Social Indicators for Nonpoint Source Management

13th Biennial Governor’s Conference on the Management of the Illinois River System

Peoria, IL, October 6, 2011

Dr. Ken GenskowUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension

Background

NPS Challenges The major cause of water quality impairment

Limited regulatory options

Addressed mainly through persuasion and voluntary practices

Financial incentives

Technical support

Outreach & education

Measurement problems

Response lag for environmental change

Upstream impacts can mask local improvements

More Challenges

Where and how to focus resources?

How to know if making a difference?

Administrative Environment:

Increasing competition/decreasing resources

Accountability demands

Resources for staff?

For Many NPS projects Watershed based – restoration and

protection

Goals are reduction oriented

Total load (modeled)

Voluntary involvement

Technical and $$ assistance not targeted

Multiple sources (programs)

First-come basis

Reporting

Administrative indicators

Environmental indicators

USEPA Region 5 States:

Traditional Uses

Human health

Housing

Education

Social equity

Other desirable data

Economic impact

Resource use and value

Add “social indicators” to NPS

Our needs:

Complement Admin and Environ

Interim, relevant for management

Progress toward use and adoption

Theories of Behavior Change

Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen)

knowledge persuasion implementation confirmationdecision

Attitudes Toward

Behavior

Social Norms

Perceived

Behavioral

Control

Behavioral

Intent

Behavior /

Action

Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers)

Reduction

Is it worth it? -- Motivation

Can I do it? -- Ability

Patterson et al 2008. Influencer.

- Focus on key/ “vital” behaviors

- Message AND messenger

- More than words

Targeting

Source: Salt Creek Watershed Management Project. Save the Dunes. Michigan City, IN. 2010.

Salt Creek

Watershed, IN

• Dis-proportionate effects

• Focus for greatest impact

Conceptual Model

Improvement

& protection of

water quality

Program

Activities

social

norms

knowledge

awareness

skills

attitudes

capacity

values

constraints

Use of water

quality management

Practices

Reduction in

Stressors

Conceptual Model

Social EnvironmentalAdministrative

Improvement

& protection of

water qualitysocial

norms

Program

Activities

knowledge

awareness

skills

attitudes

capacity

values

constraints

Use of water

quality management

Practices

5 categories with goals & indicators

Additional contextual data

supplemental indicators

Prokopy, Genskow et al. Journal of Extension, 2009

Reduction in

Stressors

Social Indicators for Planning & Evaluation System (SIPES)

Critical areas & target audiences

Scale is project level

Consistent survey questions and data collection protocols

Used across projects

Compared over time

Compared across projects

Upper Rock River Watershed Survey

Survey Administration

Spring 2010

Target Audience: Farmers in sub-watersheds

Mailed survey: multiple contacts

66% response (463 complete); individual Q response varies

Survey Content

Awareness:

water quality pollutants and sources

Management practices

Attitudes toward water quality issues

Use of practices

Constraints to Practices

Sources of information

1

Your Views on Local Water Resources

University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension is conducting this survey in coordination with water and land conservation partners in order to identify the needs and interests of agricultural producers regarding water quality for the upper portions of the Rock River Basin. We ask that this survey be completed by the person in your household that makes most of the farming decisions and is at least 18 years old. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. Your answers will be kept confidential and will be released only as summaries where individual answers cannot be identified. Unless otherwise instructed, please check the circle associated with the answer you are providing. The survey should take approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. Please read each question carefully. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jake Blasczyk, UW-Extension, 608-890-0718 or jblasczy@wisc.edu. Thank you for your time.

Farmer Characteristics

Male (91%)

Operating alone or with spouse (49%)

Operating with other family partners (33%)

Family member likely to continue farm (44%)

Operation < 500 acres (87%)

Farm Acreage

34%

53%

9%

2% 1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 - 99 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 1,999 2,000 +

Tillable Acres

Total Tillable Acreage(N=433)

Attitudes toward Water Quality Issues

16%

58%

68%

71%

80%

88%

92%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I would be willing to pay more to imporve WQ.

I would be willing to change management practices to improve WQ.

The quality of life in my community depends on good WQ in local streams, rivers and lakes.

It is important to protect WQ even if it slows economic development.

My actions have an impact on WQ.

Using recommended management practices on farms improves WQ.

It is my personal responsibility to help protect WQ.

Percent that Agree or Strongly Agree

Water Impairments

27%

29%

17%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Sedimentation in the water

Algae in the water Nitrogen Phosphorus

Moderate/Severe Problem

Moderate/Severe Problem

Water Impairments54%

47%

43%41%

27%29%

17%19%19%

24%

40% 40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Sedimentation in the water

Algae in the water Nitrogen Phosphorus

Not/Slight Problem

Moderate/Severe Problem

Don't Know

Sources of Pollutants

14%16%

21%24% 24%

33%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Soil erosion from

construction sites

Excessive use of fertilizers

for crop production

Manure from farm animals

Soil erosion from farm

fields

Discharges from sewage

treatment plants

Excessive use of lawn

fertilizers and/or

pesticides

Droppings from geese, ducks and

other waterfowl

Farmers' Perceived Moderate or Severe Pollution Sources

Sources of Pollutants

68% 68%66%

67%

48% 47% 48%

14%16%

21%24% 24%

33%

40%

19%

16%

12%

9%

28%

20%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Soil erosion from

construction sites

Excessive use of

fertilizers for crop

production

Manure from farm animals

Soil erosion from farm

fields

Discharges from sewage

treatment plants

Excessive use of lawn fertilizers

and/or pesticides

Droppings from geese, ducks and

other waterfowl

Farmers' Perceived Pollution Sources

Not/Slight Problem

Moderate/Severe Problem

Don’t Know

Use of Practices

"Yes" or "Maybe"

willing to use

Currently

using

Conservation Tillage 90% 74%

Cover Crops 91% 62%

Filter Strips 79% 44%

CNMP or MMP 72% 36%

Conservation Tillage(Users of Practice vs. Nonusers)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

a. Lack of skills or

information

b. Time required

c. Cost d. The features of

my property

make this difficult

e. Insufficient

proof of water quality benefit

f. Desire to keep things

the way they are

g. Hard to use with

my farming system

h. Lack of equipment

Me

an

Use

Don't Use

Constraints to Change Agricultural Management

40% 41%

59% 62% 62%

74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Lack of available

information about a practice

Don't want to participate in government programs

Not having access to the

equipment that I need

Requirements or restrictions of

government programs

Possible interference

with my flexibility to change land

use practicies as conditions

warrant

Lack of government

funds for cost share

Percent of Farmers Constrained 'Some' or 'A lot'

Information Sources

8%

26%

30%

34%

34%

41%

46%

47%

48%

52%

58%

59%

60%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Local environmental group

Town & County RC & D

Rock River Coalition

Local farm organization

US Fish and Wildlie Service

Wisconsin DNR

Natural Resources Conservation Service

UW research specialist

Wisconsin Department of Ag, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Fertilizer representatives

County land and water conservatin department

Other landowners/friends

UW Extension county agent

Crop consultants

Percent that Trust Information Sources Moderately or Very Much

Information Sources

6%

7%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

10%

11%

16%

30%

32%

37%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Wisconsin DNR

Other landowners/friends

Wisconsin Department of Ag, Trade, and …

Fertilizer representatives

UW Extension county agent

Natural Resources Conservation Service

County land and water conservatin …

Crop consultants

US Fish and Wildlie Service

UW research specialist

Local farm organization

Rock River Coalition

Town & County RC & D

Local environmental group

Percent that are Not Familiar with Information Sources

SIDMA Tool

Main Page

Build a Survey

from SIDMA’s

core questions

Add Custom

Questions

Public Survey

Input URL

Response

Frequencies and

Stats

Sortable tables

Graphical Output

Response

Frequencies and

Stats

Text Responses

Graphical Output and

Individual Responses

Compare results

between

surveys.

Acknowledgements USEPA Region 5 NPS Program

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Great Lakes Regional Water Program

Land Grant Universities in USEPA Region 5

Indiana NRCS

Ken Genskow, Univ of Wisconsin

Linda Prokopy, Purdue Univ

Jeremiah Asher, Michigan State

Adam Baumgart-Getz, Purdue

Joe Bonnell, Ohio State Univ

Shorna Broussard, Cornell Univ

Cyd Curtis, USEPA

Karlyn Eckman, Univ of Minnesota

Kristin Floress, UW-Stevens Point

Karyn McDermaid, Univ of Illinois

Alicia Molloy, Purdue

Glenn O’Neil, Michigan State

Rebecca Power, UW-Extension

David White, Univ of Illinois

Danielle Wood, Univ of Wisconsin

Background Information about Social Indicators:http://greatlakeswater.uwex.edu/social-indicators

SIDMA:http://www.iwr.msu.edu/sidma

Discussion