Transcript Document

Designing Watershed Based Education Efforts Through a Mental Models Research Approach
Anne M. Baird, Robyn S. Wilson, Deborah K. Hersha - The Ohio State University
Abstract – The research reported here used a mental models methodology to improve current education and extension efforts by targeting knowledge gaps and key decision influences among current
and future streamside landowners’ stream stewardship decisions. Key knowledge gaps included understanding of stream structures and functions as well as prevalent, but less obvious threats, (e.g.,
from floodplain alterations). Stewardship decisions frequently focused on modifying lawn care practices. Enrollment in conservation programs was influenced by multiple drivers (e.g., outreach and
economics). Frequently mentioned influences on stream stewardship actions included environmental values, local government, wildlife/aesthetics, health risks, and the economy. Barriers to stream
stewardship included knowledge of ecosystem functions and services, ease of access to information, and the costs of the action. For more information go to: http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda
Introduction
Findings
Headwater streams are critical in providing stream
services, but highly vulnerable to human influences such
as streamside vegetation removal.
Ecosystem Knowledge Gaps (see Figure 3)
Two key questions for water outreach professionals are:
1. What do citizens know about water quality?
• Critical stream structure and functions (e.g., wetlands, flood attenuation)
• Stream formation, flow direction, and watershed fundamentals
• Understanding of what makes a streams healthy (e.g., morphology, substrate, surrounding floodplain)
• Understanding of scientific research and less obvious threats (e.g., riparian corridor removal)
Water Law and Policy Influences
• Local government seen as responsible for addressing development pressures, and as trusted information source; frustration with assistance for severe erosion
2. What influences matter to citizens with regards to
stream stewardship decisions?
Methods
• State laws and regulations were directly influential on stewardship actions including upgrading septic system and leaving no-mow zones
• Local watershed organizations viewed as helpful in enforcing state stormwater regulations but many not familiar with their existence
• Preferred outreach formats included one-on-one contact and mass media (e.g., local papers, TV, and e-mail)
Individual and Societal Influences
Mental Models Approach
A mental models approach is used to design risk
communication materials that are informed by a
comparison of expert and target audience understanding
of a risk.
• Drivers of information seeking about degraded streams include a positive environmental ethic, personal legacy, and perceived changing recreational
opportunities
• Drivers of internalization (recognition of the threat and desire to take action) include awareness of the problem (due to availability of information and personal
interest), high perceived risk to things valued, high perceived benefit of taking action, and adaptive capacity
Fig 1. Expert Model
Topic
Student
Percent
Flow Direction
53%
Tributaries are created from the river. Lack understanding of the
influence of elevation on water flow
Water Flow
42%
Faster water flow allows for greater health and quality of the
stream/watershed.
Slow water flow promotes poor stream health and quality.
Substrate
37%
Substrate is rock or mud or soil. Rocks promote better flow and are
hard to walk on.
Stream Formation
37%
Tributaries form from mainstem
Sinuosity
37%
Curves in streams create faster flow and are places where bacteria
collect.
Watershed
32%
Watersheds are a collection of water
Wetlands
26%
Wetlands may be a source of poor quality because water is too shallow
and cannot support life. Introduces trash into streams, and rob stream
of nutrients.
Light
26%
More light indicators stream quality. Less light causes an increase in
seaweed/algae and affects fish ability to see.
Vegetation
21%
Cattails, fungus, and mosses cause problems for the streams.
Turbidity
21%
Dark colored water as bad and clear water as good quality.
Barriers to Stewardship (see Figure 2)
Participants
In-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 80 individuals including:
• 20 local experts (academics, policy makers, etc.)
• 21 high school sophomore biology students
• 15 parents of high school biology students
• 24 current streamside landowners
Study Locations
Two rapidly urbanizing subwatersheds in Central Ohio:
1) Blacklick watershed
• 61 square miles
2) Rocky Fork watershed
• 30 square miles
Pre-internalization barriers (barriers that must be over come before a citizen can recognize a threat)
• Benign neglect (lack of concern due to being unaware) and limited knowledge
Post-internalization barrier (barriers that most be overcome before a stewardship action can be taken)
• Economic interests including greed, livelihood protection, and high personal costs
Stewardship Decisions (see Figure 3)
• Most frequently mentioned stewardship actions were preventative and related to lawn care (e.g., reducing chemical use)
• Environmental ethic was frequently mentioned as an influence on suburban lawn care decisions and personal legacy was mentioned by agricultural land owners
• A combination of influences (e.g., one-on-one outreach and the recession) were involved in long term decisions such as enrollment in conservation programs
Recommendations
Water Law and Policy
• Clarify laws/regulations applicable to streamside landowners, and address concerns over enforcement of existing regulations, and perceived lack of assistance
for streamside landowners
• Watershed organization and other non-profits should consider partnering with local governments on outreach and education efforts
Expert Model
Figure 1 depicts important factors in citizen stream
stewardship decisions. This model is based on in-depth
interviews with Ohio watershed experts (e.g., academics,
policy makers, local decision makers) as well as primary
literature.
The arrows in the diagram represent the order and
direction of influence. The nodes represent the categories
of influence.
The expert diagram was used to design an interview guide
for target audience interviews.
.
Contact Information:
PH: 614-292-8603 EMAIL: [email protected]
Individual and Societal Influences
• Ease path to information, frame in light of personal interests (health, property), and include tips for recognizing problems with stream health
• Identify and build on audience values such as environmental stewardship, personal legacy, and streams as working to drain the land
• Incorporate recreation/aesthetics to communicate and promote benefit of streams
Barriers to Action
• Communicate directly to streamside landowners and other residents about problems that currently exist and actions that can be taken (especially those not
limited by economic resources)
• Motivate by focusing on the most salient risks and benefits (water quality, access/use, human health, aesthetics)
Stewardship Actions
• Provide streamside landowners with actions that help ease their burden of maintaining streamside property
• Identify and assist landowners with severe erosion and difficulties with managing streamside property
•Consider framing outreach around multiple influences (personal legacy and economics)
Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the USDA NIFA National Integrated Water Quality Program. The authors thank the study partners including the
Gahanna-Jefferson school district, the Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Friends of Big
Walnut Creek.
Misperception
Fig 2. Future Streamside Landowner Top 10 misperceptions
Stewardship Actions
Action Type
Examples of Influences
Category of influence
Riparian buffer installation,
wetlands creation
Water Filtration
Being conservation minded,
interactions with soil and water
technicians, demonstrations, and
regulations
Values, Mass Media, Local and State
Government
Reduction in lawn chemical
use
Monitoring and prevention
Growing up in the ‘60s and
concern for environment
Values, socio-demographics
Conservation easement and
enrollment in conservation
programs
Water Filtration/Land
Management
Care for environment,
experiences outdoors
Values, personal preferences, recession,
one-on-one/small group outreach and
self directed learning
Redirecting downspouts,
native planting, suburban
stream no mow zone
Monitoring and prevention
Care for environment, wanting to
improve property values
Values, socio-demographics, livelihood
protection, one-on-one and small group
outreach
Creating ponds, building
bridges, septic upgrades
Land Management
Improve drainage and access to
Livelihood protection, personal
property; complying with state law experience, state and local government
and protect health
Leaving land in agriculture
Land Use
Wanting things to remain the
same
Tradition, personal preference, personal
legacy
Fig 3. Streamside Landowner Stewardship Actions and Major Influences
Hersha, D.K., Wilson, R.S., & Baird, A.M. (2011). An expert perspective on citizen decisions regarding stream stewardship in an urbanizing Midwestern United States Watershed. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Morgan G. M., F., B., Bostrom, A. Lave, L., Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.