Duration: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2016

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Statement of Issue(s)

Need as indicated by stakeholders

Individual and collective actions, intended and unintended, have consequences that put the quality of our water resources at risk. Non-point source (NPS) pollutants delivered across the landscape are a primary source of impairment of US waters (National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress http:www.epa.gov/305b). Although NPS pollution is diffuse, its ultimate source is readily understood as rooted in the day-to-day actions and management decisions of all citizens, urban and rural (Morton and Brown, in press).

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reports that siltation, nutrients, bacteria, metals, and oxygen-depleting substances are among the top contributors to water impairment in the nation (http:www.epa.gov/305b). USEPA estimates that the agricultural sector is the largest source of impairment affecting nearly half of all streams and rivers that have water quality problems and the source of more than 45% of damage to lakes and 18% of damage to estuaries (Ribaudo and Johansson 2006). Further, agriculture accounts for most of the drained wetlands in the contiguous 48 states (Hansen 2006) and a majority of threatened or endangered species listed (Cox 2007; Batie 2009). When an excess of contaminants such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment loss from human activities in agriculture, industries and urban areas leak into water bodies upstream the result is often downstream hypoxia (Gulf Hypoxia 2008 Action Plan).

Hypoxia, areas in water bodies with low oxygen, has continued to form in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay and other bays and river outlets throughout the US. As a result most marine life is absent and the biology of the Gulf and bays is changed significantly threatening economic as well as ecological conditions of these coastal regions. These nutrients cause extensive growth of algae that deplete the oxygen in the water when they die, sink to the bottom and decompose (Gulf Hypoxia 2008 Action Plan).

Two water bodies with significant hypoxic zones are the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. The Gulf of Mexico is fed by the Mississippi River, which drains a land mass comprising 41 percent of the contiguous United States. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States, and the third largest in the world. The watershed covers approximately 64,000 square miles of the northeast and mid-Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, and Washington DC. Of particular concern in the Mississippi River Basin and the Chesapeake Bay region are the sediments, nitrogen, and phosphorous that derive from a combination of nonpoint sources (agriculture, development, and urban runoff) and point sources (wastewater treatment plants).

Central to solving the problem of impaired waters is recognition of the role of humans, individually and collectively. Current land use decisions, identification of water resource problems, beliefs that the environment is at risk, perceptions of the need to act and willingness to engage in finding solutions are all factors that influence how water resources are managed. The importance of wide public involvement in solving the complex problems of water quality and NPS was a common theme in 2000 reports to USEPA by 39 states, tribes and territories submitting drinking water use data and reporting on the condition of their water bodies. A multi-state random sample water issue survey completed in 36 of the U.S. states (2002 through 2009) conducted by Dr. Robert Mahler, University of Idaho under a USDA Integrated Water Quality project reveals that the overall average perception for surface water quality is fair. The overall average perception of ground water quality is midway between fair and good/excellent, although higher than that of surface water (Hu and Morton in press).

Although these findings suggest modest public awareness of water resources issues, key social, economic and ecological events and the mechanisms by which these conditions are translated into individual and collective actions and lead to changes in behaviors are not well understood. Similarly, the draft strategies on the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin Task Force include many efforts to assist with land management at the local level  technical assistance, education, and resources to help land owners, local governments, and watershed-based organizations to make better decisions about land use and management. Public education campaigns can provide information to residents about the impacts of the land management activities on their nearby waterways. What is lacking, however, is an understanding of the decision-making process between awareness and action, or how other non-educational events might trigger awareness and action.

The gap in knowledge/importance of proposed work

Policy tools designed to provide incentives, fines, and technical support for voluntary and cost effective actions by citizens and communities have been the dominant framework applied by agencies with NPS oversight. This has meant using existing programs and encouraging adaptive management, sometimes successfully, other times not. The social sciences have not been systematically applied to discover which policy tools are most effective in changing behaviors and practices and to build a body of knowledge as to why they are effective, and how they might be modeled to guide future interventions. Yet programs are being created and implemented at multiple levels of government as well as by nonprofit organizations that attempt to change land management behavior without a clear social science knowledge base from which to create those interventions.

Although much of the biological science and technological solutions have been tested, the social and human science understanding of barriers and motivations for implementing/not implementing actions that reduce water resource impairments are not well understood. If we do not develop a clear, scientifically-sound understanding of human behaviors related to water management, we will continue to spend public money ineffectively on educational and voluntary programs without significant impact on water quality. Lack of adequate progress on water quality criteria could trigger regulatory actions in the Mississippi River Basin and the Chesapeake Bay under the Clean Water Act (Perez, Cox and Cook, 2009). This move towards tighter regulations and punitive sanctions could put increasing pressure on both social and natural scientists to ensure that the science behind programs and policies is sound; currently, we do not have the social science knowledge we need to undergird such policy directions. This lack of social science knowledge ultimately results in an increased tension over the rights between the public and private ownership and use of water. The BP oil spill is perhaps the leading example of this.

We propose this multistate research technical committee to begin to fill the gap in the knowledge base of social-human interactions with water resource management. The overarching research question of this project is: What are the key catalysts that interact with social and ecological conditions to create change in conservation behaviors, resource management, and governance within a water context? Specifically,

a. What are the key catalysts for change in conservation behavior, resource management, and governance in a water context?
b. How are catalysts influenced by socio-economic, institutional, and ecological conditions?
c. What types of outcomes emerge from various types of catalysts?
d. What are the various institutional roles in addressing these processes?

Our lack of understanding of the decision-making process is not limited to the area of water resource management. Rather, research is also needed in the broader area of environmentally significant behavior (e.g. Stern 2000). Research in environmentally significant behavior may inform and guide water resource management. A report from the National Research Council on environmental research priorities for the social and behavioral sciences identified understanding and better informing individuals environmentally significant behavior as one of the five top priority research areas (Brewer & Stern, 2005). Knowledge about environmentally important individual behaviors and the factors that shape those behaviors, particularly ones that might be altered to reduce environmental impact, may be applicable to the area of water resource management. Thus, there is also a need for research in the broader area of environmentally significant behavior as well as research into methods of incorporating knowledge of environmentally significant behavior into the area of water resource management.

Technical feasibility of the research

We intend to use methods and techniques with significant research support within the social sciences, covering both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Advantages of doing the work as a multistate effort

Current team members represent two key basins  Mississippi River and Chesapeake Bay  that contribute to the development of significant hypoxic zones in major national water bodies. These two areas are also currently the focus of major federal and state efforts to remediate and prevent pollution. Multi-state efforts create openings for quasi-experimental designs and comparative analysis. Working through a multistate team will enable the researchers to develop and test knowledge about the individual and collective actions to improve water quality across multiple ecological, cultural, political, and social contexts. In other words, working across regions will allow the researchers to more accurately identify triggers of behavioral change and under what conditions those triggers effect change. Further, many of the social scientists participating in this research have excellent case study data that are specific to their states or regions. Working across multiple states will allow for comparisons of these cases to identify key variables. To date, the opportunities and funding for across state collaboration have been limited.

Likely outcomes and impacts from successfully completing the work

We see two broad types of impacts of this work, enhanced knowledge for academics and improved programs and decision-making for policy-makers. First, we envision enhanced knowledge about the triggers of behavioral change related to water resources. To do this, we will initially synthesize past and current case studies across states to identify common and unique social patterns that influence individual and collective actions. We will then develop a typology of these key events and conditions, and develop models of the mechanisms by which these events/conditions lead to both individual and collective actions related to local water resource management. Using this research, we will develop formal individual, collective and multi-level models of behavior related to water resource management that can then be tested across multiple scales and regions.

The second major area of impact of this research will be to provide information and guidance for resource management agencies (such as EPA and state level agencies) so that they have an enhanced understanding of the contribution of the social sciences to solving impaired water issues. These agencies will be better poised to develop tools for encouraging conservation behaviors that supplement and enhance current educational efforts. We also expect to develop adaptive management strategy guidelines that can be used to guide community development interventions, such as those used by nonprofit natural resource organizations (e.g., local watershed groups) and local government agencies to effectively mobilize resources for consistent water quality outcomes.

Related, Current and Previous Work

A CRIS review in 2009 found 91 projects within the National Integrated Water Quality program that are supported by Integrated Research, Education and Extension Competitive Grants Program (Section 406). Nineteen projects mentioned examining some aspect of the attitudes of stakeholders in a watershed as part of the project goals. However, only seven (Bright, A., Pritchett, J., Waskom, R., Bauder, T., Neibauer, M., 2007; Davenport, M., Schoonover, J., Williard, K., Seekamp, E., Brehm, J., 2007; Prokopy, L.S., Bonnell, J., Broussard, S., Genskow, K., Gocmen, A., Power, R., McDermaid, K., 2006; Miller, G.A., Morton, L.W., Pilcher, C., Devlin, D., Barden, C., Franti, T., Wortmann, C., DeRouchey, J., 2008; Morton, L.W., Miller, G.A., DeWitt, J.R., Helmers, M.J., 2008; Leahy, J., Peckenham, J., Wilson, L., Jemison, J., MacRae, J., 2008; Shea, P.J., Milner, M., Martin, A.R., Lynne, G.D., Burbach, M.E., Barnes, P.L., Lerch, R.N., Skopec, M.P, 2006) include a specific aspect of the human dimension when improving water quality. However, none of these projects focuses on understanding actions and decisions of the ordinary citizen and the influence individual and collective actions have on managing water resources effectively and for the common good.


Proposed research in this project builds and extends current research discussed above and current research being conducted by team members as detailed below.


At UIUC there is a relatively new USDA National Integrated Water Quality Program grant entitled Tile Drainage Modifications to Reduce Nitrate Losses in an Agricultural Watershed: Integration of Biophysical and Social Sciences with Extension and Education (Mark David, PI, Courtney Flint Co-PI and others). As part of this project, Flint and colleagues have interviewed and surveyed farm operators in a headwaters watershed in east central Illinois that is heavily farmed for corn and soybeans and is overwhelmingly tile drained. They will be monitoring changes in water quality perspectives and willingness to adopt water conservation practices over time and in response to outreach efforts related to nitrate management. This project runs from 2010-2013.


At ERS Marc Ribaudo led a project titled Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy that was recently completed. This study used ERS-NASS survey data to examine the status of nitrogen management on major U.S. field crops. They also evaluated alternative policy mechanisms for getting farmers to adopt improved nitrogen management practices, including taxes, subsidies, emissions markets, and compliance. Potential tradeoffs between air and water quality due to changes in nitrogen management were assessed though NLEAP modeling. The final report will be released early in 2011. This project received no external funding. Recent ERS research evaluated the potential for markets to increase private investment in environmental stewardship (Ribaudo et al., 2008). ERS has also conducted several studies on the adoption of conservation practices by farmers (Lambert et al., 2006; Cattaneo et al., 2005). In addition, Ribaudo and Johansson examined the role that liability might play in the adoption of manure management by animal feeding operations (Ribaudo and Johansson, 2007). These projects received no external funding.


While at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Davenport and colleagues received a USDA National Integrated Water Quality Program grant entitled Evaluating Watershed Health Risks through Integrated Water Quality Analyses, Community Capacity Assessments, and Outreach Appraisals (M. Davenport, J. Schoonover, K. Williard, E. Seekamp & J. Brehm 2007-2010). This interdisciplinary project coupled social science and water quality data collection to investigate community capacity for sustainable watershed management in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area urban-rural interface of southwestern Illinois. Through this project they interviewed 46 local stakeholders, conducted 7 focus groups, and surveyed 1,081 watershed residents. They also engaged a Community Research Team comprised of 65 diverse stakeholders who reviewed survey instruments, provided feedback on study accomplishments, and evaluated outreach strategies. Study findings, implications and recommendations have been communicated to local decision makers and citizens through interactive community workshops, a website, community research report summaries and traveling exhibits. At the University of Minnesota, Davenport has received further funding from USDOI, United States Geological Survey for a project entitled Constraints and opportunities around watershed-wide riparian zone management at the urban-rural interface (M. Davenport 2010-2011). This project is ongoing. Davenport has initiated key informant interviews with stakeholders in the southeastern Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The second phase of the project will include a riparian landowner survey in paired watersheds to assess values, personal norms, and behavioral intentions associated with riparian zone conservation practices across the urban-rural gradient. Davenport also has received funding from the USDA Forest Service to investigate community adaptive capacity for climate change.


At the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, team members have a USDA National Integrated Water Quality Program grant entitled Targeting Watershed Vulnerability and Behaviors Leading to Adoption of Conservation Management Practices (Patrick Shea, PI, Mark Burbach, Co-PI and others). As part of this project, they surveyed farm operators in the Big Blue River Watershed in Nebraska and Kansas with approximately 72% in corn, grain sorghum or other row crops. Tuttle Creek Lake at the lower end of the Big Blue River is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as impaired for siltation, eutrophication, atrazine, and alachlor. As part of the project we investigated antecedents to farmers conservation practices and developed models to predict a number of conservation behaviors. This project runs from 2006-2010.


At Pennsylvania State University, Brasier has a National Fish and Wildlife Federation grant through the Chesapeake Bay Innovative Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Program entitled Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative (K. Saacke-Blunk, J. Shortle, K. Brasier). The project is intended as a demonstration project to identify best practices in community-based conservation efforts. As part of this project, they are surveying residents (farm and non-farm) in the Conewago Creek Watershed, a 52 square-mile watershed in south-central Pennsylvania. Educational and intervention efforts are aimed at building a culture of conservation in the watershed, working with many segments of the community (elected officials, landowners, youth) to identify and implement conservation practices in priority areas. They will assess changes in water quality attitudes and willingness to adopt water conservation practices over time. This project runs from 2009-2012. Brasier also has a grant through the USDA-NRI program (Prosperity of Small and Medium-Sized Farms) entitled The Susquehanna Transition Zone (J. Findeis, PD, K. Brasier, R. Stedman, others). The project examines the social and ecological issues surrounding transition of farms in the Susquehanna River Basin. Transition is meant to include selling some or all of the land for development, as well as changing production and marketing practices, with a special emphasis on use of practices that protect water quality, increase biodiversity, and produce other environmental benefits. As part of this project, they are surveying farmers in the Basin to identify antecedents of these management behaviors. This project runs from 2008-2011.


Current research at Iowa State University related to this project include two USDA National Integrated Water Quality Program projects: the Heartland Regional Water Coordination Initiative (2004-2008; 2008-2012) and Developing Local Leadership and Extension Capacity for Performance-driven Agricultural Environmental Management (2008-2011). These two projects have provided data for a MS thesis, The Hewitt Creek Watershed Group: A study of mechanisms that led to the adoption of farm management practices to improve water quality (McGuire, 2010), two refereed journal articles (Morton and Weng 2009; Morton 2008) and the book, Pathways for Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect (Morton & Brown 2011). Currently farmers in the United States do not uniformly understand the role their practices have on water quality and therefore are not taking action to address the impacts their practices have had, and continue to have, on surface water and groundwater. For appropriate policy and educational interventions to be put in place, there needs to be a more complete understanding of how social relations and farmers individual and collective identities influence agricultural management behaviors. Researchers will build on current and add new data to address this gap in our knowledge as part of the proposed multistate project to further develop theoretical foundations for individual and collective factors which influence agricultural management decisions at the watershed level associated with non-point source pollution. Further, prior work will aid in the future development and empirical testing of typologies of farmer identities as they relate to the adoption of water quality and land use conservation management practices.


Selfa is a co-PI on an interdisciplinary USDA CEAP (Conservation Effects Assessment Program, 2006-2011) research project, initiated while she was at Kansas State University. The project Assessing the Impact of a Strategic Approach to Implementation of Conservation Practices was based in Cheney Lake watershed in south central Kansas and is currently reaching completion. The hypothesis of the project was that targeted conservation programs in the watershed in areas where water quality was impaired would be more effective. They interviewed farmers in the watershed at two time periods to assess their knowledge about water quality and conservation, and their attitudes about targeted conservation programs. Research for this project contributed to one book chapter and other publications are currently in progress.


Related research for Genskow at University of Wisconsin-Madison focuses on integrating social dimensions of watershed management. Genskow has co-led (with Prokopy) a multi-state applied research project to develop social indicators for nonpoint source water quality projects (Prokopy et al 2009). Expanding that work over the next five years will help address the research objectives of this project. University of Wisconsin is also researching effective models for using and evaluating agricultural nutrient management planning and Genskow will continue involvement with those efforts. Genskow's research on the role of policy networks in conservation management will also advance the objectives of this project.


Linda Prokopy at Purdue University is engaged in numerous projects related to the social dimensions of watershed management, including the social indicators project mentioned in the previous paragraph. She has also been engaged in efforts to understand the acceptability of different conservation practices by farmers in Eagle Creek watershed in Indiana on a CEAP project. She is currently working on a project to examine motivations for individuals participation in public meetings related to the environment which is highly connected to this multi-state effort.

Objectives

1. Identify and develop typologies of catalysts for change in conservation behavior, resource management and governance in a water context.
   
2. Determine the mechanisms and conditions by which catalysts are translated into individual, collective, and institutional action.
   
3. Understand and develop typologies of individual, institutional, and collective actions and social and ecological outcomes.
   
4. Synthesize and assess conceptual frameworks and analytical models of catalysts, conditions and potential outcomes.
   
5. Identify, develop and evaluate adaptive strategies to achieve desired actions and capacities to protect water resources.
   

Methods

Synergy across states Multiple researchers are engaged in work on catalysts for change. We have established a template for standardizing gathering, sharing, and evaluating case study information to synthesize research protocol, findings, and implications (Obj. 1 & 3). We are using similar survey questions and research design protocol to enhance future capacity to conduct cross-state comparisons (Obj. 2). This collaboration enables identification of social and ecological catalyzing events across watersheds and geopolitical contexts, at multiple scales, and with diverse methodologies (Obj. 1-4). We will have a shared internal website to facilitate this dialogue. We have and continue to collaborate on research proposals, many of which have been funded. We are collaborating on journal articles on catalysts of change and will continue to explore grants and contracts around human dimensions of water. Several researchers have collaborated on a book entitled Pathways for Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect. Researchers have collaborated on joint panel presentations at ISSRM, AWRA, and the National Water Conference and will continue to explore these opportunities in the future. We share insight on upcoming RFPs, conferences, and calls for papers (Obj. 4). We continue to recruit new members with expertise across the human dimensions of water through panel presentations, list serves, and existing professional networks. We have identified particular individuals to contribute to specific grant opportunities (Obj. 1-5). Collectively, our research has common and emerging themes and implications for water resource planning and management outcomes. Some of these include enhancing community resilience and adaptation to water-human system stressors including flooding, water quality impairment, natural gas exploration, climate change, bioenergy, urban-rural land use dynamics, and water quality trading. We will apply and disseminate new knowledge to inform water users and decision-makers (Obj. 5). A mixed methods approach will be used to identify, examine and test key social and ecological events and those mechanisms which influence individual and collective actions. Methodologies applied to each objective are discussed below. Objective 1. Identify and develop typologies of catalysts for change in conservation behavior, resource management and governance in a water context. Overarching hypotheses H1: There are identifiable characteristics of social and ecological conditions and catalysts that affect the likelihood and magnitude of changes in human behaviors and decision-making related to water resources. Sub-hypotheses will be developed by the scientific team around specific social and ecological events, underlying conditions, characteristics, and tests to specific events. Focusing events are events that mobilize some sort of corresponding action. Birkland defines these as sudden; relatively uncommon; can be reasonably defined as harmful or revealing the possibility of potentially greater future harms; has harms that are concentrated in a particular geographical area or community of interest; and that is known to policy makers and the public simultaneously (Birkland 1998). Other terms have also been used in the literature, including precipitating events (Smith 2009), transformative events (Moore 2009), and trigger events. A classic focusing event in the water arena was the burning of the Cuyahoga River in 1969 which has been credited with leading to the creation of the Clean Water Act and the USEPA. Few events, or undesirable conditions, gravitate to the level of a focusing event (Wood and Doan 2003). In some cases, two events which may appear to be similar will lead to very different outcomes in terms of corresponding actions. For example, news reports about a fish kill in one stream may mobilize farmers to work together to implement conservation practices. News reports about a fish kill in another stream may lead to no corresponding action. Focusing events have been studied at length in the social movement literature as determinants of collective action. Focusing events are also mentioned in case studies of watersheds, but there has been no prior effort to develop a typology of events that focus attention on water resources and lead to changes in conservation behaviors and management decisions. We will identify conditions and catalysts and develop typologies using several methods: (1) a content analysis of published theoretical and empirical literature on conditions and catalysts of change in watershed planning and management. Much of the published literature is in the form of case studies that document conditions enabling watershed movements like the development of watershed groups (Floress et al. 2009, Floress, Prokopy & Broussard in press, Stedman et al. 2009), citizen engagement in water resource planning (Davenport, Bridges, Mangun, Carver, Williard, & Jones 2010, Morton 2008, Wagenet & Pfeffer 2007) and landowner engagement in water resource conservation behaviors (Morton & Chih Yuan Weng 2009, Wagner 2008). A careful content analysis of this literature will generate a comprehensive list of focusing events and conditions; (2) a comparative case study analysis that allows us to understand different types of focusing events and enabling conditions across social and ecological contexts; (3) comparative survey data analysis of similar constructs and items that further reveals events and conditions across study samples and populations; (4) narrative ethnographies (media analysis); (5) a meta analysis of different types of focusing events and their consequences; and (6) a descriptive trend analysis. Objective 2. Determine the mechanisms and conditions by which catalysts are translated into individual, collective, and institutional action. There are a number of key conditions and mechanisms that influence individual, collective and institutional responses to social and ecological events. These range from social-psychological internal mechanisms to structural factors. Social-psychological mechanisms include attitudes, beliefs, self concepts and identities, and perceptions of risk. Meso-structural mechanisms are social pressures, social networks, social connections and relationships, social norms, group dynamics, social position and structure, and information access, processing and management. Community and regional structural mechanisms are demographic and interactional community characteristics, public discourse, information flows, social narratives, institutional collaborations and partnerships, civic structure, local power dynamics and political culture, local history, geography and the natural resource base, and policy networks. Social theories underlie each of these mechanisms, but most have not been extensively applied to water resource management and need further examination to understand the magnitude and direction of their influence on individual, collective, and institutional action. We propose four overarching hypotheses. The first three examine mechanisms that drive change in individuals, groups and institutions. The second three hypotheses focus on mechanisms for sustaining action over time. Overarching hypotheses H2a. There are key mechanisms that drive change in individual actions H2b. There are key mechanisms that drive change in collective actions H2c. There are key mechanisms that drive change in institutional actions H2d. There are key mechanisms that influence individual capacities to sustain action. H2e. There are key mechanisms that influence collective capacities to sustain action H2f. There are key mechanisms that influence institutional capacities to sustain action Although we have separated individual, collective, and institutional actions in our hypotheses, we expect to find substantive interactions at multiple levels. The units of analysis for testing Objective 2 hypotheses include individuals, groups, and communities including small watersheds (e.g. HUC 12) and basin levels. Sub-hypotheses that specify and test key mechanisms will be developed by scientific team members The methodologies used to assess the magnitude and direction of specific mechanisms under specific social and ecological conditions will be determined by the hypotheses or research questions proposed. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be applied and used to triangulate or verify findings. Qualitative methods will include key informant interviews, focus groups, analyses of archival data, media accounts, public testimonies, and public records. Quantitative methods will include primary data collection and analysis of surveys as well as secondary data analyses of existing data sources such as the US Population Census, Census of Agriculture, General Social Survey (GSS) and other pre-existing survey data sets. Objective 3. Understand and develop typologies of individual, institutional, and collective actions and social and ecological outcomes. Typologies provide a means of classifying and understanding common attributes with which certain outcomes are associated (Doty & Glick, 1994). Through classification, it is possible to develop better policies and programs that meet needs in specific watershed management scenarios, as has been done in other fields of resource management (e.g. Ross-Davis & Broussard, 2007). By developing typologies across cases, common types of actions and outcomes will be identified. Resultant typologies can inform future work so that resources are used more effectively, instead of assuming that one type of program can meet all needs. Action typologies in the case of watershed management will likely be driven by socio-economic characteristics, social structural characteristics, and focusing events. Overarching hypotheses H3a. Individuals actions can be segmented into a typology based upon social and ecological outcomes H3b. Institutional actions can be segmented into a typology based upon social and ecological outcomes H3c. Collective actions can be segmented into a typology based upon social and ecological outcomes Information from objective 1, particularly conditions and catalysts for change, and objective 2, particularly survey research and key informant interviews, will allow for the development of typologies of action across individual, institutional, and collective levels. Quantitative methods will include cluster analysis to develop types of action at each level, and confirmatory factor analysis when a specific set of variables are a priori hypothesized to influence action types. Qualitative methods will include grounded theory and comparative analysis (Corbin and Strauss 2008) to identify action themes, patterns, and relationships across individuals, groups, and geopolitical contexts. Objective 4. Synthesize and assess conceptual frameworks and analytical models of catalysts, conditions and potential outcomes. T he integration of multiple scales of social interaction from individual, to group, to watershed community to regional communities requires several types of modeling. Using the results of research findings from Objectives 1, 2, and 3, the team will develop parsimonious models of relationships among social-economic, institutional and ecological systems. We propose to develop structural models of the relationships of key mechanisms to specific types of events and conditions. Structural equation modeling (SEM) provides a method for the incorporation of mediating variables and the examination of latent constructs in the study of behavior (Kline, 2005), and have been used to study a variety of behaviors as they relate to the environment (e.g. Oreg and Katz-Gerro 2006) We will develop and test structural models across different watershed populations and key events to determine if and how data collected in objectives 1, 2 and 3impact behaviors, with the key purpose of identifying consistent factors. Society is composed of individuals who have a distribution of thresholds (Yin 1998). Individual actions influence other individual actions and collectively influence the tipping point at which society accepts a new condition as the social norm (Granovetter 1978). Threshold models of collective actions are useful for modeling the minimum proportion of the population who must publically identify a problem such as water impairment exists before other actors do (Wood and Doan 2003). Social definitions of water resource issues are precursors to public actions, thus the problem definition process is central to identifying the social pathways of individual and collective change. We will utilize data collected in Objectives 1, 2 and 3and develop threshold models of collective behaviors. Overarching hypotheses H4 There are key antecedents of individual and collective actions that can be measured and modeled. Methodology: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), path analysis, multilevel modeling, threshold models (Wood and Doan) Objective 5. Identify, develop and evaluate adaptive strategies to achieve desired actions and capacities to protect water resources. Throughout the project, investigators and collaborators will share research design strategies, methods, tools, and findings to facilitate best research practices and ensure transferability and applicability of research findings across social and ecological contexts. In addition, investigators will engage diverse stakeholders as project advisors to inform research design, ensure meaningful participation of diverse subjects, and provide practical guidance on potential study implications and recommendations. Stakeholders will be engaged in evaluation of outreach including interventions and management strategies. Based on results from Objectives 1, 2, 3 & 4 and through collaboration between investigators and with diverse stakeholders adaptive management strategies will be developed. These strategies will be grounded in social science and water resource management theory but will be driven by the synthesis of practical knowledge emerging from the project. Through the collective and coordinated efforts of investigators, collaborators and stakeholders, science-based adaptive management strategies for building individual, collective, and institutional capacities for desired water resource management processes and outcomes will be delivered. Strategy development will be facilitated by ongoing dialogue between investigators and web-based collaboration tools including such as a Community of Practice website in which investigators can share survey instruments and research publications and interactively review documents.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Shared Database of Events and Typologies. This will include a relational database shared by team members that include records of individual and collective actions and typology of events and conditions. This will include case studies, event and condition typologies, and lists of associated actors, watershed groups, government agencies, and water quality organizations. The database will also categorize records by the type of data collected, instruments used in data collection, and the questions asked.
• Fact Sheets and Policy Briefs. Fact sheets for general and specific stakeholder groups will be created as well as policy briefs intended for EPA regional representatives and national level staff, USDA, NRCS, SWCDs and county offices.
• Proposals to NSF, USDA-NIFA, EPA, and responses to other RFP
• Special issues of journals and journal articles.
• Conferences or special sessions of conferences. For example, National Water Conference, Ecological Society of America, and water quality conferences.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Typology of Trigger Events or Conditions. The first outcome of this project is to pursue the identification of key events or conditions that lead to changes in conservation behavior among rural and urban land use decision makers and various government agencies and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, using our collective research experiences of diverse contexts and regional settings we will pull our knowledge of current and foundational literature to identify mechanisms that trigger action among these stakeholders. We will also explore the roles of social, political, demographic, economic and geographic factors in resource management. The interconnections among these will be evaluated in developing a typology of events and conditions.
• Improved Conservation Policies and Programming. The results of Outcome 1 will be organized and presented in appropriate outputs that will be used to provide salient information to government agencies and policy makers, such as EPA, NRCS, USDA, State and local governments, and the U.S. Congress. These will focus on the types of actions (individual or collective) that best address particular problems in addition to the factors and forces that influence individual and collective action for water resource conservation with recommendations for appropriate reward/incentive combinations to promote conservation. This type of information will enhance the response of agencies as well as having the potential to enhance the quality of water as a natural resource. This will include new organizational and methodological approaches to watershed management and water quality trading.
• Remove Redundancy in Water Resource Management and Build Collaboration among Stakeholders. By identifying the manner in which these actions occur, less energy will expended on the typical shotgun approach (providing large amounts of resources on a first-come, first-serve volunteer basis) to water resource management and more focused efforts can be targeted to catalyze local and regional water quality enhancement projects. This streamlining of efforts can also take advantage of the networks of researchers, agencies and their personnel, and other community stakeholder groups that are identified in Outcome 1. This will provide a model for understanding and promoting individual and collective action.

Milestones

(2011): Undertake an inductive and systematic evaluation of existing case studies resulting from the individual research programs of team scientists to develop a list of key drivers of change.

(2012): Chart and organize the key drivers of change into typologies of key social and ecological events that focus attention on water resources and lead to changes in conservation behaviors and management decisions. This typology will include the influences of other social and environmental factors acting on them (Objective 1). The findings of this phase will be shared with government agencies, such as EPA, DNR, and agricultural advocacy groups and organizations as well as local watershed groups (Outreach).

(2013): Determine mechanisms by which key events and conditions are translated into individual and collective actions and capacities to sustain actions. (Objective 2). Test selected typologies to evaluate key drivers of change and action. Share findings with agencies and groups such as EPA, DNR, agricultural organizations and local watershed groups (Outreach)

(2015): Build off findings from Objectives 1 and 2 to develop models of key events and conditions and the direct and indirect factors that influence types of actions and outcomes. (Objective 3)

(2016): Synthesize findings from Objectives 1, 2, and 3 to develop adaptive management strategies that respond to key events in order to have positive influence on actions and capacities to sustain actions to protect water resources.(Objective 4) Share findings with agencies and groups such as EPA, DNR, agricultural organizations and local watershed groups (Outreach)

(2016): Develop recommendations and guidance for practical applications of findings (Outreach) Share findings with agencies and groups such as EPA, DNR, agricultural organizations and local watershed groups (Outreach)

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Objective 4 which is a participatory research-participant learning model will be the basis for developing strategies for sharing the research of Objectives 1-3 and our dominant outreach plan. However, we expect to share findings yearly with public and private agencies whose missions are water quality through public presentations and publications.

Organization/Governance

The committee will be governed by three positions elected for a one year term: chair, vice chair, and secretary. The chair of the committee will be responsible for organizing the meeting agenda, conducting the meeting and assuring the task assignments are completed. The vice chair has responsibility for planning the annual meeting (with support from members) and supports the chair by carrying out duties assigned by the chair. The vice chair will serve as chair in the absence of the elected chair. The secretary is responsible for the distribution of the documents prior to the meeting, keeping records on decisions made at the meetings (minutes), maintaining an updated roster of participants, and preparing/submitting the accomplishment report (SAES-422). Members will carry out the agreed research collaboration, research coordination, information exchange and advisory activities. Members are responsible for reporting their progress, contributing to the committee progress towards objectives and communicating their accomplishments to other committee members and their respective employing institutions.

Literature Cited

Batie, S.S. (2009). Green payments and the US Farm Bill: information and policy changes. Frontiers Ecology & Environment 7:7:380-388.


Birkland, T.A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy 18(1), 53-74.


Brewer, G. D., & Stern, P. C. (Eds.). (2005). Decision making for the environment: Social and behavioral science research priorities. National Research Council Panel on Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.



Cattaneo, A., R. Claassen, R. Johansson, and M. Weinberg. (2005). Flexible Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead? Economic Research Report, ERR-65, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June.


Corbin, J.M. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Cox C. (2007). Testimony of Craig Cox. US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Hearings on Working Land Conservation: Conservation Security Program and Environmental Quality Incentives program 17 January 2007. Washington DC.


Davenport, M.A., Bridges, C.A., Mangun, J.C., Carver, A.D., Williard, K.W.J., & Jones, E.O. (2010). Building local community commitment to wetlands restoration: A case study of the Cache River Wetlands in southern Illinois, U.S.A. Environmental Management, 45(4):711-723.


Doty, D. H. & Glick, W.H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 2, 230-251.


Floress K, Prokopy LS, Allred SB (In Press). Its who you know: Social capital, social networks and watershed groups. Society and Natural Resources.


Floress K, Mangun JC, Davenport MA, Williard KWJ (2009). Constraints to watershed planning: Group structure and process. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45.


Granovetter, Mark (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. AJS 83(6):1420-1443.


Hansen L. (2006). Wetland status and trends. In Wiebe K and Gollehon N (ed) Agricultural resources and Environementl indicators 2006 edn. Washington DC. US Government Printing Office.


Hu, Zhihua and Lois Wright Morton (in press) Regional Water Quality Concern and Environmental Attitudes, Chapter 8 in Pathways for Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect. LW Morton and S.S. Brown (eds) Springer Science + Business.


Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.


Lambert, D., P. Sullivan, R. Claassen, and L. Foreman. (2006). Conservation-Compatible Practices and Programs: Who Participates? Economic Research Report, ERR-14, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February.


McGuire, J. (2010) The Hewitt Creek Watershed Group: A study of mechanisms that led to the adoption of farm management practices to improve water quality M.S. Thesis Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.


Moore, Richard H. (2009) Ecological Integration of the Social and Natural Sciences in the Sugar Creek Method. In Sustainable Agroecosystem Management, Bohlen, P.J. and House, G. (eds), New York: CRC Press.


Morton, L. W. and Chih Yuan Weng. (2009) Getting to Better Water Quality Outcomes: The Promise & Challenge of the Citizen Effect. Agriculture and Human Values. (1): 83-94.


Morton, L. W. (2008) The Role of Civic Structure in Achieving Performance-based Watershed Management. Society & Natural Resources 21(9):751-766.


Morton, L.W and S.S. Brown (eds) (2011) Pathways for Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect. Springer Science + Business, NY, NY.


Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting environmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483.


Perez, Michelle, Craig Cox, and Ken Cook. (2009). Facing Facts in the Chesapeake Bay. Report published by the Environmental Working Group. URL: http://www.ewg.org/conservation/chesapeake-bay-pollution/report. Accessed November 10, 2009.


Prokopy, Linda Stalker, Ken Genskow, Jeremiah Asher, Adam Baumgart-Getz, Joseph Bonnell, Shorna Broussard, Cynthia Curtis, Kristin Floress, Karyn McDermaid, Rebecca Power, and Danielle Wood. (2009). Designing a Regional System of Social Indicators to Evaluate Nonpoint Source Water Projects. Journal of Extension. 47(2).


Ribaudo, M.O., L. Hansen, D. Hellerstein, and C. Greene. (2008). The Use of Markets to Increase Private Investment in Environmental Stewardship, Economic Research Report, ERR-64, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September.


Ribaudo, M.O., and R. Johansson. (2007). Nutrient Management Use at the Rural-Urban Fringe: Does Demand for Environmental Quality Play a Role? Review of Agricultural Economics 29(4):689-699.


Ribaudo M and and Johansson R. (2006). Water quality impact of agriculture. In Wiebe K and Gollehon N (ed) Agricultural resources and Environementl indicators 2006 edn. Washington DC. US Government Printing Office.


Ross-Davis, A.L. & Broussard, S.R. (2007). A typology of family forest owners in North-Central Indiana. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 24, 282-289.


Smith, M.P. (2009). Finding common ground: How advocacy coalitions succeed in protecting environmental flows. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45(5), 1100-1115.


Stedman, R., B. Lee, K. Brasier, J. Weigle, and F. Higdon. (2009). Cleaning Up Water? Or Building Rural Community? Community Watershed Organizations in Pennsylvania." Rural Sociology 74(2):178-200.


Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.


Wagenet, L. P., and M. J. Pfeffer. (2007). Organizing citizen engagement for democratic environmental planning. Society and Natural Resources 20:801-813.


Wagner, M.M. (2008). Acceptance by knowing? The social context of urban riparian buffers as a stormwater best management practice. Society and Natural Resources,21(10),908-920.


Wood, B Dan and Alesha Doan. (2003). The politics of problem definition: Applying and testing threshold models. American Journal of Political Science 47(4):640-653.


Yin, Chien-chung. (1998). Equilibria of collective action in different distributions of protest thresholds Public Choice 97:535-567.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CO, FL, IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, NE, NY, OH, PA, TX, VA, WI

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

South Dakota State University, St. Cloud State University, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry , University of Maine, University of Oregon, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USDA Forest Service, USDA-ERS/RED