Transcript OSU-GLHS Curriculum Infusion Workshop

How do beliefs about water quality
and related risks influence citizen
decisions?
Robyn S. Wilson, PhD
School of Environment and Natural Resources
Environmental Social Sciences Lab
The Ohio State University
Collaborators: Deborah Hersha, Anne Baird, Josh Ferry, Elena Irwin, Darla Munroe
Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes
December 7, 2010
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)
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
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?
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?
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
Expert Model
Ecological
Knowledge
Threats/I
mpacts
Law, Policy,
Outreach
Socio-Cultural
Drivers
Individual
Differences
Quality Information Gathering
& Processing
Citizen Internalization
of Threat
Pre-Internalization
Barriers
Post-Internalization Barriers
Streamside Landowner and Citizen Decision
Making regarding Stewardship of Community
Streams and the Watershed
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
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
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
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
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
Expert Model
Nutrient Cycle, Impacts, Mitigation
Transport
Impacts
Erosion
Soluble-P
Runoff
Leaching
Mitigation
Riparian
strips
Cover
cropping
Soil
quality
Water
quality
Water
treatment
Freshwater
quality
Phosphorus
Loss
Tillage
practices
Yield and
profit loss
Environment
Field
drainage
Application
timing,
amount,
method
Soil
testing
Slope
AND
Rainfall
timing and
amount
Soil
properties
(mineralogy)
Farmer Knowledge About…
Transport
Impacts
Erosion
Yield and
profit loss
(89%)
(61%)
Soil
quality
(100%)
Soluble-P
runoff
Water
quality
Water
treatment
(17%)
(100%)
(0%)
Freshwater
quality
Leaching
(28%)
Phosphorus
Loss
(11%)
Mitigation
Tillage
practices
Field
drainage
(50%)
(17%)
Riparian
strips
Application
timing, amount,
method
(67%)
Cover
cropping
(56%)
(83%)
Soil testing
(100%)
Environment
Slope
(17%)
AND
Rainfall timing
& amount
(89%)
Soil
properties
(mineralogy)
(22%)
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
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
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?
Questions?
Robyn Wilson
[email protected]
614.247.6169
Resources
http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/regionalwaterquality/nationalreporting/report
View.cfm?rid=550387