Decisions on the Edge: An Exploration of Streamside Landowner Decisions

1. Decisions on the Edge: An Exploration of Streamside Landowner Decisions Anne Baird, Ohio State University Extension Robyn Wilson, & Deb Hersha, OSU School of Environment and Natural Resources

2. Outline • Purpose • Study Objectives • Methods • Participants • Findings • Implications

3. Purpose • Understand land use and management decisions in a rapidly urbanizing watershed • To create effective Extension education programs

4. Objectives • Identify landowner knowledge/beliefs • Explore decision making • Compare landowner perspectives to experts

5. Methods • In-depth semi-structured interviews (1-2 hours) • Mental Models and Grounded Theory

6. Policy and Outreach Ecosystem Knowledge Perceived risk & Decision making Individual & Societal Influences Ecological Knowledge Biota* Connectivity Effects Stream Geomorphology Watershed Stream Hydrology Channel Development Headwaters Internal Function Restorative Properties Habitat Wetlands Floodplains Trophic Dynamics External Function Chemistry * Expert Response 50% or Greater Scientific Research Studies Basic Knowledge Studies Threat and Impact Studies Human Behavior Studies Individual Differences Personal Preferences* Values Socio-demographic Quality Information Gathering and Processing Information Availability* Motivation* Information Quality Ability to Gather /Assimilate Information Socio-Cultural Drivers Culture* Tradition* Social Norms Peer Net work Threats/Impacts Pollution* Run-off/Sedimentation* Land Use Human Practices Natural Influences Identification Failure Stream Structure/Function Alterations Outreach and Education Mass Media* One-on-One and Small Group* Technical Outreach* Outreach/Learning Enhancements Self-Directed Learning Landowner/Citizen Internalization of Threat Awareness Perception Benefits of Healthy Streams/ Positive Action* Perception Risk of Degraded streams/Negative Action* Experience with Streams* Adaptive Capacity Pre-Internalization Barriers Insufficient Communication* Benign Neglect* Decision making Errors Limited Knowledge Influential Actors Community Government* Special Interest NGOs Water Law and Policy Federal Government State Government Local Government Post-Internalization Barriers Institutional Constraints* Economic Interests Action Sustainability Continued Education* Individual Involvement/Buy-In* Purposeful Planning Community Support Economic Support Economic Drivers Livelihood Protection* Access to Resources* Industry Pressure High Management Costs Citizen Decisions to Maintain and Restore Stream and Watershed Health Stream Restoration* Land Management Water Filtration Monitoring/Prevention Riparian Restoration Desired Outcomes Achieve Regulatory Goals* Informed/Engaged Public* Improved Watershed/Stream Health* Sustainable Business/Industry

7. Participants • 24 streamside landowners • Ages 30-80 (average 45) • Agricultural, rural residential, suburban • Critical areas in watershed • Range of experiences with conservation program

8. Rocky Fork

9. Blacklick

10. Decisions & Influences

11. Maintaining a Legacy (with options) • Well I don’t have any intention of getting rid of it. Three years ago, I was offered $1,300,000 for it and I turned it down. My dream is to live past 2016, so that it’s been in the family for over 100 years. • …You never say never because…my grandfather always said that was his life insurance. That if things happen, he could sell part of it off and that would be the way today. That if I get in a pinch or happen to go into a rest home or something, that that’s backup, but that would be the last backup

12. It’s More Than Trash: A Clash of Cultures • [I think people do respect the creeks that own along it, but the people that use it that don’t own it, like people that go to the parks, those are the people that are going to trash it because they don’t own it. The people that own it respect it that way. Who wants to look at a bunch of trash over a natural beauty?

13. Looks Matter • Well I think anybody if there's a foul smell, if you see dead fish or dead animals around the water, if it's stagnant, any issues like that, I would think you would want to check into it a little bit, and maybe ask someone to check the water quality or see if there's an issue.

14. It’s All About the Flow • So it's just a normal flow of water, and that keeps it healthy. Well, what helps is that there’s enough water to go through them to keep them clean. • I don’t know how you’d would do it, but it would be good if you had enough flow all year long to keep it flowing; it would make it a lot cleaner.

15. Implications • Empathy • Where people are (landscape and life) • Legacy, Culture, Sense of Responsibility • Synergy

16. References • Morgan G. M., F., B., Bostrom, A. Lave, L., Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. • Rosenberg & Margerum (2008) • Dutcher (2004) • Shandras (2007)

17. Acknowledgements • Funders • Integrated Watershed Grant from the USDA’s National Water Program • Maps provided MidOhio Regional Planning Agency (MORPC) • Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District • Streamside landowners in the Blacklick and Rocky Fork watersheds