Robyn S. Wilson, PhDSchool of Environment and Natural Resources

Environmental Social Sciences LabThe Ohio State University

Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great LakesDecember 7, 2010

How do beliefs about water quality and related risks influence citizen

decisions?

Collaborators: Deborah Hersha, Anne Baird, Josh Ferry, Elena Irwin, Darla Munroe

The Problem

• Human land use and land management contributes to

(fresh) water quality issues in the Great Lakes

• Rural to Urban Home/Landowners

– Chemical lawn applications (runoff)

– Dumping (stormwater drains, streams)

– Streamside maintenance (mowing, riparian areas)

• Agricultural Landowners

– Land use (cropping choice, crop rotation)

– Land management (nutrient applications, tillage practices)

Water quality risks

• Human health

– Neurotoxins, Skin Irritants, Pathogens

• Environmental health

– Oxygen depletion, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services

• Recreation

– Fishing, Swimming, Boating

• Economic

– Fisheries, Tourism, Property values

Informing Decision Making

• Need to improve knowledge about the issue

– What do people know about stream health and water quality?

– What do people know about human impact?

• Need to frame problem in light of relevant risks

– What motivates stream stewardship decisions?

– What do people care about in regards to poor water quality?

Two Studies

• Mental models methodology

• What do citizens (rural to urban) know about water

quality?

– What are the major influences on their stream stewardship

decisions?

• What do farmers know about nutrient transport?

– What are the major influences on their land management

decisions?

Study I: A study of Ohio citizens

• USDA National Integrated Water Quality project

• Conducted in-depth interviews with 45 central Ohio citizens (ages ranging from 16 to 80)– Probed knowledge about streams, watersheds and water

quality

– Probed influences on stream related decisions

• Currently using findings to design H.S. science curriculum and community-based education and outreach programs

Expert Model

Ecological Knowledge

Threats/Impacts

Socio-Cultural Drivers

Citizen Internalization of

Threat

Quality Information Gathering & Processing

Individual Difference

s

Streamside Landowner and Citizen Decision Making regarding Stewardship of

Community Streams and the Watershed

Pre-Internalization Barriers

Post-Internalization Barriers

Law, Policy, Outreach

Ecological Knowledge & Related Threats

• Ecological knowledge gaps:– Specialized functions (wetlands, floodplains)

– How streams are formed (topography, flow, watersheds)

– What makes streams healthy (flow, substrate)

• Threat/Impacts gaps:– Channelization, Ecosystem services, Human influence

• Need to communicate: – Change over time to overcome focus on present state

– How healthy streams operate (structurally, functionally)

– Threats/causes/sources, and link between threat and impact

– Influence of human activity & importance of specialized function

Influences on Decision Making

• Drivers of information seeking:– Environmental ethic and changing recreational opportunities

• Drivers of internalization:– Awareness of the problem (due to availability of info and personal

interest) and perception of risks and benefits, and adaptive capacity

• Need to: – Ease the path to information, frame in light of personal interests

(health, property), and include tips for recognizing problems

– Build an ethic/value base around environmental stewardship

– Use recreation to educate/communicate and promote it as a benefit of healthy streams

Barriers to Action

• Pre-internalization barrier:– Benign neglect (lack of concern due to being unaware)

• Post-internalization barrier:– Economic interests (greed, high personal costs)

• Citizens interested in monitoring and management

• Need to: – Communicate about problems that currently exist

– Motivate by focusing on salient risks and benefits (water quality, access/use, human health, aesthetics)

– Focus on actions not limited by economics

– Communicate what needs to be done and how to do it

The Five Essential Questions

• What influences stream flow?

• How do human activities influence stream health?

• How does energy and nutrients flow in a stream?

• What habitats are found in the stream?

• What is connectivity within a watershed?

Lesson plans available at:

http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda

Study II: A study of Ohio farmers

• Project funded by the Climate, Water, Carbon

Initiative at OSU

• Interviewed 20 farmers about land use and

management decisions related to nutrient

management– Probed knowledge about the nutrient cycle, impacts, and

mitigation actions

– Probed perceptions of risk and influences on decision making

Expert ModelNutrient Cycle, Impacts, Mitigation

Transport

Phosphorus

Loss

Erosion

Leaching

Impacts

Yield and profit loss

Water quality

Water treatment

Soil quality

Freshwater quality

Soluble-P Runoff

Environment

Riparian strips

Slope

Rainfall timing and

amount

Application timing,

amount, method

Cover cropping

Field drainage

Mitigation

AND

Soil properties

(mineralogy)Soil

testing

Tillage practices

Farmer Knowledge About…Transport

Phosphorus Loss

Erosion(89%)

Leaching

(28%)

ImpactsYield and profit loss

(61%)

Water quality

(100%)

Water treatment

(0%)

Soil quality

(100%)

Soluble-P runoff (17%)

Freshwater quality(11%)

Riparian strips(67%)

Slope(17%)

Rainfall timing & amount(89%)

Application timing, amount,

method(83%)

Cover cropping(56%)

Field drainage(17%)

Mitigation

AND

Soil properties

(mineralogy)(22%)

Soil testing(100%)

Tillage practices(50%)

Environment

Influences on Farmer Decision Making

• Younger, more environmentally concerned farmers

demonstrate higher knowledge scores

– Younger = Greater concern?

– Greater concern = Greater knowledge?

• Financial and environmental perceptions of risk

related to nutrient loss were equal

• 83% of farmers responded that something other than

profit (stewardship, lifestyle) was their primary goal

Summary

• Citizen knowledge about what makes a healthy stream

and human impacts on the stream is low

– Desire to take action to protect water quality depends on

awareness of the problem, perception of risk, and perceived

ability to take action

• Farmer knowledge about nutrient cycle fairly high – but

not reflecting current phosphorus issues

– Desire to take action to protect soil and water quality depends on

both financial and environmental perceptions of risk

Conclusions

• Enhancing knowledge is important…but communication

must also address individual differences in motivation,

values, perceived risk, etc.

• Improving water quality requires addressing decision

making from the top down and bottom up

• Climate change just another challenge for water quality

– Potential for behavioral change to counteract any predicted

negative impacts on water quality?

Questions?

Robyn Wilson

Wilson.1376@osu.edu

614.247.6169

Resources

http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/usda

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/regionalwaterquality/nationalreporting/

reportView.cfm?rid=550387