1. President, OpinionWorks, LLC Board Chair, Watershed Stewards Academy
Behavior Change 101
December 1, 2016
Steve Raabe
President, OpinionWorks, LLC Board Chair, Watershed Stewards Academy

2. Behavior Change 101 Tonight’s Objectives
Understand Basic Principles of Behavior Change
Know How to Apply the Social Science
See Where This Fits into Baywide Restoration Effort
Understand Anne Arundel County
Take It Down to the Community Level

3. OpinionWorks Credentials
Measure perceptions, behaviors
Random samples, focus groups
The Baltimore Sun polling
University of Delaware
Ag/Residential response to Water Fee
Chesapeake Bay Trust
Extensive work assessing stewardship
City of Dayton, Ohio
Comprehensive survey of resident attitudes
West Virginia Department of Health
Barriers to cancer screening for low-income women
Virginia Cooperative Extension
Testing affinity for a sustainable lawn care program

4. Behavior Change Starts
with Listening
Behavior Change

5. Research Tools Random Sample Telephone Survey
2,001 randomly selected adults statewide
± 2.2% maximum sampling error, 95% confidence
Fielded Dec 2015 – Jan 2016
Supervised, live interviewers; landline and cell
18-minute interview (!) on average
Deep look at attitudes
Update surveys conducted 2008, 2010

6. Baywide survey tool to help choose the best behavior
Research Tools Online Survey
Baywide survey tool to help choose the best behavior
for a local watershed.

7. Research Tools Focus Groups
75- to 120-minute sessions
Professionally facilitated
Test:
Attitudes, Perceptions
Expectations, Barriers
Messages, Outreach Techniques

8. Attitudes about Bay Restoration

9. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Level of Concern about Problems
Maryland
Very Serious + Somewhat Serious Problem
Climate change has risen slightly relative to other concerns since 2010.
“Do you consider each of the following to be a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, not much of a problem, or not a problem at all?”

10. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Water Protection Ranks High
Maryland
17%
Low Priority
44%
High Priority
Dec 2010:
44% High, 13% Low
Nov 2008
49% High, 12% Low
“If you were to consider all the issues and challenges facing Maryland today, where would (A/B split): [the health of our local waters/pollution in our local waters]
rank on that priority list for you?”

11. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Why is Water Protection so Important?
“Water = Life”

12. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Still Interested in Hearing about the Bay?
Maryland
“Compared to a few years ago, would you say you are (randomize): [more interested, less interested, (or) just as interested] today in hearing about the health of the Chesapeake Bay?”

13. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Perceptions of One’s Own Impact
Maryland
Perception: Only 26% believe they are contributing meaningfully to water pollution.
“Now let’s talk for a minute about what causes water pollution. When it comes to your own impact, do you think you are contributing to water pollution a great deal, somewhat, a little bit, or not at all?”

14. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Who Is Doing Enough to Reduce Pollution
Maryland
“Maryland is working to reduce water pollution from all sources. Do you think {actor} (rotate): [is/are doing enough (or) should do more than it does/you do today] to reduce pollution to Maryland waters and the Bay?”

15. Attitudes about Bay Restoration Can Water Pollution be Fixed?
Maryland
The Key to Engagement
and Behavior Change
Dec 2010: 85%
Nov 2008: 89%
“When you think about pollution in our local waters, do you think the problem can be fixed
or is it too difficult?”

16. Understanding Anne Arundel County

17. Understanding Anne Arundel County Environmentally-Minded
State Avg: 3.39
Anne Arundel Avg: 3.46
“On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is a strong environmentalist, 3 is average, and 1 is not an environmentalist at all,
where would you put yourself?” (Oct 2014)

18. Understanding Anne Arundel County Top Environmental Concerns Total 95%
Very Serious
Somewhat Serious
Total
Water pollution in rivers, streams, Chesapeake Bay
58%
37%
95%
Loss of natural habitat, such as wetlands and forests
57%
31%
88%
Air pollution
36%
47%
82%
Sprawl or poorly planned growth and development
19%
76%
Contaminants in your drinking water or food
39%
26%
65%
Global warming or climate change
33%
12%
45%
Landfills, incinerators, hazardous waste sites in or near your neighborhood
28%
23%
51%
Lead paint or other toxins in your home
30%
14%
44%
“Do you consider each of the following to be a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, not much of a problem, or not a problem at all?” (Dec 2010)

19. Engaging the Public in Stewardship Contact with the Outdoors & Water?
Anne Arundel County
Frequently
Occasionally
Total
vs. State
Picnic or walk in a public park or neighborhood
49%
33%
82%
+ 3%
Eat fish or seafood out of the Bay or local rivers
28%
46%
74%
+ 11%
Garden at home or in a community garden
34%
62%
+ 5%
Bird watch
22%
15%
37%
---
Fish or crab*
13%
20%
– 1%
Swim in any natural waters besides the ocean*
19%
32%
Canoe, kayak, sail, or power boat* 8%
21%
29%
+ 4%
Hike or camp in an undeveloped area 9%
18%
27%
– 2%
Hunt 4% 7%
11%
+ 2%
*Frequent water contact
24%
*Frequent or occasional water contact
52%
“Please tell me how often you do any of these things using the scale
frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never.” (Dec 2010)

20. The Chesapeake Bay

22. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement 10 broad goals for Bay restoration

24. Citizen Stewardship Outcome
“Increase the number and diversity of trained and mobilized citizen volunteers with the knowledge and skills needed to enhance the health of their local watersheds.”

25. Citizen Stewardship Framework
Increasing citizen actions for watershed health
Knowledge & skills
Community Leaders/ Champions
Mobilize/Increase
Volunteerism/ Collective Community Action
Amy/Jamie
Individual Citizen Actions
and Behaviors
Increasingly Environmentally Literate Population (Elit Goal)

26. Why is this outcome important?
It is the people part of the new Bay Agreement
Restoration actions must be widespread-- a thousand cuts/a thousand solutions.
Local government needs support from its residents to act.
Many other outcomes and management strategies also rely on broad grass roots action.
This has not been a direct emphasis of the Chesapeake Bay Program in the past.
Amy/Kristin

27. Photos Courtesy Chesapeake Bay Program
STEWARDSHIP
INDICATOR
Transition to Steve

28. Stewardship Behavior Measurement Criteria
Involves individual decision-making
Is repetitive and can be tracked over time
Can be broadly adopted
Not just by experts
Not pre-emergent
Has an impact on water health
And/or will engage the public

29. Citizen Stewardship Index Pilot Sampling Methodology
Pilot Program
Feb 2016
N=2,000 DC
402 (±4.9%) MD
400 (±4.9%) PA
398 (±4.9%) VA WV
199 (±6.9%) NY
101 (±9.8%) DE
100 (±9.8%)
23 days in field
13-minute interview
43% cell/57% landline

30. 10 “Threshold” Behaviors (19 Total Behaviors Measured)
Conservation landscaping
Rain garden installed
Septic system pumped out
Planted a tree
Rain barrel connected and emptied
Conserve water at home
Pick up and dispose of pet waste
Pick up litter
Fertilizer use
Herbicide use

31. Top Performing Behaviors (Scaled)
Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (4/12/2016)
Top Performing Behaviors (Scaled)

32. Second Tier Behaviors (Scaled)
Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (4/12/2016)
Second Tier Behaviors (Scaled)

33. Performance of Behaviors (Yes/No)
Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (4/12/2016)
Performance of Behaviors (Yes/No)

34. Likelihood to Change Behavior

35. Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (4/12/2016)
Behaviors Most Susceptible to Change Asked Only of Those Not Performing the Desired Behavior Today
Now I would like to ask you about a few of those actions again. Looking forward over the next year or so, how likely are you to do each of these things using the scale (rotate high to low/low to high): [very likely, somewhat likely, (or) not likely].

36. Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (4/12/2016)
Behaviors Least Susceptible to Change Asked Only of Those Not Performing the Desired Behavior Today
Now I would like to ask you about a few of those actions again. Looking forward over the next year or so, how likely are you to do each of these things using the scale (rotate high to low/low to high): [very likely, somewhat likely, (or) not likely].

37. Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (3/1/2016)
I want to do more to help make local waters healthier. Level of Agreement
74% agree

38. Pilot Citizen Stewardship Indicator
Weighted Data: (3/1/2016)
If I wanted to volunteer to help the natural environment locally, I would know how to do that. Level of Agreement
54% agree
Only 40% can name a local organization
that is working to address water pollution.

39. Attitudes about Bay Restoration My Own Action Would Make a Difference?
Maryland
“If someone asked you to volunteer to help address water pollution, do you think your action would actually make a difference or not really make a difference for the problem of water pollution?”

40. “If I knew what to do to help clean up
local waters,
I would do a lot more.”

41. Influencing Behavior: Community Based Social Marketing

42. Resistant
16%
Credit: Nancy R. Lee, University of Washington & Puget Sound Partnership
Adapted from Everett Rogers, Jay Kassirer, Mike Rothschild, Dave Ward, Kristen Cooley

43. Credit: Nancy R. Lee, University of Washington & Puget Sound Partnership
Adapted from Everett Rogers, Jay Kassirer, Mike Rothschild, Dave Ward, Kristen Cooley

44. Traditional Public Education Websites Brochures Community meetings
Compulsory Actions
Regulations
Fees & Fines
Legal action
Credit: Nancy R. Lee, University of Washington & Puget Sound Partnership
Adapted from Everett Rogers, Jay Kassirer, Mike Rothschild, Dave Ward, Kristen Cooley

45. Too many choices = Overwhelmed Too many choices = Inaction
Engaging the Public in Stewardship
Show Me What I Can Do
One or two actions, not 10!
Too many choices = Overwhelmed
Too many choices = Inaction
Show the “five dollar action” the average person can take, not just costly actions.

46. The Social Marketing Process Reaching the Help Me Group
Know your campaign’s purpose and focus
Pinpoint your target audience
Identify the specific behavior you want the audience to take
Assess the barriers to the action
Find the benefits and motivators that will overcome those barriers

47. The Social Marketing Process Reaching the Help Me Group
Refine your messages, incentives, and tools, and determine where and how you will deliver them to the target audience
Product: Social Marketing Tools, Benefits
Place: Convenience for the Audience
Price: Incentives, Rebates
Promotion: Messages, Delivery Channels
Evaluate and measure your progress

48. Social Marketing Tools Reaching the Help Me Group
Example Tool: Prompts
Peel-off sticker
Refrigerator magnet

49. Example Tool: Pledge
“Free Upgrade”
A/B Test:
Flooding
Water quality
50% of homes visited signed the pledge

50. Case Study: To increase the adoption of wetlands restoration
on agricultural lands
in keeping with
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
This case study relates to the wetlands outcome of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

51. The research was generally focused in areas that the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has previously identified as offering high potential for wetlands adoption. Ultimately, this work was focused in Juniata, York, and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania; and Caroline, Kent, Talbot, Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties in Maryland.

52. “Downstream” Audience:
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Target Audience
“Downstream” Audience:
Agricultural landowners
40+ acres
Not enrolled in wetlands restoration program
Targeted counties
Coastal plain to Piedmont
Good infrastructure and other efforts in place
The project identified a “downstream” or decision-making audience of agricultural landowners. The focus of this research was landowners of 40 or more acres who are not presently enrolled in a wetlands restoration program, and who live in counties that have an infrastructure in place that would allow for effective education and marketing of the wetlands programs that are available. The targeted counties ranged from the coastal plain of Delmarva to the Piedmont of Central Pennsylvania.

53. “Midstream” Audience:
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Target Audience
“Midstream” Audience:
Service providers to the agricultural landowners
County agricultural service centers
Early in the process, the research identified an important “midstream” audience, consisting of technical assistance providers typically located in county agricultural service centers, and which enjoy high trust from the downstream landowner audience.

54. Randomly-selected agricultural landowners in targeted counties
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Landowner Survey Methodology
Randomly-selected agricultural landowners in targeted counties
Survey conducted by mail/phone (Aug 2015)
Survey packet mailed
Phone calls to non-responders
409 survey responses
The research was conducted in two phases. First, a survey was conducted in August 2015 among agricultural landowners randomly selected from within the targeted counties. Wetlands program non-participant lists were not available to researchers, so landowners were included in the survey regardless of their knowledge or participation in wetlands programs. A survey packet consisting of a cover letter and printed questionnaire was mailed, with a postage paid mail-back mechanism included, as well as a URL where landowners could complete the survey online if they preferred. Telephone calls were subsequently made to non-responders, with the survey was administered by telephone. A total of 409 landowners took part in the survey through these methods.

55. Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Landowner Focus Groups
4 Locations (Sep, Nov 2015)
Juniata County, PA
Lancaster/York Counties, PA
Mid-Shore, MD
Lower Shore, MD
120-minute sessions, professionally facilitated
Tested:
Attitudes, Perceptions
Expectations, Barriers
Messages, Outreach Techniques
Subsequently, four focus groups were conducted between September and November They ranged from Juniata County in the Central Pennsylvania Piedmont down to the lower Eastern Shore (Salisbury) in Maryland. Six to eight landowners participated in each group, which was a probing discussion of relevant issues, and designed to identify the motivators and incentives that could overcome the barriers to enrolling in wetlands programs. Each session was facilitated by a trained moderator who is skilled at leading such a discussion and helping the group pinpoint key observations.

56. Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Barriers to Adopting Wetlands Programs
Landowners do not know how to start the process, or where to go for information.
Mistrust of government agencies.
Loss of control over what happens on my land.
Strong preference for peer-to-peer validation, at the expense of many other messengers.
Significant privacy concerns.
Smaller farms challenged because they do not want to give up limited tillable land.
“Wetland” is not a positive term, yet it is used extensively in program literature and parlance.
Heavy reliance on postal communication, which introduces limitations on outreach.
Very busy people; hard to reach.
Don’t want people showing up on their land unannounced.
Perceived inflexibility of these programs.
Fear that the land will be out of production forever; may affect future sale price or next generation of landowners.
Mosquitos.
Loss of income.
Variability of crop prices introduces uncertainty.
Landowners’ prevailing view that all land must be “useful.”
Landowners are not being approached with this information.
Very uneven knowledge about program availability, and uneven commitment to selling these programs, among local ag service providers and other advocates.
Through this research, we learned of many barriers to enrollment in wetlands programs. These included lack of knowledge, significant privacy concerns and mistrust of government, misperceptions and negative impressions of wetlands, tremendous concerns for loss of flexibility and control over one’s property, loss of tillable acreage, and a constant uncertainty of future commodity prices, which makes the cost-benefit calculation for these programs extremely difficult in the out years. Barriers are many and easy to identify.

57. Lack of information/advocacy Privacy and trust concerns
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Barriers to Adopting Wetlands Programs
Lack of information/advocacy
Privacy and trust concerns
Financial uncertainty
Extreme need for flexibility
Audience is hard to reach
Boiling down this long list of barriers into broad topics, these five categories suggest themselves.
The audience lacks deep awareness of wetlands-specific programs, despite widespread familiarity with one program - CREP. Furthermore and importantly, in the early phases of this research it became clear that some in the midstream audience of agricultural service providers also lack knowledge of the program specifics, and therefore are not in a position to market the programs effectively.
The landowner audience voiced strong and repeated concerns for their privacy, and expressed general cynicism about the public sector. They would not welcome overtures from messengers they did not already know and trust.
The financial uncertainty of future rental payments given the variability of commodity prices undermines the appeal of the financial benefit of these programs.
Landowners want flexibility. They want to control what happens on their land in the immediate term, and do not want to lock themselves into a long-term contract that may burden their heirs or reduce the market value of their land.
Importantly, this is a busy audience and hard to reach. By and large, most were not digitally inclined and not very phone responsive. Traditional mail and in-person contact remain the best ways to interact with this audience, which can make marketing and outreach more cumbersome and expensive.

58. Water impairment (Delmarva) Erosion/Flash flooding (PA)
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Underlying Concerns of the Audience
Water impairment (Delmarva)
Erosion/Flash flooding (PA)
Encroaching development
The focus group discussion provided clues to motivators that could help overcome these barriers. In Delmarva, landowners expressed strong concern for water quality in the creeks and streams surrounding their properties and in their groundwater. They understood that wetlands can play a role in helping restore natural waters around their property.
In Pennsylvania, concerns were much more oriented towards erosion and flash flooding. In addition to erosion, Pennsylvania landowners focused on other signs of stream health such as presence of fish and water temperature.
Encroaching development was a significant concern in both the Lancaster/York and the Mid-Shore focus groups. There, wetlands restoration was seen by some as a way to buffer against sprawling development, perhaps saving their own farm for future generations.

59. Level of Trust in Information 1-5 scale; Top 8
The survey contributed some refined understanding of the most trusted messengers. A total of 15 entities that might provide information about wetlands were tested on a 1 to 5 scale of trust, with 5 being highest. Here, the top eight are shown. As is often the case, family members rank highest. Just below them are the agricultural agencies that farmers tend to see as their sounding boards and advocates, and which are generally found in the county agricultural services office. Ducks Unlimited also made the top tier.
“Please indicate how much you would trust information from each of these organizations and individuals about preservation and restoration of natural areas on your land.” (5-point scale of trust.)

60. Level of Trust in Information 1-5 scale; Second Tier
Non-agricultural entities, private sector parties, and environmental organizations make up the lower tier.
“Please indicate how much you would trust information from each of these organizations and individuals about preservation and restoration of natural areas on your land.” (5-point scale of trust.)

61. 1. Water Quality/Stream Health 2. Wildlife/Waterfowl Habitat
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Core Benefits
1. Water Quality/Stream Health
Erosion Control (PA)
2. Wildlife/Waterfowl Habitat
Hunting/Hunting Leases (MD)
3. Hedge against Encroachment
At its core, this effort can be built around landowners’ strong concern for water quality. In Pennsylvania, this can take the specific added dimension of addressing flash flooding and erosion control.
Wildlife habitat and the potential for hunting leases is a powerful motivator in Maryland, and to a lesser extent upstream in Pennsylvania.
In areas that have development threat, the hedge against the encroachment of future development is an additional motivator for some.
Note that despite their importance, rental payments are not presented as a core benefit because of the uncertainty of future commodity prices, which weighs on the decision-making process of many agricultural landowners, as was made clear in the focus groups.

62. This conversation is critical to: Assessing alternatives
Landowner Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration Critical Connection
Rural
Landowner
Trusted
Specialist
This conversation is critical to:
Building comfort
Answering questions
Assessing alternatives
Critical to the success of the outreach effort is engaging the trusted midstream audience, and fostering direct, personal conversations between landowners and their local agricultural specialists. This may require some training for the specialists to bring them up-to-speed on the wetlands programs that are available in their county, and to provide them with talking points drawn from the findings of this study.

63. Key Takeaways
Farmers typically want to do their part for water quality.
A well-informed social science approach is often most effective in building the bridge.
Environmental advocates must think about their issues from an ag perspective.
Must respect farmers’ real-life barriers to action
Make the environmental action beneficial for them.
Understand who has the trust of the ag audience, and equip them to have an informed conversation about the issue.
This research suggests that awareness of programs is low, and that wetlands adoption is also hampered by many serious barriers. The community of specialists who could market these programs need basic tools to help them offer and describe these programs, and a coordinated outreach effort is needed to encourage landowners to initiate these conversations.
As a next step, the resources must be found to develop and implement this effort on a pilot basis, to determine how successful we can be in increasing program adoption with the right outreach techniques and messengers.

64. What Have
We Learned?