By Napier, T L McCutcheon, K; Fish, J
Abstract: Data were collected from adults living in households within the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed in central Ohio to assess psychosocial orientations of local property owners toward natural resources issues within the watershed and to evaluate their willingness to allocate economic resources to implement soil and water conservation programs on their properties. Unlike adoption studies that have examined attitudes toward nonpoint source pollution issues using managers of agricultural land holdings, this study was designed to assess orientations of suburban residents who live adjacent to an environmentally sensitive stream in the largest metropolitan area of Ohio. Study participants were chosen using databases that contained descriptions of residential land holdings within the Big Walnut Watershed. All land owners with residential property equal to or greater than 2 ac (0.8 ha) within the watershed were defined as being eligible to participate in the study. A total of 386 single family residential land holdings were identified as meeting these criteria, and a structured questionnaire was mailed to all identified property owners during the fall of 2005 and early winter of 2006. Thirty-eight subjects could not be located, which reduced the sampling frame to 348. A total of 149 questionnaires were returned that were sufficiently completed for use in statistical modeling. This constitutes a response rate of 41.8%, which is considered good for mail questionnaire studies using contemporary social science research standards. Study findings revealed that watershed residents were positive toward natural resources conservation within the watershed. Multi-variate binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the theoretical model used to guide the investigation was useful for predicting which respondents would be willing to allocate personal resources to address natural resources conservation problems on their properties. Study findings are basically consistent with hypotheses derived from theoretical modeling based on the traditional diffusion model. Findings are discussed in the context of future natural resources conservation initiatives among watershed residents. Key words: adoption-nonpoint source pollution-soil erosion-suburban watershed- urban conservation-water resources
During the past 70 years, many factors have significantly influenced conservation planning and program implementation in the United States. Some of the most important factors are the formation of public policies that have legitimized government involvement in soil and water conservation, the establishment of agencies to implement state conservation policies, the authorization of public funding of conservation programs, the creation of social movements to advance conservation of natural resources, the emergence of societal concern for soil erosion and future productivity of land resources, and the development of conservation technologies/ techniques to reduce/eliminate environmental problems. Each of these factors contributed to soil and water conservation programs and policies by setting in motion processes of change that culminated in three policy/ planning outcomes that significantly altered the trajectory of conservation efforts in the United States. The first important outcome has been the importance placed on conservation planning and program implementation at the watershed level. The second outcome is the importance placed on nonpoint sources of pollution. The third outcome is the inclusion of urban residents in natural resources conservation planning and program implementation at the watershed level.
One significant shift in conservation planning and program implementation has been the emphasis placed on the watershed as the primary unit for natural resources conservation efforts (El-Swaify and Yakowitz 1998; Jansky et al. 2005; Napier et al. 2000, 1994, 1983; National Research Council 1999; Wayland 1993). While extensive soil and water conservation programs were implemented at the watershed level prior to the 1970s (Halcrow et al. 1982; Selznick 1949), the watershed assumed a much more important role during the past 30 years.
The watershed has become the central focus of conservation efforts because such hydrologic units provide planners and conservation field agents the opportunity to approach natural resources planning and conservation programs from a more holistic perspective (Brady 1996; Davenport et al. 1996; Diplas 2002; El- Swaify and Yakowitz 1998; Farrow and Bower 1993; Heaney 1993; Heathcote 1998; Lamy et al. 2002; National Research Council 1999; Ruhl 1999; Wayland 1993). Simultaneous consideration of a broader range of variables and the interactions among the various components of a watershed nearly always increase the probability that planning and subsequent program implementation efforts will achieve expected environmental outcomes.
Natural resources development at the watershed level also increases the probability that multiple stakeholder interests will be represented in the planning and program implementation stages. This approach to decision making is commonly termed participatory management (Holt 2001; Leach 2001, 2006; Sabatier et al. 2005). Focus on specific conservation issues within subsections of a watershed may exclude significant segments of watershed residents. Unless the interests of all watershed residents are represented in the decision-making process, conservation planning and program implementation efforts may not achieve anticipated outcomes.
Comprehensive planning and program implementation at the watershed level can also aid in the reduction of the inevitable conflict among competing stakeholders for the use of limited natural resources by facilitating a more efficient and equitable distribution (Leach 2001, 2006; Sabatier et al. 2005). Localized conservation efforts seldom consider the rights and needs of legitimate claimants in other areas of the watershed or in the larger society.
Another important shift in natural resources conservation efforts in recent years has been the importance placed on nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution oftentimes is associated with agricultural sources of pollution because contributions of individual farmers are extremely difficult to identify and measure. However, any natural resource manager can contribute to environmental degradation via nonpoint source pollution.
Nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources has been the focus of considerable research attention during the past three decades because soil erosion creates many environmental problems (Lai and Stewart 1995; Lambert et al. 2006). Wildlife habitat is often degraded due to deposition of sediments in streams, wetlands, lakes and oceans. Displaced farm chemicals contribute to eutrophication/hypoxia of lakes and oceans (Robinson and Napier 2002) which results in degraded habitat for fish and other wildlife. The aesthetic quality of land and water resources is often significantly reduced by soil erosion, which renders these resources less valuable for recreational purposes. The safety of drinking water supplies for humans and animals is often adversely affected by farm chemicals. Agricultural productivity can be significantl reduced by severe erosion, which can reduce the economic value of farmland and can threaten future food supplies.
The environmental, social and economic problems created by soil erosion of agricultural land have been observed for decades within the United States (Halcrow et al. 1982; Lovejoy and Napier 1986; Napier et al. 1983, 2004; Swanson and Clearfield 1994). Public policies have been created and billions of dollars have been allocated each year to reduce the environmental, social and economic costs associated with agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
While farming technologies and production techniques exist to prevent soil erosion and subsequent contamination of water resources, extensive research has demonstrated that many land owner- operators refuse to adopt and use conservation production systems (Halcrow et al. 1982; Lovejoy and Napier 1986; Napier et al. 1983, 1994; Swanson and Clearfield 1994). This is true despite the fact that research has demonstrated that farmers value the environment, perceive themselves to be stewards of the land, and often believe that farming contributes to environmental degradation and that pollution needs to be addressed as an environmental issue. While much is known about agricultural nonpoint source pollution, it is generally concluded that existing models developed to explain adoption of soil and water conservation production systems at the farm level are inadequate for that purpose. The only factor that has been shown to consistently motivate farmers to adopt and use conservation production systems is economic subsidies in the form of rents to set aside crop land from production (Cooper 2003; Lambert et al. 2006; Langpap 2004; Napier et al. 2004; Napier and Tucker 2001a, 2001b). Another important shift in natural resources conservation efforts in the United States has been the enhanced role of urban populations in natural resources planning and program implementation at the watershed level. While residents of urban areas have been recognized for many years as being significant contributors to water pollution via housing encroachment on environmentally sensitive waterways, soil erosion from residential and commercial construction sites, chemical run-off from lawns, storm sewer run-off, and a host of other contributions to environmental degradation, relatively little attention was directed toward involvement of urban populations in comprehensive watershed planning and program implementation. One explanation for the relative lack of involvement of urban populations in conservation efforts in the past was the emphasis placed on agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
While the research literature focused on how urban residents perceive and value natural resources is relatively scarce (Miller and Hobbs 2002), sufficient research exists to suggest that urban dwellers view conservation of natural resources in a different manner than their rural counterparts (DeStafano et al. 2005). Research by Bright et al. (2002) revealed that residents of Chicago, Illinois, valued protection of wildlife and trees. They also observed that perceptions of the outcomes of ecological restoration affected their attitudes toward natural resources conservation. Gobster (2001) reported that residents of Chicago often held different perceptions about what an urban park should possess in terms of natural resource attractions. A significant percentage of stakeholders wanted to impose human dominion over park resources while others wished to see a return to a more “natural setting.”
Human dominance of natural resources appears quite often in urban natural resources conservation/protection studies (Francis 1989; Nassauer 1997, 2004; Syme et al. 2001). Urbanites tend to favor imposition of human control on natural resources to create a physical environment they perceive to be pleasing and familiar. One of the most frequently mentioned human controls is cutting grass to create a more manicured area for the conduct of recreation activities and nature watching.
Other research reported that urban residents often value natural resources conservation and are concerned about environmental issues but are not willing to engage in behaviors to address environmental issues (Stern 1992). This research finding is consistent with a number of studies that have demonstrated that attitudes and values are often not highly consistent with actual behaviors (Kempton et al. 1995). The finding is also consistent with research conducted among agriculturalists that revealed high value placed on the environment by farmers but continued use of environmentally unfriendly farm production systems (Napier 2000).
The relative lack of in-depth research focused on urban populations in the context of environmental management is somewhat surprising and is an issue of concern for natural resources managers. Urbanization is a universal phenomenon and is particularly significant in high-scale societies such as the United States where the vast majority of people live in urban areas. As urban areas increase in size and as natural resources become further removed from city residents, the need to preserve remaining natural resources and to restore areas that can be converted back to more natural states in an economical and environmentally sustainable manner becomes critical for the future well-being of people. The retention and protection of natural resources within urban areas will provide ecosystem services and products to resident human populations that cannot be provided in any other manner (Daily 1997). To achieve the goal of improved environmental quality within urban communities, we need more information about how urban dwellers perceive natural resources and what they are willing to do to protect existing natural resources for future use (Miller and Hobbs 2002).
The purpose of the research reported here is to examine how residents of a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, view conservation issues that affect all of the people who live adjacent to the Lower Big Walnut Creek. The primary goal of the study is to produce a statistical model that will be useful for predicting willingness of local residents to allocate personal economic resources to adopt natural resource conservation practices and structures on their land holdings. Information derived from the study should be useful for future environmental planning and conservation program implementation within the watershed chosen for examination.
Theoretical Modeling
Selection of Theoretical Perspective. The theoretical model chosen to guide the study reported here is the traditional diffusion model (Rogers 1995). This model was selected because it is a perspective that has been effectively applied to investigations of adoption behaviors throughout the world. The diffusion model has been used extensively in social science research focused on the adoption of new technologies, techniques, behavioral practices and a host of other innovations.
Diffusion theory has been criticized by numerous scholars who argue that the model is biased toward adoption. While the model has been useful for predicting time of adoption once the decision has been made to adopt something, it has been shown not to be useful for predicting whether or not an individual will make the decision to adopt. Critics such as Buttel and Swanson (1986) and Pampel and van Es (1977) have argued that structural theories are probably more relevant to soil and water conservation issues than individual approaches advanced by diffusion theory. Also a number of scholars have raised serious questions about the relevance of. diffusion- type variables for predicting conservation adoption behaviors at the farm level (Halcrow et al. 1982; Lovejoy and Napier 1986; Swanson and Clearfield 1994). It is generally concluded that diffiision theory has limited utility for predicting adoption of conservation production systems at the farm level.
While critics of diffusion theory make good cases for selection of theories that emphasize structural explanations of conservation adoption behaviors, diffusion theory was adopted to guide this investigation because the pro-adoption bias was eliminated by selecting a random sample that included both adopters and non- adopters. Studies that are focused only on adopters will result in pro-adoption bias. However, random selection of subjects to assess participation in a hypothetical conservation initiative will include individuals who have a propensity to participate and others who will be less willing to participate.
Traditional Diffusion Model. The traditional diffusion model basically asserts that decision making about the adoption of anything is a function of exposure to relevant information about the innovation being assessed. Potential adopters must become aware that a problem exists and be aware of possible solutions. If potential adopters perceive that adoption of a specific innovation will contribute to the resolution of identified problems, then they should have a higher probability of adopting.
Diffusion theory asserts that acquisition of information about various aspects of the innovation being assessed will result in the formation of attitudes about the innovation being considered. Favorable attitudes toward the innovation being assessed will encourage adoption, while the evolution of unfavorable attitudes will increase the probability the innovation will be rejected.
The diffusion model states that barriers exist to impede adoption. One of the most common barriers to adoption is the lack of knowledge about how to implement the innovation being assessed. If the potential adopter does not possess technical skills to implement an innovation, adoption will not occur unless technical assistance is provided from some other source.
Another barrier to adoption is the lack of sufficient economic resources to implement what is being considered for adoption. If potential adopters do not possess adequate economic resources to invest in innovations, then adoption cannot occur unless some other source of financial support is available.
Adoption within the Big Walnut Watershed. In the context of adoption of conservation practices and structures within the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed, diffusion theory argues that favorable attitudes toward conservation is a prerequisite for serious consideration of adoption of such innovations. If residents possess favorable attitudes toward conservation of natural resources within the watershed, they should be more highly motivated to participate in conservation programs by investing in conservation efforts on their property.
The diffusion model argues that subsidies will encourage adoption of conservation practices and structures for individuals who do not possess adequate technical skills and/ or economic resources to adopt. Individuals who do not possess relevant technical skills to implement conservation on their property will require technical assistance to adopt conservation practices or structures. Similarly, people who do not possess adequate economic resources to implement needed conservation practices or structures will require economic subsidies to effectively implement conservation programs.
Diffusion theory argues that potential adopters must be knowledgeable about the impacts of adoption before they will consider adopting anything. If watershed residents are knowledgeable that investment in conservation practices and structures on their property will have a positive impact on the quality of natural resources within the watershed, they should be more willing to invest in conservation efforts on their property.
The traditional diffusion model argues that residents must perceive that environmental problems exist before they will consider adopting conservation practices or structures. If potential adopters perceive that natural resources problems exist on their property, they should be more highly motivated to invest personal economic resources to adopt conservation practices or structures because such investments can increase property values and reduce the seriousness of environmental problems. Materials and Methods
Study Population. Data to examine the merits of the theoretical perspective used to guide the investigation were collected from selected property owners living within the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed located in Franklin County, Ohio (see map presented in figure 1). The watershed traverses eastern suburbs of Columbus from the dam at Hoover Reservoir to its confluence with the Scioto River near the Franklin County border on the south. The watershed is approximately 37.6 mi (60.5 km) long in this section of die river and drains approximately 50,000 ac (20,235 ha). The area defined as the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed for this study does not include the tributaries of Rocky Fork Creek and Black Lick Creek that are sometimes associated with the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA 2005) and private conservation groups that are active within the watershed have documented a number of environmental problems within the watershed. Some of the most important environmental concerns are siltation, heavy metals, ammonia, E. coli, and physical habitat alterations. Several sources of environmental degradation that have been identified are as follows: Columbus water treatment facilities, sand and gravel extraction, agricultural production, private residential properties, the Rickenbacker Port Authority, and the Columbus International Airport. The airports contribute to water pollution primarily via ethylene glycol used to deice planes. Conservation groups have identified 26 illicit discharge sites and four illegal dumps that affect the environmental quality of the watershed.
One of the significant environmental problems identified within the watershed is fecal coliform. Identified sources of fecal coliform in the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed are as follows: 12% from suburban runoff, 0.55% from home septic systems, and 87% from upstream sources. Upstream sources of the fecal coliform have been identified as follows: 92% from cattle in or near streams, 7% from other agricultural sources, and 1% from home septic systems (OEPA 2005).
Sedimentation remains a serious issue within the watershed due to upstream erosion from agricultural land. Conversion of land to intense residential use has also contributed to the problem (OEPA 2005).
The topography of the watershed is flat to slightly rolling. The soils are relatively deep and fertile but are susceptible to displacement via erosion (OEPA 2005). The study area is rapidly becoming a residential suburb of Columbus even though several areas within the watershed remain sparsely populated and a small minority of residents report agricultural land uses. The primary land use within the study area is residential housing.
The location of all land holdings within the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed and the names and addresses of all property owners as of October 2005 were provided by the Franklin County Auditor’s Office. Subjects were selected for inclusion in the study using a series of sorting procedures (overlays). The two criteria used for selecting potential subjects were as follows: (1) land ownership and (2) owner of at least 2 ac (0.8 ha) within the designated study area.
The selection criterion of property ownership of equal to or greater than 2 ac (0.8 ha) was chosen because owners of properties with smaller land holdings usually do not have the types of natural resources problems assessed in this study, and the types of solutions offered for assessment would not have been relevant to their environmental problems. Much of the study area has been converted to residential housing with lots smaller than the 2-ac criterion used to select potential study participants. Therefore, a large portion of the residents of the study area were excluded from participating in the study. Nonresident property owners, business property owners, managers of public land holdings, managers of church and school properties, and all other nonresidential property owners were excluded from the study population.
A total of 386 property owner/residents were identified using these selection criteria. A modified Dillman (2000) mail survey approach was used to collect data. A structured questionnaire was mailed to all selected property owners during the late fall of 2005 with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study. Two follow- up mailings were posted to nonrespondents during the early winter of 2006 to encourage participation in the study. The initial mailing revealed that 38 subjects could not be located due to transfer of property and were subsequently removed from the mailing list. The total number of possible subjects was reduced to 348 residential landowners. A total of 149 questionnaires were returned that were sufficiently completed for use in the statistical modeling. This constitutes a response rate of 41.8%, which is considered good by contemporary social science research standards for a mail questionnaire.
Study Variables. Respondents were asked to provide information about perceived environmental problems within the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed and about specific actions they would be willing to take to address the issues identified. The factors assessed in the study were measured as follows:
Willingness to invest in conservation was designated as the dependent variable for the study and was measured by asking respondents to indicate the amount of money they would be willing to invest to resolve identified conservation issues on their property. The response categories included on the questionnaire are as follows: none (weighted 0), less than $100 (weighted 1), $100 to $299 (weighted 2), $300 to $499 (weighted 3), $500 to $999 (weighted 4), $1,000 to $4,999 (weighted 5), and more than $5,000 (weighted 6). Due to constrained variance in the distribution of responses to the dependent variable (see table 1 for the distribution of responses), categories 1 through 6 were combined into one category. This action produced a dichotomous dependent variable with 0 representing those not willing to invest money in conservation and 1 representing those who would be willing to invest in conservation on their properties.
The predictive variables used to represent the diffusion concepts discussed in the theory section are as follows: attitude toward conservation, orientation toward implementation of buffer systems, importance of subsidies, assistance to adopt, knowledge of impacts, concern for flooding, concern for nuisance wildlife, concern for stream erosion, concern for soil fertility/nutrient management, and location of residence. The predictive variables were measured as follows:
Attitude toward conservation was included in the study because diffiision theory places considerable emphasis on the role of attitudes in the adoption decision-making process. The variable was created to measure the value attached to natural resources conservation on respondents’ property and within the watershed. It was expected from theory that individuals who were more positive toward conservation would tend to be more willing to invest in conservation on their property. The variable was measured using seven Likert-type (Edwards 1957; Nunnally 1978) attitude scale items that assessed respondent orientations toward the importance of the following: natural areas, conservation at the local level, water and stream quality, improving wildlife habitat, controlling flooding, and learning about natural resources. The possible responses ranged from strongly disagree (weighted 1) to strongly agree (weighted 5). The reliability of the scale was assessed via the use of item analysis which produced an alpha coefficient of reliability (Cronbach 1951; Nunnally 1978) of 0.89. An alpha of this magnitude indicates the responses to the scale items are highly correlated and that the weighting values can be legitimately summed to form a composite scale score (see table 2 for scale items and the distribution of responses). Higher scale scores indicate more positive attitudes toward conservation.
Orientation toward implementing natural buffers was included in the study because diffusion theory argues that potential adopters must develop positive attitudes toward possible solutions to perceived problems before action options will be considered for adoption. The implementation of natural buffers on respondent properties near ditches and streams would be major contributors to resolution of environmental problems identified with residential housing within the study area. It was expected that individuals who were more positive toward implementing natural buffers on their land would be more willing to invest in conservation on their property. The variable was measured using two Likert-type attitude statements that assessed respondent orientations toward implementing natural buffers near streams and ditches. The possible responses ranged from strongly disagree (weighted 1) to strongly agree (weighted 5). The reliability of the scale was assessed via the use of item analysis which produced an alpha coefficient of 0.89. An alpha of this magnitude indicates the responses to the scale items are highly correlated and that the weighting values can be legitimately summed to form a composite scale score (see table 3 for scale items and responses). Higher scale scores indicate more positive attitudes toward implementing natural buffers.
Importance of subsidies was included in the study because diffusion theory argues that subsidies in the form of technical and economic subsidies can remove financial/knowledge barriers to adoption. It was expected that individuals who placed higher importance on subsidies would be less willing to invest their own resources in conservation on their property. The variable was measured using two Likert-type scale items that asked respondents to indicate the relative importance of technical assistance and financial assistance when making adoption decisions about conservation practices and structures. The possible responses ranged from strongly disagree (weighted 1) to strongly agree (weighted 5) that technical and financial assistance are important when making conservation adoption decisions. The alpha coefficient of reliability for the two-item scale was 0.82, which indicates the responses to the two items are highly correlated and that the weighting values can be legitimately summed to form a composite scale score (see table 4 for scale items and responses). Higher scale scores indicate higher levels of importance attached to subsidies. Assistance to adopt was included in the study as a second measure of the importance placed on incentives in the adoption decision making process. It was expected that individuals who desired assistance would be less willing to invest their own resources in conservation. The variable was measured by asking respondents to select the types of incentives that would encourage them to participate in conservation programs. Incentives assessed were as follows: technical assistance, tax credits, set-aside payments, financial assistance for vegetation improvements, and financial assistance for structural improvements. A checked response received value of 1 and a blank response received a 0. An alpha coefficient of reliability of 0.72 was computed using respondent responses (see table 5). Given the constrained variance in terms of the possible responses to the question, a value of 0.72 indicates the item responses are significantly correlated and that the weighting values can be legitimately summed to form a composite index. Higher index scores indicate the need for more numerous incentives to motivate potential adopters to adopt.
Knowledge of conservation impacts was included in the study because diffusion theory argues that knowledge about the impacts of innovations will facilitate adoption. It was expected that individuals who were more knowledgeable of impacts of conservation efforts on environmental problems would be more willing to invest in conservation. The variable was measured by asking respondents to indicate the types of knowledge that would encourage them to participate in conservation programs. Respondents were asked to check all of the types of knowledge that would increase the probability they would participate in conservation programs. The types of knowledge assessed were as follows: improvement in wildlife habitat, improvement in water quality, and maintenance of natural areas. All checked responses received a 1 and all blank responses received a 0. An alpha coefficient of reliability of 0.71 was computed from the responses to the three types of knowledge examined (see table 6). Given the constrained variance in terms of the possible responses to the question, a value of 0.71 indicates the item responses are significantly correlated and that the weighting values can be legitimately summed to form a composite index. Higher index scores indicate the need for a broader knowledge base for conservation decision making.
Diffusion theory argues that potential adopters must be aware of problems before they will consider adopting any innovation. Awareness of conservation problems on respondent properties was assessed by five variables and was measured as follows:
Concern for flooding was measured by asking respondents to indicate if flooding is a concern on their property. It was expected that individuals who were concerned about flooding on their property would tend to be more willing to invest in conservation efforts that could reduce the incidence of flooding. A positive response received a value of 1 and a blank response received a value of 0.
Concern for nuisance wildlife was measured by asking respondents if nuisance wildlife is a concern on their property. It was expected that individuals who were concerned about nuisance wildlife would be more willing to invest in conservation efforts that could reduce wildlife problems. A positive response received a value of 1 and a blank response received a value of 0.
Concern for stream erosion was measured by asking respondents if stream erosion is a concern on their property. It was expected that individuals who were concerned about stream erosion would be more willing to invest in conservation efforts that could reduce stream erosion on their property. A positive response received a value of 1 and a blank response received a value of 0.
Concern for soil fertility/nutrient management was measured by asking respondents if soil fertility/nutrient management is a concern on their property. It was expected that individuals who were concerned about soil fertility and nutrient management problems would be more willing to invest in conservation efforts that could reduce degradation of soil resources. A positive response received a value of 1 and a blank response received a value of 0.
Location of residence was included in the study as a general measure of awareness of conservation problems at the property site. It was reasoned that respondents who lived at the site of the property being assessed would be more aware of environmental problems than nonresident property owners. It was expected that residents would be more aware of environmental problems then absentee land owners and would be more willing to invest in conservation to improve the environment in which they were living. Residence was measure by asking respondents to indicate if they lived at the property being assessed. A positive response received a value of 1 and a blank response received a value of 0.
Statistical Analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to examine general trends in the data set, while binary logistical regression was employed to assess the merits of the theoretical perspective used to guide the investigation. Missing data were attributed the variable mean, which has been shown to be the best method for salvaging cases when the number of missing cases is small, the study group is relatively large, the strength of relationships is low to moderate, and the response rate is relatively high (Dormer 1982). (Note the amount of missing data was small within the data set. The only missing data were within the attitude scale items. To ensure that the use of mean substitution did not affect the findings, the statistics used to assess the reliability of the scales were computed using list-wise deletion of cases with missing data. The recalculated alpha coefficients for the three scales containing missing data were identical to the coefficients generated using mean substitution. The binary logit regression modeling was also computed using list-wise deletion of cases with missing data, and the findings are almost identical. The results of this modeling add considerable credibility for the use of mean substitution as the method for salvaging cases with missing data.) All of these conditions were satisfied in the data set.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive findings for willingness to invest economic resources for conservation are presented in table 1 and show that a large majority of study respondents were not willing to spend any money on natural resource conservation on their property. Over 60% of the study respondents indicated they would not spend one dollar on conservation efforts on their property. Only 21.5% indicated they would be willing to spend from $1 to $499 and 16.1% indicated they would spend more than $500. These findings are different from those produced by Blaine and Lichtkoppler (2004) in the Cleveland, Ohio area where they observed that respondents were willing to pay for conservation easements to improve water quality.
Descriptive findings for attitude toward natural resources conservation are presented in table 2 and demonstrate that study respondents were basically very positive toward natural resources conservation as assessed in the study. Respondents were most positive toward statements about encouraging the maintenance of water quality in local streams and improving wildlife habitat. However, all of the other attitude statements were perceived positively by respondents. These findings are consistent with many studies that have demonstrated that land managers are positive toward natural resources conservation (Bright et al. 2002; Napier et al. 2000, 1994).
Descriptive findings for willingness to consider implementing natural buffers are presented in table 3 and show that respondents were undecided about investing in such conservation efforts. Slightly less than 25% of respondents indicated a willingness to implement natural buffers.
Descriptive findings for the perceived importance of subsidies in the adoption of natural resources conservation practices and structures are presented in table 4 and demonstrate a high level of importance placed on subsidies in the adoption decision-making process. While technical assistance was ranked slightly higher than financial assistance, both types of assistance were perceived to be important when making conservation adoption decisions. Findings from many studies have demonstrated that subsidies significantly influence conservation adoption decisions for rural residents (Halcrow et al. 1982; Lambert et al. 2006; Napier et al. 2000, 1994; Swanson and Clearfield 1994).
Descriptive findings for types of assistance that would increase the probability of participating in natural resources conservation programs are presented in table 5. The most frequently selected assistance was a tax reduction on property. A total of 62.4% of the respondents indicated that a tax reduction would act as a motivator to participate in natural resources conservation programs. Other types of incentives were mentioned relatively infrequently. It is interesting to note that technical assistance and financial assistance were selected by a small minority of respondents. Such a finding is inconsistent with research focused on technology- intensive farm operators who tend to be motivated to participate in conservation programs by financial and technical assistance (Cooper 2003; Lambert et al. 2006; Langpap 2004).
The findings presented in table 5 strongly suggest that tax credits can act as a significant motivator for a large majority of study respondents to participate in natural resources conservation programs. This finding supports research by Schrader (1994) who noted that the preferred policy approach for watershed management was tax relief.
Descriptive findings for knowledge factors that would increase the probability respondents would participate in natural resources conservation programs are presented in table 6 and demonstrate that about one-third of the respondents would be influenced by the types of knowledge assessed in the study. These findings suggest that provision of knowledge in the areas assessed would have some effect on conservation program participation.
Descriptive findings for perceived natural resources concerns within the study area are presented in table 7. The findings demonstrate that the most frequently mentioned natural resource concern for study respondents was nuisance wildlife followed by flooding, stream erosion, and soil fertility/nutrient management. This finding is consistent with studies conducted among suburban residents which indicate that nuisance wildlife (especially deer) pose a significant environmental problem for residents (DeStafano et al. 2005; Harris et al. 1997; Raik et al. 2005).
The binary logistic regression findings are presented in table 8 and demonstrate that five variables were significant at the 0.05 level in predicting whether or not respondents were willing to invest economic resources in natural resources conservation on their property. The five significant variables are as follows: knowledge of conservation impacts, concern for nuisance wildlife, attitude toward conservation, concern for soil fertility/nutrient management and residence sums. As the number of categories of knowledge about conservation impacts increased, the probability increased that respondents would be willing to invest in conservation on their property. As concern for nuisance wildlife increased, as attitudes toward conservation became more positive, and as the concern for soil fertility/nutrient management increased, the probability increased that respondents would be willing to invest money in conservation on their property. As the probability increased that respondents were residents of the property being assessed, the probability decreased that they would be more willing to invest in conservation. None of the other predictive variables were significant at the 0.05 level.
The only finding that was not consistent with the theoretical perspective used to guide the investigation was for residence. Residents were less likely to invest in conservation than nonresident land owners. This may be due to greater awareness among residents that conservation problems are not problematic on the property being assessed. It may also be a function of nonresident respondents wishing to invest in property they intend to sell. Owners who intend to sell their properties may wish to invest in conservation improvements when they expect to be adequately compensated by an increase in property value. A number of studies have shown that farmers who do not expect to claim future benefit streams from conservation investments will not adopt conservation practices or structures (Batie 1986; Ervin 1981).
The computed Nagelkerke R-square is 0.394 which demonstrates substantial association among the predictive variables and willingness to invest in conservation. The percentage of correct classification of respondents into “willing to invest” and “not willing to invest” groups was 73.8%. (Note the percentage correct classification is somewhat misleading when study groups are uneven in size. Over 60% of the study participants could have been correctly classified, if all of the subjects had been classified as being in the “not willing to invest” group.)
Summary and Conclusions
The findings for Lower Big Walnut Creek residents are somewhat inconsistent with existing research literature focused on adoption of conservation production systems among agriculturalists. Theoretical perspectives developed using the traditional diffusion model to explain adoption of conservation production systems among farmers in central Ohio watersheds located in close proximity to the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed have been consistendy shown to be inappropriate for that purpose (Napier 2000; Napier and Bridges 2002, 2003; Napier and Johnson 1998).
One possible explanation for the observed differences between farmers and suburban residents is that the costs and consequences of adopting conservation practices and structures for the two groups are substantially different. Adoption of conservation practices and structures by large-scale production agriculturalists often requires extensive investments of economic resources, modification of farming systems, permanent retirement of crop land, development of new farming skills, and a host of other modifications in the farm production system. Few of the costs associated with adoption of conservation production systems by large-scale agriculturalists are rewarded by significant increases in farm income. Failure of a newly adopted conservation farm production system to achieve anticipated production goals will result in loss of farm income and could result in the loss of the farm enterprise. Farmers are not willing to assume such risks unless they receive economic subsidies from the federal government to offset any economic risks they must assume to adopt new production systems.
On the other hand, urban residents are seldom required to invest large sums of money to resolve perceived environmental problems, and the amount of land involved is very small. Investment in natural resources conservation for urban residents does not threaten the economic well-being of the household because the economic viability of the family unit is not connected to the adoption of conservation practices and structures as it is for farmers. The benefits from very small economic investments in conservation are relatively high for urban dwellers with little risk of failure.
If this explanation of the differences in findings between farmers and nonfarm suburbanites is correct, holistic conservation planning and program implementation within watersheds containing similar population distributions as those examined in this study is certain to become more problematic and contentious over time. At the present time, urban residents in the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed are not willing to invest in conservation which is also true for farmers, within surrounding watersheds (Napier 2000; Napier and Bridges 2002,2003; Napier and Johnson 1998) and probably in the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed. If conservation programs are successful within the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed study area in terms of increasing positive attitudes toward conservation and increasing the willingness of urban land owners to invest in conservation, it is highly likely that urbanites will expect upstream farmers to adopt conservation practices and structures to improve stream and water quality. Such a situation could result in urban residents demanding that farmers within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed (from Hoover Reservoir north through two counties) to comply with the environmental quality expectations held by urban residents. While agriculture is of little significance within Franklin County (Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed), the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed located in Delaware and Morrow Counties contains a large number of large-scale production agriculturalists.
The potential conflict that could emerge between Columbus suburban residents and upstream farmers within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed adds credibility to the assertion made early in the paper for more holistic planning and conservation program implementation at the watershed level. If urban populations are to be involved in the decision making process at the watershed level, it must be recognized that the probability is high that urban residents will demand increased water and stream quality. Since the political power of urban residents will always be greater due to population size, it is almost certain that water and stream quality will be defined by urbanites. It is also highly likely that urban residents will be quite willing to support higher environmental standards for the watershed because they will be required to pay only a small portion of the costs to achieve those goals, assuming that the polluter will be required to pay for internalizing the problem. Urban people own little land that will require investment in conservation practices and structures, while farm owner- operators will be required to invest considerable amounts of money to comply with pollution standards. Such a situation reeks of potential conflict with rural farm operators set against rural nonfarm and urban conservation interests.
If the scenario outlined above is correct, the potential exists for extremely contentious decision making when urban, rural nonfarm and rural farm populations are involved in conservation planning and program implementation at the watershed level in the future. Unless some mechanism is maintained to subsidize farmers to adopt and use conservation production systems, conflict is almost certain to emerge.The outcome of the imposition of urban conservation expectations on upstream farmers in the Big Walnut watershed may be the migration of agriculture to areas outside of the watershed. The three outcomes of the changes in conservation policies and programs in the United States identified early in this paper clearly have introduced much higher levels of uncertainly into the conservation decision-making process at the watershed level. The desire to involve all publics in holistic watershed planning and program implementation combined with the concern for nonpoint source pollution have created a situation that will almost certainly set farmers and other large-scale land owners against all other interest groups within watersheds. It is highly likely that future watershed planning and program implementation in watersheds where urban and rural populations are located in close proximity to each other will be focused more on resolution of conflict than it is on achieving improved environment quality.
References
Batie, S.S. 1986. Why soil erosion: A social science perspective. In Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research, ed. Steve Lovejoy and Ted L. Napier, 1-14. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Blaine, T.W., and F.R. Lichtkoppler. 2004. Willingness to pay for green space preservation: A comparison of soil and water conservation clientele and the general public using a contingent valuation method. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59(5):203- 208.
Brady, D.J. 1996. The watershed protection approach. Water Science Technology 33(3-4):17-21.
Bright, A.D., S.C. Barro, and R.T. Burtz. 2002. Public attitudes toward ecological restoration in a Chicago metropolitan region. Society and Natural Resources 15:763-785.
Buttel, F. and L. Swanson. 1986. Soil and water conservation: A farm structural and public policy context. In Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research, ed. Steve Lovejoy and Ted L. Napier, 26-39. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Cooper, J.C. 2003. A joint framework for analysis of agrienvironmental payment programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4):976-987.
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrics 16:297-334.
Daily, G.C., ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Washington, DC: Island Press.
Davenport, T.E., N.J. Phillips, B.A. Kirschner, and L.T. Kirschner. 19%. The watershed protection approach: A framework for ecosystem protection. Water Science Technology 33(3-4):23-26.
DeStefano, S., R.D Deblinger, and C. Miller. 2005. Suburban wildlife: Lessons, challenges, and opportunities. Urban Ecosystems 8:131-137.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Diplas, P. 2002. Integrated decision making for watershed management. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 38(2):337-340.
Donner, A. 1982. The Relative Effectiveness of Procedures Commonly Used in Multiple Regression Analysis for Dealing with Missing Values. The American Statistician 36:378-381.
Edwards, A. 1957.Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
El-Swaify, S.A., and D.S. Yakowia. 1998. Multiple Objective Decision Making for Land, Water, and Environmental Management. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Erven, D.E. 1981. Soil Erosion on Owned and Rented Cropland: Economic Models and Evidence. Columbia, Missouri: Department of Agricultural Economics: University of Missouri.
Farrow, D.R.G., and B.T. Bower. 1993. Towards More Integrated Management of Watersheds: Some Past , Efforts, Present Attempts and Future Possibilities. Water Resources Update 93 (Autumn): 13-17.
Francis, M. 1989. Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality. In Public Places and Spaces, ed. I. Airman and E.H. Zube. 147-172. New York: Plenum Press.
Gobster, P.H. 2001. Visions of nature: Conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:35-51.
Halcrow, H.G., E.O. Heady, and M.L. Cotner, eds. 1982. Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press.
Harris, L.K., W.W. Shaw, and J. Schelhas. 1997. Urban neighbors’ wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors near federally protected areas in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17(2): 144- 148.
Heaney, J.P. 1993. New Directions in Water Resources Planning and Management Water Resources Update 93 (Autumn): 3-8.
Heathcote, I.W. 1998. Integrated Watershed Management, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Holt, M. 2001. Europe and Central Asia Region. Washington, DC: Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Unit, World Bank.
Jansky, L., M.J. Haigh, and H. Prasad. 2005. Sustainable Management of Headwaters Resources. New York: United Nations University Press.
Kempton, W.,J.S. Boster, and J.A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lal, R., and B. Stewart. 1995. Soil management: Experimental basis for sustainability and environmental quality. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Lambert, D., P. Sullivan, R. Claasen, and L. Foreman. 2006. Conservation-Compatible Practices and Programs. Economic Research report number 14. Washington, DC:USDA.
Lamy, F., J. Bolte, M. Santelmann, and C. Smith. 2002. Development and evaluation of multiple-objective decision making for watershed management planning. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 38(2):517-529.
Langpap, C. 2004. Conservation incentives programs for endangered species: An analysis of landowner participation. Land Economics 80(3):375-388.
Leach, W.D. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127(6):3378-385.
Leach, W.D. 2006. Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review 66(1):100-110.
Lovejoy, S.B., and T.L. Napier, ed. 1986. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socio-Economic Research. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Miller, J.R. and R.J. Hobbs. 2002.Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16(2):330-337.
Napier, T.L. 2000. Use of conservation production practices in the North Central Region of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(4):1-13.
Napier, T.L., C. Henry, and X. Yang. 2004. Impacts of conservation policies and programs on farm level adoption behaviors in the United States. Trends in Soil Science 3:47-58.
Napier, T.L., D.F. Scott, K.W. Easter, and R.J. Supalla, eds. 1983. Water Resources Research: Problems and Potentials for Agriculture and Rural Communities. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Napier, T.L., and E.J. Johnson. 1998. Impacts of voluntary conservation initiatives in the Darby Creek Watershed of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(1):78-84.
Napier, T.L., and M. Tucker. 2001a. Use of soil and water protection practices among farmers in three Midwest watersheds, journal of Environmental Management 27(2):269-279.
Napier, T.L., and M. Tucker. 2001b. Factors affecting nutrient application rates in three Midwestern watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56(3):219-227.
Napier, T.L., S.M. Camboni, and J. Tvrdon, ed. 2000. Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs: Successes and Failures. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Napier, T.L., S.M. Camboni, and S.A. El-Swaify, ed. 1994. Adopting Conservation on the Farm: An International Perspective on the Socioeconomics of Soil and Water Conservation. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.
Napier, T.L., and T. Bridges. 2003. Adoption of conservation production systems within the upper region of the Scioto River Watershed in Ohio. Journal of Food, Agriculture, and Environment 1(2):287-294.
Napier, T.L., and T. Bridges. 2002. Adoption of conservation production systems in two Ohio watersheds: A comparative study. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57(4):229-235.
Nassauer, J.I. 2004. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24(4):756-765.
Nassauer, J.I. 1997. Placing Nature: Culture in Landscape Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.
National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGrawHill.
OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Big Walnut Creek Watershed.
Pampel, F., Jr., and J.C. Van Es. 1977. Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociology 42(1):57-71.
Raik, D.B., T.B. Lauber, D.J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2005. Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management- Adopting practices that address value differences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10(2): 109-122.
Robinson, J., and T.L. Napier. 2002. Adoption of nutrient management techniques to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Agricultural Systems 72:197-213.
Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovation. Fourth edition. New York: The Free Press.
Ruhl, J.B. 1999. The political science of watershed management in the ecosystem age. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 35(3):519-526.
Sabatier, P.A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenburg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock. 2005. Swimming Up-stream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schrader, C.C. 1994. Streamland Protection in Agricultural Landscapes: Landowner Perceptions of Conservation Approaches. PhD dissertation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the Grassroots. Berkeley, California: University of California Berkeley Press. Stern, P.C. 1992.1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology 43:269-302.
Swanson, L.E., and F.B. Clearfield, ed. 1994. Agricultural Policy and the Environment: Iron Fist or Open Hand. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Syme, G.J., D.M. Fenton, and S. Coakes. 2001. Lot Size, Garden Satisfaction, and Local Park and Wetland Visitation. Landscape and Urban Planning 56:161-170.
Wayland, R.H. III. 1993. Comprehensive Watershed Management: A view from EPA. Water Resources Update. 93 (Autumn): 23-26.
Ted L. Napier is a professor of environmental policy in the Department of Human and Community Development in the Environmental Science Graduate Program and in the School of Natural Resources at the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Kelly McCutcheon and Jennifer Fish are members of the Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District, Columbus, Ohio.
Copyright Soil and Water Conservation Society Jan/Feb 2008
(c) 2008 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Comments