1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Community Participants
24 streamside landowners interviewed
Ages (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; % African American)
Bank erosion problems for both watersheds
Corn and soybeans declining source of impairment large tracks owned by developers

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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).

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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
Add logos, author contact info

20. Contact info
Kristina Slagle Robyn Wilson Anne Baird

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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: