The results reported here may also be used to inform program development, adaptation, and implementation in settings with similar regional attributes. Additionally, findings may be consulted for how such a program may be adapted in larger school districts that have RJPs integrated into current disciplinary policies but may incorporate these approaches into protocols for addressing drug-related incidents. This study is also unique in that it employed the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data on student experiences with the RJP program. These methods have been noted as a critical data collection strategy for evaluating RJP programs, but not has been a common practice in other RJP program evaluations. Other studies have examined stakeholder and participant experiences, but mostly within the context of specific program components not for the program in its entirety. Darling-Hammond and colleagues utilized state-wide data from CHKS to assess student experiences with restorative programs overall; however, individual-level experiences were not considered.26Findings from this intermediate evaluation reveal that RAYS is on track to meet the majority of target goals and objectives with respect to the process and outcome measures set by NCSOS prior to the program’s launch. Although harm perceptions remained stable or slightly decreased, most enrollees reported decreased use rates from pretest to posttest. This may have implications for program adaptations and the need for further assessment of harm perceptions via pretests and posttests for the harm reduction classes specifically. Nonetheless, harm perceptions of substances among RAYS students does align with other studies examining youth harm perceptions of AOD use. The implementation of RAYS seemed to also have an impact on resource awareness among enrollees with a majority indicating an increased recognition of services and support at their sites.
Furthermore, hemp drying racks suspension counts for Nevada County sites implementing RAYS decreased substantially from pre- to post-launch of the program. In comparison to schools not implementing the program, RAYS schools have fared better in terms of the counts of overall and drug-related suspensions. Additionally, the majority of enrollees reported having had positive experiences with RAYS, peer advocates, and the various program components. Qualitative data highlighted individual-level perceptions of the program in addition to providing more insight into how student experiences with program components may inform future adaptations.The current study provides a firsthand look into findings from an intermediate evaluation of an RJP program as an alternative to punitive measures to address drug-related disciplinary incidents. Despite limitations with data access and sample size, findings from this report are promising with respect to program impacts on adolescent AOD use behaviors, resource awareness, and shifts in the number of disciplinary incidents. To optimize the effectiveness of the formal evaluation, it is recommended that site-level data on individual disciplinary incidents are obtained versus utilizing publicly available data from the CDE’s repository. Furthermore, more effort is needed to increase the posttest response rate in order to ensure data for the majority of enrollees is properly captured to assess the effectiveness of the program on individual behavioral factors. Additionally, school-wide surveys to assess program awareness and support among school staff and students should also be implemented to measure changes in these variables over time. Future evaluative studies of RJP programs with substance use components should consider the inclusion of a control group to allow for the examination of differences in outcome measures between schools implementing RJP approaches versus those that are not. This would help to better inform whether RJP approaches are indeed an optimal alternative to address adolescent AOD use behaviors and related disciplinary incidents.
Land use change is one of the greatest threats to wildlife worldwide—globally, it can remove and alter habitat, or disrupt wildlife interactions . A major challenge for conservation involves navigating the negative environmental repercussions of land use change alongside the needs for human agriculture and development . This means that studying land use change fundamentally engages the role of humans within ecological systems and processes . Research has increasingly focused on human impacts on surrounding ecosystems, revealing complex interactions and consequences . However, mechanistic understanding, universal rules, or consistent predictions are difficult to define, and more context-based research is needed, especially in systems early in the process of land use transition. To understand why, it is important to start with the recent history of cannabis cultivation in the western US. For decades, cannabis was grown illegally in rural areas of California, Oregon, and Washington as part of the back-to-the-land movement . These were remote areas that allowed counter-culture communities to reinvent themselves, but which also happened to host some of the nation’s highest biodiversity . The industry remained surreptitious and small-scale for many years, while ongoing law enforcement and the US “war on drugs” tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the practice . Then, the ground shifted with recreational legalization. Oregon passed recreational Adult Use cannabis legalization in the fall of 2015, and California followed suit a year later, riding a wave of recreational legalization measures that eventually passed across 19 states in the US. Very rapidly, this policy change initiated land use development for cannabis , first in areas with a history of cultivation, and later, into new regions. This shift in development was accompanied by subtle shifts in motives and philosophy behind cannabis cultivation – as one of the farmers I interviewed for Chapter 2 put it, “The quest for the all mighty dollar got in the way of the spiritual cycle of the plant.” Along with these rapid changes came calls of concern for potential environmental impacts . However, the illicit history of cannabis meant that there was very little existing research on cannabis-environment interactions, and many gaps in baseline data .
To address this brewing conservation crisis, I focused my dissertation on the ecological outcomes of cannabis legalization. I was specifically interested in studying private land cannabis development in rural areas with a history of pre-legalization cultivation . In these regions, legalization has spurred major private land development for cannabis alongside high biodiversity and few other crop based agricultural land uses. The focus on small-scale outdoor private land cannabis cultivation sets my dissertation apart from other studies which have focused on public land production , indoor cultivation , or large scale cannabis development in emerging regions . Each style of cultivation has its own ecological risks and social, economic, and ecological tradeoffs . However, private-land outdoor cannabis production in rural legacy regions provides the best opportunity to study land use consequences for wildlife communities within a social-ecological context. I approach legacy cannabis landscapes as an intertwined social-ecological system . The history and context of cannabis, described in part above, influences the development of cannabis as land use drivers . These drivers in turn shape the ways in which the associated cannabis land use change affects local ecosystems. The ecological impacts can feed back into the land use drivers by way of social attitudes towards nature, or changes in regulation and enforcement. All these interactions are influenced by the shift in overarching policy brought by recreational legalization. Each of my chapters addresses different components in this system, going from a broad to fine scale. My first chapter generates baseline descriptive data on cannabis land use and examines its broad scale overlap with wildlife habitat in southern Oregon . I use publicly available satellite imagery to characterize the development patterns of outdoor and greenhouse cannabis land use in Josephine County, Oregon, during the first year of recreational legalization. I then examine the overlap of cannabis production with potentially sensitive ecological features, including predator distributions and salmonid habitat. This broad overview provides a baseline to understand patterns of cannabis development relative to all available private lands. It also identifies areas where overlap may create potential for wildlife impacts . My second chapter adds depth and context to the baseline data provided in the first chapter, industrial rolling racks by examining the drivers of cannabis land use change before and after legalization . I use interview data with cannabis farmers to generate social and ecological covariates for models of cannabis land use and land use change. I interpret model results using the themes from the interviews and discuss possible conservation implications. The third chapter moves to a finer spatial scale, investigating how the overlap presented in Chapter 1 affects wildlife on and surrounding cannabis farms in southern Oregon . I use wildlife cameras to monitor animal space use and space use intensity as a function of distance to cannabis farms. I also identify general patterns of response by functional groups. Finally, the fourth chapter presents a research design to investigate potential mechanisms for the wildlife responses observed in Chapter 3. I detail the methods for field experiments that measure the effects of light and noise on multi-taxa wildlife responses, mimicking conditions on active cannabis farms in a controlled setting. I present example data from field trials conducted in northern California. Taken together, these chapters present multiple approaches to understanding the ecological outcomes of cannabis legalization. More generally, research on cannabis agriculture can provide insights on the intersections between rapid changes in human land use and wildlife communities, especially at rural-wild land interfaces.
By taking a multi-scalar approach to understanding a unique industry at a critical moment in time, I hope this dissertation sheds light on land use change processes to help promote human-wildlife coexistence in an ever-changing world.Land use change is one of the oldest and most pervasive threats to global biodiversity , yet it often occurs over time spans that obscure pattern , or in tandem with multiple development drivers that are difficult to disentangle . An exception to this is when abrupt changes in law or regulation accelerate development, creating what is known as a “policy-induced rapid land use change frontier” . The acceleration of development at these frontiers enables researchers to assess how land-use change affects biodiversity or ecosystem function over short time periods . One such unique opportunity to study land use change frontiers has emerged recently in the western United States of America with the legalization of cannabis production and use . Over the past decade, 17 states and the District of Columbia in the U.S. have legalized recreational cannabis, or marijuana , and the rate of recreational legalization has increased over that time. This policy change has initiated rapid development of cannabis cultivation, particularly in areas with a history of illicit or medical cannabis farming . Note that because of the complex policy background of cannabis and its quasi-legal status , this expansion occurs across types of cultivation including licensed and unlicensed producers. As with any development frontier, the rapid expansion of recreational cannabis is likely to come with ecological costs. Indeed, cannabis production has sparked considerable conservation concern for its potential effects on water, land, and wildlife . These effects may occur in part through water withdrawals that lower freshwater availability , road construction or use of pesticides that lower freshwater quality , clearing or fencing of undeveloped land that removes or degrades wildlife habitat , toxicants or poaching that directly kill animals and pose particular risk to terrestrial carnivores like the fisher , and human disturbance that alters animal behavioral cues . These five impact pathways likely vary depending on surrounding context, production practices, and license status, but provide a general guideline for potential ecological effects . Much of the existing research on ecological effects of cannabis has focused on illicit production on public lands . However, private land production is quickly becoming a dominant source of cannabis in the western U.S. while illegal public land production in the region either appears to be declining , shifting, or possibly increasing in some areas with increased enforcement . Private land cannabis cultivation appears to generally follow one of two development trajectories . The first pathway consists of many, smaller farms in rural areas with a history of illicit or medical cultivation . The second path is dominated by fewer, larger farms in new areas more conducive to large-scale, industrial farming . Note that although the legacy pathway is characterized by historical growing practices, this form of production can also expand with emerging development frontiers. Research on these development trajectories in California suggests that, although both trajectories are expanding, the legacy pathway may require policy intervention if it is to fully transition to, and persist in, the legal industry .