Tracking Social Dimensions in Watershed Projects

Leadership for Midwestern WatershedsNovember 8, 2018

Ken Genskow, University of Wisconsin-Madison/UW-Extension

Overview

l Outline/review social dimension concepts

l Discuss examples of social measures

l Provoke your thinking for facilitated discussion

Working AssumptionWe are attempting to influence conservation behaviors

Primarily through voluntary/persuasive methods– Outreach and education– Financial Support– Technical Support

That increase capacity and lead to action

General underlying social capacity

Overall Logic

Improvement & protection of

water quality

Program Activities

Decision Factors

Use of water quality management Practices

Reduction in Stressors

Theories of Behavior Changel Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen)

knowledge persuasion implementation confirmationdecision

Attitudes Toward Behavior

Social Norms

Perceived Behavioral Control

Behavioral Intent

Behavior / Action

l Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers)

Innovativeness and Adoption

Early Majority

34%

Late Majority

34%Early

Adopters13.5%

Innovators

2.5%

Laggards16%

x - 2sd x - sd x x + sd

Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations

Already prone to behave

Not yet convinced

Resistant to behave

Approach

Self Interest

Based on Rothschild, 1999

Benefits are apparent

Need to see benefits

Don’t see/ disagree with

benefits

Education MarketingOther motivation/ Regulation

Willingness to Behave

Bottom LineIs 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

Ability

Motivation

Based on Patterson et al, 2008

Influencing BehaviorPersonal

Make Desirable

Change Limits

Social

Peer Pressure

Increase Numbers

Structural

Rewards & Accountability

SupportiveEnvironment

Common Themes

People respond differently

Convey reasoning for behavior change

Understand constraints and motivationsl Educational, financial, technical, culturall Inertia and apathy

Consider issues of trust and legitimacy

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

SI Planning and Evaluation Process

General underlying social capacity

Conceptual Model

Improvement & protection of

water quality

Program Activities

socialnorms

knowledge

awareness

skills

attitudes

capacity

values

constraints

Use of water quality management Practices

Reduction in Stressors

Social EnvironmentalAdministrative

General underlying social capacity

Measurement focus

Social EnvironmentalAdministrative

Improvement & protection of

water qualitysocialnorms

Program Activities

knowledge

awareness

skills

attitudes

capacity

values

constraints

Use of water quality management Practices

n 5 categories with goals & indicatorsn Additional contextual datan supplemental indicators

Prokopy, Genskow et al. Journal of Extension, 2009

Reduction in Stressors

Social Indicators for Planning & Evaluation System (SIPES)

Before collecting social indicators:

1. What are the specific NPS problems this project is trying to address?

2. What are the critical areas that contribute to the problem?

3. Who are the target audience(s) for the NPS problem(s) your project will address?

4. What actions do you want the target audience(s) to take regarding the NPS problems?

Link to planning

Survey Content

l Awareness: l water quality pollutants and sourcesl Management practices

l Attitudes toward water quality issues

l Use of practices (behaviors)

l Constraints to Practices

l Sources of information

Awareness

Awareness of consequences of pollutants

Awareness of pollutant types

Awareness of pollutant sources

Awareness of appropriate practices

l General practices

l Key practices

Outcome: Increase target audience awareness of relevant technical issues and recommended practices in critical areas

Attitudes

General water-quality-related attitudes

Willingness to take action to improve water quality

Outcome: Change attitudes to facilitate desired behavior change in critical areas

General Water-Quality Related Attitudes

Constructs:

l Personal impact

l Value / importance of water quality

l Farm or household management impact

l Economics vs. water quality

l Personal action / responsibility

Constraints to Behavior Change

General constraints to behavior change

Constraints to adopting key practices

Outcome: Reduce constraints to behavior change

Capacity

Behavior

Percentage of critical area receiving treatment

Percentage of target audience implementing practices in critical areas

l General practices

l Key practices

Outcome: Increase adoption of practices to maintain and improve water quality in critical areas

Online Tool: www.iwr.msu.edu/sidma

Awareness

Awareness

Awareness

Awareness

Compare results between surveys.

Example: Constraints

Example: Constraints

Example: Constraints

Filter Strips(Users of Practice vs. Nonusers)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

a. Lack ofskills or

information

b. Timerequired

c. Cost d. Thefeatures of

myproperty

make thisdifficult

e.Insufficient

proof ofwaterqualitybenefit

f. Desire tokeep things

the waythey are

g. Hard touse with

my farmingsystem

h. Lack ofequipment

Mean

UseDon't Use

Conservation Tillage(Users of Practice vs. Nonusers)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

a. Lack ofskills or

information

b. Timerequired

c. Cost d. Thefeatures of

myproperty

make thisdifficult

e.Insufficient

proof ofwaterqualitybenefit

f. Desire tokeep things

the waythey are

g. Hard touse with

my farmingsystem

h. Lack ofequipment

Mean

UseDon't Use

Cover Crops(Users of Practice vs. Nonusers)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

a. Lack ofskills or

information

b. Timerequired

c. Cost d. Thefeatures ofmy propertymake this

difficult

e.Insufficient

proof ofwaterqualitybenefit

f. Desire tokeep things

the waythey are

g. Hard touse with my

farmingsystem

h. Lack ofequipment

Mean

UseDon't Use

Download at: www.iwr.msu.edu/sidma

Highlights• Checklists for all 7 steps• How to use SIDMA• Choosing a survey

method• Selecting sample size• Administering a survey• Interpreting data• Designing outreach

programs• Sample surveys and

cover letters

Nitrogen application rates(from 1990s watershed projects)

Total Nitrogen (kg/ha)

Perc

ent o

f Cas

es

N=1,928

See Shepard 2000

Changes for participants in Nutrient Management Courses

Total Nitrogen

Perc

ent o

f Cas

es

See Genskow 2012. JSWC

Highest quintile

Lowestquintile

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

for info about soil and water conservation(out of 460 responses, in Upper Rock and East Branch watersheds, WI)

Information Sources

6%7%8%8%8%8%8%10%

11%16%

30%32%

37%55%

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

Wisconsin DNROther landowners/friends

Wisconsin Department of Ag, Trade, and…Fertilizer representatives

UW Extension county agentNatural Resources Conservation Service

County land and water conservatin…Crop consultants

US Fish and Wildlie ServiceUW research specialist

Local farm organizationRock River Coalition

Town & County RC & DLocal environmental group

Percent that are Not Familiar with Information Sources

Targeting

Focus efforts on area of greatest impactl Specific audiencel Specific geographic area

Some behaviors in some places can have a disproportionate impact on water quality

Geographical Allocation Approaches

Diebel et al, Nov 2008. Environmental Management

Networks

More complex

Cook. Social Networks Primer

Davenport & Seekamp 2013

Individual CapacityMember beliefs,

concern, sense of responsibility, perceived efficacy, and civic/water

action

Relational CapacityInterpersonal

relationships and social networks for knowledge

exchange, norm development, and organizing action

Organizational Capacity

Organizational development, leadership

development, stakeholder engagement, and

partnerships

Programmatic Capacity

Clear goals and objectives, cross-

jurisdictional coordination, outcomes

tracking, and adaptation

EquityTrust, legitimacy, and fairness

CultureValues, customs, practices

Empowering people and engaging communities in clean water

Multi-level Community Capacity Model

Slide from Dr. Mae Davenport, UMN

What can you do on the WebsiteComparing yourself with others

Slide from Jeremiah Asher, MSU

Great Lakes Watershed Management System (GLWMS)Supports conservation planning and programs by evaluating, tracking and reporting water quality and quantity improvements at the field-scale

Slide from Jeremiah Asher, MSU

Challenges

Measurement trade-offsIndividual ßà communityUnique ßà consistent/comparablePrimary data ßà Other existing sourcesFew measures ßà Many measures

Activating community/civic resources around watershed issues

Understanding, documenting, and telling the story