selecting socio-economic metrics for watershed management · environmental monitoring and...

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2005) 103: 83–98DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-6855-z c© Springer 2005

SELECTING SOCIO-ECONOMIC METRICS FOR WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT

LOIS WRIGHT MORTON∗ and STEVE PADGITTDepartment of Sociology, Iowa State University, 303 East Hall, Ames, Iowa

(∗author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected])

Abstract. The selection of social and economic metrics to document baseline conditions and analyzethe dynamic relationships between ecosystems and human communities are important decisions forscientists, managers, and watershed citizens. A large variety of social and economic data is available butthese have limited use without theoretical frameworks. In this paper, several frameworks for reviewingsocial-ecosystem relations are offered, namely social sanctions, sense of place, civic structure, andcultural differences. Underlying all of these frameworks are attitudes, beliefs, values, and normsthat affect which questions are asked and which indicators are chosen. Much work and significantchallenges remain in developing a standard set of spatially based socio-economic metrics for watershedmanagement.

Keywords: socio-economic metrics, social sanctions, norms and values, sense of place, civic structure,culture, watershed, watershed management, community

1. Introduction

The watershed is a multiple-use common pool resource (Ravnborg and del PilarGuerrero, 1999; Steins and Edwards, 1999) used for agriculture, manufacturing,and other human activities. These uses can lead to contamination and consequentlythe need to find solutions to water quality and quantity issues. The physical sciencesthat form our knowledge of river ecosystems, including the physics and hydrologyof watersheds, provide the foundation for technological interventions. What wecurrently lack is public understanding and political will to implement appropriatepolicies and practices. To generate needed social, economic, and political knowl-edge requires theory development, documentation and monitoring of these trends.

Selecting a set of parsimonious measures to document the socio-economicconditions of watersheds over time is challenging. In part, this is because the knowl-edge needed to mediate between human communities and river ecosystems variesin terms of content, method, and purpose. The relationships are complex, dynamic,and affected by the scale of examination. Further, existing socio-economic dataare often inadequate or inappropriate for modeling human-environment interac-tions. Spatially, the U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Departmentof Agriculture systematically collect standard population and economic data atcounty, state, and national levels but these data do not coincide with watershed

The U.S. Government’s right to retain a non-exclusive, royalty free licence in and to any copyright isacknowledged.

84 L. W. MORTON AND S. PADGITT

boundaries. Typically, the scale of analysis for socio-economic questions is largerthan for strictly hydrologic investigations making juxtaposition with those unitsproblematic. Further, although easily available, Census data are not necessarilyappropriate or sufficient for analyzing relationships between river ecosystems andhuman society. Establishing “what” social, economic, and political concepts to mea-sure is problematic as few standardized measures exist. Among the social sciencesthere is little consensus on the “best” socio-economic indicators for determiningsocial-ecosystem causality, best interventions, or program outcomes. The issuesare compounded when coupled with the goal of integrating time series social datawith physical science data. The norms and values of scientists, practitioners, andcitizens lead to different preferences about what is important to measure.

In this paper we summarize several frameworks offered by scientists at the2002 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Symposiumin Kansas City, Missouri. These frameworks provide insight for qualitative andquantitative analyses, the development of appropriate socio-economic measures,and the construction of time series data bases that can be used in future research onriver ecosystems and society.

2. Secondary Social and Economic Data

Social indicator approaches that document socio-economic factors are frequentlyused to interface with biological and physical science data. However, this approachoften finds itself in a quagmire of simple correlations and few theoretically drivenconceptual measures to efficiently direct inquiry. Nonetheless, a wide variety ofsecondary data on population and place characteristics are available for examiningsocial and economic conditions in the United States. These data can be aggregatedfrom block to neighborhood to county to state and national levels to provide local,regional, and national snapshots of a wide range of social phenomenon affectinga watershed. The Preliminary Social, Cultural, Economic Assessment of CentralGreat Plains within EPA Region VII is an example of utilizing secondary data toprovide a socio-economic overview of a large watershed region (Hanson et al.,2000). This report offers a pictorial summary of the social environment, employ-ment, goods and services, health, education, agriculture, and housing patterns ofthe four-state Central Great Plains region. County-level data are derived from theU.S. Census (age, race/ethnicity, gender, education, income, poverty, housing, liv-ing conditions, and occupations), U.S. Department of Labor (economic sector typesand size including numbers of employees, earnings, retail and wholesale trade es-tablishments), Census of Agriculture (number of and types of farms in the county,proportions of cropland, forest, and pastures, pesticide and herbicide applications,numbers and types of animals, numbers and types of commodities produced, landtenure), U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Department of Health (vital statis-tics, disease incidence and mortality). Although these data provide historical and

SELECTING SOCIO-ECONOMIC METRICS FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 85

contextual information about the social environments in which individuals, groups,and institutions carry out their daily activities, they lack a theoretical frameworkfor predicting cause-effect relationships.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, secondary data are reasonably compat-ible in linking economic and social information with ecological data. The MissouriRiver Institute (www.cares.missouri.edu) has a modeling technique for agriculturalproduction that develops spatial decision support systems by combining data onland management and water resources (Prato, 2002). The model can integrate soiltypes, drainage class, slope, and other information to provide guidance for publicand private decisions concerning livestock site selection (Prato, 2002). In additionto site-specific variables traditionally associated with water quality and livestockand crop production, this model, when fully developed, can incorporate a number ofhuman ecological variables and principles. Some of these variables (e.g. minimumsafe nitrate levels in drinking water) have established acceptance and meaningswhile others (e.g. acceptable minimum odor levels from confined animal feedingoperations (CAFOs)) need discussion, more science, and consensus. One criticalaspect of this model is how different scales are incorporated: parcel, watershed, andbasins. Prato (2002) suggests that different weights can be assigned to the data inrecognition that some information is more critical than others; a significant issue iswho decides critical areas and their relative weights.

Most secondary socio-economic data are collected for reasons unconnectedto the environment. For example, data on disease and health risks are frequentlygathered at county, state, and national levels as part of vital statistics and otherhealth monitoring. These are foundational data sources in epidemiological re-search for monitoring and protecting drinking water. Source water monitoring in-cludes pathogens associated with infectious diseases from single exposures andthose contributing to chronic diseases from long-term low-level exposures (Weyer,2002). Established and potential pathogens are many and testing can be expen-sive. Local and regional data are fragmented and depend on funding for systematictesting. Water quality data collected from municipal plants offer valuable timeseries data that can link human activities to water conditions. Additional watermonitoring at lake inlets and outlets, stream junctions, and agricultural drain tileoutlets are important sources of information on agricultural, industrial, and resi-dential waste practices. Because of the costly nature of testing, many water bodieshave no data on basic chemical and physical properties. An emerging volunteerbase of citizens has received training and is committed to gathering such data.These data, when rigorously collected, have the potential to guide local land usedecisions.

In many places, national data sets can supplement local information in guidingzoning policies, land use, and development patterns. The challenge to scientistsand managers is the parsimonious selection of appropriate information and theinterpretation of what these secondary data mean. Indicators can be best utilizedwhen attached to a theoretical framework.


3. Conceptual Frameworks

3.1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

One contribution to the development of a conceptual framework is an historicalunderstanding of U.S. watershed management. During the course of its history, wa-tershed management objectives, scale and methods have evolved (Pfeffer, 2002).These changes have resulted from our expanding knowledge of river ecosystemsand from shifting values about the uses of environmental resources. Political andeconomic values influence local and national water management policies. Prior tothe 1927 flood, 19th century planning on the Mississippi River concentrated onbuilding levees to control floods and to protect drained agricultural lands and grow-ing population centers in the Mississippi basin (Barry, 1997). After the flood manyagricultural lands were not reclaimed but used as overflow areas to protect againstfuture flooding in urban areas (Barry, 1997). This reflected new understandingsabout effective flood control techniques.

The 1920–1970 era featured federal water projects designed to solve watersupply issues (Pfeffer, 2002). Public investments in large-scale dams, hydroelectricplants, and levees represent values that gave priority to flood control and economicdevelopment over biodiversity (Pfeffer, 2002). During the 1960s and 1970s, alarmsover water pollution and endangered species grew (Pfeffer, 2002). Enactment ofthe Clean Water Act in 1972 signaled a new era of concern about habitat and waterquality. The Water Quality 2000 report and current U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) initiatives indicate a resurgence in holistic watershed management.Today many regions are having public discussions about whether to continue theengineering practices that were historically accepted, including dredging and leveeand dam construction. This suggests that public values and beliefs about the uses ofwater systems have shifted. Although economic concerns still dominate, a growingsector is concerned about environmental fragility and the need to consider long-termconsequences of our actions. As these interests grow practices and policies mayshift. Indicators selected to represent social and economic conditions must includea range of historical and current values in order to capture these social responses.

3.2. SOCIAL SANCTIONS

To augment the historical context, Flora (2002) offers a conceptual framework onhow the relationships among individuals, society, and their environments are built,reinforced or fractured, and remade. This social control framework has the poten-tial to explain social-ecosystem relationships and predict effectiveness of specificinterventions.

Flora (2002) first challenges the explanatory power of the traditional model ofnatural resource research and protection. According to Flora, the traditional modelof change toward sustainable agroecosystems is a product of scientific information


transferred to individuals and groups. With education, sustainability is assumedto follow. When that does not happen, regulation and enforcement are used tomotivate sustainable practices. Flora (2002) asserts “the expectation that scientificinformation about environmental conditions can be fed into a ‘black box’1 andsomehow produce a sustainable agroecosystem has proven inadequate.” Further,she suggests that sophisticated models that attempt to link science to individualsand groups through technology transfer, adoption of on-the-ground technologymodifications, and regulation and enforcement practices do not explain how toachieve sustainable agroecosystems.

In place of this traditional black box model, which assumes positive outcomes,Flora (2002) proposes a model based on a hierarchy of four concepts to which bothpositive and negative social sanctions are applied (Figure 1). The four hierarchicaldomains are individual internalization, social pressure, economic pressures, andforce. To illustrate the model, a triangle is used with the four domains stacked verti-cally. Individual internalization is the wide base that undergirds sustainable activity.How individuals internalize information – wanting or not wanting to know – willeffect whether sustainable systems are initiated and maintained. Social pressure,built on individual internalization, is the second domain. Positive social pressuressupport the adoption of behaviors as individuals seek respect and prestige; negativesocial sanctions result in loss of respect or being laughed at. These social pressures

Figure 1. Flora’s model of social control applied to agroecosystem management.


reinforce individual internalization. Continuing toward the apex of the triangle,economic sanction is the third level. Monetary rewards or fines for doing/not doingthe “right things” motivate sustainable practices. Positive rewards for doing the“right things” are earning more and/or lower costs, while the negative sanctionsfor not doing the “right things” are fines or blocked market access. Lastly, at thepinnacle is force, illustrated in the positive as zoning and in the negative as shutdown orders. Flora (2002) suggests that internalization, social pressures, and pos-itive economic sanctions offer the most effective, least costly ways to accomplishsustainable agroecosystems. She asserts that the high public and private social, po-litical, and financial costs of negative economic sanctions and force can often beavoided with investments to internalization and social pressure. This frameworkplaces social processes at the center of the drafting and enforcement of policies.Thus, it is critical to use indicators of social sanctions to measure change and predictoutcomes.

3.3. SENSE OF PLACE

The attachment individuals have to a place is essential in understanding individ-ual behaviors. Community is a unique social and spatial unit in which individualscarry out the localized routines of their everyday lives (Hunter, 1979). The termcommunity can be applied to the human settlement patterns within watersheds.River basins sometimes provide physical boundaries that define settlements. How-ever, people often do not think of belonging to a watershed community, rather theyorient their social relations and actions to where they work, play, and travel. Mostwatersheds contain multiple communities (overlapping boundaries of social orga-nizations) that range from neighborhoods to church parishes to school districts tocity/town political limits.

Westpfal (2002) uses the Ford Supplier Park Development in Calumet, Michi-gan to illustrate the importance of sense of place in solving water problems. Shedelineates three landscapes: ecological, social, and economic. This project is anexample of integrating suburban and economic landscapes in ways that achievethriving ecosystems in the midst of industrial redevelopment. Westpfal (2002) iden-tifies three tenets in the redevelopment of the Calumet brownfields. First, a healthyecological industrial landscape must “look” healthy to the people who live there.Second, the concept of “health” is an aesthetic response. Third, resident self-identityis tied to their place. These ideas confirm earlier work (Nassauer, 1997) suggest-ing that in human dominated ecosystems the look of the community is critical tocommitment to place (Westpfal, 2002). Decisions about where to locate a factoryor buy a home are based on how it looks (Feldman, 1990; Hull et al., 1994). Thus,the look of the place is an important signal that a site is safe and attractive.

Wagner (2002) finds that people’s definitions of place lead to distinctive eco-nomic and social responses in communities with impaired watersheds. She mea-sures knowledge, beliefs, values, and experiences with water issues. A combination


of qualitative and quantitative methods are used to assess residents’ technical un-derstanding of water impairment, beliefs and motivations for improving water con-ditions, their sense of attachment and meanings assigned to water, and their senseof self-efficacy in making changes. A rapid assessment technique integrates humandynamics with physical data at the watershed community level to measure: 1) techni-cal data gaps based on residents’ existing knowledge, 2) social-political constraintsthat limit change, 3) contextual community values that support or limit change, and4) visions of leadership and structure to affect change. Semi-structured interviewswith community members determine knowledge of local hydrology, definitions ofwater quality, and understandings of the causes and sources of pollution. Especiallyimportant are the values attached to non-human species and water resources. WhenWagner (2002) tested her approach in three Iowa watersheds, she found that, whenfindings are reported to stakeholders, the result is greater stakeholder ownershipand planning activities, both which increase the potential for implementation.

Moore’s (2002) research in the second most impaired watershed in Ohio, SugarCreek, also uses indicators of beliefs, values, and experiences to understand farmers’views of watershed issues. Conceptual measures include farmer level of awarenessof pollution, level of trust between EPA and farmers, strength of networks amongpeople within the watershed, and a common vision for the watershed. Additionalindicators are land use, land ownership and farm fragmentation, symbolic value ofbest management practices (BMPs), risk assessment by farmers, land or water userights, mutual understandings of social institutions about the watershed, and spatialrelationships. Moore (2002) reports that farmers believe they are good stewards oftheir lands and want to be heard. Further, farmers are skeptical about the validityof EPA data and express low trust in EPA. Farmers want to “find out what EPA isreally up to” and gather their own data.

Like Wagner (2002), Moore (2002) finds that cultural differences among com-munities result in unique responses/non-responses to water issues. For example,Amish have a higher rate of small farm dairies with cows in the stream so naturallythe fecal coli form rates are higher. At the same time, however, there is widespreadpractice of a four-year crop rotation involving corn, oats, wheat/barley/spelt, andtwo years of hay. As a result the soil has much more humus and holds water bet-ter. In addition they do not favor governmental subsides so conservation measuresthat are low cost with a high level of labor are favored (e.g. fencing cows out ofa stream). In contrast, the non-Amish practice mixed farming that includes vari-ous types of livestock and corn and soybeans rotations. They also are more likelyto participate in government cost-sharing conservation incentives. Information ex-changes about water issues within the Amish community are usually by word ofmouth via small parochial school board meetings, weekly auctions or biweeklychurch services and through church elders. In the non-Amish German heritagegroup information exchange occurs at football or baseball games, community ser-vices groups such as the women’s club, gardening club, and church, and localnewspaper.


Understanding the relationships between residents and their natural resourcesoften require mixed methods that incorporate secondary and primary data. In hisstudy of Nebraska communities along the Middle Platte River, Allen (2002) col-lected data in four indicator areas: local values and beliefs about natural resources,demographic profiles, economic evaluations, and social-cultural makeup of com-munities. Primary data were obtained from telephone surveys, two focus groups,and in-depth interviews with key decision-makers in the region. A telephone sur-vey measured attitudes of urban and rural residents toward conservation issues.Question areas included alternative uses of river water such as habitat for birdsand wildlife, mining for gravel, residential municipal use, irrigation of farmlands,and recreational uses. Secondary and observational data were used to develop com-munity profiles. Allen (2002) reported that the distance people live from the riveraffects their perceptions of the river. When “personal income is perceived as di-rectly tied to the Platte River water then respondents were more likely to place alower value on the aesthetic and environmental factors associated with the river”(Allen, 2002:6). These residents felt they were at risk and were less likely to em-brace change. Further, he found that large communities depended on experts forresources and guidance; small communities depended on trusted, knowledgeableresidents.

3.4. CIVIC STRUCTURE

“Non-point source pollution, or polluted runoff, which has its genesis in land use, isnow the number one water quality problem in the United States” (Arnold, 2000:1).Land use is the result of both public decisions in particular places and individualpractices in response to personal beliefs about where they live and communityrules about land utilization. Local land use policies and enforcement practices arestructured by political boundaries and determined in varying degrees by planningand zoning boards or the lack thereof. Citizen voting patterns and collective ac-tions influence decisions made by county, municipal, and town-level elected andappointed officials (Arnold, 2000) and are critical to understanding socio-economicconnections to environmental systems. Local leaders must find a balance betweenindividual rights, the community landscape where people live, and protection ofthe waters into which local lands drain.

Thus, it is not just individual attachment (or lack of attachment) to place thatties people to their community; it is also the social relationships of mutuality andtrust that develop over time. When these personal connections spill into the publicarena, both conflict and cooperation emerge. The civic conditions of watershedsaffect watershed practices. Morton (2002) offers a multi-level theory of civic struc-ture to measure citizen participation in public decisions. The foundations of thistheory are the norms of civic responsibility that motivate or restrict personal and col-lective actions (Morton, 2003). Selected indicators are based on individual actions(leadership) and collective relationships (social connections) at group, community,


watershed, state, regional, national, and global levels. Five mechanisms are hypoth-esized to affect how individual leadership and social networks are used to deal withwatershed issues: 1) legal and normative codes, 2) opportunities for minority view-points to be expressed, 3) communication/information flows, 4) state relations, and5) market/economic relations (Morton, 2002). Morton (2002) suggests that socialindicators selected for EMAP should reflect multiple levels of citizen engagement,social networks and norms of reciprocity, and these enabling mechanisms.

Collective actions in New Orleans’ Pontchartrain Basin east of the Mississippiillustrate how civic structure influences water policies. Laska and Malek-Wiley(2002) document how the discovery by local Girl Scouts of fecal pollution on theNorth Shore catalyzed the formation of a basin not-for-profit foundation. The foun-dation connects people of the basin through public events, citizen memberships,and water monitoring. This non-governmental organization provides social con-trol (nightly news reports) and increased knowledge (comprehensive water mon-itoring plan). As a result of the group’s efforts and the support of residents, fe-cal coliform levels have decreased, water has clarified, wildlife is returning, andrecreation is being restored. Laska and Malek-Wiley (2002) suggest metrics formeasuring human activity: attachment to environment and place, shared learn-ing process about cause/effects, mobilization of citizens and government, com-mitment of resources to match mobilization concerns, and willingness to enforcelaws.

Citizen participation in watershed management decision-making is not justa measure of civic structure but can also be used as an intervention indicator.The Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) uses ecological and organizational processesto address water quality issues with Mid-Atlantic Highlands watershed groups(Constantz, 2002). CVI’s participatory model involves local stakeholders in gath-ering physical and socio-economic data, and then interpreting and acting on thosedata based on their own and others experiences (Constantz, 2002). These activ-ities build personal knowledge of the ecosystem and strengthen citizen sense ofresponsibility and empowerment to effectively act on behalf of their watershed.

Community watershed groups such as the Rathbun Land and Water Alliance andSquaw Creek Watershed Council, both in Iowa, illustrate the roles local residentscan play in managing water resources (Cooper, 2002). Metrics that can be usedto represent these organizations include the numbers of citizens in these groups,member involvement levels and the kinds of activities they undertake. Indicatorsof watershed groups’ social effectiveness are cooperation or lack of cooperationwith other community groups, business, watershed residents, and natural resourcetechnical specialists and the extent of community unity or fragmentation in solvingwater issues. Salamon et al. (1998) find that community members can balanceeconomic, social and health risks to achieve consensus when townspeople trustand have an attachment to farmers and perceive economic interdependence. Thiscan occur even when concerns about atrazine problems in the local water supplyremain, “but people are willing to support the plan” (Salamon et al., 1998:214).


3.5. CULTURE, RACE, GENDER, AND SOCIAL STATUS

Dominant environmental practices are often the result of negotiations among pow-erful interest groups representing agriculture, industry, and the environment. Thepolitical exclusion of groups that lack voice but have vested interests in water posethreats to those who are excluded as well as the larger community. Cleaver (1998)writes that responses to macro economic conditions favor economic adjustmentsthat often fail to meet the needs of the poor. Human interface with the river envi-ronment varies by race, gender, and social status. Further, “. . . certain policies candisadvantage both poor women and poor men . . .” (Cleaver, 1998:296). Theories ofsocial and environmental relationships must incorporate the differing perspectivesand cultures of race, ethnicity, gender, and social status in accounting for individualand social actions that affect the ecosystem.

Brown et al.’s (1996) research on fishing activities in the Mississippi Delta Re-gion from 1993 to 96 illustrates how changes in ecological management impactresidents differently depending on their race, gender, and social status. For exam-ple, they find African American women fish for “today’s meals” and prefer pondand eddy fishing sites within walking distance of their homes. Many fishing sitesare threatened as changes in ownership to ponds occurs. Access restrictions arecommonly the result of lost social relations between pond owners and fishers asnew owners institute fees for fishing. In contrast to pond fishing, river fishing ismore likely to be the sport fishing of white men. Dredging and channeling, whichincrease stream flows, result in the need for investments in a boat and expensiveequipment. Brown (2002) concludes that restoration of fishing sites must not justconsider ecological changes but also cultural, demographic, and differences in itsimportance to their livelihoods.

3.6. SOCIAL NORMS AND VALUES

Underlying many of these conceptual frameworks are the social norms that peoplebring to their personal and collective actions (Figure 2). Beliefs and attitudes influ-ence the strength and direction of social norms. Norms in turn are motivators forstasis or change. It is not enough to know the economic or social “facts” of pop-ulation density, regional wage rates, average age, income, and occupations. Socialnorms give meaning to these facts by acting as barriers or incentives for chang-ing environmental practices. Barry (1997:17) writes about the great Mississippiflood of 1927 and the struggles of “man against nature” and “man against man.”This story illustrates the human storm that accompanied the flood. “Honor andmoney collided. White and black collided. Regional and national power struc-tures collided.” The science of watershed management is not just the science ofhydrology, biology, physics, agronomy, botany, climatalogy, water ecology, andengineering – it is also the science of society and the tensions among people,


Figure 2. Beliefs, values, and attitudes (Morton et al., 2002).

communities, and their perceptions of what ought to be. It is these belief systems,norms and values that create water policies. To represent these concepts requiresmixed methods including historical archival analyses, survey work, and in-depthinterviews.

Inherent in Flora’s (2002) social control framework are sets of values, norms,attitudes, and belief systems that structure internal and social pressure ideas ofwhat is “right” and “appropriate.” The adoption of positive and negative sanctionsin economic and regulatory arenas also reflects these norms and values. Sense ofcommunity and civic structure frameworks also are grounded in norms and values.The connections (and exclusions) among people that occur (or do not occur) acrosssocieties and their watershed can shift values. This suggests that measurementsof socio-economic patterns that affect or have the potential to affect watershedmanagement must select metrics that account for norms, values, beliefs and attitudestoward water resources.

4. Conclusion

We have not provided a comprehensive overview of all the conceptual domains thatcould be used to measure social and economic conditions of watersheds. Rather,our intent is to draw attention to critical components that should be included ina research agenda that links society to ecosystems. Existing secondary data offeruseful measures of an area’s economic viability, demography, and cultural-historicalorientations. However, without a theoretical framework the usefulness of these dataare limited.


Flora’s (2002) model of social control applied to agroecosystem managementprovides a theoretical framework for examining social-environmental causality andintervention impacts. This model links positive and negative sanctions to internalbeliefs, and social, economic, and regulatory pressures. Another way to framesocial-environment relations is to use community as the unit of analysis and measureresidents’ “sense of place.” The aesthetic characteristics of “place” and respondents’responses to landscapes are key motivators for building partnerships that leveragepolitical pressure to protect watersheds. Attachment to place is a powerful indica-tor of the potential intensity of residents’ engagement in watershed initiatives. Thecommunity civic structure framework focuses on citizen, government and marketrelations, and the impacts that legal rules and social norms, communication pat-terns, and tolerance of differences have on policies and practices. Understandingsof the variations in race, ethnicity, culture and social status, and their linkages toecosystems can explain conflictual or cooperative relations as well as water man-agement intervention impacts. Beliefs, values, and norms underlie individual andsocial responses to the environment. Knowledge of these norms provides criticalexplanations to why certain policies are in place and which interventions have thepotential to be effective.

The social science contribution must go beyond documenting socio-economicfactors associated with water quality and build understandings of how social char-acteristics affect and are affected by the environment (Flora, 2002). Future researchmust build longitudinal data bases of social, economic, and political conditions.However, selecting parsimonious indicators of critical elements will not be easy.Table I contains examples of indicators and concepts that have been used to examinethe relationship between society and ecosystems. It is important to remember thatthis is an emerging field that needs much more research before definitive “best”metrics are singled out. The ideal indicator should capture the complexity of hu-man activity, reflect changing values and norms, represent multiple viewpoints, andpredict water outcomes. This suggests that a single indicator is not sufficient. Fur-ther, multiple levels of data are needed to represent the nested scales of individualand group actions within small and large basins. Optimum levels of aggregationwill vary according to the ecological system and questions asked. Indicators fromindividual parcels and small watersheds that are compatible with physical charac-teristics are not always appropriate to describe social and economic factors.

A realistic goal is to identify theory-driven concepts and then develop a set ofindicators. Multi-dimensional scales that represent concepts can reduce the numberof indicators. The challenge is to find consensus on the appropriate concepts andindicators. The questions scientists ask are not always the same as the ones thatcitizens and their leaders are asking. Further, because norms and belief systemsare dynamic, data that informed yesterday’s questions and interventions may beirrelevant for solving future water problems.

Farmers, urban residents, developers, business people, elected officials and plan-ners seek data for different reasons. Social scientists, engineers, and natural resource


TABLE IExamples of metrics representing theoretical concepts

Theory Examples

1. Social sanctionsInternalization Land owner knowledge of BMPa that reduce loss of nitrogen, sediment,

and other nutrients.Importance residents assign to maintaining/sustaining the natural

ecology of the watershed.Social pressure Interactions with others and intensity of peer attitudes about land

managers’ use/non-use of BMP that reduce nitrogen, sediment, andother nutrient losses.

Economic Net returns for practicing BMP that reduce nitrogen loss.Force Zoning regulations that define CAFO siting.

Fines collected for violations of pollution prevention policies.2. Sense of place Length of time living in watershed.

Miles resident lives from a water body (stream, river, lake).Sense of community indexb.Inventory of watershed uses (e.g. livelihood, recreation, sustenance,

aesthetic value).Values about water resources and non-human species (e.g. How

important is it that your local lake is safe to swim in? Do you hunt,fish, canoe, etc.)

Willingness to pay (e.g. Would you be willing to add $2000 to the priceof your home to maintain a high level of open space and natural areasin your neighborhood?)

3. Civic structure Citizen actions/leadership (e.g. voting patterns, positions of leadershipin the community)

Documentation of concentration versus dispersion of leadership on keywater issues.

Organizations (e.g. number of groups whose mission includesaddressing water and environmental issues, membership size, kindsof activities undertaken)

Community civicness (e.g. When something needs to get done in(community name), the whole community usually gets behind it)c

Interactions between agency and non-profit groups in addressing a localwater quality-land use issues?

Community communication patterns (e.g. In the last 12 months hasyour watershed been in the news? Have there been newspaper, radioor TV stories, letters to the editor and opinion pieces about floodingor water quality problems?)d

4. Culture, race,gender, social status

Inventory of use of water resources by race, ethnicity, gender, income.

Note.These examples assume multiple methods of data collection including historical archives,surveys, key informant interviews, focus groups, in person interviews, public records, etc.aBMP, best management practices.bChavis and Pretty (1999), 12-item sense of community index.cOne indicator in a four-item index of civic structure (Morton, 2003).dOne indicator of 11 items in the Community Readiness assessment (Morton et al., 2002).


experts also are not always asking the same questions. Different metrics servedifferent questions. Residents need feedback information to guide local decisionsthat incorporate political, economic, as well as biodiversity concerns. This meansthat residents in each of their watersheds must believe the data, own the problems,and be willing to change their behaviors. Thus, community members may legit-imately choose indicators that are different than those of environmental groups,agency experts, or social scientists.

Despite differences across sectors, a core set of indices could provide a usefulstandard for comparing local conditions, tracking changes, and evaluating inter-ventions. Natural resource experts need indicators for large-scale modeling of riverbasins. Citizens are seeking acceptable solutions. In some instances, the metricsscientists choose will overlap with local watershed groups; in other cases, theywill be entirely different. This suggests the need for a core set of indicators aswell as measures that represent unique aspects of specific watersheds. Both kindsof indicators require funding to support long-term collection of data. Randomizedregionally selected sampling points provide data for the big picture; however, theyare inadequate for local decision makers.

Local stewards need data specific to their own waters. One solution is partner-ships between concerned citizens and technical experts. This may be cost-effectiveand offer political support but will require volunteers. While most scientists asserttheir research is objective, selection of indicators is tempered by their personalknowledge and values, and subject to change in light of new understandings. Ulti-mately, the choice of conceptual domains and specific indicators should result fromnegotiations among those whose interests are affected. We recommend that the wa-tershed’s full diversity of stakeholders be included in the discussion of indicatorsso that this results in a set of metrics that all groups can use, not just the scientificcommunity.

Note

1. The term black box refers to processes that are not specified. Thus the internal mechanisms arehidden or unknown.

References

Allen, J.: 2002, ‘The Relationship Between Quality of Life and Community-Based River Management’Center for Rural Revitalization, University of Nebraska. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium,May 9, Kansas City, MO.

Arnold, C.L.: 2000, ‘Protecting Natural Resources in an Urbanizing World: NEMO and the NationalNEMO Network’, Retrieved from http://www.farmfoundation.org/2000NPPEC/nppecpapers.htm on 25 September 2000.

Barry, J.M.: 1997, Rising Tide, Simon & Schuster, New York.Brown, R.: 2002, ‘Sociological Aspects of Fishing Activities in the Delta Region’ Brigham Young

University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.


Brown, R.B., Toth, J.F., Jr. and Jackson, D.C.: 1996, Sociological Aspects of River Fisheries in theDelta Region of Western Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks,Jackson, MS, Report No. 154.

Chavis, D.M. and Pretty, G.M.H.: 1999, ‘Sense of community: Advances in measurement and appli-cation’ J. Community Psychol. 27, 635–642.

Cleaver, F.: 1998, ‘Choice, complexity, and change: Gendered livelihoods and the management ofwater’, Agric. Hum. Values 15, 293–299.

Constantz, G.: 2002, ‘The Local Socio-Ecosystem is the Crucial Unit of Study’ Canaan Valley Institute,West Virginia. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.

Cooper, J.: 2002, ‘Water Quality and Public Policy: Local Residents Can Make a Difference’ PrairieRivers RC&D, USDA NRCS Iowa. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City,MO.

Feldman, R.M.: 1990, ‘Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile soci-ety’, Environ. Behav. 22, 183–229.

Flora, C.: 2002, ‘Exploring the Contents of the Black Box: Rivers, People, and the Places They Live’North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University. Presentation at theEMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.

Hanson, M., Balmer, M., Imerman, M., Padgitt, S., Huntington, S. and Know J.: 2000, ‘Prelimi-nary Social, Cultural, Economic Assessment of Central Great Plans Within EPA Region VII’Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Hull, R.B.I., Lam, M. and Vigo, G.: 1994, ‘Place identity: Symbols of self in the urban fabric’,Landscape Urban Plann. 28, 109–120.

Hunter, A.: 1979, ‘The urban neighborhood: Its analytical and social contents’, Urban Aff. Q. 14,67–288.

Laska, S. and Malek-Wiley, D.: 2002, ‘Linkages Between Social, Political and Economic Char-acteristics of Coastal Louisiana’s Mississippi River Delta Communities and Ecosystems’University of New Orleans. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City,MO.

Moore, R.: 2002, ‘Sugar Creek Social Indicators: Tapping Subwatershed TMDL Potential in theHeadwaters of the Ohio River’ Ohio State University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium,May 9, Kansas City, MO.

Morton, L.W.: 2003, ‘Small Town Services and Facilities: The influence of social capital and civicstructure on perceptions of quality’, City Community 2, 99–118.

Morton, L.W.: 2002, ‘Metrics of Watershed Civic Structure’ Iowa State University. Presentation atthe EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.

Morton, L.W., Padgitt S., Flora J., Allen B.L., Zacharakis-Jutz J., Scholl S., Jensen A., Rodecap J.,West J. and Steffen-Baker J. 2002, Renewing Local Watersheds: Community Leaders’ Guide toBuilding Watershed Communities. Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.

Nassauer, J.E. (ed): 1997, Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, Island Press, Washington,DC.

Pfeffer, M.J.: 2002, ‘Historical impacts: The Politics and Economics of Watershed Management’Center for the Environment, Cornell University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9,Kansas City, MO.

Prato, T.: 2002, ‘Integrated Ecological Economic Assessment of Farming Systems’ Missouri RiverInstitute, University of Missouri. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City,MO.

Ravnborg, H.M. and del Pilar Guerrero, M.: 1999, ‘Collective action in watershed management:Experiences from the Andean hillsides’, Agric. Hum. Values 16, 257–266.

Salamon, S., Farnsworth, J. and Rendziak, A.: 1998, ‘Is locally led conservation planning working?A farm town case study’, Rural Sociol. 63(2), 214–234.


Steins, N.A. and Edwards, V.M.: 1999. ‘Synthesis: Platforms for collective action in multiple usecommon pool resources’, Agric. Hum. Values 16, 309–315.

Wagner, M.: 2002, ‘Moving Water Quality Enhancement Forward: Human Dynamics, Technical Data,and Environmental Planning’ Iowa State University. Presentation at the EMAP Symposium, May9, Kansas City, MO.

Westpfal, L.: 2002, ‘Economic and ecological revitalization at the same place and time: Lessonsfrom the Ford Supplier Park Development in Calumet’ USDA Forest Service. Presentation at theEMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.

Weyer, P.: 2002, ‘Drinking Water Quality and Public Health: Issues Related to Source Water Monitor-ing’ Center for Health Effect of Environmental Contamination, University of Iowa. Presentationat the EMAP Symposium, May 9, Kansas City, MO.

selecting socio-economic metrics for watershed management · environmental monitoring and...

Documents