This is a presentation given at a stakeholder meeting to discuss community views of watershed management in the Wappinger Creek Watershed in the Hudson Valley, New York, May 2010.
Community Perspectives on the Wappinger Creek Watershed
1. Community Perspectives on the Wappinger Creek Watershed Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D. Margaret Kurth Cornell University Dept. of Natural Resources Human Dimensions Research Unit Allison Chatrchyan Carolyn Klocker Neil Curri Cornell University Cooperative Extension-Dutchess County Presentation at “Protecting Wappinger Creek: A Public Meeting to Discuss Water Quality in the Watershed, May 26, 2010” 2010
2.
3. Water Quality Concerns From: Natural Resource Management Plan for the Wappinger Creek Watershed
4. Top Threats to the Wappinger Creek Watershed 2010 DRAFT List Nonpoint source pollution, especially excess road salt, sediment, nutrients (including phosphorus) and pharmaceuticals. Failure of septic and sewer plants that have potential to discharge into the creek. These failing systems lead to higher amounts of nutrients like phosphorus into the creek. Deterioration/ elimination of riparian buffers. This leads to increased erosion of stream banks, loss of streamside habitat, decreased food resources for aquatic organisms, increase in stream temperature and much more. Illegal dumping of both trash and fill. Increased stormwater runoff and increased occurrence and intensity of flooding along the stream. Invasive species including the aquatic plant water chestnut found in the Wappinger Lake. Lack of protection of steep slopes. Over-development and development practices that lead to increases in impervious surfaces and excessive water consumption. This results in decreased groundwater recharge and reduced base flow of the creek. Lack of information reaching the public about their water supply, how it works and what needs to be done to protect surface and groundwater Lack of or little enforcement of existing ordinances and regulations that protect the water and land resources of the watershed and creek. 11. Lack of funds, volunteers and the public interest needed to implement a watershed education program. 12. Loss and/or fragmentation of habitat and the accompanying loss of biodiversity
5. Wappinger Creek Watershed Intermunicipal Council (WIC) “The mission of the WIC is to cooperatively address common issues that may affect the quality of the watershed.”
6. Cognitive Hierarchy-relationship between values, attitudes, and behavior- Numerous Faster to change Peripheral Specific to situations Fewer in number Slower to change Central to beliefs Transcend situations Behaviors Behavioral Intentions Attitudes, Norms Beliefs Values Decker et al. 2001
7. Survey Purpose Learn community perspectives about water quality in the Wappinger Creek watershed (attitudes, policy preferences, current actions, etc.) Identify barriers and constraints to adoption of practices beneficial to the watershed Inform outreach and education efforts of the WIC designed to address locally relevant social factors that promote and hinder adoption of conservation practices to protect waters quality
15. Attitudes Are constructs that represent an individual’s evaluation of something Generally positive or negative Underlie and are expressed by our behaviors Can be changed
16. Use of the Wappinger Creek 1=Never, 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Very Often
17. How much of a problem is each of the following in the Wappinger Creek Watershed? 1=Not a problem, 2=Slight problem, 3=Moderate problem, 4=Severe problem
22. To what extent to you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding what can be achieved with protection of water resources? 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral , 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree
23. Who should be responsible for protecting Wappinger Creek water resources? 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral , 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree
25. What do you believe is contributing to increased flooding/flood damage in the Wappinger Creek watershed? * 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral , 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree
38. Behaviors There are many practices that homeowners can do that have the potential to improve water quality Low or no fertilizer and pesticide use Use of phosphate-free fertilizer Capturing rainwater and storm water runoff from their property Establish and maintain a vegetated buffer strip along surface water bodies Have their septic systems inspected and maintained regularly (general recommendation 3-5 years although some households will require more)
40. Behaviors 71.6% landowners agree or strongly agree that they would be willing to make changes to their household and property to protect water quantity and quality Lack of awareness and knowledge about the behaviors was the more frequently reported barrier to adoption followed by not perceiving a problem
41. Behaviors 71.6% landowners agree or strongly agree that they would be willing to make changes to their household and property to protect water quantity and quality Lack of awareness and knowledge about the behaviors was the more frequently reported barrier to adoption followed by not perceiving a problem
47. Increase outreach and education to residents and municipal officialsPolicy Preferences
48. Shorna B. Allred srb237@cornell.edu (607)255-2149 www.human-dimensions.org
Notas del editor
Shorna will edit
So… we conducted a survey
Perceptions may be influences by a number of factors: experiences with the resource for example, though recreation, information seeking, and length of residency. People may not react without a stimulus.
I can’t fix the color on this one
Perceptions for which the mean response for municipal officials and landowners was significantly different. This is only 8 of 16 problems we asked about. Municipal officials consistently reported higher perceived severity and the mean response for landowners was under 3.0 for every problem. The most severe problems as perceived by landowners were garbage/litter in and around water bodies and road salt running off into water bodies
Problems for which the frequency of landowner “don’t know” response was over 40% and corresponding “don’t know” response for municipal officials
Can’t see to be able to move this chart
16 itemsRange from 0-64
Negative consequences-increased taxes-infringing lawsMultiple benefits-natural beauty-recreational value-prevent rise in water treatment costs-healthy habitat-clean water-increase property values-reduce flooding
“To what extent do you agree that… it is the responsibility of residents/ the municipality/ should be shared by municipal officials and residents to protect water resources”. This graph shows that landowners and municipal officials do not necessarily agree who is responsible for water resource protection.
Precipitation Effects-increased rain and snow-increased intensity of precipitationIn-Stream Effects-debris causing water to back up-undersized culverts and bridges-lack of flood control structuresDevelopment/Anthropogenic-increase impervious surface-stormwater directed off the landvia storm drains (instead of infiltrating)-development of building and roads in floodplains-sediment deposition changing shape and dimensions of channels-increased velocity due to deepening and straightening of channels-loss of natural flood storage areas (wetlands)-
Low awareness about problems and local laws
The largest reported barrier to behavior adoption was lack of knowledge on how to perform the activity. Behaviors aimed at capturing rain water and storm water runoff had the highest awareness without adoption. Such scenarios provide an opportunity for education to overcome barriers. For example, some respondents expressed concerns about rain barrels attracting mosquitoes which means education about mosquito netting may remove this barrier
Landowners expressed that they would like policy that restricts development in floodplains and requires new development to take pressures on water systems into consideration