social indicators for nonpoint source...
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]. 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