1. Social Indicators For Water Policy
Spring 2011
Social Indicators
For
Water Policy
EVR 6216 Water Quality and Policy Management
Submitted to: Dr. Alsharif
Submitted by: Eric R. Weaver
April 27, 2011
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators

2. Purpose
What are Social Indicators, where did they come from and how do Non-Point Sources Management Staff use them:
Overview
Social Indicators Identified
SI sources and compliments
SI uses and benefits
Current Florida Research
Q & A
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators

3. The Minnesota Context
Social Indicators were introduced in class regarding Minnesota’s work with Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators

4. Defining Social Indicators
Social Indicator Assessments (SIA) developed from the community and social sciences to predict the “social effects of environmental alterations by development projects that were subject to the NEPA legislation in the United States”1
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators
Slide 4

5. Uses of Social indicators
1969 EPA’s National Environmental Policy Act:
required all environmental impact statements to include an economic, social, natural, and physical effects on the human environment.2
1969 Army Corps of Engineers “ground breaking” study in New York’s Susquehanna River
engaged citizens improved the community support of their major water works projects.3
1970 Department of Energy
“Quality of Life Indicators of Social Impact”4
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators

6. SI Uses in NPS Monitoring
Chesapeake Bay7
Click 3-times for the ads to come up - - ten double click on the “save the crabs” to open utube video
Water Quality and Policy Management
BMP 2 Social Indicators
Slide 6

7. Core SI for NPS6 Increased Awareness among a Target Audience.
Attitudes Among Target Audience Supportive of NPS Management Actions.
Reduced Constraints for using Appropriate Practices.
Increased Capacity to Address NPS Management Issues in the Project Area.
Increased Adoption of NPS Management Practices by a Target Audience.
Goal 1
Intended Outcome: Awareness gained regarding the relevant technical issues and/or recommended practices of the target audience
in the critical area
Indicator 1: Awareness of pollutants impairing waterways
Indicator 2: Awareness of consequences of pollutants to water quality
Indicator 3: Awareness of appropriate practices to improve water quality
Goal 2
Intended Outcome: Attitudes changed in a way that is expected to facilitate desired behavior change of target audiences in critical areas
Indicator 1: General water-quality-related attitudes
Indicator 2: Willingness to take action to improve water quality
Goal 3
Intended Outcome: Constraints to behavior change will be reduced
Indicator 1: Constraints to behavior change
Goal 4
Intended Outcome 1: The project improved the recipient’s capacity to leverage resources in the watershed
Indicator 1: Resources leveraged by grant recipient in the watershed as a result of project funding (including cash and in-kind resources)
Intended Outcome 2: Increased capacity to support appropriate practices by target audiences in critical areas
Indicator 1: Funding available to support NPS practices in critical areas
Indicator 2: Technical support available for NPS practices in critical areas
Indicator 3: Ability to monitor practices in critical areas
Goal 5
Intended Outcome: This project resulted in changes in behavior and/or adoption of practices to prevent new problems and improve or maintain
water quality in the critical area by the target audience.
Indicator 1: Percentage of critical area receiving treatment
Indicator 2: Percentage of target audience implementing practices in critical areas
Indicator 3: Ordinances in place that will reduce nonpoint source stressors
Water Quality and Policy Management
BMP 2 Social Indicators
Slide 7

8. Here in Florida Allen’s Creek in Pinellas Restore the River
$220 Million in 50 years
Ooopps
NO SIA8
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators

9. Others have done better
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators
Slide 9

10. Survey Results Water Quality and Policy Management Social Indicators
Slide 10

11. Any Questions? Water Quality and Policy Management Social Indicators
Slide 11

12. References
Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1995). Social Impact Assessment: A Contribution To The State Of The Art Series (Vol. 14): John Wiley and Sons.
NEPA: 42 USC §4321 et. seq 1969.
Borton, T. E., Warner, K. P., Wenrich, J. W., Havlick, S. W., & Frost, J. (1970). The Susquehanna Communication-Participation Study: Selected Approaches to Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning. Alexandria, Virginia: U. S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources.
Olsen, M. E., & Merwin, D. J. (1976). Toward A Methodology For Conducting Social Impact Assessments Using Quality Of Social Life Indicators. Richland, Washington: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Goals, Intended Outcomes, and Core Social Indicators for NPS Management
Chesapeake Bay Social Media Advertising
Landry, S. (1993, May 12, 1993). Creek plan upsets neighbors. St Pete Times, p. 1; 3; 3; 1; 3B.
Water Quality and Policy Management
Social Indicators