A high-resolution soil erosion risk map of Switzerland as strategic policy support system

Soil erosion models and soil erosion risk maps are often used as indicators to assess potential soil erosion in order to assist policy decisions. This paper shows the scientific basis of the soil erosion risk map of Switzerland and its application in policy and practice. Linking a USLE/RUSLE-based model approach (AVErosion) founded on multiple flow algorithms and the unit contributing area concept with an extremely precise and high-resolution digital terrain model (2 m × 2 m grid) using GIS allows for a realistic assessment of the potential soil erosion risk, on single plots, i.e. uniform and comprehensive for the agricultural area of Switzerland (862,579 ha in the valley area and the lower mountain regions). The national or small-scale soil erosion prognosis has thus reached a level heretofore possible only in smaller catchment areas or single plots. Validation was carried out using soil loss data from soil erosion damage mappings in the field from long-term monitoring in different test areas. 45% of the evaluated agricultural area of Switzerland was classified as low potential erosion risk, 12% as moderate potential erosion risk, and 43% as high potential erosion risk. However, many of the areas classified as high potential erosion risk are located at the transition from valley to mountain zone, where many areas are used as permanent grassland, which drastically lowers their current erosion risk. The present soil erosion risk map serves on the one hand to identify and prioritise the high-erosion risk areas, and on the other hand to promote awareness amongst farmers and authorities. It was published on the internet and will be made available to the authorities in digital form. It is intended as a tool for simplifying and standardising enforcement of the legal framework for soil erosion prevention in Switzerland. The work therefore provides a successful example of cooperation between science, policy and practice.

Beyond belief : Strategic taboos and organizational identity in strategic agenda setting

A comprehensive strategic agenda matters for fundamental strategic change. Our study seeks to explore and theorize how organizational identity beliefs influence the judgment of strategic actors when setting an organization's strategic agenda. We offer the notion of "strategic taboo" as those strategic options initially disqualified and deemed inconsistent with the organizational identity beliefs of strategic actors. Our study is concerned with how strategic actors confront strategic taboos in the process of setting an organization's strategic agenda. Based on a revelatory inductive case study, we find that strategic actors engage in assessing the concordance of the strategic taboos with organizational identity beliefs and, more specifically, that they focus on key identity elements (philosophy; priorities; practices) when doing so. We develop a typology of three reinterpretation practices that are each concerned with a key identity element. While contextualizing assesses the potential concordance of a strategic taboo with an organization's overall philosophy and purpose, instrumentalizing assesses such concordance with respect to what actors deem an organization's priorities to be. Finally, normalizing explores concordance with respect to compatibility and fit with the organization's practices. We suggest that assessing concordance of a strategic taboo with identity elements consists in reinterpreting collective identity beliefs in ways that make them consistent with what organizational actors deem the right course of action. This article discusses the implications for theory and research on strategic agenda setting, strategic change, a practice-based perspective on strategy, and on organizational identity.