“Death by a Thousand Cuts”: Conservation Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Protecting Lakes in a Tourist Region Surrounded by Agriculture

Abstract Freshwater systems are complex social-ecological systems (SES) impacted by multiple activities within watershed boundaries beyond their shorelines. Since many of these systems provide important ecosystem services, are threatened, and are managed by complex governance structures, there is a need for empirical work to understand how social setting and interactions between stakeholders impact governance. This study assesses conservation stakeholders’ perspectives in the Iowa Great Lakes region, a valuable freshwater system that is a popular tourist destination nested within an intense agricultural production region. Conservationists work within a polycentric governance structure to protect the Lakes. Using 23 semi-structured interviews and the SES Framework, we examine the environmental pressures facing the region, barriers to mitigation efforts, and solutions within a polycentric system. Our results highlight the difficulties in using voluntary conservation measures to mitigate environmental pressures and the challenges of involving non-conservation stakeholders given competing goals and limited resources.


Introduction
Freshwater systems (rivers, lakes, etc.) provide valuable ecosystem services (Grizzetti et al. 2016). However, managing freshwater systems is difficult because they can be impacted by activities beyond their shoreline. For example, habitat removal, agricultural practices, and impervious surfaces within the watershed are generally connected to lower-quality freshwater resources (Erol andRandhir 2013, Nielsen et al. 2012). Additionally, recreational activities like boating and fishing can reduce the quality of these resources (Venohr et al. 2018). Conservationists whoaim at protecting freshwater systems must consider the social-ecological systems (SES) in which they are nested to mitigate these pressures for both operational and planning purposes. This is often difficult due to the variety of stakeholders involved and governance structures within the SES, and outside economic and political pressures, which are unique and can impede coordination (Ostrom 2007).
We focus on the Iowa Great Lakes region (Figure 1), an area important in the corn belt for recreation and conservation, surrounded by very intense agricultural production, because it has not been studied in socio-ecological terms, it offers a very rich set of issues to study and it has highly engaged stakeholders to whom this work can be helpful. The goals of this study are to understand how conservation actors perceive the various social and environmental issues impacting a regionally important SES, to identify barriers that exist in polycentric governance structure as defined below, and to assess actors' perspectives on potential solutions. We study this within a region where conservation is largely voluntary and so are the measures to address tourism's undesirable side effects. Lemos and Agrawal (2006) note that governance is an arrangement of governmental and non-governmental institutions and actors that work within a set of rules (formal and informal) impacting environmental activity and outcomes. In our case, the actors and institutions that impact environmental activity include public and private conservation organizations, local, state, and federal governments as well as private entities in both agriculture and tourism. Within this SES, these jurisdictional boundaries overlap creating a complex system embedded with polycentricity. Therefore, polycentric governance structures are critical in our SES. Polycentric governance structures are overlapping governance systems that create and make autonomous and coordinated decisions within a shared geographic region, but also include specialized governance that crosses jurisdictional boundaries Ostrom 2012, Carlisle andGruby 2019).
Each governance is unique to its SES, as are the issues impacting resource protection, so, there is no theoretical panacea for natural resource governance (Ostrom 2007). Researchers have therefore shifted toward a diagnostic approach to understanding various components of these SES (Ostrom 2007, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014. There are diverse sets of theoretical frameworks and methods used to study SES, and each one should be chosen based on the specific case (Binder et al. 2013, Cox et al. 2016. Frameworks used to understand SES differ in their purpose, contextualization of the SES components, and the scale of the interactions (Binder et al. 2013, Colding and  Barthel 2019). We use the SES-Framework, based on a multi-tier set of variables to identify sets of characteristics influencing sustainability, because of (1) its diagnostic approach to studying the impact of governance and natural resources; (2) its ability to tailor variables to unique cases; (3) the capability to compare to similar case studies (Ostrom 2007, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014. The diagnostic approach has led to a better understanding of SES and governance, though there are still gaps in knowledge concerning the SES within polycentric governance (Heikkila, Villamayor-Tomas, and Garrick 2018). Specifically, there is little understanding of conservation stakeholders' perspectives on navigating the social components of a polycentric system to mitigate environmental pressures (Partelow 2018). Our study addresses this gap in the literature by using McGinnis and Ostrom (2014)'s SES-Framework to analyze conservation actors' perspectives on the environmental issues they encounter when trying to protect freshwater systems, to identify barriers hindering mitigation efforts within polycentric governance systems, and examine possible solutions to these hindrances. To do this, we ask conservation stakeholders about their experiences of working to mitigate environmental pressures impacting freshwater lakes within a polycentric system. Thus, we provide an empirical investigation on social dynamics of polycentric governance systems. Our results highlight the impact that informal interactions can have on a polycentric system relying on voluntary conservation measures and the influence of higher-level policy in local mitigation efforts.

Theoretical Background
The overall goal of SES research is to understand how systems can be sustainable in various geographic settings (Partelow 2018). Although we draw from relevant literature from across the field of SES research, this study relies on the SES-Framework to better understand the processes and context that influence SES within polycentric governance (Cumming et al. 2020). We specifically discuss the relevance of polycentric governance and the SES-Framework next.

Polycentric Governance
Our understanding of the role of government in governance structures has changed over time Knieper 2014, Lemos andAgrawal 2006). Until the 1980s, there was a notion that centralized authorities in environmental governance would be the most effective. In the mid-1980s, researchers shifted attention toward decentralizing power to a variety of non-governmental entities (Lemos and Agrawal 2006). The push for decentralization or centralization as a theoretical cure-all garnered mix results in empirical studies. This generated an interest in polycentricity, which has distinct advantages over traditional hierarchal or completely decentralized governance structures and is more common in institutional frameworks that rely on voluntary approaches (Andersson andOstrom 2008, Ostrom 2010). Polycentric governance structures can also adapt to changes in the resource system (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012, Carlisle andGruby 2019), and provide arrangements between institutions that fit the natural resources they aim to protect (Carlisle andGruby 2019, Lebel et al. 2013) by accommodating overlapping boundaries (Cash et al. 2006) and creating collaborative networks and relationships (Fidelman and Ekstrom 2012, Guerrero et al. 2015, Bodin 2017, Carlisle and Gruby 2019. This can reduce the risk of failure (Andersson andOstrom 2008, Carlisle andGruby 2019).
As mentioned, polycentric governance can better protect natural resources (Lebel et al. 2013) in settings that rely on informal or voluntary policies and arrangements (Carlisle and Gruby 2019). This can also however be challenging because often overlaying governments are not designed or incentivized to work together (Garc ıa et al. 2019). There are also unequal power dynamics among the nested centers that hinder collaboration and innovation between actors or organizations at various scales (Morrison et al. 2017). More generally, the difficulties with establishing and maintaining polycentric governance are mainly due to complexity (Lubell and Morrison 2021), for example in the case of overlapping jurisdictions (Cradock-Henry et al. 2017).
Thus, the polycentric governance literature is highly relevant to the Iowa Great Lakes. Polycentric governance scholarship finds that holistically incorporating stakeholders' views can improve governance and freshwater systems (Sinner, Brown, and Newton 2016). However, the literature examining conservation stakeholders' views is generally limited to a few areas of research rather that the full set of challenges in managing polycentric SES. Previous studies focus on a singular social issue (Zhang et al. 2020), the formal interactions between institutions rather than informal implementation interactions (Bissonnette et al. 2018), and/or a particular environmental concern (Wardropper, Chang, and Rissman 2015). The lack of consideration of multiple environmental issues and interactions is a critical gap in the literature, because conservation organizations are not homogenous (Dayer et al. 2016), and can be working toward dissimilar goals within the same region (Epanchin -Niell et al. 2010). To add to this limited literature, we use the SES-Framework to analyze conservation stakeholders' perspectives on the environmental and social issues they face to protect freshwater lakes in polycentric governance structures.

Social-Ecological Framework
We use the SES-Framework because it was designed to be a theory-neutral diagnostic tool to allow for comparison between various competing theoretical perspectives (Ostrom 2007), and it is grounded in collective action theory (Partelow 2018). Thus, we use the SES-Framework to categorize our findings on polycentric governance, diagnose any issues, and be compared to other case studies (Ostrom 2007). This study relies on a modified version of Elinor Ostrom's original framework, McGinnis and Ostrom (2014)'s SES-Framework. It consists of eight first-tier variables: social, economic, and political setting, resource system, governance system, resource units, actors, interactions, outcomes, and related ecosystems. Second-and third-tier variables related to more specific attributes are nested within first-tier variables and allow for more fine-grained analysis of components that may be influencing the ability to protect natural resources (Ostrom 2007(Ostrom , 2009McGinnis and Ostrom 2014).
Studies using the SES-Framework range from metanalysis and case study comparisons to single case studies focusing on specific variables (Partelow 2018). Research also varies in scale, as this framework has been used to analyze case studies locally (Duff et al. 2017), regionally (Zhang et al. 2020) or across the globe (Hinkel et al. 2015). However, the framework's variables are not static or perfect, an example of this is the creation of alternative governance variables like regime type to better understand the influence of differing governance structures (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Likewise, not all of the SES-Framework variables are represented equally in the literature (Partelow 2018). Continued empirical research on these variables helps further develop this diagnostic tool Ostrom 2014, Partelow 2018), and case studies can identify new specific variables (Duff et al. 2017).
These variables can also help develop SES theory (Partelow 2018, Cox et al. 2016). Because of this, the SES-Framework is commonly coupled with other theoretical perspectives or concepts across SES, like examining payment for ecosystem services (Bennett and Gosnell 2015). A few studies have used the SES-Framework to add to our theoretical understanding of polycentric governance, such as conflict between villages and nature reserves (Zhang et al. 2020), and the formal interactions between organizations managing community forests (Bissonnette et al. 2018). Like these studies, we utilize the SES-Framework to examine specific components of polycentric governance. However, unlike these examples, we use McGinnis and Ostrom (2014)'s SES-Framework to analyze the perspectives of conservation actors working within polycentric governance to mitigate multiple environmental pressures. This study expands our understanding of the role that informal interactions play in polycentric governance relying mainly on voluntary conservation measures, and the influence of higher-level policy in local efforts.

Research Questions
Using McGinnis and Ostrom (2014)'s SES-Framework variables (henceforth italicized) as a guide, we examine conservation stakeholders' perspectives regarding their work in a polycentric governance framework to protect a system of freshwater lakes, and we provide an in-depth look at first-tier variables that have received little attention in the literature (Partelow 2018). More specifically, we examine conservation stakeholders' view of the main environmental issues impacting related ecosystems facing freshwater lakes in intensively managed systems. Then we examine their perspective on the barriers (social, economic, and political setting or interactions) that may impact their ability to mitigate these environmental issues in a polycentric governance structure regime type. Lastly, we assess their perspectives on the possible outcomes to these issues. A conceptual framework of our study can be found in Supplementary Material 1. Our study is guided by the following research questions: Research question 1: What do conservation stakeholders view as environmental pressures impacting their natural resource and related ecosystems?
Research Question 2: What are the barriers, from the social, economic, and political setting or interactions among stakeholders and institutions, keeping conservation stakeholders from protecting these resources in a polycentric governance regime type?
Research Question 3: What are the potential solutions to these social, economic, and political setting or interactions barriers that lead to better outcomes?
To answer these questions, we interviewed 23 conservation stakeholders about their experiences working in a polycentric governance system to protect a series of valuable freshwater lakes.

Iowa Great Lakes Case Study
The Iowa Great Lakes region was chosen as the focal SES of our case study because it poignantly represents an SES with a polycentric governance aiming to mitigate environmental pressures. We define the region as the intersection of the watershed's boundaries, which go across state lines, and the county (Figure 1). The social, economic and political setting of this SES is that the Lakes support a tourism industry vital to the local and state economy (IEDA 2020). The governance system within the study area is represented by a complex set of political boundaries in Dickinson County and beyond, as local, state, and federal conservation-based agencies all work in the area (Dccwa 2021). This includes over 8,000 acres of land temporarily retired from agriculture through the Conservation Reserve Program, a voluntary federal agriculture program (FSA 2019). Seven municipalities surrounding the Lakes use them for drinking water. There are also multiple local, state, and federal non-governmental organizations working on conservation issues in the study area. An additional layer of political complexity is that the Lakes watershed crosses state lines into Minnesota ( Figure 1).
The resource system consists of three large freshwater lakes (West Okoboji, East Okoboji, and Big Spirit Lakes), smaller lakes, and wetlands. Beach access to the lakes is quite limited as the shoreline is largely in private hands, so the typical way to access the lakes is with boats. Beyond the shoreline is a landscape dedicated to production agriculture, expanding residential areas, and the highest number of state parks in Iowa (IDNR 2021). The resource units include competing land uses for agriculture, development, and outdoor recreation, and space on the Lakes in terms of number of boats, tourists, etc. utilizing the resource.
Actors include residents, tourists, the tourism industry (workers, business owners, etc.), farmers, and conservationists in government and non-government organizations. Conservationists are faced with the difficult task of protecting this natural resource from environmental pressures while navigating this complex governance structure. Because of these reasons, the Iowa Great Lakes region are an ideal study area to investigate conservationists view of these issues.

Methods
The conservation community within the study area is small, so our results may not be generalizable to other locations, however the judicious use of qualitative methods can help increase the validity of the data (Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002). To ensure the validity of our data, we used purposive sampling techniques, specifically maximum variation (heterogeneity) and snowball sampling, to ensure the most information rich study possible (Bradford andStratford 2010, Patton 2002). Maximum variation sampling aims at capturing the varied perspectives about an issue (Patton 2002). Our study seeks to understand the perceptions of conservation stakeholders in a polycentric governance system. Therefore, we focus on these actors, who represent various levels (local, state, etc.) and types (NGO, government) of conservationists. We used maximum variation sampling to try and represent every group working in the study area (Patton 2002). A list of key conservation organizations and stakeholders was constructed from an online source (DCCWA 2021) and adjusted based on recommendations of Dr. Skopek, who works in the area and knows the local community well. We then used snowball sampling to expand the sample past the initial maximum variation list (Patton 2002). Eligible participants needed to be employed by or volunteer with a conservation organization in the Iowa Great Lakes. Designing the sample collection to gain perspectives from a heterogenous group and asking them the same questions are ways to ensure ex ante that saturation could be reached (Fusch and Ness 2015). Saturation was determined on the basis of two factors: the redundancy in responses to interview questions, and the snowball recommendations from participants (Saunders et al. 2018).
This research was approved by the University of Iowa's Institutional Review Board (IRB) on May 7, 2020 (ID #202002065). Due to the IRB COVID-19 restrictions, semistructured phone interviews were used to collect data. The interview guide was piloted for clarity of questions and length with two local stakeholders and modified based on their feedback. Interview questions focused on projects, policies, or programs that stakeholders were currently working on in the Lakes area, then on the barriers they faced when completing these projects. Finally, stakeholders were asked about their views on potential solutions to these issues. Each participant was provided an exempt information sheet describing the consent process, then they were asked to verbally consent to participate in the study.
A participant sheet was used to collect basic information (Supplementary Material 2) and guide our maximum variation sampling. During the summer of 2020, 23 interviews were conducted with an average length of $56 minutes. To ensure confidentiality, the organizations that the participants were affiliated with were not recorded. Throughout the article, participants will be referred to as Participant and a number. Additionally, the pronoun "they" is used for all participants. These precautionary steps were taken due to the particularly small group of both volunteers and professional conservationists in the study area.
Latent content analysis was used to derive common themes across transcripts (Dunn 2010). We used three cycles of coding using MAXQDA software. We started with a broad descriptive coding system, based on the literature, that consisted of "environmental issues", "social issues", and "solutions". In the second cycle, we used inductive coding to identify specific codes within the first cycle ones to clarify the type of environmental issues. For example, within the "environmental issues" code participants mentioned "agriculture", "tourism", "shoreline erosion", etc. Finally, pattern coding was used to identify any themes within or across stakeholder groups (Saldaña 2016). These themes were then categorized within relevant SES-Framework variables to analyze the interactions between variables and allow for comparison with previous studies (Supplementary Material 3). To ensure accurate interpretation of the data, we used forms of multiple analyst triangulation. First, Authors 1 & 3 periodically met to discuss the data analysis process to ensure the validity of the coding procedure. During these meetings, segments of codes were discussed until agreement was reached on correct classification. Afterward, the results were reviewed by Author 2, who has extensive experience in the Iowa Great Lakes, to verify that our interpretation represented actual events in the area (Patton 2002).

Results
The results indicate that environmental and social issues surrounding natural resource management are interconnected. To distinguish between them while coding, we focused on what was being impacted by the action or activity mentioned by the participant. To illustrate this difference, we will use recreational activities as an example. If a participant stated that boat traffic on the Lakes impacted water quality or fish habitat, then the response was coded as an environmental issue. However, if a participant stated that the boat traffic impaired other uses of the Lakes, like canoeing or fishing, then that segment was coded as a social issue. The next section will outline environmental pressures, social barriers, and potential solutions provided by participants categorized within McGinnis and Ostrom (2014)'s SES-Framework first and second tier-variables. Categorizing participant responses within these variables highlighted the informal interactions that occur between institutions within a polycentric governance system that can impact conservation actors' mitigation efforts. We provide a list of variables and how they relate to environmental pressures, social barriers, and potential solutions according to the study participants in Table 1.
We found that participants belonged to multiple conservation organizations, and would openly discuss it. For example, they may be employed by a state agency and also volunteer with a lake association, or they may be retired and volunteer with multiple organizations for different activities. However, when answering the participant information sheet, they would fill in only one organization's information. Therefore, our participant information sheet only produced useable results in a few cases, which are noted below.

Research Question 1: Environmental Pressures
The study participants seek to address related ecosystems pressures in the Iowa Great Lakes region, and they identified two main pressures: agriculture (n ¼ 23) and tourism (n ¼ 21). A smaller number of participants also discussed pressures from the community directly surrounding the Lakes: development pressure (n ¼ 9), shoreline erosion (n ¼ 9), and excess nutrients from lawn fertilizer runoff (n ¼ 6) and septic systems (n ¼ 5). Finally, over half (n ¼ 13) mentioned that invasive species harm the Lakes. Below we outline the related ecosystem variables that fall within either the pollution patterns and flows into and out of focal SES (henceforth in/outflows) second-tier variables.
Agriculture was the most mentioned pollution pattern variable within the SES. However, participants placed differing levels of emphasis on these environmental pressures. Some identified agricultural practices in the watershed as the largest environmental pressure given the high number of acres in production in the area, while others were more conciliatory or added caveats. They would acknowledge the negative consequences of farming but stated that often farmers are treated as scapegoats and that many try to reduce their effects on the Lakes. Participant 10 explained their perspective on the issue. I think farmers too often get thrown under the bus … we've learned is you can make just a small adjustment to your farming practice … can make a huge difference. Some shared this sentiment, while others were more skeptical of conservation practices' effectiveness. They questioned whether these practices could undo the damage to the hydrological system caused by agricultural practices such as drainage tiling and removal of native habitat. Irresponsible behavior associated with the tourism industry was mentioned by nearly every participant (n ¼ 21). Commonly discussed irresponsible behaviors were littering, boating, and a "party cove" mentality by recreationists. Individual irresponsible behaviors were categorized as either pollution patterns or in/outflow variables. Littering, human waste, and boating (gas and oil spills) were categorized as pollution patterns. Other behaviors like the "party cove" mentality and boating (large wakes and anchoring) were considered in/outflow variables, because they were environmental pressures not caused by pollution. As with agriculture, participants had differing views of the impact this has on the Lakes. As an example, many talked about Miller's Bay, a popular tie-up location on the Lakes, where boats anchor to form party barges. Participant 23 described … the weekend warriors … They are tied up by the 100s maybe the 1000s on holiday weekends in Miller's Bay. There's a lot of litter, there's a lot of human waste going into the water. Others noted issues of turbidity and shoreline erosion, and some also expressed concern over anchoring boats pulling up aquatic vegetation.
Surrounding communities was the next most discussed environmental issue, which was classified within two categories. Development pressure (n ¼ 9) and shoreline erosion (n ¼ 9) were types of in/outflow variables, while excess nutrients from lawn fertilizer runoff (n ¼ 6) and septic systems (n ¼ 5) were instances of pollution patterns. Some interviewees spoke more generally about these issues while others focused on specific examples. For example, Participant 2 explained in detail the issues surrounding the removal of an oak savanna habitat in Bridges Bay, that they described as a real disgusting show of architecture and land management.
The last environmental issue which was mentioned by most of our participants was invasive species (n ¼ 13). Zebra mussels, curly leaf pondweed, and carp were the main invasive threats, and were described as side effects of irresponsible behavior, which is an in/outflow variable.

Research Question 2: Social Barriers
Regardless of the specific environmental pressure, social barriers were rooted in the voluntary nature of mitigation efforts. Individual barriers were mainly associated with social, economic, or political setting and interaction variables when working within a polycentric governance regime type. Participants felt that they were competing with economic development activities for the use of the same resources (n ¼ 19), and that agriculture and tourism were all vying for the same land, water, etc. which made conservation work more difficult.
When discussing agriculture, participants lamented that some farmers were only concerned about maximizing their profit. This impedes the implementation of farmland conservation practices, which are voluntary. Participant 14 stated that the root of this these conflicting goals resides in other governance systems at the federal level through the crop insurance program, which highlights the interconnections of these variables.
My opinion is that the Federal Crop Insurance program provides a huge incentive for farmers to farm as much land as possible, even if it's not making money … we have this big pot of money that provides incentive to raise row crops, corn and soybeans on all the lands, regardless of whether they should be. And then we have a much smaller amount of money to pay … to clean up the pollution caused by corn and soybean.
Competing use of resources also applied to the tourist industry. Like agriculture, tourism stakeholders are focused on profits, viewed as competing with conservation goals. Many spoke of the construction of condos and marinas to accommodate the increasingly large tourist population. The markets for valuable real-estate and businesses also made it more difficult to acquire land or restrict marina expansions. Participant 6 stated if there was any competition, it's a competition of how fast can we expand tourism at the expense of the Lake.
Participants also felt that these conflicts tend to spill over into local government officials' decisions, and that tourism facilitates behavior that interferes with other uses of the Lakes. Most stated that the large boats and a "party cove" mentality encroach on other uses like non-motorboat use or fishing thereby causing conflict. This seemed to upset some participants more than others. For example, Participant 3 bemoaned the issues with Miller's Bay, but mentioned that this is linked to a larger public water issue in Iowa. That's not good for the waters, but because you have too many people filling their boats with liquor and floating down and deciding to go nude and pee in the water.
Policy limitations surrounding agriculture and the tourism industry were also discussed (n ¼ 15). Most participants seemed frustrated by the federal conservation policy structure to address agricultural pollution. The voluntary nature of conservation policy, an example of other governance systems, seemed to create tension between our conservation participants and the agriculture community, illustrating conflict between actors, groups, and governance, illustrating the linkages across second tier variables. Participant 21 noted that … people realize that if we want to keep these Lakes what they are, we have to sacrifice some of that … With that said, we certainly alienate and frustrate some local farmers that would like to buy that same land. Participants also presented examples of agricultural stakeholders who would not adopt conservation practices. When speaking of agricultural environmental issues, some participants from government agencies would confirm (some in jest) that the interviews were confidential, which highlights the social dynamics between stakeholders. This could be a side-effect of voluntary policies, where conservationists must obtain support from farmers to achieve their goals. So, any critique could impede their relationship with farmers and reduce the likelihood of meeting their objectives.
Similarly, other governance systems impacted their ability to rein in the tourism industry. Participants felt that their hands were tied due to the voluntary nature of their work. Most of the attempts to reduce visitor impacts on the Lakes are based on changing individual actions, which they felt have not been effective. Others noted that there was a lack of regulations on the type of boats allowed on the Lakes and creating limits could reduce shoreline damage. Finally, they observed that there were no rules limiting the aspects of "party cove" behavior that could be impacting the aquatic vegetation.
A lack of knowledge (n ¼ 15) and apathy (n ¼ 10) were other major social barriers participants associated with a lack of information sharing in the tourism industry. Apathy was viewed as a problem for farmers and developers as well.
Participants also voiced concerns about social barriers surrounding organizational issues within their own entity, and when working with other conservation groups. The most common barrier was related to funding or investment activities for projects and incentives (n ¼ 17). These included reduced or limited public funds and the difficulty of navigating the small network of private funders in the region. Participant 14 described it as donor fatigue, it's the same pockets that you're always tapping. This led participants to criticize the lack of investment activities by various governments agencies and businesses, arguing that the investment into the Lakes should be higher given the amount of revenue they produce.
There were difficulties working within a polycentric governance regime type as well, which ranged from other conservation organizations to political boundaries. Despite most participants providing some anecdotes about interorganizational cooperation, a majority (n ¼ 13) stated that it needed to be improved going forward. Adding to this complicated network of organizations within this regime type, the local political boundaries were another social issue faced by our participants (n ¼ 11). The high number of municipal entities, plus the county and the state being heavily invested in the area created bureaucratic confusion that interfered with protecting the Lakes.
Participants noted that despite improvements, minor conflicts still exist between conservation organizations due to organizations viewing environmental issues differently. The main disagreement between organizations seemed to be when discussing invasive species, like curly leaf pond weed. Participant 7 described them: There are people in the area who would like to have the entire lake treated with herbicide to get rid of all of it. And there are people in the Lake that would like you not to treat any of it, because they love it. It makes the fishing great … A smaller group stated that there was a lack of research into the issues and a need for data driven solutions (n ¼ 6) about conservation practices and decisions. They felt a there was a lack of evaluative activities through research to understand recreational pressure on the Lakes, which hinders information sharing activities. Participant 12 noted: We're always trying to find out how resilient these systems are, how much pressure that they can take … Well, it's death by a thousand cuts. These resources can only take so much … At what point does that last cut tip us into the poor water quality state and unhealthy state? … We better stay away from our tipping point, and build as much resilience in the system as possible.

Research Question 3: Potential Solutions
Most participants' solutions for these barriers centered around information sharing to curb individual behavior, and some participants stated a need for a shift in current policy structure. Potential solutions for the environmental issues concerning pollution patterns and in/outflow variables were broadly similar for both agriculture and tourism. Most focused on information sharing to increase awareness through education and outreach (n ¼ 20), hoping this would lead to better ecological performance measures. There were differences in the specific approaches.
For agriculture, information sharing solutions were mostly focused on education and outreach. However, most participants stated that education could be difficult and needed to demonstrate successful outcomes. Participant 3 expressed how education plays a role in curbing environmentally damaging behavior in agriculture.
We created the space … The farmer who was out in the field talking cover crops was able to say to his peers, "We have not seen a reduction in our income off renting this land, even though a third of it changed to alfalfa. We haven't seen a reduction in the yield of these crop lands." It started a different conversation.
Information sharing via education and outreach to reduce the impact of tourism on the Lakes focused on informing visitors of their role in protecting from in/outflow variables, like properly clean boats to prevent zebra mussel spread. Participant 3 also mentioned a need to inform visitors about other local recreational opportunities beyond the Lakes. They viewed this as a way to increase local tourism while removing some of the pressure on the Lakes. The expansion of practice-based solutions were commonly mentioned by participants (n ¼ 19) as a way to achieve better ecological performance measures. However, participants offered little details on how changes would be implemented. When they did, they would mention the need for better investment activities or other changes that would have to occur for these solutions to work.
There was a need for other governance systems to reduce the negative impacts of agriculture and the tourism industry through better policy (n ¼ 14). However, there were differing opinions about the characteristics of better policy. For agriculture, some thought an expansion of existing voluntary frameworks would be sufficient while others felt there was a need to shift agricultural incentive structures and expressed interest in mandatory policies. Overall, the social-ecological issues surrounding agriculture were seen as complex with less consensus about solutions. This pattern was also present when discussing the tourism industry. Participants mentioned a need for other governance systems or policy to limit the issues they associated with boating. Policies ranged from boat-type restrictions to no wake days during the week, to limiting the number of anchoring boats in popular partying areas. Participant 10 discussed a need to design policies and regulations that allow people to have their enjoyment without being reckless.
Overall, there seemed to be little conflict between the conservation organizations in the study area. Participants mentioned that cooperation between groups could expand with more regular meetings between all the organizations, including entities not focused on conservation. Many pointed out that outside the conservation community, there was less engagement and an "environment vs economy" type of mentality. When discussing organizational issues, just under half (n ¼ 11) of the participants expressed a need for a unified effort between all the conservation and non-conservation stakeholders in the region through increasing networking activities. These participants did not see their conservation goals and economic growth as competing but believed they could work together to create better social performance outcomes to ensure a sustainable future for the Lakes. Participants also explained that more research or evaluative activities in the area could aid in creating solutions to these environmental issues (n ¼ 9). Many stated that without data, it was difficult to know where the issues are and how to solve them, frequently warning that it could lead to unnecessary restrictions. They felt that more evaluative activities would lead to more impactful information sharing activities with these other organizations.
There were less solutions for internal organizational issues, and most participants focused on practice-based solutions with most mentioning funding (n ¼ 6). Participants explained that better funding mechanisms based on taxes on tourism as an automatic investment activity to aid in conservation efforts would be effective. Specifically, participants expressed a need to fund more scientists, technicians, and enforcement staff to protect the Lakes.

Discussion
The environmental pressures facing the Iowa Great Lakes are not unique. As in other regions, the large presence of agriculture within the watershed places pressure on the freshwater system that conservationists in our study are trying to mitigate (Nielsen et al. 2012). Mitigation efforts are similar to those adopted elsewhere, such as best management practices or removing land from production (Wardropper, Chang, and Rissman 2015). Participants also identified the tourism industry as a source of both pollution patterns and in/outflow variables via recreational activities such as boating and a "party cove" mentality, pressures similar to those identified within the literature as impacting freshwater systems (Venohr et al. 2018), and expansion of development that removed habitat to meet the needs of the tourism industry (Erol and Randhir 2013). We found that participants discussed most or all of the environmental pressures and worked to address them in various ways. However, regardless of the source of environmental pressures, conservation actors encountered social barriers associated with the informal interactions between organizations within this polycentric governance system.
Overall, participants felt that there was little conflict between conservation organizations in the region, though networking activities could be improved. Like previous work regarding conservation organization issues (Brown and Hess 2017, Garc ıa et al. 2019, Wardropper, Chang, and Rissman 2015, our participants felt they lack resources. To supplement resources, government agencies rely on numerous non-profits and lake associations, which was somewhat counterintuitively viewed as a positive thing by participants. This does reduce the risk of failure through redundancy of organizations within the polycentric governance system (Andersson andOstrom 2008, Carlisle andGruby 2019). The inclusion of a broad spectrum of groups, like lake associations, is important to improving water quality in freshwater systems (Garrah, Frei, and Bennett 2019). Most of the conflict was associated with stakeholders outside of the conservation community. Many participants voiced a need to include these outside stakeholders (agriculture and tourism) into conversations about management of natural resources through networking activities and better information sharing. However, many participants found this difficult due to the social barriers they have experienced with these groups in the past. We found that the root of these social issues lies in the reliance on voluntary practices and the influence of higher-level policy in polycentric governance. We expand upon these findings below as well as discuss potential steps to improve governance based on suggestions from previous SES literature.
The voluntary structure of programs is seen as a barrier that manifests itself in different ways. For agriculture, voluntary approaches make it difficult for participants to create meaningful interactions that impact ecological performance measures. Conservation stakeholders must rely on building relationships with polluters, so any conflict between these two groups can reduce the likelihood of them accomplishing their goals. Actively avoiding conflict is a key strategy for mitigating agricultural pollution, especially among those participants working for public agencies. Conflict avoidance may not be the best strategy in these situations, because conflict can help create collaboration between disparate groups (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012, Carlisle andGruby 2019). Participants seem to focus on information sharing activities around conservation practices as beneficial to farmers through either economic and non-economic arguments, which is a common strategy (Upadhaya, Arbuckle, and Schulte 2021). Potential solutions ranged from increased funding of existing/new voluntary measures to a shift toward mandatory policies to restructuring of the incentives of agriculture, which are ongoing agricultural policy debates beyond the scope of this article. However, our results suggest that the current structure seems to hinder conservation stakeholders' ability to mitigate agricultural externalities because they lack the financial resources and/or enforcement power to address them.
Participants had similar grievances about the tourist industry. Overall, they expressed frustration with voluntary measures and a need for restrictions or other governance systems to mitigate the environmental pressures from this industry. However, the specifics of these restrictions varied among participants. Some focused on restricting activities on the Lakes and others on reducing shoreline development. Similar to other studies, competing economic interests would sometimes clash within the realm of local political decisions over expansion Hess 2017, Garc ıa et al. 2019). The lack of unified rules across the many municipal boundaries was seen negatively, a common transboundary governance issue in polycentric governance (Milman et al. 2020). Participants wanted greater involvement from a variety of local governments, which included ideas like extra funding mechanisms through tourism taxes or working to create meaningful regulations. This is an important finding, because it connects to literature highlighting the critical role these entities play in governance and a potential expansion of their role (Garc ıa et al. 2019).
Additionally, like Zhang et al. (2020), our case study was influenced by higher level policies that participants felt they had little leverage to change. In our case, federal and state level agricultural policies made it difficult to control pollution locally. Industrialized agriculture is deeply embedded within Iowa's political economy, which makes it difficult to pass meaningful policy at the state level (Gillon 2010). At the federal level, agricultural pollution is considered a non-point source, thus it is not regulated through the Clean Water Act (Laitos and Ruckriegle 2012). Mitigation of agricultural pollution relies on voluntary programs mainly using a cost-share approach for working lands, or land retirement programs vulnerable to changing crop prices (Morefield et al. 2016). However, participants mention that conservation practices are occurring in the SES, so identifying these key actors can help expand a stewardship network that encourages participation in governance (Duff et al. 2017).
Discussions surrounding agriculture and tourism illustrate a critical component of polycentric governance outlined by Andersson and Ostrom (2008): if actors are not motivated to participate in governance, incentives need to be created. Participants suggest this could occur via funding mechanisms or through local restrictions. However, the creation of these incentives would entail a regional unified effort, which itself could require significant resources. Even though our participants have differing opinions on how to approach these issues, it does not mean a unified effort is unlikely. Conflicts between stakeholders within the same region can negatively impact progress (Epanchin -Niell et al. 2010), but it can also increase adaptability through shared learning (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012, Carlisle andGruby 2019). Competition and conflict over ideas are important characteristics of the learning process in polycentric governance (Pahl-Wostl 2009, Carlisle andGruby 2019). For example, Zhang et al. (2020) found that polycentric governance regime type was positioned to settle existing conflicts and rein in emerging ones. These tasks are difficult and may need a form of meta-governance which could aid in providing a reflective view of governance that dynamically changes to adapt to the changing SES (Pahl-Wostl 2019), and could contribute to creating better social and ecological outcomes.
Generally, we found that the SES-Framework was a useful tool to analyze and categorize our findings about polycentric governance of natural resources. Similar to other studies (Bissonnette et al. 2018, Zhang et al. 2020, the SES-Framework helped organize the various kinds of stressors identified by conservationists, then connect them to each other and to the various entities that had some level of responsibility or agency over them. However, like Zhang et al. (2020)'s study of Chinese forest reserves, we had difficulty categorizing the presence of higher-level policies that impact polycentric governance within the SES-Framework's second-tier variables. We used other governance systems to describe these instances. We believe that future iterations of the SES-Framework should consider a second-tier variable that reflects this phenomenon. Regardless, this approach provided the opportunity to distinguish the root of tensions within polycentric governance, compare to other case studies, and identify solutions.

Conclusion
Our study demonstrates that conservation stakeholders protecting a valuable freshwater resource surrounded by intensive agriculture face a variety of environmental concerns rooted in social issues. There were two main sources of environmental issues stakeholders must navigate: agriculture and tourism. In both cases, participants were hindered by the reliance on voluntary-based incentive programs, which place conservationists in difficult positions where they must (1) convince polluters they are causing harm then (2) try and persuade polluters to reduce their impact. Most respondents felt that current voluntary mechanisms are unable to reduce the environmental pressures of agriculture and tourism on the Lakes, though they differed in proposing possible solutions. Nevertheless, these solutions should center around creating incentives for the tourism and agriculture actors to participate in governance.
Categorizing conservationists' perspectives within the SES-Framework provided empirical evidence about the difficulty of relying exclusively on voluntary measures within polycentric governance. This is especially problematic when actors may not be motivated to participate in polycentric governance or when federal and state policy heavily influence local practices. However, this is a single case-study that focused on one stakeholder groups' perspectives, so continued research evaluating voluntary measures in polycentric governance could clarify these results. Regardless, this work highlights the need to expand upon our understanding of the influence that informal interactions have on sustainable natural resource governance.