kristina slagle, robyn s. wilson, deborah k. hersha, and anne baird the ohio state university,...
TRANSCRIPT
Why don’t they take action? Understanding Resident Decision
Making in an Urbanizing Watershed
Kristina Slagle, Robyn S. Wilson, Deborah K. Hersha, and Anne Baird
The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources
USDA-NIFA GoalsNational Integrated Water Quality
ProgramImproving surface water quality by
disseminating knowledge and providing tools that improve land use decision making among rural and urbanizing communities.
Watershed Scale ProjectsImprove the effectiveness of conservation
practices and programs through innovative social science research that informs the development of more informed and focused education and extension efforts, targeting critical populations in a degraded and rapidly urbanizing watershed.
Key questions for water outreach professionals
1. What do citizens know about water quality?
2. What influences matter to citizens with regards to stream stewardship?
Method: Mental ModelsStep 1: Creation of expert model of
environmental risk issuesStep 2: Mental models interviews with target
audiencesStep 3: Conducting a confirmatory surveyStep 4: Testing and evaluating
communications and Extension resources
Expert Decision Model
Action SustainabilityContinued Education*
Individual Involvement/Buy-In*
Purposeful PlanningCommunity SupportEconomic Support
Desired Outcomes
Achieve Regulatory Goals* Informed/Engaged Public*
Improved Watershed/Stream Health*
Sustainable Business/Industry
Water Law and PolicyFederal Government
State GovernmentLocal Government
Economic DriversLivelihood Protection* Access to Resources*
Industry PressureHigh Management Costs
Outreach and EducationMass Media*
One-on-One and Small Group*Technical Outreach*
Outreach/Learning EnhancementsSelf-Directed Learning
Scientific Research Studies
Basic Knowledge StudiesThreat and Impact StudiesHuman Behavior Studies
Ecological KnowledgeBiota*
Connectivity Effects Stream Geomorphology
WatershedStream Hydrology
Channel DevelopmentHeadwaters
Internal FunctionRestorative Properties
HabitatWetlands
FloodplainsTrophic Dynamics External Function
Chemistry
Threats/ImpactsPollution*
Run-off/Sedimentation*Land Use
Human PracticesNatural Influences
Identification FailureStream Structure/Function
Alterations
Individual DifferencesPersonal Preferences*
ValuesSocio-demographic
Socio-Cultural DriversCulture*
Tradition*Social NormsPeer Net work
Landowner/Citizen Internalization of ThreatAwareness
Perception Benefits of Healthy Streams/ Positive Action*Perception Risk of Degraded streams/Negative Action*
Experience with Streams*Adaptive Capacity
Citizen Decisions to Maintain and Restore Stream and
Watershed Health
Stream Restoration*Land Management
Water FiltrationMonitoring/PreventionRiparian Restoration
Quality Information Gathering and Processing
Information Availability*Motivation*
Information QualityAbility to Gather /Assimilate Information
Influential ActorsCommunity
Government*Special Interest
NGOs
Policy and Outreach
Ecosystem Knowledge
Perceived risk & Decision making
Individual & Societal Influences* Expert Response 50% or Greater
Pre-Internalization BarriersInsufficient Communication*
Benign Neglect*Decision making Errors
Limited Knowledge
Post-Internalization BarriersInstitutional Constraints*
Economic Interests
Experts say a lack of communication/coordination between agencies and between agencies and
citizens are barriers to action
ACTION STOPPERS
Landowner/Citizen Internalization of Threat
AwarenessPerception Benefits of Healthy Streams/ Positive
Action*Perception Risk of Degraded streams/Negative
Action*Experience with Streams*
Adaptive Capacity
Streamside Landowner and Citizen Decision Making regarding Stewardship of
Community Streams and the Watershed
Stream Restoration*Land Management
Water FiltrationMonitoring/PreventionRiparian Restoration
Pre-Internalization Barriers
Insufficient Communication* Benign Neglect*
Decision making ErrorsLimited Knowledge
Post-Internalization Barriers
Institutional Constraints*Economic Interests
Method: Mental ModelsStep 1: Creation of expert model of
environmental risk issuesStep 2: Mental models interviews with target
audiencesStep 3: Conducting a confirmatory surveyStep 4: Testing and evaluating
communications and Extension resources
Community Participants24 streamside landowners interviewedAges 30-80 (average 45)Agricultural, rural residential, suburbanLandowners were identified in critical areas in
watershed (natural areas in need of preservation or impaired areas)
Range of experiences with conservation programs (50% some experience, 50% no experience with conservation agents)
Identified major influences on streamside decisions to be targeted through new extension and outreach efforts
Gap 1: Defining Stream HealthGap:
Experts frequently discussed stream structures/functions.
Landowners described healthy streams as those that were visually appealing
Significance: Landowners reactive instead of proactiveAbility to recognize problems limited and
actions focus on stream flow (log jam removal).
Gap 2: The cost of streamside landownershipGap:
Experts did not appear to be aware of the importance of costs to landowners, particularly when all costs are considered (time, financial expense, and physical/ emotional toll).
Significance:This lack of familiarity may lead experts to focus
outreach and education efforts primarily on encouraging practices to improve stream and watershed health while overlooking more salient concerns of landowners.
Gap 3: Awareness of regulations and responsible actorsGap:
Study participants who had no previous contact with a conservation organization, were largely unfamiliar with actions to restore and protect streams, local regulations, and responsible organizations.
Significance:This lack of awareness could have a potential
negative impact on participants‘ adaptive capacity or belief in their ability to take action.
Gap 4: Influential ActorsGap:
Experts emphasized the role of non-profit organizations.
Landowners emphasized local and state governments as influential.
Significance:Suburban residents may not be familiar with
watersheds organizations Rural residential/ag may be more comfortable
with govt/university assistance.
Gap 5: Cultural TensionsGap:
Cultural divide between people ag/environmental values; strong opposed to the metro park proposal moving from private to public ownership; suburban participants‘ experiences frustration with local governments assistance with flooding.
Significance: May need to be addressed before conservation
considered by ag, rural residential, and suburban audiences.
Gap 6: Actions to Restore and Protect StreamsGap
Experts did not mention some of the low cost action options to restore and protect streams mentioned by streamside landowners including education, collaboration, and volunteering
SignificanceImportant first steps for landowners
Final considerationsRisks of concern to landowners:
Loss of recreation potential, health affects, and loss of a functional property (adequate drainage, pleasing aesthetically, and protected market value).
Method: Mental ModelsStep 1: Creation of expert model of
environmental risk issuesStep 2: Mental models interviews with target
audiencesStep 3: Conducting a confirmatory surveyStep 4: Testing and evaluating
communications and Extension resources
SurveyMailed to 2000 in watershedSecond mailing going out next weekRISP model (Griffin, Dunwoody, and
Neuwirth, 1999)Avoiding/Seeking information about stream
healthHeuristic/Systematic processing of information
Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980)Understand antecedents to stream-health
related behaviors.
Thanks!USDA-NIFA (formerly USDA-CSREES)Gahanna-Jefferson Public SchoolsMid-Ohio Regional Planning CommissionFriends of Big Walnut CreekFranklin Soil and Water Conservation DistrictOur study participants
http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda
Landowner TypologyProvider
Visionary
Caretaker
TransitionalBenign
NeglectorVigilant
• Ag (operator)
• Ag (non-farmer)
• Rural Res./Ag
• Rural Res./Ag
• Suburbs• Urbanized
suburbs
Focusing on the Effects at the Expense of the Cause?
Experts most frequently indicatedthat “effects” should be a primary target as to what citizens and landowners need to know to make good decisions
Ecological KnowledgeBiota*
Connectivity Effects Stream Geomorphology
WatershedStream Hydrology
Channel DevelopmentHeadwaters
Internal FunctionRestorative Properties
HabitatWetlands
FloodplainsTrophic Dynamics External Function
Chemistry Threats/ImpactsPollution*Run-off/
Sedimentation*Land Use
Human PracticesNatural Influences
Identification FailureStream
Structure/Function Alterations
It’s More Than Science
Economic DriversLivelihood Protection* Access to Resources*
Industry PressureHigh Management Costs
Socio-Cultural DriversCulture*
Tradition*Social NormsPeer Net work
Landowner/Citizen Internalization of Threat
Awareness*Perception Benefits of Healthy Streams/
Positive Action*Perception Risk of Degraded streams/Negative
Action*Experience with Streams*
Adaptive Capacity
Quality Information Gathering & Processing
Information Availability*Motivation*
Information QualityAbility to Gather /Assimilate Information
Individual Differences
Personal Preferences*Values
Socio-demographic
Methodology: MixedCase study into a particular phenomenon
streamside land management decisions in an urbanizing watershed
Rocky Fork/Blacklick rapidly urbanizing typical of many Midwestern
watersheds in transitionConstructivist grounded theory
tells the story of people in their own words used both to develop interview guide and analyze data)