1. Abstract – The research reported here used a mental models methodology to improve current education and extension efforts by targeting knowledge gaps and key decision influences among current and future streamside landowners’ stream stewardship decisions. Key knowledge gaps included understanding of stream structures and functions as well as prevalent, but less obvious threats, (e.g., from floodplain alterations). Stewardship decisions frequently focused on modifying lawn care practices. Enrollment in conservation programs was influenced by multiple drivers (e.g., outreach and economics). Frequently mentioned influences on stream stewardship actions included environmental values, local government, wildlife/aesthetics, health risks, and the economy. Barriers to stream stewardship included knowledge of ecosystem functions and services, ease of access to information, and the costs of the action. For more information go to: http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda Designing Watershed Based Education Efforts Through a Mental Models Research Approach Anne M. Baird, Robyn S. Wilson, Deborah K. Hersha - The Ohio State University Introduction Headwater streams are critical in providing stream services, but highly vulnerable to human influences such as streamside vegetation removal. Two key questions for water outreach professionals are: 1. What do citizens know about water quality? 2. What influences matter to citizens with regards to stream stewardship decisions? Expert Model Figure 1 depicts important factors in citizen stream stewardship decisions. This model is based on in-depth interviews with Ohio watershed experts (e.g., academics, policy makers, local decision makers) as well as primary literature. The arrows in the diagram represent the order and direction of influence. The nodes represent the categories of influence. The expert diagram was used to design an interview guide for target audience interviews.. Contact Information: PH: 614-292-8603 EMAIL: baird.41@osu.edu Recommendations Water Law and Policy Clarify laws/regulations applicable to streamside landowners, and address concerns over enforcement of existing regulations, and perceived lack of assistance for streamside landowners Watershed organization and other non-profits should consider partnering with local governments on outreach and education efforts Individual and Societal Influences Ease path to information, frame in light of personal interests (health, property), and include tips for recognizing problems with stream health Identify and build on audience values such as environmental stewardship, personal legacy, and streams as working to drain the land Incorporate recreation/aesthetics to communicate and promote benefit of streams Barriers to Action Communicate directly to streamside landowners and other residents about problems that currently exist and actions that can be taken (especially those not limited by economic resources) Motivate by focusing on the most salient risks and benefits (water quality, access/use, human health, aesthetics) Stewardship Actions Provide streamside landowners with actions that help ease their burden of maintaining streamside property Identify and assist landowners with severe erosion and difficulties with managing streamside property Consider framing outreach around multiple influences (personal legacy and economics) Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the USDA NIFA National Integrated Water Quality Program. The authors thank the study partners including the Gahanna-Jefferson school district, the Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Friends of Big Walnut Creek. Findings Ecosystem Knowledge Gaps (see Figure 3) Critical stream structure and functions (e.g., wetlands, flood attenuation) Stream formation, flow direction, and watershed fundamentals Understanding of what makes a streams healthy (e.g., morphology, substrate, surrounding floodplain) Understanding of scientific research and less obvious threats (e.g., riparian corridor removal) Water Law and Policy Influences Local government seen as responsible for addressing development pressures, and as trusted information source; frustration with assistance for severe erosion State laws and regulations were directly influential on stewardship actions including upgrading septic system and leaving no-mow zones Local watershed organizations viewed as helpful in enforcing state stormwater regulations but many not familiar with their existence Preferred outreach formats included one-on-one contact and mass media (e.g., local papers, TV, and e-mail) Individual and Societal Influences Drivers of information seeking about degraded streams include a positive environmental ethic, personal legacy, and perceived changing recreational opportunities Drivers of internalization (recognition of the threat and desire to take action) include awareness of the problem (due to availability of information and personal interest), high perceived risk to things valued, high perceived benefit of taking action, and adaptive capacity Barriers to Stewardship (see Figure 2) Pre-internalization barriers (barriers that must be over come before a citizen can recognize a threat) Benign neglect (lack of concern due to being unaware) and limited knowledge Post-internalization barrier (barriers that most be overcome before a stewardship action can be taken) Economic interests including greed, livelihood protection, and high personal costs Stewardship Decisions (see Figure 3) Most frequently mentioned stewardship actions were preventative and related to lawn care (e.g., reducing chemical use) Environmental ethic was frequently mentioned as an influence on suburban lawn care decisions and personal legacy was mentioned by agricultural land owners A combination of influences (e.g., one-on-one outreach and the recession) were involved in long term decisions such as enrollment in conservation programs Methods Mental Models Approach 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. Participants In-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 80 individuals including: 20 local experts (academics, policy makers, etc.) 21 high school sophomore biology students 15 parents of high school biology students 24 current streamside landowners Study Locations Two rapidly urbanizing subwatersheds in Central Ohio: 1)Blacklick watershed 61 square miles 2)Rocky Fork watershed 30 square miles Fig 1. Expert Model Fig 3. Streamside Landowner Stewardship Actions and Major Influences Fig 2. Future Streamside Landowner Top 10 misperceptions Hersha, D.K., Wilson, R.S., & Baird, A.M. (2011). An expert perspective on citizen decisions regarding stream stewardship in an urbanizing Midwestern United States Watershed. Manuscript submitted for publication. Morgan G. M., F., B., Bostrom, A. Lave, L., Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Stewardship ActionsAction TypeExamples of InfluencesCategory of influence Riparian buffer installation, wetlands creation Water FiltrationBeing conservation minded, interactions with soil and water technicians, demonstrations, and regulations Values, Mass Media, Local and State Government Reduction in lawn chemical use Monitoring and preventionGrowing up in the ‘60s and concern for environment Values, socio-demographics Conservation easement and enrollment in conservation programs Water Filtration/Land Management Care for environment, experiences outdoors Values, personal preferences, recession, one-on-one/small group outreach and self directed learning Redirecting downspouts, native planting, suburban stream no mow zone Monitoring and preventionCare for environment, wanting to improve property values Values, socio-demographics, livelihood protection, one-on-one and small group outreach Creating ponds, building bridges, septic upgrades Land ManagementImprove drainage and access to property; complying with state law and protect health Livelihood protection, personal experience, state and local government Leaving land in agricultureLand UseWanting things to remain the same Tradition, personal preference, personal legacy