Mae A. DavenportDepartment of Forest ResourcesCenter for Changing LandscapesUniversity of Minnesota

Watershed Planning WorkshopEau Claire, WisconsinAugust 6, 2015

COMMUNITY CAPACITY IN WATERSHED PLANNING

1

2

Do you feel personally obligated to engage in conservation practices?

Vermillion River Watershed Landowner Survey, n ≥ 303 (some items adapted from Genskow & Prokopy, 2010; Schultz, 2001)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

N/DKDisagreeAgree

3

Multi-level Community Capacity Model

4

5

Behavior

Sense of Responsibili

ty

Awareness

Values

Social Norms

Perceived ability

Moral Norms

6

7

Community Member Action

Programmatic capacity

Organizational capacity

Individual capacity

Relational capacity

Perceived trust,

legitimacy, fairness

Community identity &

Culture

Community Capacity

“The interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital

existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective

problems and improve or maintain the well-being of that community”

(Chaskin et al. 2001, pg. 7)

8

What is a community?

Figure 1. What is a community? (adapted from Wilkinson, 1991)

9

Activity: CC Worksheet

10

Programmatic Capacity

Organizational Capacity

Relational Capacity

Individual capacity

Individual capacity

Individual-based water

programming

Community-based water programming

11

Trust, legitimacy, and fairness

Programmatic Capacity

Organizational Capacity

Relational Capacity

Individual capacity

Individual capacity

Individual-based water

programming

Community-based water programming

Different• Goals• Audiences• Tools• Criteria for successNew• Challenges• Opportunities• Outcomes

12

Perceived trust,

legitimacy, and fairness

Minnesota SWCD Staff Survey: Importance and Performance of Groundwater Protection Actions

Local community member engagement (e.g., landowners, farmers, residents)

Education and outreach

Conservation practice implementation

Planning

Land use policy/ordinance development

Monitoring

Administration and grant management

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Importance

Source: 2015 Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Groundwater Survey (Pradhananga & Davenport)Responses based on a five-point scale from not at all important (-2) to extremely important (+2)n≥178

13

Minnesota SWCD Staff Survey:Importance and Performance of Groundwater Protection Actions

Source: 2015 Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Groundwater Survey (Pradhananga & Davenport)Responses based on a five-point scale from not at all important (-2) to extremely important (+2), very ineffective (-2) to very effective (+2)n≥178

Local community member engagement (e.g., landowners, farmers, residents)

Education and outreach

Conservation practice implementation

Planning

Land use policy/ordinance development

Monitoring

Administration and grant management

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

ImportancePerformance

14

COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMMING

15

Programmatic Capacity

Organizational Capacity

Relational Capacity

Individual capacity

Individual capacity

Individual-based water

programming

Community-based water programming

educationregulation

technical assistance

financial incentives

knowledge sharing

relationship building

community organizing

feedbacknorm

activation

leadership developme

ntpartnerships

conflict manageme

ntstrategic planning

civic engageme

nt

evaluation &

adaptation

educationregulation

technical assistance

financial incentives

coordination

16

Perceived trust,

legitimacy, and fairness

collaborative

planning

capacity-building

Activity: Small Group Discussion1. What have you already done to build

community capacity?2. What have been outcomes?

• Community• Project/water

3. What more could you be doing?4. What new outcomes might you realize?

• Community• Project/water

17

Regulations

Education

Technical assistance

Financial incentives

Individual

Capacity

Organizational

Capacity

Programmatic Capacity

Trust, legitimacy

and fairness

Relational Capacity

Network & norm development• relationship-

building• knowledge

sharing• social identity• benchmarking• norm activation• community

organizing

Organizational & leadership development• conflict

management

• strategic planning

• partnerships

State, regional, local coordination• assessment &

monitoring• civic

engagement• collaborative

planning• evaluation &

adaptation

Building trust• communicati

ve planning• transparency• consistency• cultural

understanding

• valuing diversity 18

Individual

Capacity

Organizational

Capacity

Programmatic Capacity

Trust, legitimacy

and fairness

Relational Capacity

tcdailyplanet.net

Scott County, MN

Community capacity-building approach to engaging people in water protection

19

Expanding your audience: Important actors/communities of influence in project outcomes

Actors… Communities of influenceUsers Decision

Makers & Managers

Social Influencers

Create changeAre affected by changeAffect or block action/decisionHave relevant knowledge or expertiseHave special regard or influence in community

landowners, boaters, vendors,

developers

elders, faith leaders, citizen

monitors, community advocates & organizers, educators

local business owners & operatorsrecreationists, interest

groupsMN

residents

state level & regional officials,

staff

local officials,

staff

future users, decision makers, managers, and social influencers

20

Why are community capacity outcomes important?

Capacity-building increases• Community resilience• Community readiness• Community competence

21

22

Community Capacity-Building• Identifying community assets and needs; capacities and constraints • Build community capacity• Community change behavior change• Add more tools to the toolbox• Traditional tools: regulation, education, technical assistance,

financial incentives• Contemporary tools: community building• Farmer-led councils, master water stewards, civic engagement

cohorts, friendship tours, leadership development, benchmarking, feedback

•Monitor community capacity, evaluate programs and adapt• Need interagency support and commitment from policy makers to invest in community assessment and capacity-building

Mae Davenportmdaven@umn.edu612-624-2721

23

THANK YOU!

24

Minnesota Study Watersheds

Creating Conservation Momentum for Water Resource Protection (adapted from Davenport & Seekamp 2013)

Individual CapacityBelief & behavior change (e.g.,

clean water & civic action)

Relational CapacityNetwork & norm development (e.g., knowledge sharing, relationship-building,

social identity, community organizing, benchmarking, & norm activation)

Programmatic CapacityState/regional/local coordination in program development (e.g., assessment &

monitoring, civic engagement, collaborative planning, evaluation, & adaptation)

Organizational CapacityOrganizational & leadership development (e.g., conflict management,

strategic planning, & partnerships)

Improvedwater resource

conditions

25

Why are community capacity outcomes important?Conservation behavior problem:• People don’t know

(information)• People don’t care

(motivation)

Community capacity problem:• Individual capacity• Perceptions & misconceptions• Conservation is too difficult for me

• Relational capacity• Knowledge sharing, cultural norms & social

group pressures• It’ll hurt my business• No one has the time• No one else is doing it

• Organizational capacity• Perceptions & misconceptions• It’s a losing battle

• Distrust & skepticism• The scientists don’t even know if it works

• Programmatic capacity• Conservation messages miss audience• Messages deliver what to do but not why• Limited conservation performance feedback• Limited conservation outcomes feedback

26

K. Hakanson