Why don’t they take action 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 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.

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 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 An individual’s mental model represents their beliefs and assumptions for decision making about risk. 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. In depth, open-ended interviews…asked ecological knowledge and landowner decisions and actions. Anne’s questions in folder. “Through an iterative reduction process, expert responses were coded into four major categories: ecosystem knowledge, policy and outreach, individual and societal influences, and perceived risk and decision making. Included within these categories were a total of 16 primary organizing codes and 72 secondary codes embedded within the primary codes. An influence diagram was then designed based on the expert driven codes (boxes) and the supporting primary literature (arrows) to illustrate the connectivity of the identified influences (Figure 1). Primary codes represent the coarsest response and are identified as the title of each box. Secondary codes are represented by the phrases below the box title and are ranked according to expert response frequency. Those codes marked with an asterisk (*) indicate 50% or more expert response rate (Figures 2-5).” Hersha et al 2011

Expert Decision Model Policy and Outreach Ecosystem Knowledge Perceived risk & Decision making 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 Threats/Impacts Pollution* Run-off/Sedimentation* Land Use Human Practices Natural Influences Identification Failure Stream Structure/Function Alterations Socio-Cultural Drivers 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 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 Graphic expert model of decisions to restore and protect streams. Typically more breadth and depth (horizontal and vertical dimension that lay mental models (Lazo et al., 1999) Mental Models also referred to by some as concept maps are representation of people’s knowledge, beliefs, perception, related to a risk. In the methodology the mental models of experts and lay audiences are compared to understand where gaps and improve risk communication. An expert model of citizen decisions to restore and protect streams in urbanizing central Ohio watersheds. 20 experts were interviewed and literature consulted. Mental models of individuals can compared shared meanings are entered into a general model. Model , background was used as the basis for interview protocol used in my study and to design a coding scheme. Expert model can be compared to a lay mental model to reveal “correct, incorrect, and peripheral beliefs compare linkages between concepts to identify false relationships or a gap that misses key relationships between two or more concepts.. Also look at how the decisions types differ. methodology uses an expert model of risk issue to investigation of lay mental models for creation of risk communications. Maps are hierarchical with more general inclusive topics at the top and moving to more specific topics; arrows can show the directions of relationships Mental models So in this study expert model of citizen decisions to maintain and restore stream health developed by Hersha et al. (2010) was used to create an interview guide to understand participants mental models. Then the mental models models approach was adapted by also invesigating the decisions landowners faced Knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, predetermined codes from model in analysis 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

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 indicate there are two important groups that should be associated with water policy and compliance…the government and individual land- and homeowners. This dichotomy is also reflected in the experts impressions on who are the responsible actors. However, this dichotomy becomes compromised when we looked at the what the experts believe are the most important action barriers. Experts indicate there is a lack of communication and coordination between governments and agencies and also between agencies and citizen/landowners. Experts also indicate there is a “benign neglect” among citizens/landowners that hinders those who should be considered the responsible actors. Several of the experts eluded to the problem of streams being invisible at the individual, as well as societal level, particularly in the urban/suburban setting. These streams only become “visible” when a problem is highlighted. TRANSITION: These are a few of the findings we have found in the Expert Model. We are very excited to see how the responses of the target groups compare with the experts. We have just started the portion of the study where we interview the targets audiences. I am responsible for interviewing the high school students and parents. With a little over 50% of the interviews completed and from a preliminary perspective, here are some of the most obvious knowledge gaps. Experts say a lack of communication/coordination between agencies and between agencies and citizens are barriers to action

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 An individual’s mental model represents their beliefs and assumptions for decision making about risk. 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. In depth, open-ended interviews…asked ecological knowledge and landowner decisions and actions. Anne’s questions in folder. “Through an iterative reduction process, expert responses were coded into four major categories: ecosystem knowledge, policy and outreach, individual and societal influences, and perceived risk and decision making. Included within these categories were a total of 16 primary organizing codes and 72 secondary codes embedded within the primary codes. An influence diagram was then designed based on the expert driven codes (boxes) and the supporting primary literature (arrows) to illustrate the connectivity of the identified influences (Figure 1). Primary codes represent the coarsest response and are identified as the title of each box. Secondary codes are represented by the phrases below the box title and are ranked according to expert response frequency. Those codes marked with an asterisk (*) indicate 50% or more expert response rate (Figures 2-5).” Hersha et al 2011

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 Socio-demos reflective of two subwatersheds, except racially* U.S. median household income $60,374 *Racially diverse community is Reynoldsburg (74% white; 17.4 % African American) Bank erosion problems for both watersheds Corn and soybeans declining source of impairment large tracks owned by developers

Gap 1: Defining Stream Health 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).

Gap 2: The cost of streamside landownership 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 actors 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 Actors 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 Tensions 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 Streams 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

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).

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 An individual’s mental model represents their beliefs and assumptions for decision making about risk. 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. In depth, open-ended interviews…asked ecological knowledge and landowner decisions and actions. Anne’s questions in folder. “Through an iterative reduction process, expert responses were coded into four major categories: ecosystem knowledge, policy and outreach, individual and societal influences, and perceived risk and decision making. Included within these categories were a total of 16 primary organizing codes and 72 secondary codes embedded within the primary codes. An influence diagram was then designed based on the expert driven codes (boxes) and the supporting primary literature (arrows) to illustrate the connectivity of the identified influences (Figure 1). Primary codes represent the coarsest response and are identified as the title of each box. Secondary codes are represented by the phrases below the box title and are ranked according to expert response frequency. Those codes marked with an asterisk (*) indicate 50% or more expert response rate (Figures 2-5).” Hersha et al 2011

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.

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 Add logos, author contact info

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

Landowner Typology Provider Visionary Caretaker Transitional Benign Neglector Vigilant Ag (operator) Ag (non-farmer) Rural Res./Ag Suburbs Urbanized suburbs Providers: 50 and over, active farmers, see themselves as providing an important service to the community Visionary: 50 and over, upper middle class, wish to see land conserved either in ag or forests, wish to protect personal vision or history Caretaker: 50’s and 60’s, Rural residential/some ag, using land for profit, have a strong sense as caretakers of the stream and rural character, may lease land or have horses or ponds Transitional: Retired, elderly, middle class, unable to sell land to developers Benign Neglector: Middle to upper class suburban residents who describe their environmental ethic as coming from their baby-boomer age class, but didn’t really think about the stream or understand what might comprise “stream quality” Vigilant: Retired, experiencing erosion problems, felt like a prisoner of their situation

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 Focusing on the Effects at the Expense of the Cause? 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 Biota had the highest frequency result (55%) among the expert indicating diversity effects seem to be most important knowledge piece for citizens to understand. followed by…READ NEXT 3 at 40-45% which are an indication of cause... There was little consensus on expert responses regarding THREATS and Pollution/Run-off/Sedimentation, again effects, had the highest frequency response. Our next step is to see if these patterns are confirmed in the target audience. For example, will they see biota as very important and chemistry not? And if so, how does this pattern correlate with attitudes/behavior?  Perhaps understanding the effects doesn’t really result in behavior change, whereas understanding the causes might. If this is the case, then outreach and curriculum should be designed to encourage positive attitudes/behavior regarding stream/watershed health. So “Focusing on effects at the expense of the cause” – is really a question we need to ask down the road as we observe the project results. Is this focus on effects occurring at the expense of understanding the cause? And would understanding the cause increase behavior change? TRANSITION: Experts indicate that while having a fundamental understanding of the workings of streams/watersheds and what effects their health is important it is not the only issue that landowners/citizens contend with in making decisions.

It’s More Than Science Individual Differences Socio-Cultural Drivers 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 Experts explained that people bring to the table a variety of individual concerns that play a role in their decision making. Experts indicate that personal preferences which are often shaped by ones cultural background or practices that have traditionally been practiced may trump ones knowledge of science when making decisions regarding stream/watershed health. These influences may also affect information availability or motivation. Livelihood protection and access to resources may also trump the knowledge card. If a decision is perceived as a threat to ones livelihood or there are inadequate resources to support an ecological decision, this again, may trump the scientific knowledge card. A landowner may know the science but when it comes to decision making on their property it is completely different… decisions often are related to what they’ve done before. Here is a good example. In the in the eastern part of the US, it is the goal to get water off the farmland, as well as residential lawns, as fast as possible. This is accomplished by the traditional practice of building draining ditches or turning meander headwaters into straight channels. Not the best ecological solution for problem but it gets the job done with respect to protecting what’s important to the landowner or urbanite. From the experts perspective, decision making with regards to stream/watershed health is more than science. TRANSITION: SO who should have the definitive say in stream/watershed health? 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

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) Mental Model: