Why don’t they take action? Understanding Resident Decision Making in an Urbanizing Watershed

1. 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

2. USDA-NIFA Goals • National Integrated Water Quality Program • Improving surface water quality by disseminating knowledge and providing tools that improve land use decision making among rural and urbanizing communities. • Watershed Scale Projects • Improve 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.

3. 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?

5. Method: Mental Models • Step 1: Creation of expert model of environmental risk issues • Step 2: Mental models interviews with target audiences • Step 3: Conducting a confirmatory survey • Step 4: Testing and evaluating communications and Extension resources

6. Policy and Outreach Ecosystem Knowledge Perceived risk & Decision making Expert Decision Model Individual & Societal Influences Ecological Knowledge Biota* Connectivity Effects Stream Geomorphology Watershed Stream Hydrology Channel Development Headwaters Internal Function Restorative Properties Habitat Wetlands Floodplains Trophic Dynamics External Function Chemistry * Expert Response 50% or Greater Scientific Research Studies Basic Knowledge Studies Threat and Impact Studies Human Behavior Studies Individual Differences Personal Preferences* Values Socio-demographic Quality Information Gathering and Processing Information Availability* Motivation* Information Quality Ability to Gather /Assimilate Information Socio-Cultural Drivers Culture* Tradition* Social Norms Peer Net work Threats/Impacts Pollution* Run-off/Sedimentation* Land Use Human Practices Natural Influences Identification Failure Stream Structure/Function Alterations Outreach and Education Mass Media* One-on-One and Small Group* Technical Outreach* Outreach/Learning Enhancements Self-Directed Learning 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 Pre-Internalization Barriers Insufficient Communication* Benign Neglect* Decision making Errors Limited Knowledge Influential Actors Community Government* Special Interest NGOs Water Law and Policy Federal Government State Government Local Government Post-Internalization Barriers Institutional Constraints* Economic Interests Action Sustainability Continued Education* Individual Involvement/Buy-In* Purposeful Planning Community Support Economic Support Economic Drivers Livelihood Protection* Access to Resources* Industry Pressure High Management Costs Citizen Decisions to Maintain and Restore Stream and Watershed Health Stream Restoration* Land Management Water Filtration Monitoring/Prevention Riparian Restoration Desired Outcomes Achieve Regulatory Goals* Informed/Engaged Public* Improved Watershed/Stream Health* Sustainable Business/Industry

7. 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 Pre-Internalization Barriers Insufficient Communication* Benign Neglect* Decision making Errors Limited Knowledge Post-Internalization Barriers Institutional Constraints* Economic Interests ACTION STOPPERS Streamside Landowner and Citizen Decision Making regarding Stewardship of Community Streams and the Watershed Stream Restoration* Land Management Water Filtration Monitoring/Prevention Riparian Restoration Experts say a lack of communication/coordination between agencies and between agencies and citizens are barriers to action

8. Method: Mental Models • Step 1: Creation of expert model of environmental risk issues • Step 2: Mental models interviews with target audiences • Step 3: Conducting a confirmatory survey • Step 4: Testing and evaluating communications and Extension resources

9. Community Participants • 24 streamside landowners interviewed • Ages 30-80 (average 45) • Agricultural, rural residential, suburban • Landowners 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

10. Gap 1: Defining Stream Health • Gap: • Experts frequently discussed stream structures/functions. • Landowners described healthy streams as those that were visually appealing • Significance: • Landowners reactive instead of proactive • Ability to recognize problems limited and actions focus on stream flow (log jam removal).

11. Gap 2: The cost of streamside landownership • Gap: • 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.

12. Gap 3: Awareness of regulations and responsible actors • Gap: • 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.

13. Gap 4: Influential Actors • Gap: • 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.

14. Gap 5: Cultural Tensions • Gap: • 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.

15. Gap 6: Actions to Restore and Protect Streams • Gap • 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 • Significance • Important first steps for landowners

16. Final considerations • Risks of concern to landowners: • Loss of recreation potential, health affects, and loss of a functional property (adequate drainage, pleasing aesthetically, and protected market value).

17. Method: Mental Models • Step 1: Creation of expert model of environmental risk issues • Step 2: Mental models interviews with target audiences • Step 3: Conducting a confirmatory survey • Step 4: Testing and evaluating communications and Extension resources

18. Survey • Mailed to 2000 in watershed • Second mailing going out next week • RISP model (Griffin, Dunwoody, and Neuwirth, 1999) • Avoiding/Seeking information about stream health • Heuristic/Systematic processing of information • Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) • Understand antecedents to stream-health related behaviors.

19. Thanks! • USDA-NIFA (formerly USDA-CSREES) • Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools • Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission • Friends of Big Walnut Creek • Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District • Our study participants http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda

20. Contact info Kristina Slagle Slagle.44@osu.edu Robyn Wilson Wilson.1376@osu.edu 614.247.6169 Anne Baird Baird.41@osu.edu

21. Landowner Typology

22. Focusing on the Effects at the Expense of the Cause? Ecological Knowledge Biota* Connectivity Effects Stream Geomorphology Watershed Stream Hydrology Channel Development Headwaters Internal Function Restorative Properties Habitat Wetlands Floodplains Trophic Dynamics External Function Chemistry Experts most frequently indicated that “effects” should be a primary target as to what citizens and landowners need to know to make good decisions Threats/Impacts Pollution* Run-off/Sedimentation* Land Use Human Practices Natural Influences Identification Failure Stream Structure/Function Alterations

23. It’s More Than Science Individual Differences Personal Preferences* Values Socio-demographic Socio-Cultural Drivers Culture* Tradition* Social Norms Peer Net work Quality Information Gathering & Processing Information Availability* Motivation* Information Quality Ability to Gather /Assimilate Information 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 Economic Drivers Livelihood Protection* Access to Resources* Industry Pressure High Management Costs

24. Methodology: Mixed • Case study into a particular phenomenon • streamside land management decisions in an urbanizing watershed • Rocky Fork/Blacklick • rapidly urbanizing typical of many Midwestern watersheds in transition • Constructivist grounded theory • tells the story of people in their own words used both to develop interview guide and analyze data)