Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 19 October 2014, At: 05:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
A conceptual model of the citizenstream stewardship decision process inan urbanising Midwestern United StateswatershedDeborah Kay Hersha a , Robyn Suzanne Wilson b & Anne Mary Bairdc
a School of Environment and Natural Resources , The Ohio StateUniversity , 357 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus ,Ohio , 43017 , USAb School of Environment and Natural Resources , The Ohio StateUniversity , 316D Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus ,Ohio , 43017 , USAc School of Environment and Natural Resources , The Ohio StateUniversity , 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus ,Ohio , 43017 , USAPublished online: 25 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Deborah Kay Hersha , Robyn Suzanne Wilson & Anne Mary Baird (2012) Aconceptual model of the citizen stream stewardship decision process in an urbanising MidwesternUnited States watershed, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55:2, 253-270, DOI:10.1080/09640568.2011.592001
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.592001
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
A conceptual model of the citizen stream stewardship decision process
in an urbanising Midwestern United States watershed
Deborah Kay Hershaa*, Robyn Suzanne Wilsonb and Anne Mary Bairdc
aSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 357 Kottman Hall,2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43017, USA; bSchool of Environment and Natural
Resources, The Ohio State University, 316D Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus,Ohio 43017, USA; cSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University,
210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43017, USA
(Received 15 November 2010; final version received 20 May 2011)
We present a conceptual model depicting how citizens make decisions to promotestream health. The model, based on a combination of local expert opinion andsubstantive literature, serves as a foundation for assessing citizen knowledge gapsand decision influences, with the ultimate goal of designing more informedcommunication efforts. The model indicates that decisions are directly influencedby the recognition of a threat and need to act, as well as the legal requirement toact regardless of personal concern. The recognition of a threat is dependent onunderstanding the ecosystem and the threats and impacts to stream health, as wellas a variety of individual differences and socio-cultural factors that motivateindividuals to better understand the risk.
Keywords: mental model; stream health; watersheds; risk communication;education
1. Introduction
The rapid rate of land use alteration in the United States (Atasoy et al. 2006) hasgreatly contributed to the declining health of our country’s streams and surroundingwatersheds (Tang et al. 2005, Cunningham et al. 2009). Although non-point sourcepollution from agricultural land use has been identified as the main source ofbiological stream degradation (Dyer et al. 2000, Manolakas et al. 2007), impairmentsattributed to agricultural perturbations are now giving way to increasing surfacewater impairments associated with urbanisation (USDA 2000, Allan 2004). Theseimpairments include the loss of riparian vegetation, increased impervious surfacesleading to urban runoff, and pathogen contamination from home sewage treatmentsystems (Carpenter et al. 1998, Ohio EPA 2008).
Agricultural and urban impairments are problematic in headwater streams,which are particularly vulnerable to human influences (Sponseller and Benfield 2001,King et al. 2009) and critical for providing fundamental ecological services (e.g.natural flood control) (Meyer et al. 2003). They also play a critical role in sustainingbiological productivity and downstream diversity at a regional scale (Wipfli et al.2007, Dodds and Oakes 2008). Despite headwater streams making up over 70% of
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Vol. 55, No. 2, March 2012, 253–270
ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online
� 2012 University of Newcastle upon Tyne
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.592001
http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
the entire stream network (Meyer et al. 2003), legal protection is largely dependenton voluntary landowner action in more than half of the nation (Getches 1997).
Voluntary actions are often guided by best management practices (BMPs) asdesignated by a state’s revised code or recommended by conservation professionals(Hall and Koontz 2004). However, traditional conservation programmes do notalways lead to greater adoption of best management practices (Napier 2001).Dutcher et al. (2004) found that citizens’ lack of knowledge about the ecologicalimportance of small streams and the connection between land management andstream quality was a barrier to voluntary action. Other structural barriers includesocio-economic status, lack of human capital, limiting policies and programmes,and general unfamiliarity with conservation practices due to poor informationavailability (Napier 2001).
An important question for collaborative watershed management initiatives,which have been increasing in the last decade, is how to influence private landmanagement practices to improve stream and watershed health (Rosenberg andMargerum 2008). It is our belief that education and extension programmes could beimproved by targeting knowledge gaps among current and future streamsidelandowners and effectively addressing barriers that have the greatest influence onlandowners’ decisions. These programmes should aim to both enhance knowledge ofwatershed ecology (i.e. impact of land use on water quality) and receipt of a riskmessage (i.e. awareness of the impact of stream quality on humans) (Lazo et al.1999). An increased awareness of the risks posed by action (or inaction) leads peopleto more deliberately seek out and process information before making a decision, inturn making them more likely to develop risk related cognitions, attitudes andbehaviours that are sustainable over time (Griffin et al. 1999). In addition,information and outreach strategies need to be tailored to specific audiences dueto the heterogeneity of riparian landowner’s preferences for information strategiesand formats (Rosenberg and Margerum 2008). The aim of this paper is to present anideal model of citizen understanding and decision making related to stream health,as well as evaluate local expert understanding within the larger context of researchfindings on this topic. The final conceptual model will serve as the foundation forassessing citizen knowledge and decision making in future stages of the research,with the larger goal of designing more informed communication and outreach effortsthat target gaps in citizen knowledge as well as gaps in expert understanding aboutwhat may influence citizen decisions.
2. Methods
2.1. Research design
The aims were carried out using a mental models research approach (Morgan et al.2002). An individual’s mental model represents their beliefs and unspokenassumptions, which are often the foundation to the embodied knowledge that oneuses daily to make decisions. The first step in a mental models approach is to developan ‘expert model’ that captures and focuses the knowledge obtained from experts ona given topic, in this case citizen decisions regarding stream stewardship. The expertmodel represents both the current literature and expert opinion, and is typicallyexpressed in a graphic form similar to that of an influence diagram (Morgan et al.2002). The expert model then serves as the analytical framework for subsequent stepsin the approach, specifically interviews with the target audience and development of
254 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
an audience-specific mental model. A comparison of the expert and target audiencemental models allows for the development of new risk communication efforts thatmore adequately address both what the target audience needs to know (from theexpert perspective) and wants to know (from the audience perspective) about thedecision at hand.
2.2. Study site
The Rocky Fork and Blacklick Creek watersheds, located east of Columbus, Ohio,were selected as the study site for this research. Like many upper Midwesternwatersheds, they are facing rapid urbanisation. Projections include a reduction inagricultural lands from 25% to less than 1% (Miller et al. 2008) creating potentialimpairments to headwaters as agricultural fields are developed. The majority of thepopulation in these watersheds is aged between 18 and 65, reports some level ofcollege education, and has a mean household income of $48,000.
2.3. Expert model development
Because we wanted to ensure a wide diversity of thought regarding the citizendecision process, 20 local experts were interviewed from many different back-grounds, including local government officials, wastewater personnel, state agencypersonnel, watershed organisation leaders, academics (e.g. stream ecologists, policyexperts and environmental lawyers), developers, industry/business owners, streamfield technicians and a golf course ground superintendent. Each expert was recruitedto participate in a one-on-one interview with a member of the project team betweenJanuary and February 2009. The interviews took 75 minutes to complete on average,and were recorded and partially transcribed.
The interview included a series of open-ended questions about citizen knowledgeand decision making as it relates to stream and watershed health. Through aniterative reduction process, expert responses were coded into four major categories:ecosystem knowledge, policy and outreach, individual and societal influences, andperceived risk and decision making. Included within these categories were a total of16 primary organising codes and 72 secondary codes embedded within the primarycodes. An influence diagram was then designed based on the expert driven codes(boxes) and the supporting primary literature (arrows) to illustrate the connectivityof the identified influences (Figure 1). Primary codes represent the coarsest responseand are identified as the title of each box. Secondary codes are represented by thephrases below the box title and are ranked according to expert response frequency.Those codes marked with an asterisk (*) indicate 50% or more expert response rate(Figures 2–5). Throughout this paper we will identify the expert response frequencyfor each secondary node as a percentage to identify how prevalent this idea wasamong the expert panel. These frequencies are meant only for relative comparisonwithin this group of local experts.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Expert model overview
The resulting model (Figure 1) aims to provide a comprehensive account of whatparameters local experts believe influence the individual decision-making process for
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 255
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
Figure 1. The expert model depicting the factors that play a role in citizen stewardshipdecisions and the relationships between them based on current literature and local expertopinion.
Figure 2. The ecosystem knowledge sub-model. The asterisks indicate that 50% or greater ofthe ‘experts’ discussed these topics in response to the interview questions.
256 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
Figure 3. The policy and outreach sub-model. The asterisks indicate that 50% or greater ofthe ‘experts’ discussed these topics in response to the interview questions.
Figure 4. The individual and societal influences sub-model. The asterisks indicate that 50%or greater of the ‘experts’ discussed these topics in response to the interview questions.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 257
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
people living in these communities and, more specifically, those owning land alongstreams. In the Ecosystem Knowledge section, experts indicated it is necessary forcitizens to understand stream and watershed ecology as well as threats and impactsassociated with degraded streams in order to make informed choices. Experts alsobelieved it is important for scientific research to inform citizen knowledge. Regardingthe Policy and Outreach section, experts believed that different actors influencecitizen decisions through water law and policy, as well as outreach and educationrelated to the prevention, maintenance and restoration of streams. Highlighted in theIndividual and Societal Influences section, experts believed that the degree to whichpeople seek out and process information in their decisions to act (or not act) isinfluenced by a variety of factors including individual differences (e.g. differingvalues), socio-cultural drivers (e.g. social norms), and economic drivers (e.g. accessto resources). Finally, experts believed that certain parameters promote theinternalisation of a threat and potential action by an individual (e.g. awareness),and that there are barriers that may prevent a threat from being recognised (i.e. pre-internalisation barriers) or acted upon (i.e. post-internalisation barriers), asillustrated in the Perceived Risk and Decision Making section. The experts alsohighlighted actions available to an individual (e.g. stream restoration) and desiredoutcomes (e.g. improved watershed and stream health), as well as factors thatultimately lead to sustainable action and a greater likelihood of achieving the desiredoutcomes (e.g. individual involvement). The remaining sections of the paper willpresent and discuss each node in more detail, providing a critique of local expertopinion where applicable based on current research.
Figure 5. The perceived risk and decision making sub-model. The asterisks indicate that50% or greater of the ‘experts’ discussed these topics in response to the interviewquestions.
258 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
3.2. Ecosystem knowledge
Expert responses related to citizen-relevant ecosystem knowledge were divided intothree primary nodes: ecological knowledge, threats and impacts, and scientificresearch studies (Figure 2). Regarding the connectivity of these primary nodes, theliterature suggests that scientific research studies should inform both ecologicalknowledge (Hopfensperfer 2007, Shackeroff and Campbell 2007) and awareness ofthreats and impacts (Mattson and Angermeier 2007), which in turn inform eachother. Understanding the relevant threats and impacts is an initial fundamentalinfluence in the expert model, impacting individual decisions through two potentialpathways. First, individuals may be influenced to take action because of a legalobligation. The awareness of threats and impacts leads influential actors (e.g.policy makers, regulators) to develop law and policy aimed at preventing streamand watershed degradation (Reichman et al. 1999). Second, individuals need tointernalise threats in a way that motivates them to act. Influential actor’scommunication efforts, informed by the awareness of threats and impacts, aredesigned to promote individual action by increasing awareness and motivation(Griffin et al. 1999). As a result, without basic ecological knowledge about thesystem and, in particular, awareness of the threats to poor stream health and theimpacts (or risks) that result, intentional action to improve watershed health is notpossible.
3.2.1. Ecological knowledge
With respect to ecological knowledge, experts were most likely to discuss topicspertaining to biota (55%) followed by connectivity effects (45%). Experts believedthat citizens should be cognisant of the aquatic life and wildlife that lives in andaround the stream because they are an indicator of stream health and quality.Experts also felt that to understand the dynamics of diversity it is necessary tounderstand the interactions between land use and the effects of human activities onstream structure and habitat.
Beyond biota and connectivity, stream structural parameters (e.g. modifiedchannel profile, rate of water flow, substrate composition) were mentioned moreoften than functional parameters (e.g. production and respiration dynamics,transport and storage of organic matter) (40% versus 30%, respectively). Thismay reflect the long held ecological premise that there is a definitive relationshipbetween structure of a lotic system and its functionality (Cummins 1974). Or thiscould be an indication that the general perspective on stream and watershed issueshas yet to acknowledge the importance of stream function as an indicator of healthwithin the network (Young and Collier 2009).
With regard to the critical functional role played by specialised areas such asfloodplains and wetlands, some experts (20%, particularly those associated withlocal government, outreach efforts and government policy) mentioned theimportance of understanding these areas. Another topic that was mentionedeven less often by the experts (15%) was citizens’ knowledge of ecosystem servicesas a motivator for stewardship. The relatively recent initiative to addressstewardship in relation to ecosystem services may account for the low discussionof this topic.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 259
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
3.2.2. Threats and impacts
Impacts, including pollution (70%) and runoff or sedimentation (50%), werementioned most frequently (Figure 2). Although experts did mention threats such asland use (e.g. agriculture and land development) and human practices (e.g. harmfulstream inputs, landscape alterations), stronger emphasis was placed on impacts. Thismay reflect the fact that identifying the cause of a particular effect is problematicdue to the many interacting disturbances occurring upstream of the problem (Allan2004). According to Gergel et al. (2002) it may be possible to determine the impact ofdisturbance to an accurate degree without reaching a similar degree of accuracy forthe cause. Another possible explanation for this expert focus is that regulation oftenfocuses on load reductions as opposed to identifying and eliminating the threats.However, according to Allan (2004), causal knowledge is critical for more effectiveaction to occur. The disconnection between threats and impacts may be amelioratedif there is greater communication between researchers who tend to focus on causalmechanisms, and ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners who deal more directly with thenegative effects.
3.2.3. Scientific research studies
Scientific research provides basic knowledge about stream and watershed dynamics(Allan and Castillo 2007) as well as the influence of threats and impacts on theecological health of these systems (Miltner et al. 2004). Research on humandynamics in the watershed focuses on what motivates and influences landownerdecisions in the watershed (Shandas 2007, Rosenburg and Margerum 2008) and theeffectiveness of educational programmes (Genskow and Prokopy 2008). Recognisingthe importance of local knowledge, it is still necessary for scientific research toinform individual knowledge, issues of concern and possible action options (Rhoadset al. 1999, Poff et al. 2003). In this study, approximately half of the experts(primarily academics and their associates) were aware of basic watershed ecologystudies (Figure 2). Only two experts, both academics, cited behavioural researchrelated to stream stewardship, indicating potential to improve the incorporationof scientific findings, and, in particular, social scientific findings into outreach andcommunication planning.
3.3. Policy and outreach
Expert responses about policy and outreach were divided into three primary nodes:influential actors, water law and policy, and outreach and education (Figure 3).Regarding the connectivity of the primary nodes, an understanding of threatsand impacts informs water law and policy by motivating the development andenforcement of regulations (Pringle 2000). In the same way, this understanding alsoinforms outreach and education aimed at mitigation (Booth et al. 2004). Influentialactors initiate the development of new policy, as well as outreach and educationalproducts, and may even directly influence information gathering and processingdepending on perceived trust in the actor (Griffin et al. 1999). Finally, water lawand policy indirectly influences decision making through mandated outreach andeducation, and directly through regulation and mandates that require action (Mooreand Koontz 2003, Chavez and Alipaz 2007).
260 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
3.3.1. Influential actors
Expert responses indicated that non-governmental organisations (75%), specialinterest groups (65%), and the government (55%) are perceived as having thegreatest influence on individual decision making, while community memberswere mentioned by only 40% of the experts. Previous research confirms theimportance of these identified actors for communicating with landowners. In a studyof Washington landowners, university scientists and local non-governmentalorganisations were the most trusted source of information followed by universityextension and watershed groups (Shandas 2007). Multiple studies have identifiedcommunity based non-governmental organisations as playing a critical role inaddressing watershed health (Kennedy et al. 2000, as cited in Rosenberg andMargerum 2008). However, contrary to expert opinion, in a recent study of Oregonlandowners, individual community members such as friends, family and neighbourswere identified as the most trusted source of information, followed by governmentagencies and watershed groups for rural residential landowners, and universityextension for agricultural landowners (Rosenberg and Margerum 2008). Thesefindings may highlight an under-appreciation for the importance of peer influence onindividual decision making.
These findings highlight the importance of identifying multiple actors, andperhaps considering new ones, in order to best communicate with diverse audiences.Landowners may rely on different sources of information at different times, inaddition to preferences for information sources differing by geographic location andindividual landowner (Rogers 1995, Tucker and Napier 2002, as cited in Rosenbergand Margerum 2008). Successful communication may hinge on identifying the mostaccessed and trusted source of information.
3.3.2. Outreach and education
There was a significant amount of agreement between experts on the types ofoutreach and education outlets available. The majority mentioned the use of massmedia (e.g. newscasts and documentary media, newspapers, flyers) (70%), one-on-one and small group communication (e.g. volunteer monitoring, environmentaleducation activities) (50%), and technical outlets (e.g. national and state assessmentreports, extension fact sheets) (50%). Consistent with our findings, the mostfrequently used formats include newsletters, workshops, one-on-one technicalassistance and demonstration projects (Rosenberg and Margerum 2008). Shandas(2007) and Rosenberg and Margerum (2008) reported that landowners preferrednewsletters for information on caring for streamside property, followed by word-of-mouth (19%), demonstration tours (9%), workshops (8%), and presentations(6%). Only 5% cited other common mass media outlets (i.e. websites, televisionand newspapers). Further evidence from the literature suggests that the receipt ofinformation alone will not result in behaviour change (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977)and that interactive communication techniques are most effective (e.g. workshops,one-on-one communication) (Rosenberg and Margerum 2008).
The relatively high level of agreement among experts about where and howpeople find information is in contrast to the ecosystem knowledge section, wherethere was less agreement on the type of content that needs to be communicated,pointing to two potential flaws in current outreach efforts. First, local experts may be
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
aware of common forms of communication (e.g. newsletters), but less aware of thebest methods based on current behavioural research (e.g. interactive methods).Second, experts may be even more challenged by knowing what to communicate.Despite the number of on-going watershed conservation education efforts, recentnationwide studies (Shandas 2007, Rosenberg and Margerum 2008) have identifiedseveral content-based errors that prevent the successful adoption of pro-environ-mental behaviours among riparian landowners. For example, Shandas (2007)found that urban landowners expressed difficulty with finding information aboutwhat actions would be allowed on their property, and the economic impact ofconservation practices on their property value. Successful outreach and educationprogrammes need to target audience specific information needs (Morgan et al. 2002),but also deliver that content in a way that appeals to salient attitudes and beliefs (DeYoung 2000).
3.3.3. Water law and policy
Experts mentioned state and local law and policy mechanisms most frequently(85% and 75%, respectively) (Figure 3). They expressed concern about the lack ofprotection for headwaters, poor implementation of Best Management Practices(BMPs) along headwaters, point and non-point issues particularly related tostormwater and construction discharge issues, the lack of incentive programmes,and insufficient zoning in riparian areas. A number of experts suggested thatincentive programmes might be of benefit to manage non-point pollution. However,problems that plague regulatory programmes such as cost, efficacy and enforcement,can also hinder conservation incentive programmes. According to Stern (2006),a combination of regulations and incentives are necessary to manage complexproblems such as non-point source pollution and provide a means to increaseconservation without alienating landowners. Stern and Fineer (1996) reported thatthe reason conservation incentive programmes have had only moderate success isthat people do not know about the incentive or understand the full benefits ofparticipation.
Experts also indicated that zoning is of particular concern with regard topreserving ‘green spaces’ or riparian corridors along streams within the urbansetting. Local planning and zoning programmes can offer effective tools forprotecting and restoring water resources (USEPA 2005). However, with growingurban development pressure, attempts to protect riparian areas have had onlylimited success (Orchterski 1996 and Wilcove et al. 1998, as cited in Shandas 2007).
3.4. Individual and societal influences
Expert responses about individual and societal influences were divided into fourprimary nodes: economic drivers, individual differences, socio-cultural drivers, andthe quality of information gathering and processing (Figure 4). Regarding theconnectivity of these primary nodes, the literature suggests that both individualdifferences and socio-cultural drivers influence each other, and the quality ofinformation gathering and processing, which in turn influences the degree to whichan individual internalises or recognises a particular threat in their decision-makingprocess (Griffin et al. 1999). Finally, individual differences influence economicdrivers, which then directly influence both the development of water law and policy
262 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
and the degree to which someone internalises a threat and eventually takes action(Ffolliott et al. 2003).
3.4.1. Individual differences
Experts were most likely to mention personal preferences (75%, e.g. differencesin personal goals, attitudes toward streams) and value orientations (75%, namelyenvironmental stewardship and adopting a global perspective) as individualdifferences that motivate individuals to seek out and process information. Individualdifferences related to socio-demographics (70%) were driven by expert’s commentspertaining to proximity to a stream and educational background.
Regarding personal preferences, personal goals and visions included long-termdesires for land (e.g. development or improved crop yields). Similarly, Rosenbergand Margerum (2008) concluded that landowners’ long-term desires for the landwere motivated by maintaining economic viability of the property and balancingone’s personal land ethic with future goals for their property. Such personalpreferences often influence what is perceived as a threat and an eventual impact tostream quality. For example, some streamside landowners value a neat landscape,one mowed all the way to the stream edges, and as a result fail to see their land usepreference as a threat to the stream (Dutcher et al. 2004). Communication effortsshould be designed to appeal to or challenge the relevant beliefs and preferences ofthe target audience.
The value orientations identified by experts as important influences on streamstewardship are supported by the literature. Schultz (2001) posited that environ-mental concern is highest among those with altruistic value orientations, or peoplewho place importance on others, and among those who value other species(biospheric) as opposed to just themselves (egoistic). Stern (2000) posited that thesealtruistic value orientations are influential factors in the adoption of environmentallysignificant behaviours. Further, cultural cognition theory poses that individuals withcommunitarian values (i.e. placing societal interests above individual interests) aremore likely to worry about environmental risks and support environmental policies(Kahan et al. 2007).
Finally, individual differences in socio-demographics are a common driver ofmany differences in attitudes and behaviour (Kemperman and Timmermans 2008).Experts in this study focused largely on proximity to streams and educationalbackground, assuming that those living closer to streams and with higher levels ofeducation would be more likely to pursue stream stewardship, a finding that issupported by previous research (Wright and Shindler 2001, Brody et al. 2004).
3.4.2. Socio-cultural drivers
Experts were most likely to mention culture and tradition (50% each) when askedabout socio-cultural influences. For example, one of the major topics of discussionpertained to the drainage of land. Channelled streams and drainage tiles inagricultural areas, as well as stormwater drainage systems in urban areas, are used toprevent flooding despite recent research that suggests this practice may have anegative impact on water quality (Miltner et al. 2004, Smiley et al. 2008). Expedientremoval of water from the land to avoid flooding effects is described as part of theculture of the rural Midwest. Although these ‘ameliorating’ practices facilitate the
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 263
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
swift removal of water, they also result in the transfer of the flooding problem todownstream neighbours.
3.4.3. Quality of information gathering and processing
Experts felt that the degree to which someone seeks out information and processes itin their decisions, which affects the degree someone internalises the risks associatedwith poor stream health, is largely related to information availability (75%) andpersonal motivation (50%). Other factors mentioned included the quality ofinformation provided, and the individual’s perceived ability to gather and assimilatethe information. Each of these factors highlighted by experts in our study are knownto influence the degree to which someone seeks out information and processes itwhen making decisions, which in turn influences the stability of risk-related attitudesand behaviours (e.g. choosing to engage in no-till farming to reduce sedimentationand related environmental and human health risks) (Griffin et al. 1999). Morespecifically, the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model proposesthat three main factors influence the extent to which a person seeks out anddeliberatively processes risk-related information (Griffin et al. 1999). These factorsinclude the sufficiency of the information (similar to our information availability),beliefs about the channel by which information is communicated (similar to ourinformation quality), and the individual’s perceived ability to access the informationthat they need (similar to our ability to gather and assimilate information). Theseresults emphasise that knowledge is not the key to enhancing adoption of bestpractices. Factors associated with understanding how to motivate individuals to seekout information and use that knowledge must be accounted for in a communicationeffort and are essential for behaviour change.
3.4.4. Economic drivers
Experts were most likely to mention livelihood protection (70%) and access toresources (55%) as the relevant economic factors affecting decision making. It wasbelieved that if a landowner perceives that incorporating ecological benefits intotheir decision will threaten their productivity, financial viability or long-term goalsfor the land, then actions incorporating ecological benefits will be dismissed infavour of maximising economic benefits. As a result, access to incentives and cost-share programmes are viewed as influential economic components that help removebarriers to action.
Experts also thought that industrial pressures (30%) and high management costs(10%) influenced risk-based decision making and action, albeit to a lesser degreethan livelihood protection and access to resources. In particular, developmentrelated to industrial and residential growth threatens water quality (Erickson et al.2005), and legislation and policy designed to protect water quality is often alteredto accommodate activities viewed as economic stimulants to an area (Ruhl et al.2007).
Economic drivers such as those discussed above play both a direct and indirectrole on whether or not someone decides to take action to promote stream health.However, economic drivers are often seen as the ‘be all-end all’ of human behaviour;but the model here shows that economic drivers are just one of the many influenceson decision making behaviour.
264 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
3.5. Perceived risk and decision making
Expert responses about perceived risk and decision making were divided into fiveprimary nodes: internalisation of threat, pre-internalisation barriers, post-inter-nalisation barriers, desired outcomes, and action sustainability (Figure 5). Regardingthe connectivity of these primary nodes, the literature suggests that the degree towhich an individual internalises a threat ultimately determines whether or not theydecide to take action, and that this internalisation is both influenced by andinfluences the degree to which they seek out information and process it in theirdecision (Griffin et al. 1999). However, there are barriers that may prevent anindividual from reaching this point of internalisation or from taking action evenwhen they want to do so. If these barriers can be overcome, and an individualchooses to take action, whether or not the desired outcomes are reached may dependon factors that allow action to be sustained over time.
3.5.1. Landowner/citizen internalisation of threat
According to experts, awareness of the problem (75%), ability to discern benefits(55%, e.g. clean water, personal use, intact ecosystem services) and risks (55%, e.g.declining water quality, limited use, human health concerns), and the ability to relatethese benefits and risks to appropriate action (55%) are criteria for internalisation tooccur. A citizen’s experience with streams (50%) is also considered a critical factorassociated with internalisation of a threat to stream quality. It is interesting to notethat although mentioned, adaptive capacity or perceived ability to take action wasnot as salient for the majority of experts (40%). From a decision-making perspectiveadaptive capacity is especially important as someone can appropriately understandthe threat – but if they do not feel they are able to make a difference, or have theresources (i.e., time, money, knowledge) available to take action, they will not act(Bandura 2001).
The expert focus on awareness and perception of risk and benefit is supported byresearch that demonstrates the importance of each of these factors for influencingaction. Clearly individuals need to be aware that a problem exists, but without concernabout the potential negative impacts, action is unlikely to result. Psychometric modelspredict that perception of risk increases with the level of dread, the newness of the risk,and the number of people exposed (Slovic 1987). Similar models focusing solely onecological risk perception have also identified the importance of the perceived benefitsto humans and other species, namely that as benefits increase the perceived riskdecreases (McDaniels et al. 1995). Increasing the salience of these factors influencingperceived risk would probably increase internalisation of the threat and eventualaction. For example, Martin et al. (2007) found that individuals who had not beenconsidering risk mitigation behaviours were motivated to do so when their own levelof vulnerability related to the risk was emphasised in risk communication efforts,while individuals considering action were motivated both by vulnerability and theperceived severity of the impacts that might result.
3.5.2. Pre- and post-internalisation barriers
Experts mentioned that insufficient communication efforts (75%), benign neglect(60%), errors in decision making (35%), and limited knowledge (30%) were barriersto a person’s ability to internalise a threat. Experts often described communication
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 265
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
about streams and stream health to landowners as ‘‘not happening or not happeningin a way that is engaging, easily digested, and interesting’’. One expert shared thatthis was because of the lack of a central forum or ‘‘state of the watershed address’’and that watershed planning processes and reports were too technical or oftenprepared for a legal audience. As a result, reports were overly complex and lackedconsensus on courses of actions and desired ecological outcomes between regulatorsand scientists.
Experts talked about benign neglect of a threat as a citizen’s general, but notpurposeful, lack of awareness of the impact that human activities have on a watersystem, lack of concern for the environment, or an implicit assumption that theresponsibility lies elsewhere. Experts pointed out the ‘land centric’ paradigmpredominant at both an individual and societal level, particularly in suburban andurban settings. Experts explained, from a land use and management decision-makingcontext, that small streams often remain ‘invisible’ until a problem arises. Basedon this premise, stream management is reactive to problems, which may lead tonon-sustainable actions such as diverting streams to improve land for development,or the use of streams as a conduit to hold or remove wastes.
Experts were most likely to mention post-internalisation barriers related toinstitutional constraints (75%) such as issuance of excessive permits, poor intra- andinter- agency communication, and inconsistent enforcement. Economic factors suchas misappropriation of funds, expense of remediation strategies, and greed wereindicated as barriers to action as well (30%). Explicitly addressing both pre- and post-internalisations barriers through outreach and education should not only promoteincreased action by stakeholders, but may create a larger pool of responsible actors.
3.5.3. Citizen decisions and desired outcomes
Experts mentioned a variety of actions that a person can adopt to promote streamstewardship. The most frequently mentioned action was stream restoration (e.g.stabilising banks, improving in-stream physical condition and habitat, andincreasing sinuosity) (50%). Experts also mentioned land management (45%),water filtration (35%), monitoring and prevention (35%) and riparian restoration(20%). Land management included better land use and development planning,agricultural best management practices and ditch maintenance. Water filtrationincluded reducing direct runoff from stormwater, buffer strips and improving septicsystems. Monitoring and prevention included assessing chemical, physical and bioticparameters as indicators of water quality and taking actions that would eliminate orgreatly reduce degradation. Finally, riparian restoration included increasing treedensities and ensuring that riparian corridors are contiguous and of an appropriatewidth. Experts also talked about how these actions could lead to desired outcomes,or goals related to improving management and restoration. The majority agreed thatimplementing the above-mentioned action options could lead to achieved regulatorygoals, an informed and engaged public, and improved watershed and stream health(65%, 65% and 50%, respectively).
3.5.4. Action sustainability
Experts talked about five factors that help to sustain action and achieve the desiredoutcomes: continued education (65%), individual involvement and buy-in (60%),
266 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
purposeful planning (35%), community support (35%), and economic support(35%). Continued education and individual involvement and buy-in were the onlyfactors mentioned by a majority of respondents. Continued education was deemedimportant for both children and citizens as the future and current stewards of thesewater systems. Individual involvement and buy-in was also deemed necessary due tothe need for individual action, and the need for available actions to align with theindividual’s values. Sustainable development, knowing the science before takingaction, and thinking across time and space were discussed regarding purposefulplanning. In turn, planning decisions may be more sustainable over time with ashared vision and inclusive participation from community members and economicsupport such as available funds and a reward or incentive programme to promotesustainable action.
4. Conclusions and next steps
To conclude the interview, experts were asked what was most critical for anindividual to understand in order to promote stream and watershed health.Connectivity was the theme of the experts’ response to this question (i.e. therelationship between land use and stream health, the upstream-downstream effect ofthe stream network, and the filtration function of the riparian corridor). They alsofelt that people should have some understanding of the holistic nature of watershedsand the entire water network from headwaters to river mouths. Other topics theexperts thought were important for people to know and understand were the impactof poor stream health on habitat and biota. These critical pieces of knowledge mayneed to be the focus if the chain of events depicted in the model are to lead to moreinformed decisions.
To some involved in community outreach and education, knowledge about thedynamics of streams and watersheds may seem enough to catapult citizens to action.However, experts indicate knowledge is not sufficient to promote sustainablepractices among citizens. Citizen decision making is heavily influenced by both socio-cultural forces and individual characteristics, as well as economic drivers and aperson’s general ability and perceived need to gather and process information whenconsidering action. Citizen decision making becomes more complicated when aperson considers the influence of water law and policy mechanisms, in addition tothe messages delivered through education and outreach programmes. Internalisationof a threat to stream and watershed health can be ‘short-circuited’ by insufficientor ineffective communication or an overwhelming sense of confusion, leading to aneglectful attitude. Even if an individual does internalise a threat and is willing to actupon the risk message received, barriers such as institutional constraints along witheconomic factors may prevent implementation of an action. In order to achievethe desired outcomes related to the maintenance and restoration of stream andwatershed health, factors must also be in place that promote not only the adoptionof an action, but also the sustainable implementation of that action over time.According to the model presented here, a complex network of interrelated factorsmust be considered holistically when designing education and outreach efforts aimedat citizen decisions to maintain and restore streams and watershed health.
The model presented here was designed primarily to serve as the theoreticalfoundation and framework for assessing the most salient knowledge gaps andinfluences on decision making reported by our future target audiences (i.e. citizens
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 267
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
in an urbanising Midwestern watershed). However, our assessment of local expertknowledge in light of the broader literature on watershed ecology and individualdecision making sheds light on potential shortcomings in expert understanding aswell. While academicians indicated a high level of knowledge of the broader naturaland social system, local on-the-ground practitioners indicated greater familiaritywith the local population and the influence of law and policy. As a result, the expertmodel presented here could also be used as a guide to local experts and practitionersin assessing gaps in their own knowledge regarding citizen decision making. We arealso confident that the general framework of this model is adaptable to othergeographic regions as a comparative tool to assess differences in expert and layaudience knowledge. While the specific findings or relative importance of conceptsin the model may vary, the parameters used in this model are easily adaptable tovarying cultural and socioeconomic climates.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Adam Zwickle, Dr Joe Bonnell and Jessica D’Ambrosio fortheir contributions to this research and manuscript. This study was funded by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture National Integrated Water Quality Program.
References
Allan, J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems.Annual review of ecological evolution and systematics, 35, 257–284.
Allan, J.D. and Castillo, M.M., 2007. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters.Dordrecht: Springer.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M., 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and reviewof empirical research. Psychological bulletin, 84 (5), 888–918.
Atasoy, M., Palmquist, R.B., and Phaneuf, D.J., 2006. Estimating the effects of urbanresidential development on water quality using microdata. Journal of environmentalmanagement, 79 (4), 399–408.
Bandura, A., 2001. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual review ofpsychology, 52, 1–26.
Booth, D.B., et al., 2004. Reviving urban streams: land use, hydrology, biology, and humanbehavior. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40, 1351–1364.
Brody, S.D., Highfield, W., and Alston, L., 2004. Does location matter? Measuringenvironmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environment andbehavior, 36, 229–250.
Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., and Correll, D.L., 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surfacewatershed with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological applications, 8 (3), 559–568.
Chavez, H.M.L. and Alipaz, S., 2007. An integrated indicator based on basin hydrology,environment, life, and policy: the watershed sustainability index. Water resourcemanagement, 21 (5), 883–895.
Cunningham, M.A., et al., 2009. The suburban stream syndrome: evaluating land use andstream impairments in the suburbs. Physical geography, 30, 269–284.
Cummins, K.W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience, 24 (11),631–641.
De Young, R., 2000. Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsiblebehavior. Journal of social issues, 56 (3), 373–390.
Dodds, W.K. and Oakes, R.M., 2008. Headwater influences on downstream water quality.Environmental management, 41, 367–377.
Dutcher, D.D., et al., 2004. Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparianforests: a qualitative analysis. Society and natural resources, 17 (4), 329–342.
Dyer, S.D., et al., 2000. Bottom-up and top- approaches to assess multiple stressors over largegeographic areas. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 19 (4), 1066–1075.
268 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
Erickson, J.D., et al., 2005. An ecological economic model for integrated scenario analysis:anticipating change in the Hudson River watershed. In: R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling,eds. Economics and ecological risk assessment: application to watershed managements.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 345–376.
Ffolliott, P.F., et al., 2003. A watershed management approach to land stewardship. Journal ofthe Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, 35 (1), 1–4.
Genskow, K. and Prokopy, L., 2008. The Social Indicator Planning and Evaluation System(SIPES) for nonpoint source management: a handbook for projects in USEPA region 5.Great Lakes regional water program. Publication Number: GLRWP-08-SI01.
Gergel, S.E., et al., 2002. Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquaticsciences, 64 (2), 118–128.
Getches, D.H., 1997. Water law in a nutshell. St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.Griffin, R.J., Dunwoody, S., and Neuwirth, K., 1999. Proposed model of the relationship of
risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors.Environmental research, Section A, 80, 230–245.
Hall, B. and Koontz, T., 2004. Landowners, land management, and conservation programparticipation in Ohio and Iowa. Environmental Communication, Analysis, and Research forPolicy Working Group. Policy Summary Series (No. BH2004). Columbus, OH: School ofNatural Resources, The Ohio State University.
Hopfensperger, K.N., 2007. Ecological feasibility studies in restoration decision making.Environmental management, 39 (6), 843.
Kahan, D.M., et al., 2007. The second national risk and culture study: making sense of – andmaking progress in – the American culture war of fact. New Haven, CT: The CulturalCognition Project at Yale Law School.
Kemperman, A.D. and Timmermans, H.J., 2008. Influence of socio-demographics andresidential environment on leisure activity participation. Leisure sciences, 30 (4), 306–324.
King, K.W., Smiley Jr., P.C., and Fausey, N.R., 2009. Hydrology of channelized and naturalheadwater streams. Hydrological sciences, 54, 929–948.
Lazo, J., et al., 1999. Expert and lay mental models of ecosystems: inferences for riskcommunication. Risk: health, safety, and environment, 10 (1), 45–64.
Manolakos, E., Virani, H., and Novotny, V., 2007. Extracting knowledge on the links betweenthe water body stressors and biotic integrity. Water research, 41 (18), 4041–4050.
Martin, I., Bender, M.H., and Raish, C., 2007. What motivates individuals to protectthemselves from risks: the case of wildland fires. Risk analysis, 27 (4), 887–900.
Mattson, K.M. and Angermeier, P.L., 2007. Integrating human impacts and ecologicalintegrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning. Environmental management,39 (1), 125–138.
McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L.J., and Slovic, P., 1995. Characterizing perception of ecologicalrisk. Risk analysis, 15, 575–588.
Meyer, J.L., et al., 2003. Where rivers are: the scientific imperative for defending small streamsand wetlands. American Rivers and Sierra Club, 1–24.
Miller, E., et al., 2008. Rocky Fork Creek watershed action plan and inventory. Columbus, OH:Friends of Big Walnut Creek and Tributaries and Mid-Ohio Regional PlanningCommission.
Miltner, R.J., White, D., and Yoder, C., 2004. The biotic integrity of streams in urban andsuburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 69 (1), 87–100.
Moore, E.A. and Koontz, T.M., 2003. Research note: a typology of collaborative watershedgroups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society and naturalresources, 16 (5), 451–460.
Morgan, M.G., et al., 2002. Risk communication: a mental models approach. CambridgeUniversity Press.
Napier, T.L., 2001. Soil and water conservation behaviors within the Upper Mississippi Riverbasin. Journal of soil and water conservation, , 56 (4), 279–285.
Ohio, EPA, 2008. Integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report. Columbus, OH:Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water.
Poff, N.L., et al., 2003. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmentaldecision making. Frontiers in ecology and the environment, 1 (6), 298–306.
Pringle, C.M., 2000. Threats to U.S. public lands from cumulative hydrologic alterationsoutside of their boundaries. Ecological applications, 10 (6), 971–989.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 269
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
Reichman, C., Hoggarth, M., and Prindle, A., 1999. An examination of land use, water qualityand the economics of atrazine in the Sugar Creek watershed, Delaware, Morrow, andKnox Counties, Ohio. Ohio journal of science, 99 (1), A15–16.
Rhoads, B.L., et al., 1999. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization.Environmental management, 24 (3), 297–308.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.Rosenberg, S. and Margerum, R.D., 2008. Landowner motivations for watershed restoration:
lessons from five watersheds. Journal of environmental planning and management, 51 (4),477–496.
Ruhl, J.B., Kraft, S., and Lant, C., 2007. The law and policy of ecosystem services. WashingtonDC: Island Press.
Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people,and the biosphere. Journal of environmental psychology, 21, 327–339.
Shackeroff, J.M. and Campbell, L.M., 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge in conservationresearch: problems and perspectives for their constructive engagement. Conservation andsociety, 5 (3), 343–360.
Shandas, V., 2007. An empirical study of streamside landowners’ interest in riparianconservation. Journal of American Planning Association, 73 (2), 173–182.
Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.Smiley, P.C., et al., 2008. Contribution of habitat and water quality to the integrity of fish
communities in agricultural drainage ditches. Journal of soil and water conservation, 63 (6),218A–219A.
Sponsellar, R.A. and Benfield, E.F., 2001. Influences of land use on leaf breakdown inSouthern Appalachian headwater streams: a multiple-scale analysis. Journal of the NorthAmerican Benthological Society, 20, 44–59.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journalof social issues, 56 (3), 407–424.
Stern, S., 2006. Encouraging conservation on private lands: a behavioral analysis of financialincentives. Arizona law review, 48, 541.
Stern, P.C. and Fineer, H.V., 1996. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democraticsociety, eds. Committee on Risk Characterization, National Research Council.Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Tang, Z., et al., 2005. Forecasting land use change and its environmental impact at awatershed scale. Journal of environmental management, 76 (1), 35–45.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 2000. 1997 National resource inventory.changes in land cover/use between 1982 and 1997. [online] Available from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI 1997 summary report table5.html [Accessed 19 August2010]
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Handbook for developingplans to restore and protect our waters. USEPA Publication No. EPA 841-B-05-005.Washington DC: US EPA.
Wipfli, M.S., Richardson, J.S., and Naiman, R.J., 2007. Ecological linkages betweenheadwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrate, andwood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(1), 72–85.
Wright, A.S. and Shindler, B., 2001. The role of information sources in watershedmanagement. Fisheries, 26, 16–23.
Young, R.G. and Collier, K.J., 2009. Contrasting responses to catchment modification amonga range of functional and structural indicators of river ecosystem health. Freshwaterbiology, 54, 2155–2170.
270 D.K. Hersha et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
5:52
19
Oct
ober
201
4
