Transcript Decisions on the Edge: An

Decisions on the Edge: An
Exploration of Streamside
Landowner Decisions
Anne Baird, Ohio State University Extension
Robyn Wilson, & Deb Hersha, OSU School of
Environment and Natural Resources
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Purpose
Study Objectives
Methods
Participants
Findings
Implications
Purpose
– Understand land use and management decisions
in a rapidly urbanizing watershed
– To create effective Extension education programs
Objectives
• Identify landowner knowledge/beliefs
• Explore decision making
• Compare landowner perspectives to experts
Methods
• In-depth semi-structured interviews (1-2
hours)
• Mental Models and Grounded Theory
Policy and Outreach
Ecosystem Knowledge
Perceived risk & Decision making
Individual & Societal Influences
Ecological Knowledge
Scientific Research
Studies
Basic Knowledge Studies
Threat and Impact Studies
Human Behavior Studies
Threats/Impacts
Pollution*
Run-off/Sedimentation*
Land Use
Human Practices
Natural Influences
Identification Failure
Stream Structure/Function
Alterations
Biota*
Connectivity Effects
Stream Geomorphology
Watershed
Stream Hydrology
Channel Development
Headwaters
Internal Function
Restorative Properties
Habitat
Wetlands
Floodplains
Trophic Dynamics
External Function
Chemistry
Federal Government
State Government
Local Government
Individual Differences
Personal Preferences*
Values
Socio-demographic
Quality Information Gathering
and Processing
Socio-Cultural Drivers
Information Availability*
Motivation*
Information Quality
Ability to Gather /Assimilate Information
Culture*
Tradition*
Social Norms
Peer Net work
Outreach and Education
Mass Media*
One-on-One and Small Group*
Technical Outreach*
Outreach/Learning Enhancements
Self-Directed Learning
Water Law and Policy
* Expert Response 50% or Greater
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
Post-Internalization Barriers
Action Sustainability
Institutional Constraints*
Economic Interests
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
Participants
•
•
•
•
•
24 streamside landowners
Ages 30-80 (average 45)
Agricultural, rural residential, suburban
Critical areas in watershed
Range of experiences with conservation
program
Rocky Fork
Blacklick
Decisions & Influences
Decision
Influential Factors
Type of Influence
Reduce lawn and pond
chemical use
Growing up in 60’s;
Interactions with SWCD
Individual & Societal/Policy
& Outreach
Maintaining a no mow
zone; buffer installation
Being conservation
minded; Farm Science
Review; SWCD
Individual & Societal/Policy
and Outreach
Wetland Creation
Past experiences out doors; Individual & Societal/Policy
SWCD
and Outreach/Access to
resources
Not to sell farm land
Personal Legacy
Participate in Conservation
Program
Developer dropped option; Individual & Society/Policy
SWCD recruited
and Outreach
Erosion control (rip rap)
Protect property
Perceived Risk
Bridge construction
Protect property
Perceived Risk
Pond
construction/maintenance
Improve drainage
Perceived Risk
Individual & Society
Maintaining a Legacy (with options)
– Well I don’t have any intention of getting rid of it.
Three years ago, I was offered $1,300,000 for it
and I turned it down. My dream is to live past
2016, so that it’s been in the family for over 100
years.
– …You never say never because…my grandfather
always said that was his life insurance. That if
things happen, he could sell part of it off and that
would be the way today. That if I get in a pinch or
happen to go into a rest home or something, that
that’s backup, but that would be the last backup
It’s More Than Trash: A Clash of
Cultures
• [I think people do respect the creeks that own
along it, but the people that use it that don’t
own it, like people that go to the parks, those
are the people that are going to trash it
because they don’t own it. The people that
own it respect it that way. Who wants to look
at a bunch of trash over a natural beauty?
Looks Matter
• Well I think anybody if there's a foul smell, if you see dead
fish or dead animals around the water, if it's stagnant, any
issues like that, I would think you would want to check into it
a little bit, and maybe ask someone to check the water
quality or see if there's an issue.
It’s All About the Flow
• So it's just a normal flow of water, and that
keeps it healthy. Well, what helps is that
there’s enough water to go through them to
keep them clean.
• I don’t know how you’d would do it, but it
would be good if you had enough flow all year
long to keep it flowing; it would make it a lot
cleaner.
Implications
•
•
•
•
Empathy
Where people are (landscape and life)
Legacy, Culture, Sense of Responsibility
Synergy
References
• Morgan G. M., F., B., Bostrom, A. Lave, L.,
Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A
Mental Models Approach. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenberg & Margerum (2008)
• Dutcher (2004)
• Shandras (2007)
Acknowledgements
• Funders
– Integrated Watershed Grant from the USDA’s
National Water Program
– Maps provided MidOhio Regional Planning Agency
(MORPC)
– Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation
District
– Streamside landowners in the Blacklick and Rocky
Fork watersheds