic methods that produced calls for a more generalizable

knowledge rather than region-specific proficiency (Poole 1944; Ackerman 1945). In the 1950s

and 1960s, the discipline experienced a radical transition in objective and approach, known as

the ‘Quantitative Revolution’ (Johnston 1979 [2016]), that led to the formation of a spatial

science paradigm (Couper 2015; Lave et al. 2018). This spatial science paradigm produced

geographic developments in modelling (Kemeny and Snell 1962 [1973]; Chorley and Haggett

1967), remote sensing (Lancaster 1968), and diffusion processes (Brown 1968; Hägerstrand

1966; Morrill and Pitts 1967). Yet, toward the end of the 1960s, geographers recognized the

necessity of researching social processes to understand spatial structure.

Critical geography arose in the 1970s in order to explicate how socio-political structures

shape space (Lave et al. 2018). Moreover, it sought to understand the socio-political structures

that affect how objects interact with each other in specific spaces. While literature on critical

17

geography shows that some researchers use it simply as a methodology (Dunn 2007; Pacheco

and Velez 2009), most geographic research has used it as a theoretical framework and as

methodological research to understand the complex dynamics of space (Blomley 2006; Gulson &

Symes 2007; Kuntz & Berger 2011; Morrison, Annamma, & Jackson 2017; McKenzie and Tuck

2015). Furthermore, some have used it to address knowledge-construction processes in dialogue

(Gildersleeve & Kuntz 2011). While there was a plethora of applications for critical geography,

growing environmental concerns seemed to be an area largely neglected by this geography at the

time.

The 1970s saw a substantial increase in concerns about human impacts on the environment.

Subsequently, a resurgence in the geographic discourse on treatment of social and environmental

systems as integrated socio-environmental systems occurred (Bayliss-Smith 1982; Fischer-

Kowalski and Haberl 1998). However, the systems approach has been critiqued for not providing

thorough investigations of underlying issues that create environmental crises (Brand 2016;

Gandy 2002; Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003). Along the same lines, some physical geographers

also considered philosophical theory in the development of alternative approaches in the

discipline. Thornes (1981) asserted that the use of unconventional approaches to climatology and

meteorology could allow geographers to apply their knowledge in a more significant capacity. In

similar manner, Rhoads et al. (1999) called for the integration of philosophy and methodology in

geomorphology. However, critiques arose of the oversimplified representation of humans by the

systems approach and physical geographers (Richards and Clifford 2008).

Although physical and critical geographies have attempted to integrate social and natural

sciences, there is a readily apparent disconnect that leaves several issues at the periphery. Along

these lines, Lave et al. (2018) argues that research should use a CPG approach that integrates the

18

social and biophysical to understand the current diversity of eco-social relations, the beliefs that

environmental science and decision-making are predicated on, and how those beliefs are being

used to justify actions. Furthermore, a key tenet of CPG is that it disputes the prevalent discourse

that there is a unidirectional effect of humans on the environment and that discourse often

neglects to address the power relationships that influence the human-environment relationship

(Morgan 2011; Lave et al. 2018). In other words, CPG allows for the understanding of the social

systems, physical landscapes, and power-knowledge relationships by studying their intersection

and their subsequent influence on each other.

As a result of covering a variety of topics, CPG has a range of epistemological positions that

Lane (2018) demonstrates as a spectrum on a scale (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Diagram of the spectrum of epistemological positions and CPG research’s occupancy on the spectrum Moving from left

to right, the spectrum ranges from ‘Truth’ representing positivism and empirical research, ‘veiled Truth, representing critical

realist positions, ‘situated truths’ represents multiple truths existent in lived experiences, ‘ethics and justice’ representing

constructionist positions of an external world that is co-produced with human action, and ‘Construction’ representing

Constructivism where there is no material world only a collectively created world. Source: Lave et al. 2018

Similarly, CPG covers a rage of methodologies. For example, Wilcock et al. (2013) used

ethnographic case studies to highlight convergent perspectives of landscape understandings

19

through Indigenous knowledges and relational approaches to geomorphic analysis. Furthermore,

critical physical research has elucidated citizenship and gender’s roles in soil science (Mauro

2014), the exclusion of local and culturally meaningful knowledge in nomenclature (Barron et al.

2015), and helped to better understand the disparities between physical geographic and social

discourse on energy production (Lave and Lutz 2014). While CPG research covers a breadth of

topics, methodologies, and epistemologies that undertake the eco-social conditions society

currently faces, it also aims to address scientific inquiry’s effect on those conditions.

2.3 Participatory Research and Science

Participatory research is commonly understood to involve the study of phenomenon with the

engagement and collaboration of those most affected by it and the researcher in the research

design, data collection, critical analysis, and subsequent actions to achieve social change

(Breitbart 2016; Kindon et al. 2007). Although it is becoming a leading approach in geographic

research, participatory research in science has been occurring throughout most of recorded

history (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). Community members have made substantial contributions

to scientific knowledge of ecology such as natural history collections, weather phenomena, and

agronomical events (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). Throughout history, many community

members were considered experts in their field and were enlisted to contribute to what was

considered professional scientific research (Brenna 2011; Vetter 2011). This exemplifies the co-

created nature of scientific research prior to the professionalization of science in the early 19th

century.

The professionalization of science can be traced back to Comte’s (1830) positivist ideas on

the development and organization of knowledge. As society experienced a period of growth and

subsequent turmoil during the 19th and 20th centuries, many people sought ways to organize and

20

understand the world around them, particularly through science. The development of scientific

journals, societies, and the opportunity for more pioneering research led to the development of a

system wherein scientists decide the legitimacy of knowledge through publication and education.

Widespread challenge for the integration of marginalized perspectives in research came about in

the 1960s and 1970s where Freire (1970 [2014]) and others advocated for participatory research

as an approach to address the problematic ethics of research conducted on behalf of people

(Breitbart 2016). Freire’s work demonstrates that a key component in participatory research is to

address the power-relationships by sharing power between participants and researcher to benefit

the community.

Geographic research in this arena produced some of the pioneering studies of participatory

efforts. William Bunge’s pivotal work in radical cartography known as ‘Geographical

expeditions’ (1969), aimed to give rise to local perspectives of those living in poverty in Detroit

by incorporating neighborhood residents in the collection of data and subsequent analysis.

Reports detailing the results of these studies were used by the communities to expose systemic

racism in the proposed redistricting by the Detroit School Board (Bunge 1969) (Figure 2). Bunge

adopted some of the key tenets of participatory research: “the importance of field research as an

educational tool; the power of knowledge when used to design social actions to make a

difference in people’s lives, [and] the acceptance of professionals as both teachers and students”

(Breitbart 2016: 199). Similarly, Caitlin Cahill’s (2007) research on gentrification in the Lower

East Side of New York City employed the perspectives and lived experiences of young working-

class women of color to show the relationships between representation and socioeconomic

disinvestment in communities.

21

2.3.1 Participatory GIS

One domain in particular that saw a dramatic shift in the perception of its use was

Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In the 1960s, GIS emerged as a computer application as

a result of multiple projects; most prominently the Canada Geographic Information System, the

UK’s Experimental Cartography Unit, and the endeavors of Duane Marble at Northwestern

University (Goodchild 2018). In its infancy, GIS was primarily technology-led and focused on

its use in spheres such as transportation research, land use planning, and topographic map

development (Goodchild 2018). As it progressed in the following decades, it was seen as a

technological revolution. However, debate emerged about the ethics and limitations of GIS use.

While some were concerned with the technological limitations of spatial data analysis, others

were concerned with the positivist and reductionist episteme surrounding it. According to

Obermeyer (1998), the creators of GIS made intentional choices about the arrangement of the

technology based on the temporal and spatial paradigm it was created in. She explains that this

was “largely white males employed in academic and governmental institutions in North America

and Europe” (Obermeyer 1998: 65). While technological limitations shaped the foundations of

GIS, prominent spatial and social theories of that time (i.e. positivist and reductionist) also

shaped the type of GIS that were then available.

GIS entered the field of geography at a time when critical human geography had reached its

pinnacle. This was predominantly due to the culmination of efforts from feminist, Marxist, and

human geographers (Pickles 1993). In particular, one of the biggest critiques of GIS was its

exclusionary nature. Due to it being created as a technical tool in a positivist environment by

mostly white males in academic and governmental institutions, many groups were

underrepresented in and left without access to GIS. Many scholars took notice of this and

22

championed for new approaches in GIS (Dobson 1993; Obermeyer 1995; Pickles 1995). This

resulted in a paradigmatic shift to post-positivism which emphasized intricate social theories in

order to question the power structures inherent in knowledge production and who those power

structures serve.

Advances in technology coupled with discourse on democratization created a different

systematized role for GIS in education and research through more varied applications, theories,

and approaches. These advancements acted as a harbinger for participatory GIS (PGIS). In the

literature, a general definition of PGIS is lacking due to the increasingly blurred boundaries

between different types of involvement. Throughout my research, I use the term PGIS to refer

broadly to community-integrated GIS, participatory GIS, and public participation GIS. While

PGIS does not have one succinct definition, some key aspects are the restructuring of who

‘participants’ are to be more inclusive of the public and marginalized groups, as well as

incorporating local and indigenous knowledge (Dunn 2007). These efforts have resulted in

geographic studies of how indigenous place-based knowledge can contribute to landscape-

process scientific research in the Alaskan Arctic (Eisner et al. 2012), the benefits of urban parks

on communities’ physical health (Brown et al. 2014), and identification of areas at high risk of

land degradation (Al-Wadaey and Ziadat 2014). Broadly, these studies found that the integration

of GIS can be a crucial tool for addressing socioeconomic, ecological knowledge, and

conservation issues while simultaneously engaging communities in important decision making.

While reviewing the literature on the evolution of PGIS and participatory research efforts, it

appeared that participatory research is following a similar trajectory. Parallels can be drawn

between the exclusionary nature of who was able to participate in the early stages of GIS and

what knowledge is valued or deemed ‘professional’ in science, specifically as it related to

23

participatory research monitoring efforts. These parallels can provide insight into the future of

participatory research as well as offer examples of best practices that can translate to

participatory research efforts.

While participatory research has shown to have many benefits, there are also challenges

associated with it. Studies on a variety of participatory research topics, from urban geography

courses (Cope 2009) to collaborations with public programs (Breitbart 2016), showed that

differing levels of commitment, incongruous priorities and goals, and differing perceptions of the

level of what ‘participation’ is can cause conflict in projects and affect their success (Pain 2009;

Perkins and Wandersman 1990). While these challenges may seem to be insurmountable,

participatory research produces data that has been shown to be accurate, useful, and to benefit

communities’ needs by incorporating them in all aspects of the project design (Kosmala et al.

2016).

2.4 Dams

Dams are prominent features of river systems throughout the world and as such, research on

their effects and removal have become an interdisciplinary research effort. Dams have been part

of what geographers have referenced as the “Modernist quest to tame and control nature” (Kaika

2006: 276). As a result, dams became paradigmatic symbols of power, being a physical

representation of human ingenuity to tame and control nature. However, they have also become

symbols of the debate surrounding the metamorphosis of ‘natural’ landscapes to expand urban

landscapes (Kaika 2006).

The discourse of dams as heroic in the urbanization of landscapes is particularly evident in

the settlement of the American West. As the American empire expanded westward, reaching

24

from the Atlantic to the Pacific, settlement was dependent on acquiring water (Fairfax and

Russell 2014). The formation of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in 1901 was intended to

encourage settlement of the west through agricultural assistance but the agency’s stated mission

was to ‘reclaim’ desert lands (Fairfax and Russell 2014). Initially projects were small, however

the New Deal ushered in an era of larger-scale projects through federal work programs to

stabilize the economy and create jobs (Sabin 2015; Gregory 1994; Fairfax and Russell 2014).

This led to the construction of larger dams and the formation of the idea that dams were heroic to

the American people in job creation and in the taming of large rivers. One of the most prominent

examples of the heroic discourse of dams is the Hoover Dam (Figure 1). The Hoover Dam was

completed in 1935, stands at 221m in height, and has been referenced as “one of the country’s

most enduring landmarks” and “one of America's Seven Modern Civil Engineering Wonders”

(Schwer and Daneshvary 1997: 37). These statements show what a prolific effect dams had on

not only the physical landscape, but the socio-ecological relationship of that paradigm.

While dams were seen by the public as heroic during the dam building era, due to their

portrayal by governments as feats of engineering that could create jobs while taming nature,

environmental movements in the 1960s and 1970s show a shift in perception of dams. The

construction of new dams was being seen by communities in terms of their environmental and

socioeconomic effects (Fujikura and Nakayama 2009). As ecological issues became more well

known, geographic literature has detailed dam impacts such as river channel evolution in

response to change in base level, the effects of logging on stream temperature, fluvial flow

regime change, and sediment transport (Liro 2015; Robinson and Dupeyrat 2005; Graf 2001;

Moore et al. 2005). As data became more available and many of the negative effects of dams

became known, the discourse surrounding dams shifted to mitigating the negative effects of these

25

impoundments as a critical issue. Mitigation techniques such as functional flow regimes to

mimic natural flow regimes (Viers et al. 2017), fish ladders to allow the passage of fish to

upstream habitat (Giridov and Shilin 1999), and sediment management such as sluicing and

dredging (Kondolf et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2017), have been explored but were found to be costly

and to not address the underlying causes of the problem. While many studies focused on the

physical effects of dams, studies have increasingly focused on the social aspect. For example,

geographers have studied the socio-political systems that influence water management decisions,

as well as the how the water cycle shapes, and at times restrains, communities (Swyngedouw et.

al 2002; Loftus and Sultana 2012; Forsyth 2005; Perreault 2006). Furthermore, geographers have

studied the evolution of the meaning of dams, how those meanings vary spatially, and how

discourses of dams demonstrate the evolution in meaning (Baghel 2014; Flaminio et al. 2021).

The synthesis of these areas of study will need to occur in order to better understand the socio-

ecological challenges of dam removal.

Research on dam removal has become an interdisciplinary research effort. As for

geography, research has typically focused on the physical responses to dam removals with

studies on the continuity of ecological and geomorphological effects (Magilligan et al. 2021),

pedogenesis and its effect on vegetational succession (Lafrenz et al. 2013), and the temporal

effects of sediment release on a channel’s return to dynamic equilibrium (Fields et al. 2021).

While some studies have documented monitoring efforts of specific physical responses to dam

removal projects, long-term monitoring data for many projects is not readily available (Kaika

2006; Rubin et al. 2017; Mulligan et al. 2020; Lehner et al. 2011). 10 percent of project records

determined any monitoring took place (Bernhardt et al. 2005) and many of those studies are short

(less than five years) and do not sufficiently represent the wide variety of dam, watershed, and

26

removal types nor the historical and social contingencies that affect these projects (Foley et al.

2017).

Recent studies have sought to include the social dynamic of dam removal in research. For

example, geographers have used political ecological approaches to understand how the historical

and geographical contingencies of regions influence dissension over dam removal (Fox et al.

2016). Moreover, understanding the reasons proponents and opponents of dam removal use to

justify removal or the dam remaining has helped geographers to understand differing valuations

of environments (Jørgensen and Renöfält 2013). Understanding the socio-ecological nexus of

dam removals is important to address the embedded power relationships in the research and

process of this phenomenon. Magilligan et al. (2017) examined the intersection of ecological

restoration and environmental politics around several dam removal cases to understand broader

systems of power. Furthermore, geographers have used critical physical approaches to show that

dam removal projects should include multiple stakeholders to address power relationships and

change the way we approach science and the way that knowledge is generated (Dufour et al.

2017).

2.5 Gaps in the Literature

During my literature review, I found that there was a lack of literature on the discourse of

participatory research, dam removal projects, and how to synthesize the knowledge for practical

benefits. Due to its increasing popularity, participatory research has been studied by various

disciplines to better understand the perception of participatory research and what contributes to

its success or limitations. Similarly, studies on dam removal and its monitoring have become

increasingly popular as dam removals become more common and require monitoring. Despite

pioneering work in these areas, a rigorous, critical physical theoretic analysis of participatory

27

research and dam removal in mixed methods research has been a neglected area in the discipline

of geography. In the next section, I will show how my study provides a unique attempt to

analyze power-knowledge relationships in participatory research and dam removal as well as its

application for project parameters through a critical physical geographic lens.

28

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The study design for this thesis used a two-phase mixed methods approach that incorporated

a quantitative and a qualitative component to analyze participatory research and dam removal.

Due to the differing nature of the two data sets, data collection and analysis were done separately

for each topic. The quantitative method was used to produce close-ended data of the variables

and the qualitative was used to produce open-ended data to reveal the connection between the

variables. Furthermore, the quantitative results were used to understand the prevalence of words

in order to inform the generation of codes that accurately reflect the discourse regarding both

participatory research and dam removal for the qualitative analysis. The qualitative results

informed the themes that indicated the main principles that should guide the framework for

participatory research monitoring of dam removal projects. Practically and procedurally, this

approach provided a functional strategy to understand the complex research problems and

questions associated with a Foucauldian discourse analysis of participatory research and dam

removal.

Quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques have both strengths and limitations in

the types of information they provide. Mixed methods research offers the ability to gain more

insight into and better understand problems than either approach by themselves. Cresswell and

Cresswell (2018) have put forward the core characteristics of mixed methods to be used to define

the methodology:

• It involves the collection of both qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative (close-

ended) data in response to research questions and hypotheses.

29

• It includes the rigorous methods (i.e., data collection, data analysis, and

interpretation) of both quantitative and qualitative data.

• The two forms of data are integrated in the design analysis through merging the

data, explaining the data, building from one database to another, or embedding the

data within a larger framework.

• These procedures are incorporated into a distinct mixed methods design that

indicates the procedures to be used in a study.

• These procedures are often informed by a philosophy (or worldview) and a theory

Mixed methods research is sometimes equated with multimethod, mixed research, integrating,

synthesis, and mixed methodology. Throughout my research I use the term ‘mixed methods’ and

‘mixed methods research’ interchangeably, following with the practice of more recent writings,

the SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in the Social & Behavioral Sciences, and SAGE’s

Journal of Mixed Methods Research (Bryman 2006; Cresswell 2015; Tashakkori and Teddlie

2010).

The last two decades have witnessed significant methodological and epistemological

diversification in the discipline of geography. Consequently, there has been significant growth in

mixed methods research within the discipline. A study by Osborne and Jones used empirically

led mixed methods to demonstrate how biosensing can be used in geographic fieldwork to

provide contextual information to how people relate to their environment (2017). Moreover, a

study on the complexities of energy and water use in households used a time-geographical mixed

methods approach to understand how resource usage and usage data are related to user

perspectives (Köhler and Trygg 2019). Ultimately, authors concluded that using mixed methods

30

research allowed for the generation of insight to the underlying causes of phenomena and a more

comprehensive understanding of subjects to which various theoretical perspectives can apply.

3.2 Study Area

My study area consisted primarily of dam removal and participatory research projects in the

global North (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Map of countries in the global North and global South. Source: Map by Haylie Burkey (2022).

The Dictionary of Human Geography defines the global North as “Those countries found mainly,

but not exclusively, in the northern hemisphere, characterized by high levels of economic

development” (Rogers et al. 2013). The global North provided a suitable area of study due to the

industrialization of these regions during the dam building era and the subsequent end of the

dams’ functional lives at this time (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994). Similarly, these regions also

have a large amount of accessible literature on participatory research projects that have occurred

31

there. This is not to say that similar research has not occurred in the global South, rather it is a

reflection on the data sets that were available at the time of my research. Additionally, no

significant differences in thought related to dam removal were found between North America,

Europe, and Australia. Therefore, articles were not further refined by subgroups within the global

North in order to strive for scientific rigor. Focusing on the global North allowed me to extract

the necessary amount of data for my research to examine the intersection of these two topics for

practical application.

3.3 Data Collection

Data for my analysis was collected between March 2021 and December 2021. My research

conducted an exploratory content analysis of participatory monitoring and dam removal reported

in the relevant literature. Content analysis can encompass all recorded forms of communication,

however for the purpose and scope of my project I relied explicitly on peer-reviewed articles

from scientific journals (see Appendix A). In order to draw from a variety of disciplines and

perspectives, articles for the analysis were identified by searching the California State University

library and were collected from 32 different journals (see Appendix A). Based on the scope of

my research, titles, abstracts, and content were evaluated to identify studies of participatory

research as well as dam removal projects published explicitly in peer-reviewed articles from

scientific journals.

I used terms such as ‘citizen science’, ‘participatory research’, ‘dam removal’, ‘monitoring’,

and combinations thereof with logical operators AND/OR to identify relevant articles for my

analysis resulting in a total of 209 articles that met my preliminary search criteria. In order to

further refine my preliminary search results, exclusion criteria were established. This involved a

temporal component that excluded articles published before the year 2000. Additionally, a

32

manual examination component for relevance was employed. First, abstracts and key words were

evaluated to exclude articles whose subject focus was not relevant to participatory research or

dam removal. In order to further refine the data sets, manual examination of remaining article

content was performed. Meta-analyses offer insight from a variety of literature on a subject and

were therefore deemed an important inclusion for a comprehensive data set. As a result, the final

dataset was restricted to 67 articles.

3.4 Data Analysis

My analysis took a critical physical geographic perspective informed by Foucault’s notions

of power relationships and ‘truths’ to combine a quantitative measure of participatory research

and dam removal discourses with a qualitative text-based analysis. This was done to understand

power relationships in the discursive structures surrounding participatory research and dam

removal that affect the generation of scientific knowledge in order to inform project parameters

for participatory efforts in dam removal monitoring. My analysis followed the coding procedures

outlined in Key Methods in Geography where a manifest content analysis was used to quantify

prevalent words that occurred in the discourse and using them to generate descriptive codes

(Cope 2016). Moreover, the descriptive codes were used to inform analytic codes that fit into the

critical physical geography framework. The following sections will detail the methods used in

my analysis.

3.4.1 Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

Foucauldian discourse analysis is a prominent discursive approach to identify knowledge

and power relationships within language in a temporal and social context. For Foucault, the

phenomenon of discourse was a way of representing knowledge, and when coupled with social

33

practice, defines the reality of the social world and things that inhabit it (Foucault 1972 [1989]).

In other words, Foucault’s notion of discourse is more than a way of thinking, it is a way in

which power is exercised to reinforce hegemonic practices. Foucault (1972 [1989]) expounded

on this by focusing on how some discourses have helped determine what structures have come to

be accepted as ‘truths’ in how the social world is organized, while others are marginalized.

Although he expatiates about discourse in great detail, he never explicitly defines it or outlines it

as a methodological approach.

Waitt explains that, while no explicit definition of discourse is provided, Foucault’s work

reveals three descriptions that delineate the idea of discourse:

1. [A]ll meaningful statements or texts that have effect on the world;

2. [A] group of statements that appear to have a common theme that provides them

with a unified effect;

3. [T]he rules and structures that underpin and govern the unified, coherent, and

forceful statements that are produced. (2016)

Within Foucauldian discourse analysis, these descriptions can be used to identify discourses that

explicate the historically and socially established systems of power that dictate the validity of

knowledge and within a larger constructionist framework, investigate the repudiation of certain

knowledge or ‘truths’ (Foucault 1991 [2012]; 1998 [2012]). Moreover, an understanding of

power relationships and marginalized perspectives, or ‘truths’, can help address how these

inequalities are sustained and induce social change.

Multiple disciplines have used Foucauldian methodologies to understand social realities.

Studies on tourism that employed Foucauldian discourse analysis found that class distinction,

34

competing storylines, and imprecise discourse of sustainable tourism shape the socio-spatial

complexity and regional development of an area (Fazito et al. 2016; Hanna et al. 2015; Meekes

et al. 2020). Furthermore, geographers have employed Foucauldian methodologies to understand

the role of geocoding in governmental knowledge production that renders subjects and territories

as ‘governable’ (Rose-Redwood 2006). Additionally, studies on water entitlement using

Foucauldian methodologies revealed power relationships in global reach and how the historical,

political, and social context can be used to interpret critical social policy (Downey and Clune

2020; Robbins 2003). Although Foucauldian discourse analysis is an interpretive approach,

approaches within the framework have included the use of more discrete techniques such as

manifest content analysis and analytic coding to organize and analyze data (Waitt 2016).

Content Analysis

Multiple strategies exist in coding for the purpose of data reduction, filtering of search

aids, and analysis. Content analysis is a well-established method used to determine and decipher

symbolic meaning in recorded forms of communication (Kolbe and Burnett 1991; Kleinheksel et

al. 2020). There are two types of content analysis: manifest and latent (Cope 2016). Manifest

content analysis is typically concerned with quantitative data and elements at the surface level of

text, whereas latent content analysis is primarily concerned with the underlying meaning and

themes embedded in data (Kleinheksel et al. 2020; Cope 2016). Furthermore, with manifest

content analysis, the researcher is considered to be mostly objective and separated from the

analysis and knowledge generated (Cope 2016), conversely, latent content analysis

acknowledges that the researcher is involved with the analysis and knowledge generated as a

result of the researcher’s interpretation of the data (Kleinheksel et al. 2020). Foucauldian

35

methodologies can synthesize the strengths of both approaches through applying a twofold

coding process.

The first phase of my analysis employed a quantitative approach, in which manifest

content analysis was performed as an objective descriptive technique to derive preliminary

understanding of the discursive structures of participatory research and dam removal. Manifest

content analysis is distinct from Foucauldian discourse analysis, thus my research sought to use

it as a preliminary step to understand and organize the data (Waitt 2016). Manifest content

analysis has been employed by geographers to analyze the spatiotemporal contexts of gated

communities’ built and social environments in order to explicate and theorize contemporary

urbanization processes (Salim 2021). Furthermore, geographers have also used manifest content

analysis to analyze social perception of ‘the environment’ to show that it is a socially constructed

phenomenon that can be reconstructed with changing perceptions (Clifford and Warren 2005).

MaxQDA (VERBI Software, Version 22.1.1), a software used for qualitative and mixed

methods data analysis, was used to quantify the frequency and other metrics of words within the

selected articles on participatory research and dam removal. In order to refine the results,

exclusion criteria composed of a stop word list was generated (See Appendix B). Stop word lists

are lists of commonly used words excluded from the analysis of text that are typically redundant

and do not carry much meaning (MaxQDA 2022). The stop word list for my research was

generated through the amalgamation of commonly used stop word lists from the MaxQDA

website. Additionally, stop words were identified through analysis of the most frequently used

words for relevance to their respective data category.

Furthermore, frequently used words identified from the initial phase of the quantitative

analysis were examined for thematic content. This included investigating which words were

36

highly ranked, determining relationships between those words, and generating codes. The codes

were derived from the frequently used words themselves, combinations of those words, or

common themes found between them. The principal advantages of using this method as a

starting point for my study is that it allowed for the reduction of bias from researcher

interpretation, for discourse related to participatory research and dam removal to emerge

naturally, and helped to identify analytic leads for further investigation.

Coding

Following the manifest content analysis, coding was implemented as a qualitative

approach. It is common for analytic code to be generated from content analysis as connections

are made between themes, actions, and phrases. Housel’s research on racialized privilege shows

the progression of content analysis to analytic coding as descriptive codes such as “crime” were

linked to analytic codes such as the “erosion of white privilege” (2009). My steps proceeded very

much in the same way as Flynn and Ford (2020). First, MaxQDA was used to manually code

articles based on the results of the manifest content analysis. This entailed the reading and

assigning of codes to record content such as recurring concepts and specific uses of language

surrounding codes. Similar to Willer’s (2021) work on the effect rebranding has on sense of

community through a geographic lens, my approach used coding to elucidate broad themes

derived from the text.

Due to working within a critical physical lens, my research focused on identifying themes

that explicate power relationships that shape how people experience the environment. Similarly,

geographic research has used coding to address power relationships in rural studies, urban

ecosystem management, and discourse on policy of resilience planning (Yusuf et al. 2010;

Larson et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2021). Additionally, in order to examine the discursive structures

37

in which the codes appear, the identified themes were used to understand the discourse

surrounding participatory research and dam removal which in turn helped to determine guiding

principles for participatory research monitoring of dam removal projects.

38

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction

My research findings for both community science and dam removal are presented in three

sections. The first section details the results and discussion of manifest content analysis showing

the most frequently occurring words in the discourse of each topic. The second section expounds

the results of qualitative coding detailing common themes elucidated in the discourse. As

previously mentioned, analysis for each topic was done separately and then compared for

intersecting themes. In similar manner, the results of each topic are presented separately and then

compared for areas of convergence and divergence in the third section. Furthermore, the

intersecting themes were analyzed to determine guiding principles for community science project

parameters are discussed in the last section.

4.2 Manifest Content Analysis

From the manifest content analysis of the data sets, the 25 most frequently occurring words

were identified along with their respective ranking and other details. Words were examined for

their significance and relevance to determine its usefulness for code generation. When used

independently as a code, the most frequently used words did not provide much significant insight

into the context of discourse on participatory research. As a result, terms were examined and

combined to generate codes that could provide more insight into specific details of the discourse.

This generated a total of 20 codes and subcodes related to participatory research and 13 related to

dam removal.

39

4.2.1 Participatory research

Results of the manifest content analysis of the participatory research data set indicated a wide

breadth of topics from a variety of disciplines. ‘Data’ (Rank = 2, Doc. % = 57.14) was combined

with ‘quality’ (Rank = 8, Doc. % = 54.29) to generate the code ‘quality and accuracy of data’

(Table 1).

40

Table 1. Table containing the 25 top-ranked words from the participatory research dataset. The ‘word’ column is how the

respective word appears in the text; ‘frequency’ column is the absolute frequency of the respective word in the processed texts;

‘%’ column is the percentage of the use of the respective word to the total number of counted words in the data set; ’rank’

column is the rank of the respective word; ‘documents’ is the number of documents the respective word occurs in; and

‘documents %’ is the percentage of documents the respective word occurs in.

Word Frequency % Rank Documents Documents %

science 1998 1.84 1 20 57.14

data 1693 1.56 2 20 57.14

citizen 1595 1.47 3 19 54.29

monitoring 984 0.91 4 17 48.57

project 880 0.81 5 19 54.29

research 662 0.61 6 20 57.14

environmental 536 0.49 7 19 54.29

quality 468 0.43 8 19 54.29

management 408 0.38 9 20 57.14

conservation 397 0.37 10 17 48.57

species 388 0.36 11 13 37.14

scientific 358 0.33 12 19 54.29

participants 350 0.32 13 15 42.86

citizens 340 0.31 14 15 42.86

program 324 0.30 15 14 40.00

knowledge 320 0.29 16 20 57.14

participation 303 0.28 17 18 51.43

scientists 301 0.28 18 20 57.14

community 292 0.27 19 19 54.29

public 268 0.25 20 20 57.14

biodiversity 250 0.23 21 17 48.57

volunteers 249 0.23 22 17 48.57

local 225 0.21 23 19 54.29

youth 225 0.21 24 3 8.57

information 212 0.20 25 18 51.43

41

Monitoring (Rank = 4, Doc. % = 48.57) was used to generate the code ‘monitoring needs’ (Table

1). ‘Participants’ (Rank = 13, Doc. % = 42.86) gave rise to the code ‘perception of participants’

(Table 1). The code ‘knowledge generation’ was derived from ‘knowledge’ (Rank = 16, Doc. %

= 57.14) (Table 1). Additionally, ‘participation’ (Rank = 17, Doc. % = 51.43) was utilized to

create the code ‘participation bias’ (Table 1).

4.2.2 Dam Removal

Manifest content analysis of the dam removal data set revealed a narrower range of topics

and disciplines than participatory research data set. Additionally, fewer codes were created from

the words and combinations of words themselves, rather broader codes were generated from

concepts linked to several words. ‘Dam’ (Rank = 1, Doc. % = 100) and ‘removal’ (Rank = 2,

Doc. % = 100) were combined to generate the code ‘reasons for dam removal’ (Table 2).

42

Table 2 Table containing the 25 top-ranked words from the dam removal dataset. The ‘word’ column is how the respective word

appears in the text; ‘frequency’ column is the absolute frequency of the respective word in the processed texts; ‘%’ column is the

percentage of the use of the respective word to the total number of counted words in the data set; ’rank’ column is the rank of the

respective word; ‘documents’ is the number of documents the respective word occurs in; and ‘documents %’ is the percentage of

documents the respective word occurs in.

Word Frequency % Rank Documents Documents %

dam 5599 3.37 1 32 100.00

removal 3659 2.20 2 32 100.00

river 2472 1.49 3 32 100.00

sediment 1692 1.02 4 31 96.88

channel 1091 0.66 5 30 93.75

downstream 998 0.60 6 29 90.63

upstream 696 0.42 7 30 93.75

reservoir 690 0.42 8 28 87.50

fish 632 0.38 9 30 93.75

restoration 628 0.38 10 32 100.00

ecological 545 0.33 11 29 90.63

species 537 0.32 12 27 84.38

environmental 526 0.32 13 31 96.88

reach 498 0.30 14 26 81.25

changes 489 0.29 15 30 93.75

response 446 0.27 16 30 93.75

habitat 436 0.26 17 27 84.38

data 411 0.25 18 32 100.00

flow 409 0.25 19 31 96.88

former 390 0.23 20 28 87.50

impoundment 379 0.23 21 19 59.38

effects 359 0.22 22 30 93.75

bed 358 0.22 23 19 59.38

process 337 0.20 24 29 90.63

change 331 0.20 25 29 90.63

Effects’ (Rank = 22, Doc. % = 93.75) was used to generate the codes ‘positive effects’ and

‘negative effects’ (Table 2).

43

4.3 Analytic Coding

Analytic coding of the data sets revealed three theoretical themes on participatory research

and three theoretical themes on dam removal. While the processes of participatory research and

dam removal have included many factors, my research focused specifically on the discourse of

power-knowledge relationships of both topics. Coded segments of language were analyzed

within the discourse on both topics to reveal themes related to power relationships that shape

people’s experience with the environment. Specifically, it revealed the themes of project design,

cultural values, and knowledge generation in the participatory research data set. Additionally, it

revealed the themes of decision-making, cultural values, and knowledge generation in the dam

removal data set.

4.3.1 Participatory research

Project Design

A prominent theme in the analysis of power relationships in the discourse of participatory

research was project design. The way projects are designed is based on many factors, but those

factors have embedded power relationships within them. The knowledge that deciding factors are

derived from come from widely accepted knowledge or truths in the discipline of science.

Significantly, the analysis of project design showed that project design itself is a way that power

relationships are exercised. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are many ways to design a

participatory research project, and this is largely dependent on the goals of the project. However,

this dynamic is decided by the project designer and can affect a variety of perceptions of and

experiences with the project and the environment.

One way that power was exercised and exhibited in project design is in the engagement

process. The engagement process can decide who participates in scientific endeavors by

44

designing projects to be more inclusionary or exclusionary. A large determinant of this was

understanding motivation factors of participants and tailoring projects to participants’

motivations. However, motivation for participants can vary widely: “We also observed socio-

demographic patterns in motivations that reinforce a key observation: not all citizen scientists are

the same, and they will likely respond differently to different types of project messaging and

framing” (Larson et al. 2020: 8). Project designers can, whether consciously or unconsciously, be

exclusionary in the design of projects goals by not taking all participants’ motivations into

account.

Furthermore, discourse of participatory research projects was also shown to affect who

participates in projects. As previously explained, the language used to describe the project can

affect potential participants’ understanding of whether they can participate or not (e.g. using the

term ‘citizen science’). Additionally, many studies use the word “volunteer” which has been

shown to imply that a participant’s value lies in their ability to provide free labor to ‘professional

scientists’ rather than as active participants in the scientific process (Eitzel et al. 2017).

Interestingly, language used by participants was addressed in the data as well: “we need to

examine not only learning outcomes but also processes, and not just variables but the words and

actions of people participating in science research that they believe contributes to something

meaningful” (Ballard et al. 2017: 2). This theme came up less frequently than the aforementioned

use of language by project designers and was used in a different context. Ballard et al. suggests

that “because socio-economic and political conditions can undermine the links between learning

and resilience” it can be used as a means to examine the power relationships in these project

designs (2017: 2).

45

Recruiting methods were also a way that power can be exercised to exclude people from

projects. For example, Capdevila et al. explains that projects that attempted to recruit a specific

demographic used “exclusive means” such as social media to recruit younger participants (2020:

5). Moreover, Field-Juma and Roberts-Lawler claim that “the current corps of participatory

research volunteers [. . .] have very few people of color or those with limited financial resources,

although they do have a range of ages and a gender balance” (2021: 17). This discourse shows

that recruitment is not working for people of certain racial and socioeconomic groups, possibly

preventing them from participating in projects. This power dynamic can also exclude

underrepresented perspectives from the scientific knowledge generation process further

compounding the lack of democratic knowledge generation in the current paradigm.

There can be notable differences in the goals of participants and the goals of the project

leaders and management. Within the data set, I found that ‘education’ was used heavily in the

context of participants’ expectations of what to gain from their experience. More specifically:

“Education is a fundamental motivator for pursuing citizen science, involving the exchange of

knowledge regarding the frameworks, assumptions and machinations that constitute the scientific

process” (Jollymore et al. 2017: 457). Conversely, many scientists and agencies’ primary goals

were “providing useful data” (Ballard et al. 2017: 67) and “cost-effective data gathering”

(Capdevila et al. 2020: 5). Additionally, “the major driving factor for institutions was to increase

the spatial and temporal amount of water quality data in a cost-effective way” (Capdevila et al.

2020: 5). These differences were evident in the use of language surrounding motivations. Words

such as ‘dissonance’ and ‘reconcile’ were used when discussing the difference in goals and how

to address them. This language shows that while communities’ goals were the collaborative

generation of knowledge, scientists and agencies’ goals typically aligned with a more traditional

46

linear generation of knowledge where they draw conclusions from data collected by

communities.

Cultural Values

Cultural values were found to be an immanently embedded theme in the examination of

power relationships in the discourse of participatory research. A significant factor of cultural

values found was the valuation of participatory research. Differing perceptions of why

participatory research is valuable among various stakeholders were evident in the discourse. This

shaped the language used in the data and what metrics of success are based on. The most

common expected outcomes of participatory research projects that were studied were

“participant learning outcomes” (Jollymore et al. 2017: 457), “environmental education” (Kobori

et al. 2016: 5), “public engagement” (Kobori et al. 2016: 5), and “contribut[ion] to research”

(Kobori et al. 2016: 5). These outcomes show differing goals in participatory research projects

that can either be focused on experiential aspects or be product driven. However, focus on the

experiential aspect of the participants has only recently emerged as described by Jollymore et al.,

“only recently have discussions begun to focus on what participants get out of the citizen science

process, as opposed to scientific advantages” (2017: 465).

Contribution to research was the most common outcome that was studied in the data

indicating that it is a significant cultural value. In particular, the quality and accuracy of data

collected by participants and its usefulness for “scientists” or “authorities” (Pernat et al. 2021: 2).

Interestingly, the language used by many of these articles sets up participants as differentiated

from scientists and other ‘professionals’ further reinforcing a power relationship. Additionally,

many articles from the data set expressed a level of distrust among scientists regarding the

quality and accuracy of data collected by ‘non-scientists’. Jollymore et al. addresses this saying,

47

“perceptions show that concerns regarding data quality remain a significant barrier for trusting

scientific conclusions” (2017, p. 2). This shows that the discourse contributes to a paradigmatic

belief that participant contributions to data are not as valuable as ‘professionally’ collected data.

Furthermore, this power dynamic was shown to affect the use of participatory research

data in conservation, resource management, and policy-making decisions. In 1994, US Congress

demanded that the National Biological Survey exclude data collected by community volunteers

under the notion that their ‘environmentalist agenda’ would result in biased data collection

(Conrad and Hilchey, 2011). These, and similar, actions determine what information is used and

if it is disseminated. This can cause an exclusionary effect in environmental decisions:

Many citizen science projects are reported outside of peer-review (Conrad and

Hilchey, 2011). This mistrust is particularly concerning for policy-relevant

science such as environmental research, where apprehension regarding data

quality can impede the use of findings derived from citizen data in high-level

policy and decision-making. (Jollymore 2017)

This further reinforces the hegemonic structure of scientific power-knowledge relationships, who

the producers of knowledge are, and the embedded nature of them in public and social policy.

Knowledge Generation

Knowledge generation was found to be affected by many aspects of participatory research. As

previously mentioned, knowledge generation is affected by project design. The engagement

process can influence who participates by designing projects based on participants’ motivations.

Not taking these motivational factors into consideration when designing a participatory research

project can exclude many community members from participating and exclude perspectives that

48

could contribute to a more robust body of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the recruitment

process was shown to exclude participants from certain racial and socioeconomic groups. This

further excludes underrepresented perspectives in scientific knowledge generation and

environmental policies that ensue. Lastly, the language used surrounding project design was

shown to affect what knowledge is excluded from scientific research. Using terminology that

suggested participants are valued for free labor for scientists reinforced the power relationship

that excludes community knowledge in participatory research.

Cultural values were also found to be a significant factor affecting the generation of

knowledge in participatory research. Different valuations of participatory research and its

contributions yielded different levels of inclusion in the environmental decision-making process.

As a result of contribution to research being the most common outcome that was studied in the

data, if scientists or agencies decide that the data is not up to the standards of quality that they

use, participatory data can be excluded from the environmental decision-making process. This

can exclude many perspectives from the environmental decision-making processes that have

effects on local communities. Moreover, it excludes community perspectives and contributions

to the generation of scientific knowledge or Foucauldian truths, reinforcing the power

relationships currently in place.

4.3.2 Dam Removal

Cultural Values

Cultural values were shown to be a considerable theme in the power relationships found

in the discourse on dam removal. Many of the differences that influence the power relationships

49

between communities and agencies emanate from different valuation of the environment.

Jorgensen found that,

Public opposition in these cases was not caused by knowledge deficiency, where

more information would lead to better ecological decision-making, but by the fact

that local residents valued different aspects of the environment than scientists or

environmentalists that want the dam removed. (2017)

Further investigation into the discourse found that these differences in valuation can be related to

geographic concept of sense of place. Different regions had different attitudes toward the concept

of removal. This was largely tied to concepts such as cultural identity. This was found to be

particularly true for removal sites in New England where the community opposed the removal of

a dam for several reasons:

Opponents of the removal include a small but well positioned number of local

officials and opinion makers, and their resistance has been and remains grounded

in the dam’s historic significance, its importance to the Town’s cultural identity,

and the potential for the dam to be retrofitted for hydroelectricity generation.

Magilligan et al. 2017

Additionally, language used indicated that power relationships themselves have caused

resistance to dam removal in some cases. In the case of Fox et al., the word ‘outsider’ indicated

the differentiation between local communities and agencies that were proponents for dam

removal: “Moreover, as our research reveals, very often resistance is equally a response to being

told what to do by outsiders as it is to dam removal itself” (2016: 10).

Decision Making Process

50

The decision-making process of dam removal projects was determined to be a significant

theme in the power relationships found in the discourse on dam removal. Notably, the role of

community involvement in the decision-making process is highlighted in several studies. The

relicensing process leading to the subsequent decision of dam removal is usually the biggest

point of contention between stakeholders.

Specific language was used in reference to the stakeholders involved in dam removal

projects. Interestingly, this language took on terminology similar to that of class conflict. For

example, Fox et al. found that when speaking with opponents, attitudes toward local agencies

involved in the removal of the dams were perceived as “elites” (2016: 9). Although not typically

using language of class conflict, proponents of dam removal did use language that indicated a

power relationship as well. Proponents used language that contained the word “challenge” when

referring to opponents’ tendencies to not like change (Fox et al. 2016: 8). The use of language in

this statement indicates that the concerns voiced by the community are hurdles that must be

overcome. Furthermore, other dynamics strengthen this power relationship:

There has been a tendency within scholarship aimed at ecologists to advocate

human behavioral change techniques to lead the opponents of dam removal to

agree with “scientific” decisions [. . .] rather than recognizing the validity and

rationality of the oppositional position. Jorgensen and Renofalt 2013

This reinforces a hegemonic power structure that scientists and agencies’ priorities are more

valid than that of the communities, shaping the way that communities react to environmental

decisions.

51

While language was found that indicated scientific and agency priorities have a

significant amount of power in the decision on whether dam removal should occur, some recent

literature shows language indicating that communities have power in the decision-making

process. When describing cases of opposition to removal from communities, Fox et al. uses

strong language to describe their effect on the decision-making process stating that local bodies

“have a comparatively large amount of decision-making power to influence policies that affect

local infrastructure” (2016: 6). Fox et al. further claims “relatively small groups of anti-removal

advocates can exert inordinate influence over town-level decision making processes through

careful arguments” (2016, p. 6). This power has been shown to slow and even halt the dam

removal process in some cases.

The change in discourse on dam removals indicated a shift in power relationships. Many

studies are revealing that collaboration between communities and agencies is the most beneficial

approach to dam removal decisions. However, this requires a paradigmatic shift toward a more

inclusive form of environmental decision-making. Fox et al. addressed the need for this shift

with one of their central claims being “the need to re-think environmental politics in ways that

highlight its occurrence outside of formal institutional channels typified by environmental

legislation, organized social movements (including the work of NGOs), and even specific

campaigns” (2016, p. 10).

Knowledge Generation

The generation of knowledge regarding the dam removal process was shown to be largely

influenced by cultural values. Cultural values gave insight into the conflict surrounding these

projects and why communities support or oppose dam removals. Cultural identity and sense of

place were shown to largely influence oppositional attitudes toward dam removal. Additionally,

52

the discourse of the decision-making process proved to be a significant influencer of knowledge

generation. The use of oppositional language surrounding discussions of stakeholders was found

to further reinforce a power relationship between proponents and opponents of dam removal.

However more recent studies used more collaborative language indicating a paradigmatic shift

toward the inclusion of perspectives outside of the formal institutional modes in the generation of

knowledge related to dam removal.

4.4 Convergence and Divergence

There are a variety of aspects of convergence and divergence when analyzing the discourse

on participatory research and dam removals. The aspects of convergence revealed a window of

opportunity in dam removal where participatory research can be used to fill the knowledge gap.

Simultaneously, this would engage communities in environmental education and build a

foundation of trust and open communication between stakeholders. These would be the first

steps toward a more democratic generation of knowledge of dam removal projects.

The discourse on participatory research seemed to show an unequal power-relationship in

favor of scientists and agencies. Through project design that is based on paradigmatic beliefs that

have excluded community participation in many ways, the generation of knowledge was

primarily controlled by scientists and agencies. Interestingly, the discourse on dam removal

showed the opposite. Analysis of the discourse elucidated a relationship where communities

have the power to influence, and in some cases even halt, dam removal projects. Furthermore,

language indicated that both topics were in a sort of paradigmatic shift. Participatory research is

slowly starting to be valued for more than just its ability to provide data and is being used more

frequently. Recently, community involvement is being implemented at the embryonic stages of

the dam removal process to ensure project success.

53

These findings were consistent with previous literature. The analysis of the discourses of

participatory research and dam removal explicated that some perspectives are excluded from

scientific knowledge generation and reinforce power relationships that have shaped the

Foucauldian notion of the generation of ‘truths’ in what is accepted as valid scientific knowledge

(1991 [2012]). In terms of participatory research, my study addressed the unidirectionality of

knowledge from scientists to the public (Capdevila et al. 2020; Chandler et al. 2017; Freitag

2016; Jollymore et al. 2017). Additionally, it aligned with studies that showed participatory

research can help remedy power relationships to move toward a more collaborative and

democratic form of knowledge generation with positive environmental outcomes (Whitman et al.

2015). Moreover, it also matches with studies on dam removal that have shown community

involvement is a large determining factor of a project’s success (Jorgensen et al. 2017;

Magilligan et al. 2017; Tuckerman and Zawiski 2007). Lastly, although not included in the

analytic coding section due to scope of my study, ecological variables were considered in the

examination of dam removal articles. While sediment and vegetation responses to dam removal

were prominent in the literature, water quality was found to be one of the ecological variables

most discussed in regard to monitoring within the dam removal data set (Jollymore et al. 2017).

These areas of convergence show that there is a clear window of opportunity to use

participatory research in dam removal monitoring. My analysis revealed that when designing a

participatory research project to monitor dam removal projects the following parameters must be

incorporated into project design:

The first parameter is that community involvement should be incorporated at every stage

of the project. The results of the analysis of dam removal projects showed that when community

engagement began early in the process, less conflict and more collaboration were present

54

throughout the process and there was improved trust and knowledge between communities and

agencies (Gosnell and Kelly 2010; Tuckerman and Zawiski 2007).

Secondly, project goals should be clearly defined. These goals should be based on

participants’ motivations and should be collaborative to allow for the exchange of knowledge

and ideas among stakeholders. Ensuring that goals are clear and understood by all stakeholders

will reduce the perception of failure of projects.

Lastly, documentation of all aspects of the process should occur and should be

disseminated. The analysis revealed that many aspects of participatory research projects are not

reported or disseminated, many times due to the fear of participatory research being seen as a

‘failure’ for not achieving desired results (Freitag 2016). Due to this being an emerging field and

the projected increase in dam removals, it is necessary to glean the most information possible to

use in designing future studies. This co-creation of knowledge can help to create a more

sustainable model of knowledge generation while simultaneously meeting other goals such as the

need for long-term data sets of dam removals and data on successful practices of participatory

research projects.

Additionally, parameters specific to dam removal monitoring include biophysical impacts

and public opinion polling. Although it was outside of the scope of this thesis to examine all the

possible biophysical factors related to dam removal that participatory research could contribute

to, examination of the data sets revealed several areas that participatory research could focus on.

Biophysical factors include changes in sediment dynamics, hydrologic conditions, and natural

resources such as flora and fauna. Additionally participatory research can serve to better

understand public opinion of these projects. Participants can participate in polling community

members and other techniques used to better understand perceptions of dams, their removals, and

55

gauge interest in participatory research projects. Furthermore, due to the lack of participatory

research in dam removal monitoring, projects should document what kind of training is required

for various these types of monitoring, should titles (e.g. volunteer, citizen scientist, etc.) reflect

the level of training undertaken, and the complexity of the instruments used. This data would

help to elucidate how these factors affected the ‘success’ of participatory efforts and where

research can focus in the future.

56

5. Conclusion

My research showed that participatory research is a plausible solution to the lack of

knowledge (window of opportunity) and democratization of knowledge generation surrounding

the monitoring of dam removal projects. By using a Foucauldian discourse analysis as a

methodology, my analysis showed that there are several themes in the discourses on participatory

research and dam removal that are shaped by power relationships and that also work to reinforce

these power relationships. Project design, cultural values, and knowledge generation were

identified as themes of power relationships in the discourse of participatory research. In the case

of dam removal, the decision-making process, cultural values, and knowledge generation were

found to be themes of power relationships in the discourse. In addition, I found that a

paradigmatic shift is occurring toward a more inclusionary approach to knowledge generation,

further supporting my claim that there is a window of opportunity for community driven

knowledge generation in the field of dam removal projects. This has far-reaching implications

for political processes and socioeconomics that are embedded in public and social policies that

affect how communities interact with the environment. By considering these themes, we can

utilize the window of opportunity within dam removal projects to implement participatory

research projects that can democratize the generation of knowledge.

5.1 Significance

Understanding the socio-biophysical landscapes has become both evident and necessary in

improving the health of freshwater resources. Dam removal has emerged as one solution to the

problem and as an increasing number of dams approach the end of their functional life, removal

projects are becoming a geographic ubiquity. The lack of long-term monitoring of dam removal

projects is generating limited knowledge that is produced by a limited range of people. My

57

research sought to examine how this gap in knowledge could be filled using participatory

research monitoring through the theoretical framework of critical physical geography. My

research added to the literature of geography by elucidating power relationships that shape how

people interact with the environment. The discourse on participatory research and dam removals

related to power relationships showed the beginnings of a paradigmatic shift toward a more

inclusionary form of science. This study is the first step towards enhancing our understanding of

the democratization of scientific knowledge as it relates to dam removal projects, and more

broadly, human-environment relationships.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

Due to using an exploratory approach to analysis, some potential limitations need to be

considered. First, I acknowledge that peer reviewed journals are only one format that

participatory research and dam removal projects may be represented in. As stated previously,

many participatory research studies are not published in peer-reviewed journals (Conrad and

Hilchey 2011). Moreover, many dam removal studies are reported by agencies in specific report

formats that are not in the databases that my data sets were extracted from. Consequently, my

research is not a comprehensive analysis of participatory research and dam removal, but rather

one aspect of the understanding of primarily academic discourse of both subjects. Additionally,

although selected using keywords and their context, it was noted that many of the studies in the

data sets were written on projects in the global North or specific regions of the US. This is likely

due to the large number of dams in the global North compared to countries in the global South

and the expiring functional lifespan of dams in these regions. Nevertheless, the findings are

context dependent and may not be transferable to projects in specific regions. Lastly, this is

58

exploratory research, whose results should be substantiated through other methods, such as

empirical research, case studies, and statistical analyses.

Future research into the power-knowledge relationship of participatory research and dam

removals should focus on incorporating a variety of sources. Archival sources, agency reports,

interviews, and other related materials would be useful in gleaning deeper insight into who the

producers of knowledge are, how that knowledge is accepted, and how we can further move

toward a more democratic form of knowledge generation. Another area for future research to

focus on is developing parameters for participatory research monitoring of dam removal in

varying spatial locations. This would provide insight into what variables affect sense of place in

different regions and how project parameters can be altered to ensure that project specific goals

are met. Additionally, due to the limited data on participatory dam removal monitoring, further

research could evaluate empirical data on how such projects worked, providing insight into the

efficiency of participatory dam removal monitoring. Lastly, case studies of participatory research

monitoring projects of dam removals that encompass a variety of variables would be useful for

the generation of knowledge surrounding the body of literature on participatory research, dam

removal, and other topics.

59

Bibliography

Ackerman, E.A. 1945. “Geographic Training, Wartime Research, and Immediate Professional

Objectives.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 35 (4): 121–43.

Al-Wadaey, Ahmed, and Feras Ziadat. 2014. “A Participatory GIS Approach to Identify Critical Land

Degradation Areas and Prioritize Soil Conservation for Mountainous Olive Groves (Case

Study).” Journal of Mountain Science 11 (3): 782–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2827-

x.

Baghel, Ravi. 2014. “Misplaced Knowledge: Large Dams as an Anatopism in South Asia.” In Large

Dams in Asia: Contested Environments between Technological Hydroscapes and Social

Resistance, edited by Marcus Nüsser, 15–31. Advances in Asian Human-Environmental

Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2798-4_2.

Ballard, Heidi L., Colin G. H. Dixon, and Emily M. Harris. 2017. “Youth-Focused Citizen Science:

Examining the Role of Environmental Science Learning and Agency for Conservation.”

Biological Conservation, The role of citizen science in biological conservation, 208 (April): 65–

75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024.

Barron, Elizabeth S., Chris Sthultz, Dale Hurley, and Anne Pringle. 2015. “Names Matter:

Interdisciplinary Research on Taxonomy and Nomenclature for Ecosystem Management.”

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 39 (5): 640–60.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315589706.

Bayliss-Smith, Tim. 1982. The Ecology of Agricultural Systems. Cambridge Topics in Geography.

New York, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press.

Bednarek, Angela T. 2001. “Undamming Rivers: A Review of the Ecological Impacts of Dam

Removal.” Environmental Management 27 (6): 803–14.

http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1007/s002670010189.

Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, et al. 2005.

“Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts.” Science 308 (5722): 636–37.

Blomley, Nicholas. 2006. “Uncritical Critical Geography?” Progress in Human Geography - PROG

HUM GEOGR 30 (February): 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph593pr.

Brand, Ulrich. 2016. “How to Get Out of the Multiple Crisis? Contours of a Critical Theory of Social-

Ecological Transformation.” Environmental Values 25 (5): 503–25.

https://doi.org/10.3197/096327116X14703858759017.

Breitbart, Myrna M. 2016. “Paticipatory Action Research.” In Key Methods in Geography, edited by

Nicholas Clifford, Meghan Cope, Thomas Gillespie, and Shaun French, Third, 198–216. SAGE

Publications Inc.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#search/david.lawrence.133%40my.csun.edu/F

MfcgzGlkFsqLMxmzZXVNWCnBTHVsZtC?projector=1&messagePartId=0.2.

60

Brenna, Brita. 2011. “Clergymen Abiding in the Fields: The Making of the Naturalist Observer in

Eighteenth-Century Norwegian Natural History.” Science in Context 24 (2): 143–66.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889711000044.

Brown, Greg, Morgan Faith Schebella, and Delene Weber. 2014. “Using Participatory GIS to

Measure Physical Activity and Urban Park Benefits.” Landscape and Urban Planning 121

(January): 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006.

Brown, Lawrence A. 1968. Diffusion Dynamics. A Review and Revision of the Quantitative Theory of

the Spatial Diffusion of Innovation. Lund Studies in Geography. Ser. B: Human Geography No.

29. Lund: The Royal University of Lund, Sweden, Department of Geography.

Bryman, Alan. 2006. Mixed Methods: A Four Volume Set. Vol. 1. 4 vols. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications Inc.

Bunge, William. 1969. The First Years of the Detroit Geographical Expedition: A Personal Report.

Vol. no. 1., no. 1. Field Notes. Detroit: Society for Human Exploration.

Burke, Brian J., and Nik Heynen. 2014. “Transforming Participatory Science into Socioecological

Praxis: Valuing Marginalized Environmental Knowledges in the Face of the Neoliberalization of

Nature and Science.” Environment & Society 5: 7–27.

Cahill, Caitlin. 2007. “Negotiating Grit and Glamour: Young Women of Color and the Gentrification

of the Lower East Side.” City & Society 19 (2): 202–31.

https://doi.org/10.1525/city.2007.19.2.202.

Capdevila. 2020. “Success Factors for Citizen Science Projects in Water Quality Monitoring | Elsevier

Enhanced Reader.” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137843.

Carlson, Peter Erich, Serena Donadi, and Leonard Sandin. 2018. “Responses of Macroinvertebrate

Communities to Small Dam Removals: Implications for Bioassessment and Restoration.” Edited

by Yong Cao. Journal of Applied Ecology 55 (4): 1896–1907. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-

2664.13102.

Chaffin, Brian C, and Hannah Gosnell. 2017. “Beyond Mandatory Fishways: Federal Hydropower

Relicensing as a Window of Opportunity for Dam Removal and Adaptive Governance of

Riverine Landscapes in the United States.” Water Alternatives 10 (3): 21.

Chandler, Mark, Stan Rullman, Jenny Cousins, Nafeesa Esmail, Elise Begin, Gitte Venicx, Cristina

Eisenberg, and Marie Studer. 2017. “Contributions to Publications and Management Plans from

7 Years of Citizen Science: Use of a Novel Evaluation Tool on Earthwatch-Supported Projects.”

Biological Conservation 208 (April): 163–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.024.

Chorley, Richard J., and Peter Haggett. 1967. Models in Geography. London: Methuen.

61

Clifford, Ben P., and Charles R. Warren. 2005. “Development and the Environment: Perception and

Opinion in St Andrews, Scotland.” Scottish Geographical Journal 121 (4): 355–84.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00369220518737245.

Clifford, Nicholas J. 2002. “The Future of Geography: When the Whole Is Less than the Sum of Its

Parts.” Geoforum 33 (4): 431–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00043-X.

Comte, Auguste. 1830. Course de Philosophie Positive. London: Croom Helm.

Conrad, Cathy C., and Krista G. Hilchey. 2011. “A Review of Citizen Science and Community-Based

Environmental Monitoring: Issues and Opportunities.” Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment 176 (1–4): 273–91. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5.

Cooper, Caren B., Jennifer Shirk, and Benjamin Zuckerberg. 2014. “The Invisible Prevalence of

Citizen Science in Global Research: Migratory Birds and Climate Change.” PLOS ONE 9 (9):

e106508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106508.

Cooper, C.B., and B.V. Lewenstein. 2016. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science.

Cope, Meghan. 2009. “Challenging Adult Perspectives on Children’s Geographies through

Participatory Research Methods: Insights from a Service-Learning Course.” Journal of

Geography in Higher Education 33 (1): 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260802276532.

Costa, Daniel C., Henrique S. Pereira, Guillaume A. E. L. Marchand, and Suzy C. P. Silva. 2018.

“Challenges of Participatory Community Monitoring of Biodiversity in Protected Areas in

Brazilian Amazon.” Diversity 10 (3): 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030061.

Couper, Pauline. 2015. A Student’s Introduction to Geographical Thought: Theories, Philosophies,

Methodologies. 1st edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cresswell, John W. 2015. A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. 1st ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Cresswell, John W., and J. David Cresswell. 2018. “Mixed Methods Procedures.” In Research

Desgin: Qualitative, Quantitave, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Fifth, 213–46. Los Angeles:

SAGE Publications Inc.

Crook, David A., Winsor H. Lowe, Frederick W. Allendorf, Tibor Erős, Debra S. Finn, Bronwyn M.

Gillanders, Wade L. Hadwen, et al. 2015. “Human Effects on Ecological Connectivity in Aquatic

Ecosystems: Integrating Scientific Approaches to Support Management and Mitigation.” Science

of The Total Environment, Catalysing transdisciplinary synthesis in ecosystem science and

management, 534 (November): 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.034.

Davis, William M. 1899. “The Geographical Cycle.” The Geographical Journal 14 (5): 481–504.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1774538.

62

Davis, W.M. 1915. “The Principles of Geographical Description.” Annals of the Association of

American Geographers 5: 61–105.

Devall, Bill. 2001. “The Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement 1960–2000—A Review.” Ethics and

the Environment 6 (1): 18–41.

Dobson, Jerome E. 1993. “The Geographic Revolution: A Retrospective on the Age of Automated

Geography.” Professional Geographer 45 (4): 431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-

0124.1993.00431.x.

Downey, Heather, and Tim Clune. 2020. “How Does the Discourse Surrounding the Murray Darling

Basin Manage the Concept of Entitlement to Water?” Critical Social Policy 40 (1): 108–29.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018319837206.

Doyle, Martin W., Emily H. Stanley, Jon M. Harbor, and Gordon S. Grant. 2003. “Dam Removal in

the United States: Emerging Needs for Science and Policy.” Eos, Transactions American

Geophysical Union 84 (4): 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003EO040001.

Du Pisani, Jacobus A. 2006. “Sustainable Development – Historical Roots of the Concept.”

Environmental Sciences 3 (2): 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430600688831.

Duchemin, Michael. 2009. “Water, Power, and Tourism: Hoover Dam and the Making of the New

West.” California History 86 (4): 60–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/40495234.

Dufour, Simon, Anne Julia Rollet, Margot Chapuis, Mireille Provansal, and Romain Capanni. 2017.

“On the Political Roles of Freshwater Science in Studying Dam and Weir Removal Policies: A

Critical Physical Geography Approach” 10 (3): 17.

Dunn, Christine E. 2007. “Participatory GIS — a People’s GIS?” Progress in Human Geography 31

(5): 616–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081493.

Dynesius, Mats and Nilsson, Christer. 1994. “Ecological Effects of River Regulation on Mammals

and Birds: A Review.” Regulated Rivers 9 (1): 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450090105.

Ehrlich, Paul R. 1968. The Population Bomb. A Sierra Club-Ballantine Book. New York: Ballantine

Books.

Eisner, Wendy R., Jessica Jelacic, Chris J. Cuomo, Changjoo Kim, Kenneth M. Hinkel, and Dorin Del

Alba. 2012. “Producing an Indigenous Knowledge Web GIS for Arctic Alaska Communities:

Challenges, Successes, and Lessons Learned.” Transactions in GIS 16 (1): 17–37.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01291.x.

Eitzel, M V, Jessica L Cappadonna, Chris Santos-Lang, Ruth Ellen Duerr, Arika Virapongse, Sarah

Elizabeth West, Christopher Conrad Maximillian Kyba, et al. 2017. “Citizen Science

Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2 (1): 1.

https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96.

63

Evans, Kristen, Selmira Flores, and Anne M. Larson. 2019. “Participatory Monitoring in Forest

Communities to Improve Governance, Accountability and Women’s Participation.” Small-Scale

Forestry 18 (2): 165–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-019-09413-9.

Fairfax, Sally K., and Edmund Russell III. 2014. Guide to U. S. Environmental Policy. Washington

DC, UNITED STATES: CQ Press.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=1810522.

Fazito, Mozart, Mark Scott, and Paula Russell. 2016. “The Dynamics of Tourism Discourses and

Policy in Brazil.” Annals of Tourism Research 57 (March): 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.013.

Fields, Jordan, Carl Renshaw, Francis Magilligan, Evan Dethier, and Rebecca Rossi. 2021. “A

Mechanistic Understanding of Channel Evolution Following Dam Removal.” Geomorphology

395 (December): 107971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107971.

Field-Juma, Alison, and Nancy Roberts-Lawler. 2021. “Using Partnerships and Community Science

to Protect Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Eastern United States.” Sustainability 13 (4): 2102.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042102.

Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, and Helmut Haberl. 1998. “Sustainable Development: Socio-Economic

Metabolism and Colonization of Nature.” International Social Science Journal 50 (158): 573–

87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00169.

Flaminio, Silvia, Hervé Piégay, and Yves-François Le Lay. 2021. “To Dam or Not to Dam in an Age

of Anthropocene: Insights from a Genealogy of Media Discourses.” Anthropocene 36

(December): 100312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2021.100312.

Flynn, Melanie, and James D. Ford. 2020. “Knowledge Mobilization in Community-Based Arctic

Research.” Arctic 73 (2): 240–60. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic70565.

Foley, M. M., J. R. Bellmore, J. E. O’Connor, J. J. Duda, A. E. East, G. E. Grant, C. W. Anderson, et

al. 2017. “Dam Removal: Listening In.” Water Resources Research 53 (7): 5229–46.

https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020457.

Forsyth, Tim. 2005. “Land Use Impacts on Water Resources – Science, Social and Political Factors.”

In , 5:2924. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1002/0470848944.hsa194.

Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.

———. 1978. The History of Sexuality. 1st American ed. New York: Pantheon Books.

———. 2012a. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

64

———. 2012b. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Fox, Coleen A., Francis J. Magilligan, and Christopher S. Sneddon. 2016. “‘You Kill the Dam, You

Are Killing a Part of Me’: Dam Removal and the Environmental Politics of River Restoration.”

Geoforum 70 (March): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.02.013.

Freire, Paulo. 2014. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Thirtieth anniversary edition. New York ;

Bloomsbury.

Freitag, Amy. 2016. “A Typology for Strategies to Connect Citizen Science and Management.”

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 188 (9): 519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-

5513-y.

Fujikura, Ryo, and Mikiyasu Nakayama. 2009. “Lessons Learned from the World Commission on

Dams.” International Environmental Agreements : Politics, Law and Economics 9 (2): 173–90.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9093-y.

Gandy, Matthew. 2002. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Urban and

Industrial Environments. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Gildersleeve, Ryan Evely, and Aaron M. Kuntz. 2011. “A Dialogue on Space and Method in

Qualitative Research on Education.” Qualitative Inquiry 17 (1): 15–22.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410389440.

Giridov, A. D., and M. B. Shilin. 1999. “Ecological and Hydraulic Bases for Designs of Nature-

Simulating Fishways.” Hydrotechnical Construction 33 (6): 337–41.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02764648.

Given, Lisa M. 2008. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. A Sage Reference

Publication. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.

Goodchild, Michael F. 2018. “Reimagining the History of GIS.” Annals of GIS 24 (1): 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2018.1424737.

Gosnell, Hannah, and Erin Clover Kelly. 2010. “Peace on the River? Social-Ecological Restoration

and Large Dam Removal in the Klamath Basin, USA.” Water Alternatives 3 (2): 22.

Goudie, A. S. 1986. “The Integration of Human and Physical Geography.” Transactions - Institute of

British Geographers (1965) 11 (4): 454–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/621938.

Graf, William L. 2001. “Damage Control: Restoring the Physical Integrity of America’s Rivers.”

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-

5608.00231.

Gregory, Derek. 1994. Geographical Imaginations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

65

Gulson, Kalervo N., and Colin Symes. 2007. Spatial Theories of Education: Policy and Geography

Matters. Routledge.

Hägerstrand, Torsten. 1966. “Aspects of the Spatial Structure of Social Communication and the

Diffusion of Information.” Papers in Regional Science 16 (1): 27–42.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01888934.

Hanna, Paul, Katherine Johnson, Paul Stenner, and Matt Adams. 2015. “Foucault, Sustainable

Tourism, and Relationships with the Environment (Human and Nonhuman).” GeoJournal 80 (2):

301–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9557-7.

Harvey, David. 1984. “On the History and Present Condition of Geography: An Historical Materialist

Manifesto.” The Professional Geographer 36 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-

0124.1984.00001.x.

Herbert, David T., and John A. Matthews. 2004a. “Geography: Roots and Continuities.” In Unifying

Geography: Common Heritage, Shared Future, 3–18. London, United Kingdom: Taylor &

Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=200256.

———. 2004b. In Unifying Geography: Common Heritage, Shared Future. London, United

Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=200256.

Ho, Michelle, Upmanu Lall, Maura Allaire, Naresh Devineni, Hyun Han Kwon, Indrani Pal, David

Raff, and David Wegner. 2017. “The Future Role of Dams in the United States of America.”

Water Resources Research 53 (2): 982–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019905.

Housel, Jacqueline A. 2009. “Geographies of Whiteness: The Active Construction of Racialized

Privilege in Buffalo, New York: Las Geografías de La Blancura: La Construcción Activa Del

Privilegio Basado En Raza En Buffalo, Nueva York.” Les Géographies de La Blancheur: La

Construction Active Du Privilège Racial à Buffalo, New York. 10 (2): 131–51.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360802652095.

Huntington, Ellsworth. 1915. Civilization and Climate. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jansson, Roland, Christer Nilsson, and Birgitta Renofalt. 2000. “Fragmentation of Riparian Floras in

Rivers with Multiple Dams.” Ecology 81 (4): 899–903. https://doi.org/10.2307/177165.

Jenkins, Andrew, Arie Croitoru, Andrew T. Crooks, and Anthony Stefanidis. 2016. “Crowdsourcing a

Collective Sense of Place.” Edited by Tobias Preis. PLOS ONE 11 (4): e0152932.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152932.

Johnston, R. 2005. “Geography - Coming Apart at the Seams?” In Questioning Geography, edited by

N. Castree, A. Rogers, and D. Sherman, 9–25. Oxford: Blackwell.

66

Johnston, R.J., and James D. Sidaway. 2016. Geography and Geographers: Anglo-American Human

Geography Since 1945. 7th ed. London: Routledge.

Jollymore, Ashlee, Morgan J. Haines, Terre Satterfield, and Mark S. Johnson. 2017. “Citizen Science

for Water Quality Monitoring: Data Implications of Citizen Perspectives.” Journal of

Environmental Management 200 (September): 456–67.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.083.

Jørgensen, Dolly. 2017. “Competing Ideas of ‘Natural’ in a Dam Removal Controversy.” Water

Alternatives 10 (3): 13.

Jørgensen, Dolly, and Birgitta Malm Renöfält. 2013. “Damned If You Do, Dammed If You Don’t:

Debates on Dam Removal in the Swedish Media.” Ecology and Society 18 (1): art18.

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05364-180118.

Kaika, Maria. 2004. “Interrogating the Geographies of the Familiar: Domesticating Nature and

Constructing the Autonomy of the Modern Home.” International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28 (2): 265–86.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00519.x.

Kaika, Maria. 2006. “Dams as Symbols of Modernization: The Urbanization of Nature between

Geographical Imagination and Materiality.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers

96 (2): 276–301.

Kasten, Paula, Stuart R. Jenkins, and Ronaldo A. Christofoletti. 2021. “Participatory Monitoring—A

Citizen Science Approach for Coastal Environments.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8 (July):

681969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.681969.

Kemeny, John G., and J. Laurie Snell. 1973. Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. Cambridge:

Mass: MIT Press.

Kesby, Mike. 2005. “Retheorizing Empowerment‐through‐Participation as a Performance in Space:

Beyond Tyranny to Transformation.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (4):

2037–65. https://doi.org/10.1086/428422.

Kindon, Sara, Rachel Pain, and Mike Kesby. 2007. Participatory Action Research Approaches and

Methods. New York: Routledge.

Kleinheksel, A. J., Nicole Rockich-Winston, Huda Tawfik, and Tasha R. Wyatt. 2020. “Demystifying

Content Analysis.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 84 (1): 7113.

https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7113.

Kobori, Hiromi, Janis L. Dickinson, Izumi Washitani, Ryo Sakurai, Tatsuya Amano, Naoya Komatsu,

Wataru Kitamura, et al. 2016. “Citizen Science: A New Approach to Advance Ecology,

Education, and Conservation.” Ecological Research 31 (1): 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y.

67

Köhler, Helena, and Kristina Trygg. 2019. “A Time-Geographical Mixed-Methods Approach:

Studying the Complexities of Energy and Water Use in Households.” Fennia 197 (1): 108–20.

https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.68860.

Kolbe, Richard H., and Melissa S. Burnett. 1991. “Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of

Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity.” Journal of

Consumer Research 18 (2): 243–50.

Kondolf, G. Mathias. 1997. “Hungry Water: Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on River Channels.”

Environmental Management 21 (4): 533–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900048.

Kondolf, G. Mathias, Yongxuan Gao, George W. Annandale, Gregory L. Morris, Enhui Jiang, Junhua

Zhang, Yongtao Cao, et al. 2014. “Sustainable Sediment Management in Reservoirs and

Regulated Rivers: Experiences from Five Continents.” Earth’s Future 2 (5): 256–80.

https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000184.

Köppen, Wladimir, and Alfred Wegener. 2015. The Climates of the Geological Past - Die Klimate

Der Geologischen Vorzeit: Reproduction of the Original German Edition and Complete ... Und

Komplette Englische Neuübersetzung. Stuttgart: Borntraeger Gebrueder.

Kosmala, Margaret, Andrea Wiggins, Alexandra Swanson, and Brooke Simmons. 2016. “Assessing

Data Quality in Citizen Science.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14 (10): 551–60.

https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436.

Kothari, Uma, and Bill Cooke. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? 3rd impr. Development

Studies. New York: Zed Books.

Kuntz, Aaron M., and Joseph B. Berger. 2011. “Faculty Work Practices in Material Environments: A

Case Study.” The Journal of Higher Education 82 (3): 239–64.

https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2011.0019.

Lafrenz, Martin D., Robert A. Bean, and Daniel Uthman. 2013. “Soil Ripening Following Dam

Removal.” Physical Geography 34 (2): 124–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.2013.799033.

Lancaster, Jane. 1968. “Geographers And Remote Sensing.” Journal of Geography (Houston) 67 (5):

301–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221346808980948.

Lane, K. Maria D. 2018. “Commentary: Old and New.” Historical Geography 46 (1): 151–59.

https://doi.org/10.1353/hgo.2018.0029.

Larson, Kelli L., David Casagrande, Sharon L. Harlan, and Scott T. Yabiku. 2009. “Residents’ Yard

Choices and Rationales in a Desert City: Social Priorities, Ecological Impacts, and Decision

Tradeoffs.” Environmental Management 44 (5): 921–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-

9353-1.

68

Larson, Lincoln R., Caren B. Cooper, Sara Futch, Devyani Singh, Nathan J. Shipley, Kathy Dale,

Geoffrey S. LeBaron, and John Y. Takekawa. 2020. “The Diverse Motivations of Citizen

Scientists: Does Conservation Emphasis Grow as Volunteer Participation Progresses?”

Biological Conservation 242 (February): 108428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108428.

Lave, Rebecca, Christine Biermann, and Stuart N. Lane, eds. 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of

Critical Physical Geography. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5.

Lave, Rebecca, and Brian Lutz. 2014. “Hydraulic Fracturing: A Critical Physical Geography

Review.” Geography Compass 8 (10): 739–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12162.

Lehner, Bernhard, Catherine Reidy Liermann, Carmen Revenga, Charles Vörösmarty, Balazs Fekete,

Philippe Crouzet, Petra Döll, et al. 2011. “High-Resolution Mapping of the World’s Reservoirs

and Dams for Sustainable River-Flow Management.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

9 (9): 494–502.

Linton, James. 2004. “Global Hydrology and the Construction of a Water Crisis.” Great Lakes

Geographer 11 (January).

Liro, Maciej. 2015. “Gravel-Bed Channel Changes Upstream of a Reservoir: The Case of the Dunajec

River Upstream of the Czorsztyn Reservoir, Southern Poland.” Geomorphology 228 (January):

694–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.10.030.

Loftus, Alex, and Farhana Sultana. 2012. The Right to Water: Politics, Governance and Social

Struggles. 1st ed. Earthscan Water Text. Abingdon, Oxon: Earthscan.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203152102.

Magilligan, F. J., C. S. Sneddon, and C. A. Fox. 2017. “The Social, Historical, and Institutional

Contingencies of Dam Removal.” Environmental Management 59 (6): 982–94.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.

Magilligan, F.J., K.H. Nislow, J.T. Dietrich, H. Doyle, and B. Kynard. 2021. “Transient versus

Sustained Biophysical Responses to Dam Removal.” Geomorphology 389 (September): 107836.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107836.

Malmqvist, Björn, and Simon Rundle. 2002. “Threats to the Running Water Ecosystems of the

World.” Environmental Conservation 29 (2): 134–53.

Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1872. An Essay on the Principle of Population ... The Fourth Edition.

Marsh, George P. 1965. Man and Nature. The John Harvard Library. Cambridge: Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

69

Massey, Doreen. 1999. “Space-Time, Science and the Relationship between Physical Geography and

Human Geography.” Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965) 24 (3): 261–76.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1999.00261.x.

Mauro, Salvatore Engel-Di. 2014. Ecology, Soils, and the Left: An Ecosocial Approach.

Environmental Politics and Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137350138.

McKenzie, Marcia, and Eve Tuck. 2015. Place in Research: Theory, Methodology, and Methods.

McKinley, Duncan C., Abe J. Miller-Rushing, Heidi L. Ballard, Rick Bonney, Hutch Brown, Susan

C. Cook-Patton, Daniel M. Evans, et al. 2017. “Citizen Science Can Improve Conservation

Science, Natural Resource Management, and Environmental Protection.” Biological

Conservation, The role of citizen science in biological conservation, 208 (April): 15–28.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William Behrens. 1974. The Limits

to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Second

edition. Potomac Associates Book. New York: Universe Books.

Meekes, Jasper F., Dorina M. Buda, and Gert de Roo. 2020. “Socio-Spatial Complexity in Leisure

Development.” Annals of Tourism Research 80 (January): 102814.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102814.

Miller-Rushing, Abraham, Richard Primack, and Rick Bonney. 2012. “The History of Public

Participation in Ecological Research.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 (6): 285–90.

https://doi.org/10.1890/110278.

Moore, R. D., P. Sutherland, T. Gomi, and A. Dhakal. 2005. “Thermal Regime of a Headwater

Stream within a Clear-Cut, Coastal British Columbia, Canada.” Hydrological Processes 19 (13):

2591–2608. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5733.

Morgan, John. 2011. Teaching Secondary Geography As If the Planet Matters. London, United

Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=1460794.

Morrill, Richard L., and Forrest R. Pitts. 1967. “Marriage, Migration, and the Mean Information

Field: A Study in Uniqueness and Generality.” Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 57: 401–22.

Morrison, Deb, Subini Ancy Annamma, and Darrell D. Jackson. 2017. Critical Race Spatial Analysis:

Mapping to Understand and Address Educational Inequity. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Mulligan, Mark, Arnout van Soesbergen, and Leonardo Sáenz. 2020. “GOODD, a Global Dataset of

More than 38,000 Georeferenced Dams.” Scientific Data 7 (1): 31.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0362-5.

70

Nilsson, C. 2005. “Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World’s Large River Systems.” Science

308 (5720): 405–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107887.

Obermeyer, Nancy J. 1995. “The Hidden GIS Technocracy.” Cartography and Geographic

Information Science 22 (1): 78–83.

Obermeyer, Nancy J. 1998. “The Evolution of Public Participation GIS.” Cartography and

Geographic Information Systems 25 (2): 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304098782594599.

Osborne, Tess, and Phil Ian Jones. 2017. “Biosensing and Geography: A Mixed Methods Approach.”

Applied Geography 87 (October): 160–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.08.006.

Pacheco, Denise, and Veronica Nelly Velez. n.d. “Maps, Mapmaking, and Critical Pedagogy:

Exploring GIS and Maps as a Teaching Tool for Social Change,” 31.

Pain, Rachel. 2009. “Commentary: Working Across Distant Spaces: Connecting Participatory Action

Research and Teaching.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 33 (1): 81–87.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260802276599.

Pain, Rachel, and Sara Kindon. 2007. “Participatory Geographies.” Environment and Planning A:

Economy and Space 39 (12): 2807–12. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39347.

Perkins, Douglas D., and Abraham Wandersman. 1990. “‘You’ll Have to Work to Overcome Our

Suspicions’: The Benefits and Pitfalls of Research with Community Organizations.” Social

Policy 21: 32–41.

Pernat, Nadja, Helge Kampen, Jonathan M. Jeschke, and Doreen Werner. 2021. “Citizen Science

versus Professional Data Collection: Comparison of Approaches to Mosquito Monitoring in

Germany.” Edited by Yolanda Wiersma. Journal of Applied Ecology 58 (2): 214–23.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13767.

Perreault, Thomas. 2006. “From the Guerra Del Agua to the Guerra Del Gas: Resource Governance,

Neoliberalism and Popular Protest in Bolivia.” Antipode 38 (1): 150–72.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-4812.2006.00569.x.

Pickles, John. 1993. “Discourse on Method and the History of Discipline: Reflections on Dobson’s

1983 Automated Geography.” Professional Geographer 45 (4): 451.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1993.00451.x.

Pickles, John. 1995. “Representations in an Electronic Age: Geography, GIS, and Democracy,” 27.

Pohl, Molly M. 2007. “Bringing down Our Dams: Trends in American Dam Removal Rationales1.”

JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38 (6): 1511–19.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04361.x.

71

Poole, S.P. 1944. “The Training of Military Geographers.” Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 34 (4): 202–6.

Raper, Jonathan, and David Livingstone. 2001. “Let’s Get Real: Spatio-Temporal Identity and

Geographic Entities.” Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965) 26 (2): 237–42.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00017.

Ratzel, Friedrich. 1901. Der Lebensraum: Eine Biogeographische Studie. Tübingen: H. Laupp.

Rhoads, B. L., D. Wilson, and M. Urban. 1999. “Interaction Between Scientists and Nonscientists in

Community-Based Watershed Management: Emergence of the Concept of Stream

Naturalization.” Environmental Management (New York) 24 (3): 297–308.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900234.

Richards, Keith, and Nicholas Clifford. 2008. “Science, Systems and Geomorphologies: Why LESS

May Be More.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33 (9): 1323–40.

https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1718.

Robbins, Paul. 2020. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Third edition. Critical Introductions

to Geography. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Robbins, Peter T. 2003. “Transnational Corporations and the Discourse of Water Privatization.”

Journal of International Development 15 (8): 1073–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1054.

Robinson, M., and A. Dupeyrat. 2005. “Effects of Commercial Timber Harvesting on Streamflow

Regimes in the Plynlimon Catchments, Mid-Wales.” Hydrological Processes 19 (6): 1213–26.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5561.

Rogers, Alisdair, Noel Castree, and Rob Kitchin. 2013. “Global North.” In A Dictionary of Human

Geography. Oxford University Press.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199599868.001.0001/acref-

9780199599868-e-738.

Rose-Redwood, Reuben S. 2006. “Governmentality, Geography, and the Geo-Coded World.”

Progress in Human Geography 30 (4): 469–86. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph619oa.

Rubin, Stephen P., Ian M. Miller, Melissa M. Foley, Helen D. Berry, Jeffrey J. Duda, Benjamin

Hudson, Nancy E. Elder, et al. 2017. “Increased Sediment Load during a Large-Scale Dam

Removal Changes Nearshore Subtidal Communities.” Edited by James P. Meador. PLOS ONE

12 (12): e0187742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187742.

Sabin, Paul. 2015. “Environmental Law and the End of the New Deal Order.” Law and History

Review 33 (4): 965–1003.

Salim, Zia. 2021. “Gated Communities in Bahrain: Historical and Urban Geographies.” Human

Geographies 15 (2): 147–67. https://doi.org/10.57l9/hgeo.2021.151.2.

72

Schwer, R. Keith, and Rennae Daneshvary. 1997. “The Effect of Information on Attitudes Regarding

Tour Fees: The Case of the Hoover Dam Powerplant Tour.” Journal of Travel Research 36 (2):

37–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759703600206.

Seamon, David, and Adam Lundberg. 2017. “Humanistic Geography.” In International Encyclopedia

of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, edited by Douglas Richardson,

Noel Castree, Michael F. Goodchild, Audrey Kobayashi, Weidong Liu, and Richard A. Marston,

1–11. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0412.

Semple, Ellen Churchill. 1911. Influences of Geographic Environment: On the Basis of Ratzel’s

System of Anthropo-Geography. New York: Constable.

Sewell, W. R. Derrick. 1987. “The Politics of Hydro-Megaprojects: Damming with Faint Praise in

Australia, New Zealand, and British Columbia.” Natural Resources Journal 27 (3): 497–532.

Silvertown, Jonathan. 2009. “A New Dawn for Citizen Science.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24

(9): 467–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017.

Storey, Richard, Aslan Wright-Stow, Elsemieke Kin, Robert Davies-Colley, and Rebecca Stott. 2016.

“Volunteer Stream Monitoring: Do the Data Quality and Monitoring Experience Support

Increased Community Involvement in Freshwater Decision Making?” Ecology and Society 21

(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08934-210432.

Swyngedouw, Erik, and Nikolas C. Heynen. 2003. “Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics

of Scale.” Antipode 35 (5): 898–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00364.x.

Swyngedouw, Erik, Maria Kaika, and Esteban Castro. 2002. “Urban Water: A Political-Ecology

Perspective.” Built Environment (1978-) 28 (2): 124–37.

Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie, eds. n.d. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &

Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Taylor, Zack, Joanne Fitzgibbons, and Carrie L. Mitchell. 2021. “Finding the Future in Policy

Discourse: An Analysis of City Resilience Plans.” Regional Studies 55 (5): 831–43.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1760235.

Thornes, John E. 1981. “A Paradigmatic Shift in Atmospheric Studies?” Progress in Physical

Geography 5 (3): 429–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913338100500306.

Tockner, Klement, and Jack A. Stanford. 2002. “Riverine Flood Plains: Present State and Future

Trends.” Environmental Conservation 29 (3): 308–30.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. U of Minnesota Press.

73

Tuckerman, Steve, and Bill Zawiski. 2007. “Case Studies of Dam Removal and TMDLs: Process and

Results.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 33 (sp2): 103–16. https://doi.org/10.3394/0380-

1330(2007)33[103:CSODRA]2.0.CO;2.

Unwin, P.T.H. 1992. The Place of Geography. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman Scientific and

Technical.

Vetter, Jeremy. 2011. “Introduction: Lay Participation in the History of Scientific Observation.”

Science in Context 24 (2): 127–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889711000032.

Viers, Joshua H., Jenny Ta, and Daniel M. Nover. 2017. “More Pop per Drop: Functional

Environmental Flows to Meet Ecosystem Needs and Human Demands.” In World Environmental

and Water Resources Congress 2017, 284–95. Sacramento, California: American Society of

Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480618.028.

Waitt, Gordon. 2016. “Doing Foucauldian Discourse Analysis — Revealing Social Realities.” In

Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, edited by Iain Hay and Meghan Cope,

373–93. Canada: Oxford University Press.

Waters, Nigel. 2021. “Motivations and Methods for Replication in Geography: Working with Data

Streams.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (5): 1291–99.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1806027.

Whitman, Geoff P., Rachel Pain, and David G. Milledge. 2015. “Going with the Flow? Using

Participatory Action Research in Physical Geography.” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth

and Environment 39 (5): 622–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315589707.

Wilcock, Deirdre, Gary Brierley, and Richard Howitt. 2013. “Ethnogeomorphology.” Progress in

Physical Geography 37 (5): 573–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133313483164.

Willer, Christopher J. 2021. “Rebranding Place ‘to Build Community’: Neighborhood Branding in

Buffalo, NY.” Urban Geography 0 (0): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1927323.

Wittfogel, Karl August. 1957. “Ebook of Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power.”

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.03224.

Yu, Juhua, Shiming Ding, Jicheng Zhong, Chengxin Fan, Qiuwen Chen, Hongbin Yin, Lei Zhang,

and Yinlong Zhang. 2017. “Evaluation of Simulated Dredging to Control Internal Phosphorus

Release from Sediments: Focused on Phosphorus Transfer and Resupply across the Sediment-

Water Interface.” Science of The Total Environment 592 (August): 662–73.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.219.

Yusuf, R. O., R. O. Yusuf, and J. A. Ukoje. 2010. “Recent Observations on Rural Geographic

Research in Nigeria.”

74

Appendix A: Datasets

Participatory Research

Title Author & Year Journal

Exploring the participation of young citizen scientists in

scientific research: The case of iNaturalist

Aristeidou et al. 2021 Public Library of Science

Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of

environmental science learning and agency for conservation

Ballard et al. 2017 Biological Conservation

Low-cost electronic sensors for environmental research: Pitfalls

and opportunities

Chan et al. 2021

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and

Environment

Contribution of citizen science towards international

biodiversity monitoring

Chandler et al. 2017 Biological Conservation

A review of citizen science and community-based

environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities

Conrad and Hilchey 2011 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Reliability and utility of citizen science reef monitoring data

collected by Reef Check Australia, 2002–2015

Done et al. 2017 Marine Pollution Bulletin

Citizen science for sustainable agriculture – A systematic

literature review

Ebitu et al. 2021 Land Use Policy

75

Global Ozone (GO3) Project and AQTreks: Use of evolving

technologies by students and citizen scientists to monitor air

pollutants

Ellenburg et al. 2019 Atmospheric Environment: X

Using Partnerships and Community Science to Protect Wild and

Scenic Rivers in the Eastern United States

Field-Juma and Roberts-Lawler 2021 Sustainability

Environmental decision making and an ecosystems approach:

Some challenges from the perspective of social science

Fish 2011

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and

Environment

A typology for strategies to connect citizen science and

management

Freitag 2016 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Analytical guidelines to increase the value of community

science data: An example using eBird data to estimate species

distributions

Johnston et al. 2021 Diversity and Distributions

Citizen science for water quality monitoring: Data implications

of citizen perspectives

Jollymore et al. 2017 Journal of Environmental Management

Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term

population declines of common birds in Denmark

Kamp et al. 2016 Diversity and Distributions

Participatory Monitoring—A Citizen Science Approach for

Coastal Environments

Kasten et al. 2021 Frontiers in Marine Science

Using Semistructured Surveys to Improve Citizen Science Data

for Monitoring Biodiversity

Kelling et al. 2019 BioScience

76

Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education,

and conservation

Kobori et al. 2016 Ecological Research

The diverse motivations of citizen scientists: Does conservation

emphasis grow as volunteer participation progresses?

Larson et al. 2020 Biological Conservation

Introduction to special issue on critical physical geography

Lave 2015

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and

Environment

Citizen science provides added value in the monitoring for

coastal non-indigenous species

Lehtiniemi et al. 2020 Journal of Environmental Management

Community science participants gain environmental awareness

and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed:

insights from Bumble Bee Watch [PeerJ]

MacPhail 2020 PeerJ

Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of

Citizen Science

Ottinger 2010 Science, Technology, & Human Values

Citizen science versus professional data collection: Comparison

of approaches to mosquito monitoring in Germany

Pernat et al. 2021 Journal of Applied Ecology

Alleviating Environmental Health Disparities Through

Community Science and Data Integration

Ramírez-Andreotta et al. 2021 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems

Motivation and support services in citizen science insect

monitoring: A cross-country study

Richter et al. 2021 Biological Conservation

77

Success factors for citizen science projects in water quality

monitoring

Capdevila et al. 2020 Science of The Total Environment

Citizen Science Contributions to Address Biodiversity Loss and

Conservation Planning in a Rapidly Developing Region

Soteropoulos et al. 2021 Diversity

The Use of Citizen Science to Achieve Multivariate

Management Goals on Public Lands

Souther et al. 2021 Diversity

Demonstrating the value of community-based (‘citizen science’)

observations for catchment modelling and characterisation

Starkey et al. 2017 Journal of Hydrology

Citizen Science Data Collection for Integrated Wildlife

Population Analyses

Sun et al. 2021 Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized

potential of citizen science for biodiversity research

Theobald et al. 2014 Biological Conservation

A Rubric to Evaluate Citizen-Science Programs for Long-Term

Ecological Monitoring

Tredick et al. 2017 BioScience

Balancing sampling intensity against spatial coverage for a

community science monitoring programme

Weiser et al. 2019 Journal of Applied Ecology

Going with the flow? Using participatory action research in

physical geography

Whitman et al. 2015

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and

Environment

An approach to the integration of beach litter data from official

monitoring programmes and citizen science

Zorzo et al. 2021 Marine Pollution Bulletin

78

Dam Removal

Title Author & Year Journal

Early Vegetation Development on an Exposed Reservoir:

Implications for Dam Removal

Auble et al. 2007 Environmental Management

Conceptualizing Ecological Responses to Dam Removal: If You

Remove It, What's to Come?

Bellmore et al. 2019 BioScience

Effects of Stronach Dam removal on fluvial geomorphology in

the Pine River, Michigan, United States

Burroughs et al. 2009 Geomorphology

Assessing organic contaminant fluxes from contaminated

sediments following dam removal in an urbanized river

Cantwell et al. 2014 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to small dam

removals: Implications for bioassessment and restoration

Carlson et al. 2018 Journal of Applied Ecology

Beyond Mandatory Fishways: Federal Hydropower Relicensing

as a Window of Opportunity for Dam Removal and Adaptive

Governance of Riverine Landscapes in the United States

Chaffin and Gosnell 2017 Water Alternatives

Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from

the Heartland

Doyle et al. 2005 Geomorphology

Large-scale dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington,

USA: River channel and floodplain geomorphic change

East et al. 2015 Geomorphology

79

Contaminant Stratigraphy of the Ballville Reservoir, Sandusky

River, NW Ohio: Implications for Dam Removal

Evans and Gottgens 2007 Journal of Great Lakes Research

A mechanistic understanding of channel evolution following

dam removal

Fields et al. 2021 Geomorphology

Dam removal: Listening in: River Response to Dam Removal Foley et al. 2017 Water Resources Research

“You kill the dam, you are killing a part of me”: Dam removal

and the environmental politics of river restoration

Fox et. al 2016 Geoforum

Predicting the type, location and magnitude of geomorphic

responses to dam removal: Role of hydrologic and geomorphic

constraints

Gartner et al. 2015 Geomorphology

Peace on the River? Social-Ecological Restoration and Large

Dam Removal in the Klamath Basin, USA

Gosnell and Kelly 2010 Water Alternatives

The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision

making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the

Elwha River

Gowan et al. 2006 Ecological Economics

Effect of dam removal on habitat use by spawning Atlantic

salmon

Hill et al. 2019 Journal of Great Lakes Research

Competing Ideas of 'Natural' in a Dam Removal Controversy Jorgensen 2017 Water Alternatives

Damned If You Do, Dammed If You Don't: Debates on Dam

Removal in the Swedish Media

Jorgensen and Renofalt 2013 Ecology and Society

80

Learning from dam removal monitoring: Challenges to selecting

experimental design and establishing significance of outcomes

Kibler et al. 2011 River Research and Applications

Soil ripening following dam removal Lafrenz et al. 2013 Physical Geography

The Social, Historical, and Institutional Contingencies of Dam

Removal

Magilligan et al. 2017 Environmental Management

Transient versus sustained biophysical responses to dam

removal

Magilligan et al. 2021 Geomorphology

Vegetation development and restoration potential of drained

reservoirs following dam removal in Wisconsin

Orr and Stanley 2006 River Research and Applications

Rates and processes of channel response to dam removal with a

sand-filled impoundment

Pearson et al. 2011 Water Resources Research

A River Might Run Through It Again: Criteria for

Consideration of Dam Removal and Interim Lessons from

California

Pejchar and Warner 2001 Environmental Management

Long-Term Taxon-Specific Responses of Macroinvertebrates to

Dam Removal in a Mid-Sized Swedish Stream

Renofalt et al. 2013 River Research and Applications

Suspended sediment, dissolved organic carbon, and dissolved

nitrogen export during the dam removal process: Dam Removal

Export

Riggsbee et al. 2007 Water Resources Research

81

Physical and plant community controls on nitrogen and

phosphorus leaching from impounded riverine wetlands

following dam removal: nutrient leaching following dam

removal

Riggsbee et al. 2012 River Research and Applications

Influence of a Post-dam Sediment Pulse and Post-fire Debris

Flows on Steelhead Spawning Gravel in the Carmel River,

California

Smith et al. 2021 Frontiers in Earth Science

Case Studies of Dam Removal and TMDLs: Process and

Results

Tuckerman and Zawiski 2007 Journal of Great Lakes Research

Downstream channel changes after a small dam removal: Using

aerial photos and measurement error for context; Calapooia

River, Oregon

Walter and Tullos 2010 River Research and Applications

The evolution of gravel bed channels after dam removal: Case

study of the Anaconda and Union City Dam removals

Wildman and MacBroom 2005 Geomorphology

82

Appendix B: Stop Word List

- CANTELLI enough II more Pizzuto t when

– cantelli Environ ii moreover PIZZUTO table whenever

± certain environ III Morley pizzuto TABLE WHERE

× circa EPT iii MORLEY Plos Table Where

a Cm ept in morley PLOS te where

aboard CM ES inside most PLoS TE Whereas

about cm es instead Move plos Te whereas

above Co ET into MOVE plus ten which

abroad CO et is move Poff tenth whichever

according co EVANS it Ms POFF Þ while

accordingly Coho Evans its MS poff þ whilst

across coho evans itself ms pone than WHITE

actually Collins even j Mt PP thank White

afainst collins every JA MT pp Thank white

afo com everybody ja mt Pre that who

83

after come everyone jam much PRE the whoever

afterward concerning everything James must pre their whom

ahead Connor everywhere JAMES MW presently theirs whomever

Al CONNOR except james mw prior them whose

AL connor excluding January my q themselves Why

al consequently f january myself r then why

Aldwell considering February JJ n R2 there WI

aldwell conversely february jj Na r2 thereafter wi

all Copyright few JM NA Randle therefore WILCOX

along copyright fewer jm na randle these Wilcox

also could fewest John near RED they wilcox

although Cr fifteen john need Red third Wiley

am CR fifteenth Johnson needed red thirteen wiley

amid cr fifth JOHNSON needing regarding thirteenth will

amidst CrossRef fiftieth johnson needs Res thirtieth Williams

among crossref fifty Journal neither res thirty williams

84

amongst Cui Fig JOURNAL nevertheless Resour this with

an cui FIG journal next resour those within

and d fig Jr NF Rev though without

Anderson ð Figs JR nf rev thousand Wohl

ANDERSON Ð figs jr Nilsson Ritchie thousandth wohl

anderson D50 Figure JSTOR NILSSON ritchie three word

Angeles d50 FIGURE jstor nilsson RKm through worth

angeles dare figure July nine Rkm throughout would

another dared Figures july nineteen rkm thus wq

any dares figures June nineteenth RM till wrcr

anybody daring finally JUNE ninetieth Rm time write

anyone day find june ninety rm times WSTB

anything DC first Just ninth round to wstb

anywhere dC five just Nislow rra too Wudongde

apart dc Foley k NISLOW s toward wudongde

Appl De FOLEY KG nislow S0 towards WWH

85

appl DE foley kg no s0 tr wwh

Applic de following KM nobody S1 TR WWW

applic Dec for Km none s1 trans www

April dec fortieth km nonetheless said Trans www3

april December four km2 nor sandusky tss WY2008

are december fourteen l not Sandusky TSS wy2008

around despite fourteenth last nothing save tullos WY2014

ARTICLE Df fourth lastly November sci Tullos wy2014

Article DF fourty later november Sci TULLOS x

article df Fri LD now SE twelfth Xiangjiaba

as did fri ld nowhere se twelve xiangjiaba

aside Dietrich from Le NS Se twentieth Xie

at DIETRICH further LE ns second twenty xie

August dietrich furthermore le number see two XIII

august do g least o september u xiii

AUTHOR does get less October September ue Xj

86

Author Doi Glines lest october seven UE xj

author DOI GLINES Lewis of seventeen ultimately Xn

AUTHORS doi glines LEWIS off seventeenth under xn

Authors doing go lewis oil seventh underneath xsAreaj

authors done Gov Li on seventieth unless xsareaj

away down gov LI once seventy unlike xx

b Doyle GPP li one several until y

barring DOYLE gpp like Online SHAFROTH unto Yacobson

Bb doyle gradually little online shafroth up yacobson

BB Dt Graf ll Only Shafroth upon Yamhill

bb DT GRAF long only shall us yamhill

be dt graf look onto she use yet

because dT Grant Ltd opposite should used Yin

become Duda GRANT ltd or side Used yin

Bednarek DUDA grant LWD Org Side using YJ

BEDNAREK duda h lwd ORG similarly USING yj

87

bednarek due had m org since Using Yoccoz

been during Half M2 Orr six utc yoccoz

before Dx half m2 ORR sixteen UTC York

behind dx Hart m3 orr sixteenth v york

being e HART Ma other sixth van you

Bellmore each hart MA others sixtieth Van your

BELLMORE Ecol has ma ought sixty various yours

bellmore ecol have made our slightly ve yourself

below Ed having Magilligan ours SMITH versus yourselves

beneath ED Hayes MAGILLIGAN ourselves smith very Yr

beside ed HAYES magilligan out Smith Very yr

besides edna hayes Magirl outside so via z

between eDNA he MAGIRL over soc vol z0

beyond Eds Heinz magirl p Soc VOL ZD

Biol eds heinz make Pa some Vol zd

biol edu hence many PA somebody Vs zD

88

BMI Edwards her March pa something vs Zhou

bmi EDWARDS Here march Page somewhere w zhou

both edwards here may PAGE sons WA ρs−ρf

Brenkman EH hers Mchenry page Sons wa (

brenkman eh herself McHenry Pages soon Wang )

briefly eight him mchenry pages spp wang -

Brown eighteen himself me Parker SS Ward -1

brown eighteenth his meanwhile parker ss WARD -æ

Bushaw-Newton eighth how Mg part Ss ward =

BUSHAW-NEWTON eightieth however MG past ST Warrick >

bushaw-newton eighty HSI mg PDF st warrick lt

but either hsi might pdf St was t

by Elementa HTTP Miller Pearson STANLEY water ¶¶

c elementa http miller PEARSON stanley way ×

Ca eleven https million pearson Stanley we å

CA eleventh hundred millionth people still Well ý

89

ca Elsevier hundredth mine per subsequently well

call elsevier I minus Pess such were

can Eng i MM PESS sullivan what

Cantelli eng if mm pess Sullivan whatever