1. Robyn S. Wilson, PhD School of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Social Sciences Lab The Ohio State University Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes December 7, 2010 How do beliefs about water quality and related risks influence citizen decisions? Collaborators: Deborah Hersha, Anne Baird, Josh Ferry, Elena Irwin, Darla Munroe

2. The Problem Human land use and land management contributes to (fresh) water quality issues in the Great Lakes Rural to Urban Home/Landowners –Chemical lawn applications (runoff) –Dumping (stormwater drains, streams) –Streamside maintenance (mowing, riparian areas) Agricultural Landowners –Land use (cropping choice, crop rotation) –Land management (nutrient applications, tillage practices)

3. Water quality risks Human health –Neurotoxins, Skin Irritants, Pathogens Environmental health –Oxygen depletion, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services Recreation –Fishing, Swimming, Boating Economic –Fisheries, Tourism, Property values

4. Informing Decision Making Need to improve knowledge about the issue –What do people know about stream health and water quality? –What do people know about human impact? Need to frame problem in light of relevant risks –What motivates stream stewardship decisions? –What do people care about in regards to poor water quality?

5. Two Studies Mental models methodology What do citizens (rural to urban) know about water quality? –What are the major influences on their stream stewardship decisions? What do farmers know about nutrient transport? –What are the major influences on their land management decisions?

6. Study I: A study of Ohio citizens USDA National Integrated Water Quality project Conducted in-depth interviews with 45 central Ohio citizens (ages ranging from 16 to 80) –Probed knowledge about streams, watersheds and water quality –Probed influences on stream related decisions Currently using findings to design H.S. science curriculum and community-based education and outreach programs

7. Expert Model Ecological Knowledge Threats/I mpacts Socio-Cultural Drivers Citizen Internalization of Threat Quality Information Gathering & Processing Individual Differences Streamside Landowner and Citizen Decision Making regarding Stewardship of Community Streams and the Watershed Pre-Internalization Barriers Post-Internalization Barriers Law, Policy, Outreach

8. Ecological Knowledge & Related Threats Ecological knowledge gaps: –Specialized functions (wetlands, floodplains) –How streams are formed (topography, flow, watersheds) –What makes streams healthy (flow, substrate) Threat/Impacts gaps: –Channelization, Ecosystem services, Human influence Need to communicate: –Change over time to overcome focus on present state –How healthy streams operate (structurally, functionally) –Threats/causes/sources, and link between threat and impact –Influence of human activity & importance of specialized function

9. Influences on Decision Making Drivers of information seeking: –Environmental ethic and changing recreational opportunities Drivers of internalization: –Awareness of the problem (due to availability of info and personal interest) and perception of risks and benefits, and adaptive capacity Need to: –Ease the path to information, frame in light of personal interests (health, property), and include tips for recognizing problems –Build an ethic/value base around environmental stewardship –Use recreation to educate/communicate and promote it as a benefit of healthy streams

10. Barriers to Action Pre-internalization barrier: – Benign neglect (lack of concern due to being unaware) Post-internalization barrier: – Economic interests (greed, high personal costs) Citizens interested in monitoring and management Need to: –Communicate about problems that currently exist –Motivate by focusing on salient risks and benefits (water quality, access/use, human health, aesthetics) –Focus on actions not limited by economics –Communicate what needs to be done and how to do it

11. The Five Essential Questions What influences stream flow? How do human activities influence stream health? How does energy and nutrients flow in a stream? What habitats are found in the stream? What is connectivity within a watershed? Lesson plans available at: http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda

12. Study II: A study of Ohio farmers Project funded by the Climate, Water, Carbon Initiative at OSU Interviewed 20 farmers about land use and management decisions related to nutrient management –Probed knowledge about the nutrient cycle, impacts, and mitigation actions –Probed perceptions of risk and influences on decision making

13. Expert Model Nutrient Cycle, Impacts, Mitigation Transport Phosphorus Loss Erosion Leaching Impacts Yield and profit loss Water quality Water treatment Soil quality Freshwater quality Soluble-P Runoff Environment Riparian strips Slope Rainfall timing and amount Application timing, amount, method Cover cropping Field drainage Mitigation AND Soil properties (mineralogy) Soil testing Tillage practices

14. Farmer Knowledge About… Transport Phosphorus Loss Erosion (89%) Leaching (28%) Impacts Yield and profit loss (61%) Water quality (100%) Water treatment (0%) Soil quality (100%) Soluble-P runoff (17%) Freshwater quality (11%) Riparian strips (67%) Slope (17%) Rainfall timing & amount (89%) Application timing, amount, method (83%) Cover cropping (56%) Field drainage (17%) Mitigation AND Soil properties (mineralogy) (22%) Soil testing (100%) Tillage practices (50%) Environment

15. Influences on Farmer Decision Making Younger, more environmentally concerned farmers demonstrate higher knowledge scores –Younger = Greater concern? –Greater concern = Greater knowledge? Financial and environmental perceptions of risk related to nutrient loss were equal 83% of farmers responded that something other than profit (stewardship, lifestyle) was their primary goal

16. Summary Citizen knowledge about what makes a healthy stream and human impacts on the stream is low –Desire to take action to protect water quality depends on awareness of the problem, perception of risk, and perceived ability to take action Farmer knowledge about nutrient cycle fairly high – but not reflecting current phosphorus issues –Desire to take action to protect soil and water quality depends on both financial and environmental perceptions of risk

17. Conclusions Enhancing knowledge is important…but communication must also address individual differences in motivation, values, perceived risk, etc. Improving water quality requires addressing decision making from the top down and bottom up Climate change just another challenge for water quality –Potential for behavioral change to counteract any predicted negative impacts on water quality?

18. Questions? Robyn Wilson Wilson.1376@osu.edu 614.247.6169 Resources http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda http://www.uwex.edu/ces/regionalwaterquality/nationalreporting/report View.cfm?rid=550387