A Community Capacity Assessment of Stormwater Management ... · This project is an assessment of...

A COMMUNITY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THREE TWIN CITIES METRO AREA WATERSHEDS

A Social Science-Based Assessment

January 2016

Authors: Mae A. Davenport, PhD Vanessa Perry, MS Amit Pradhananga, PhD Jennifer Shepard

ii

A Community Capacity Assessment of Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area

A final technical report prepared for Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

by

Mae A. Davenport, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Forest Resources

Director, Center for Changing Landscapes

Vanessa Perry, MS Graduate Research Assistant

Amit Pradhananga, PhD

Research Associate

Jennifer Shepard Graduate Research Assistant

College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences University of Minnesota

115 Green Hall 1530 Cleveland Avenue North

St. Paul, MN 55108-6112 www.forestry.umn.edu

January 31, 2016

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge and thank our Twin Cities metro area watershed organization partners, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, and Capitol Region Watershed District, for their collaboration and invaluable assistance with study design, participant recruitment, and project outreach. The authors extend gratitude to Sarah Fellows, Bree Duever, Laura Dorle, Alexandria Felix, Bjorn Olson, and Alyssa Prokott, current and former students at the University of Minnesota, for their assistance with data collection, management, and analysis. We received critical input and feedback from the Project Advisory Team made up of dedicated community actors from each of the watersheds. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the 268 survey respondents and 75 interview and focus group participants who shared with us their insights on their communities and their perspectives on community engagement in water resource protection and management. Funding for this project was provided by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO). This work also was supported by grants from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch project 229912) and United States Geological Survey (Cooperative Agreement Number 2013MN352B). The report’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funders. Cover photos: Right photo provided by the Capitol Region Watershed District; left photo created by Vanessa Perry. The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access

to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or

sexual orientation.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ i

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v

1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

2 Project Goals ......................................................................................................................................... 2

3 Study Design and Methods ................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Key Informant Interviews .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Focus Groups ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Qualitative Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 6

3.4 Resident Mail Survey .................................................................................................................... 7

4 Project Findings ................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Interview Findings ....................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Interview Participant Profile ............................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Community Narratives ........................................................................................................ 12

4.1.3 Water Narratives ................................................................................................................. 17

4.1.4 Community-Stormwater Interaction Narratives ................................................................. 22

4.2 Stormwater Program Evaluations ............................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 Evaluation of the Central Corridor Green Line Stormwater Management Projects ........... 28

4.2.2 Evaluation of the Living Streets Program ............................................................................ 29

4.3 Focus Group Findings .................................................................................................................. 31

4.4 Survey Findings ........................................................................................................................... 34

4.4.1 Survey Respondent Profile .................................................................................................. 35

4.4.2 Divergences: Unique Respondent Attributes by Watershed Area ..................................... 38

4.4.3 Confluences: Common Respondent Attributes Across Watersheds .................................. 39

5 Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 46

6 References .......................................................................................................................................... 54

7 Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 56

7.1 Appendix A. Participant Recruitment Flier ................................................................................. 57

7.2 Appendix B. Interview Contact Script ......................................................................................... 59

iii

7.3 Appendix C. Interview Guides ..................................................................................................... 62

I. Mississippi Watershed Management Organization .................................................................... 63

II. Capitol Region Watershed District .............................................................................................. 68

III. Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District ..................................................................... 73

7.4 Appendix D. Interview Consent Form ......................................................................................... 78

7.5 Appendix E. Interview Background Information Form ............................................................... 81

7.6 Appendix F. Focus Group Consent Form ..................................................................................... 83

7.7 Appendix G. Focus Group Agenda .............................................................................................. 86

7.8 Appendix H. Focus Group Background Information Form .......................................................... 88

7.9 Appendix I. Survey Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 90

7.10 Appendix J. Survey Cover Letter ................................................................................................. 99

7.11 Appendix K. Survey Reminder Letter ........................................................................................ 101

7.12 Appendix L. Survey Replacement Cover Letter ......................................................................... 103

7.13 Appendix M: Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 105

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Issue scoping and assessment focus ............................................................................................... 4 Table 2. PAT membership and stakeholders ................................................................................................ 4 Table 3. Interviewee sociodemographic characteristics ............................................................................. 13 Table 4. Community .................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5. Water ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Table 6. Community-stormwater interactions ........................................................................................... 27 Table 7. Central Corridor green infrastructure evaluation ......................................................................... 29 Table 8. Living Streets program neighborhood evaluation......................................................................... 31 Table 9. Focus group participant sociodemographic characteristics .......................................................... 32 Table 10. Internal challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement ...................... 33 Table 11. External challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement ..................... 34 Table 12. Survey response rate by watershed ............................................................................................ 34 Table 13.Survey respondents' sociodemographic characteristics .............................................................. 36 Table 14. Survey respondents' housing/property characteristics .............................................................. 37 Table 15. Survey area residents’ sociodemographic and housing characteristics ..................................... 38 Table 16. Watershed-specific recommendations ....................................................................................... 50

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study sites within Mississippi Watershed Management Organization ......................................... 9 Figure 2. Study sites within the Capitol Region Watershed District ........................................................... 10 Figure 3. Study sites within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District ...................................... 11 Figure 4. Differences and commonalities between high clean water action and low clean water action respondents ................................................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 5. Differences and commonalities between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement .................................................................................................................................................................... 45

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Organization investigated community capacity and conservation behaviors associated with stormwater management from the perspectives of diverse community members who live and work in the watersheds. The project applied a participatory, community-based research approach using both qualitative data, gathered through key informant interviews and focus groups, and quantitative data, collected in self-administered surveys. Four primary research questions drove this project:

• What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management in the watersheds?

• What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water resource management?

• What are community member perceptions of existing water programs? • What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among

community members?

More than 300 community members participated in the project as research subjects, and 27 community members served on the project advisory team. Interview findings present rich and wide-ranging narratives on community, water, and community-stormwater interactions. Focus group findings reveal a series of opportunities and challenges watershed organizations face in inspiring community engagement. The resident survey examined a wide breadth of topics and findings establish areas of convergence and divergence between watershed subgroups, levels of clean water action, and levels of civic engagement. The survey inquired about important neighborhood qualities, engagement in community issues, beliefs and concerns about water, and engagement in clean water action. Based on study findings, we identified a series of strategies for building community capacity and engaging communities in stormwater management. Strategies are organized and presented by four overarching recommendations:

1. Tap into existing community assets 2. Connect with community issues and link to community identities 3. Remove community-water barriers 4. Emotivate in water programming

1

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Despite advances in biophysical science, technology and engineering, stormwater management continues to be a major challenge to planners and managers in urban settings. Stormwater management requires not only technical solutions like the design and installation of stormwater management infrastructure, but also the commitment and action of diverse stakeholders, from residents and landowners to business owners and local government officials. Thus, water resource and land use professionals are increasingly seeking guidance from social scientists and outreach and communication specialists to better understand and influence people and their behaviors. Conservation behavior has the potential to significantly advance stormwater management initiatives, or if lacking, to considerably impede their success. This project uses a community capacity assessment to understand the drivers and constraints to public- and private-sphere conservation behavior associated with stormwater management in urban watersheds. For this study, conservation behavior is broadly defined and encompasses private-sphere actions like land and water use conservation (e.g., rain garden installation and the maintenance of streamside buffers), as well as public-sphere actions like conservation citizenship (e.g., attending a watershed planning meeting or being willing to pay a fee for water resource protection) and conservation advocacy (e.g., participating in a volunteer event or joining a watershed organization). A growing emphasis on integrated problem-solving exists in Minnesota water resource management (WRM). This approach recognizes the need for cross-scale awareness, interdisciplinary science and transboundary solutions to water resource impairments. However, while ecological monitoring and protection technology have evolved significantly at this new scale, comprehensive assessments of the human, social and governance dimensions of WRM continue to lag significantly behind. As Braden et al. (2009) argue, “In the context of water, the ‘management’ required to balance human needs with ecosystem requirements is not simply a matter of better understanding flows or contaminants, or optimizing engineered systems; it also requires understanding [the] …economic, cultural, and social determinants of water use” (pg. 4). Water and community experts agree that a greater understanding of the capacity of individuals and entire communities to engage in sustainable watershed management and to adapt to changing social-ecological conditions is needed for more resilient and longer-lasting water resource protection (Braden et al., 2009; Tarlock, 2003; Bradshaw, 2003; Sabatier et al., 2005; Morton, 2008). Adaptive responses to water quality, quantity and timing problems in urban watersheds depend on both individual and collective action. Without the coordinated efforts of residents, property/business owners, organizations, local governments and entire communities, these problems persist and are amplified at watershed scales.

2

2 PROJECT GOALS This project is an assessment of community capacity for stormwater management in Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) in Minnesota’s Twin Cities metropolitan area. Data were gathered through multiple social science research methods to answer four overarching research questions:

• What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management in the watersheds?

• What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water resource management?

• What are community member perceptions of existing water programs? • What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among

community members?

Project findings are drawn from (1) key informant interviews with residents, property/business owners, community advocates and formal decision-makers who are active in the watersheds; (2) a series of focus groups with decision makers and interest groups in the watersheds; and (3) a mail survey of watershed residents in select neighborhoods. Ultimately, this project will inform and enhance water resource projects and programs and to provide strategic direction to water managers and other natural resource professionals for building community capacity to engage in stormwater management.

3

3 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (hereafter Partners) investigated community capacity and conservation behaviors associated with stormwater management from the perspectives of diverse community members who live and work in the watersheds (Figures 1-3). The project applied a participatory, community-based research approach using both qualitative data gathered through key informant interviews and focus groups, and quantitative data collected in self-administered surveys. UMN personnel and Partners collaborated on project planning, local coordination, and a stakeholder inventory for participant recruitment. The stakeholder inventory identified a range and diversity of community groups (e.g., neighborhood associations, non-profit organizations), property/business owners, and decision makers (e.g., local government officials and water resource professionals) who are active in the watersheds and who have insight on community capacity to respond to problems or stressors. UMN personnel met with project Partners to scope and prioritize key issues and audiences for assessment across the study watersheds (Table 1). Project Partners were interested in reaching audiences with which they had few connections. CRWD managers identified business and commercial property owners along the Metro Transit Central Corridor Green Line light rail as a prime audience for future programming. Managers sought insight on how best to engage these property owners and managers in stormwater management practices. CRWD also requested a program evaluation component to learn how business owners perceive the Central Corridor’s stormwater infrastructure installations, including rain gardens, tree trenches, and pervious pavers. RWMWD had questions about how to engage large landowners in water issues and conservation actions. RWMWD also requested a program evaluation of a Living Streets project, in which a series of stormwater infrastructure features were installed in a residential neighborhood. MWMO expressed the need to understand how to engage racially and ethnically diverse community members and recent immigrants in particular communities, including North Minneapolis, Fridley and Colombia Heights. A project advisory team (PAT) was assembled representing the three watersheds at the onset of the project (Table 2). The team provided insight and guidance in study design and the stakeholder inventory. The team reviewed the survey questionnaire, and provided input on research findings and outreach strategies. The PAT was comprised of a range of stakeholders representing local government, community organizations, and community activists. Project personnel with support from Partners facilitated two meetings with PAT members for project planning and local coordination.

4

Table 1. Issue scoping and assessment focus Issue/Opportunity Stakeholders Assessment Questions Assessment Audiences CRWD Non-point source

pollution Business and commercial property owners along the Green Line corridor

What are perspectives on stormwater BMPs? How to best engage and inspire business owners in conservation actions?

Lack of opportunities for community member actions toward clean water

Organizations that serve racial and ethnic minority communities along the Green Line Central Corridor

How to best engage community members in interactive dialogue around clean water?

RWMWD Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution

Large landowners How to best engage landowners in water resource issues and conservation actions?

Faith centers/places of worship and commercial/business owners

Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution

Living Streets Program Implementation: participants and non-participants

How to best design Living Streets Program that resonates with and engages property owners?

Property owners in neighborhoods where Living Streets initiatives have been implemented

MWMO Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution

New immigrant community members in the watershed and near areas

How to best engage the new immigrant community in water resource issues and conservation actions?

Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution

Community members of North Minneapolis, Fridley, and Colombia Heights

How to best engage community members of North Minneapolis, Fridley, and Colombia Heights in water resource issues and conservation actions?

Table 2. PAT membership and stakeholders CRWD RWMWD MWMO

PAT members 14 6 7 Stakeholders 40 15 phase I, 113 phase II 33

5

3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS UMN personnel developed a project description flier (Appendix A), contact script (Appendix B) and interview guides (Appendix C) to facilitate community member participation. All of these materials were reviewed by project partners. The interview guide was piloted by project personnel and refined based on input from pilot participants. The project was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) as designated by University policy. The IRB process is designed to protect human subjects involved in research from harm and ensure the ethical practice of research by University personnel. IRB review determined the study was not at risk of causing harm and therefore was exempt from further review. In coordination with PAT members and Partners, UMN personnel identified an initial list of prospective interview and focus group participants. Researchers employed “snowball sampling” to identify additional potential stakeholders. Snowball sampling, or chain referral sampling, invites participants to identify other members of their community who they believe have important knowledge about their community or community action. Participants made referrals based on publicly available knowledge (Mack et al., 2005). In the two evaluation studies, additional participant recruitment strategies were used. In CRWD, to reach businesses located along the Green Line Central corridor, project personnel approached business owners in person. In RWMWD, flyering houses located in the residential area where the Living Streets program was used to specifically recruit individuals living within the program implementation area. Sixty semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 individuals; in four instances a pair of individuals was interviewed together. Twenty interviews were conducted in each watershed. Participants included representatives from community-based organizations, business owners, property managers, and local residents. Most of the interviews occurred in the individual’s home or place of business, although some opted to meet at public establishments (e.g., community center, local coffee shop, etc.). Participants were offered $50.00 as an incentive to participate. Each individual signed a consent form (Appendix D) prior to the start of the interview and the interviewer emphasized that participation was voluntary and that every reasonable effort would be made to ensure confidentiality. The interviewer also answered any questions the interviewee had prior to beginning the interview. Following the interview, participants were asked to complete a participant background information form (Appendix E). This information was used to help understand the sample profile and is only reported at the aggregate level. No personally identifying information is linked to the interview data.

3.2 FOCUS GROUPS Three focus group sessions were administered in October and November 2015 with project Partners, PAT members, and select community interest groups. The aim of the focus groups was to reflect on preliminary study findings and to further explore institutional constraints to community engagement from the perspectives of water resource professionals, community leaders and community actors. The

6

first focus group session was held with project Partner staff that had been most closely working and advising researchers on the study. The next two focus group sessions were held with project advisory team members who had been somewhat involved in advising researchers and recruiting interview participants. Potential participants in these sessions were contacted using a set script similar to the one used in the interview process which explains the intent of the project and the focus groups. Each participant was asked to complete a consent form (Appendix F) prior to the start of the focus group. An agenda (Appendix G) was set for the events to guide the proceedings with assistance from other members of the research team. The focus group included a brief presentation summarizing findings to date, as well as time for discussion on the issue of stormwater attitudes and decision making. Participants were also asked to complete a background information form (Appendix H) prior to the conclusion of the event. Researchers attempted to conduct a third focus group with community members who had not been previously involved in any aspect of the study. Researchers worked with Partners to identify communities of focus. Partners asked that focus groups be held in the North Minneapolis and Fridley/Columbia Heights areas to reengage these communities beyond the interviewee pool. Researchers worked with PAT members to recruit individuals, contacted previous interviewees in the communities for recommendations, and distributed flyers advertising the focus groups in the communities at local libraries. Unfortunately, there was not a sufficient response to move forward with the focus groups and they were canceled.

3.3 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding consistent with adapted grounded theory procedures (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin and Strass, 2008) and focused coding to highlight responses with direct bearing on the research or interview questions. Analysis was performed using QSR International’s Nvivo 10.0 software to manage, code, and organize the data. The coding schema development and analytic processes included periodic checks for consistency and applicability with a team of researchers familiar with the study. The goal of the analysis was not to statistically represent the beliefs of the broader watershed population. Thus, findings may not be generalizable at this scale. While the study findings only represent the beliefs and opinions of the study participants, wide-ranging and diverse perspectives were captured. Study participants have different backgrounds, experiences, and connections to community and water. Importantly, this study documented the perspectives of members of historically excluded groups and People of Color. While study findings should not be generalized to all urban watershed populations, we believe the study provides important insight and lessons about community members and community engagement in similar sociocultural contexts.

7

3.4 RESIDENT MAIL SURVEY The resident study was conducted through a self-administered survey of a random sample of residents in select neighborhoods within MWMO, RWMWD, and CRWD boundaries. A stratified, proportional sample of 1000 residents from selected census tracts within the three study watersheds was purchased from Survey Sampling International (SSI). The sample included residents from census tracts within the cities of Minneapolis, Fridley and Columbia Heights (MWMO), St. Paul (CRWD) and Roseville (RWMWD) (Figures 1-3). Census tracts were selected in areas of highest interest for project Partners. The surveys were administered from August 2015 through January 2016. Survey instruments were designed based on an extensive literature review and feedback from Partners and the project advisory teams (PAT). The survey questionnaire included a variety of fixed-choice and scale questions. Several questions were adapted from survey instruments used in previous studies of attitudes, beliefs, and values of conservation behaviors (Blasczyk, Your views on local water resources, 2010; Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2006; Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 2007; Prokopy et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001; Schwartz, 1977; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1998; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Seekamp, Davenport, & Brehm, Lower Kaskaskia River Watershed Resident Survey, 2009). Each questionnaire was labeled with a unique identification number to track responses for subsequent mailings. An adapted Dillman's (2009) Tailored Design Method was used to increase response rates. The survey was administered in three waves: (1) the questionnaire (Appendix I) with a cover letter (Appendix J), self-addressed, business reply envelope and a cash incentive ($2 bill); (2) a replacement questionnaire with a reminder letter (Appendix K) and envelope; and (3) a third replacement questionnaire with cover letter (Appendix L) and envelope. Important to note: findings described in this report are based on questionnaires received after the first two waves of mailing. Returned questionnaires were logged into a respondent database. Response data were numerically coded and entered into a database using Microsoft Excel 2010. Basic descriptive statistics were conducted to determine frequency distributions and central tendency of individual variables. Inferential statistics also were conducted to test for significant differences across the three study watersheds (i.e., MWMO, CRWD and RWMWD). Statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS release 21.0). Respondent watershed subgroups (i.e., CRWD respondents, MWMO respondents, and RWMWD respondents were compared for differences in their sociodemographic (survey questions 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27) and housing characteristics (survey questions 8, 21 and 22), social influences on decisions about getting involved in their community (survey question 2 and 3), perspectives on their neighborhood (survey questions 4 and 5), perspectives on water resources (survey questions 9, 10 and 14), concern about water issues (survey question 15), familiarity with and current use of clean water actions (survey question 16), familiarity with and participation in community activities (survey question 17) and likelihood of future clean water actions (survey question 19).

8

Comparisons also were conducted between subgroups by levels of clean water action (i.e., high action versus low action) and levels of civic engagement (i.e., high engagement versus low engagement). These subgroups were compared for statistical differences in their socio-demographic and housing characteristics, social norms of civic action, water resource and neighborhood beliefs, and concern about water issues.

9

Figure 1. Study sites within Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

¯0 1 2 3 4 0.5

Miles

Interview sites

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

County boundaries

Survey census tracts

10

Figure 2. Study sites within the Capitol Region Watershed District

¯0 1 2 3 4 0.5

Miles

Interview sites

Capitol Region Watershed District

County boundaries


11

Figure 3. Study sites within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

¯0 1 2 3 4 0.5

Miles

Interview sites

Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

County boundaries


12

4 PROJECT FINDINGS Project findings are organized in 3 sections: interview findings, focus group findings, and survey findings. Interview findings are further organized into four sub-sections including participant profile, community narratives, water narratives, and community-stormwater interaction narratives. Survey findings are organized in 3 sub-sections: survey respondent profile, divergences: unique respondent attributes by watershed area, and confluences: common respondent attributes across watersheds.

4.1 INTERVIEW FINDINGS The three study watersheds, MWMO, CRWD, and RWMWO, are distinct in geographic location within the Twin Cities metro area, socioeconomics, and water resource amenities. Despite these differences, several common themes and shared opportunities for community-water engagement in stormwater management emerged in the analysis. At the same time, multiple barriers and constraints to community-water engagement were revealed. The topics, community narratives, and supporting themes and descriptors are presented in this section. First, we describe the interview participant profile.

4.1.1 Interview Participant Profile Participants represented diverse sociodemographic characteristics (Table 3). Ages ranged from 20-78. Both longtime and new community members were represented. About 40% of participants were female. Most participants identified as White/Caucasian, but the sample included participants who identified as African American, Egyptian, Somali, Sudanese, Asian, Hmong, Chinese, Mexican, Latino and Ojibwe.

4.1.2 Community Narratives Participants were asked about how they define community, community strengths and concerns, and examples of times the community came together to address an opportunity or challenge. Five broad community topics were discussed (Table 4): Community character Several narratives around community character emerged with different emphases by watershed area. Participants from each watershed area described communities that are socially connected and close-knit. For example, a MWMO participant acknowledged, “The people, you know. There are so many people that care and want to get involved and want to help and connect with others and make it a better place to live.” Similarly, another MWMO participant described community members as committed to solving problems: “People are involved in community actions in one sort or another. They are willing to take on a problem and work on it for five years if that is what it takes.”

13

Table 3. Interviewee sociodemographic characteristics TOTAL MWMO CRWD RWMWD

No. of interviewees 64 21 21 22

Age (min/max) 20-78 32-71 29-63 20-78

Age (median) 50 55 43 51

Years in community (min/max) 0-64 0-64 0-45 6-44

Years in community (median) 21 21 17 21

Gender 26 female 38 male

9 female 12 male

10 females 11 males

7 female 15 males

Self-identified race/ethnicity

White/Caucasian (13)

European-American (2)

Egyptian (2) Somali Chicana Latino N/A

White/Caucasian (6) African-American

(3) Black (2) African/Somali African/Sudanese American Indian/

Mixed Ojibwe Asian Chinese Human N/A

White/Caucasian (20)

Hmong Mexican

In somewhat of a contrast, RWMWD participants expressed concern about increased social fragmentation in communities. One participant explained, “I’ve heard that from all the neighbors on the street that nobody really talks to each other.” Another interviewee described it as a changing social environment:

I think community itself is not the same as it used to be. Not everybody knows their neighbor, so the changing interaction of a neighborhood, people are more inclined to spend time inside, we don’t know our neighbors as well. So yeah, collaboration is a little harder to do when you resist [meeting neighbors].

Social fragmentation was viewed as a barrier to community engagement in water issues: “I guess the barrier would be that people just aren’t really talking to each other about it in this community so [change] would all mostly have to come from an outside source. The fact that we are not really talking in the first place [is a barrier].”

14

Participants also characterized diversity as a strength and asset to their communities. Diversity of viewpoints, cultures, businesses, and amenities was believed to increase quality of life and enhance community resilience. One participant credited diversity for making the community more vital: “I really like the diversity, I think that is great. The diversity of people and the diversity of businesses, small and large, it gives it a feeling, especially with the light rail coming through now, it gives it a feeling of being a dynamic kind of place.” A few participants expressed frustration about change in their communities. These participants suggested that gentrification, or the influx of a new “class” of residents drawn to the communities because of revitalization, has disrupted the community. A MWMO participant explained, “You get one class of people who come and do all the dirty work, and then you get another class of people who come and reap the rewards of creating a revitalized community.” Concern for this form of community disruption was echoed by another MWMO participant:

Sometimes, someone with lots of sense of commitment will move in, and after a year or two, they just don’t fit here. They just don’t feel comfortable. They move on. We think that is good. Rather than stay here on some sort of sense of social do-gooderism, but they are really uncomfortable. They make room for someone who does come and stay longer.

A CRWD participant lamented a community project that had negative outcomes for area youth:

I grew up there. They had the raggediest, and I’m gonna be blunt, they had the most shitty field ever, rocks in it and everything. But, we would be out there playing catch. We’d be out there tackling each other, doing all kinds of stuff. Well guess what? They replaced it. It looks beautiful. But nobody can go on it. So are you taking away from the community or are you giving to the community? Now I see a bunch of white kids out there playing soccer. It disgusts me. And it’s not about the racial thing, it’s about people; [they] call themselves giving back, but they’re taking away from us.

RWMWD participants told a somewhat different story about changing community character. Some participants acknowledged community members’ concern about diversification of residents. Another participant likened local resistance to community change to being in a “rut.”

This is how life is … we are in our rut. We are in our groove. We found our place; we are not all that excited about doing something new, or different, or out of the ordinary. We like this life we’ve carved out for ourselves. It’s maybe just another facet of the apathy I was talking about earlier, but that’s the challenge. To try and present a new way of thinking or a new way of doing things to make it attractive, to sufficiently motivate people to actually think in a new way or do something in a new way. That can be a very real challenge.

15

Community organizations Across all three watershed areas, participants identified existing community-based organizations including non-profit organizations, schools, and religious organizations as assets, because these organizations know the communities, are trusted, and have positive impacts on community members. One CRWD participant noted the importance of local neighborhood associations: “The Frogtown Neighborhood Association, they really have their finger on the pulse of community probably more than anybody, because that is their role to kind of be a voice for the community and to assess what people are thinking, I mean that is kind of what they do, and so I would think they would be the most logical place to tap in to.” A RWMWD participant praised the service role of area faith or religious organizations: “[One role of the church is] to be active in looking beyond the walls of the immediate church community to the community at large, and say, ‘What can we do? How can we be of service?’ How can we, in one way or another, make a difference in the quality of life that’s going on out there.” Community networks In two of the watershed areas – CRWD and MWMO – strong informal and inter-organizational networks were identified as community assets. Participants described collaboration between community organizations as a strength. For example, a MWMO participant noted that local neighborhood organizations support each other: “All of the North Side neighborhood organizations are invited… we try to get together once a month and talk about common issues and support each other’s initiatives. We have some issues in common, and even if we don’t, we want to support the other neighborhoods that do.” Other participants spoke of emphasized the role of informal networks among community members as central to neighborhood identity and a culture of community support. A MWMO participant explained, “When [community members] are faced with issues, these things that go beyond them, and go beyond the little problems that they have, they stick together very well.” A CRWD participant noted the importance of informal networks for helping new immigrants adjust to the community: “[The] mentoring [of new immigrants] has to be very informal, there is no way for it to be anything but very informal. So yeah, as you mingle with them you give tips here and there, things like that. That’s okay to them.” Community governance Participants shared varying perspectives on community governance. For example, some CRWD participants spoke of the challenges they and others have faced in dealing with government regulations. A participant described a feeling of discrimination in how recent immigrant or black business owners are treated:

I think that, when you’re talking about immigrants and People of Color, especially black business owners, it’s maybe not aggressively dislike, but it definitely is that [business owners] are wary and gun shy, [because they] have run into ridiculous challenges that they feel like, it’s just because of who I am. Just because of the neighborhood I am from.

16

Another CRWD interviewee described how past government projects, and the impacts to the community, are potentially influencing current community perspectives. The participant had referred to the construction of U.S. Interstate Highway 94 through the Rondo neighborhood earlier in the interview.

Well, again, the history of this community has not been a positive one with large infrastructure investment. So there has been, and still continues to be, a non-supportive attitude towards the rail. I don’t know that people always see their own self-interest in these investments. And in fact, the project has had more of a negative effect to them, in their experience with their living and working. So I think we are still waiting to see how it plays out.

One participant from CRWD, but who works across the Twin Cities metro, described the challenges for people interested in water issues of participating in decision making:

I would say that most of the people who are aware of water resources, their biggest concern is a lack of ability to be a part of the decision making process. [They] really feel like there needs to a process by which they can impact the decision making, because if they could impact the decision making in general, [they] want to encourage decisions that are going to ensure that there is water that is clean and available.

Participants from RWMWD also described an inability to influence decision making, as well as frustration with community leadership and follow through. One individual described their disappointment with a promised community project that hadn’t happened:

The city promised the youth a community center but the business [like the area it how it is]. It’s frustrating because there are not facilities for youth sports, and there is nowhere for the kids to go. I just got a nasty-gram in the mail because my kid’s basketball hoop was too close to the street, and it’s like, well, you’re supposed to build a community center. It was approved, and then you don’t. Now, my kid doesn’t have anywhere to play, and now he plays in the street. Somebody complains, now I’m supposed to move my basketball hoop. That’s frustrating to the point where I actually might do something about it, but I think the focus is from a political standpoint kind of short-sighted.

Another RWMWD interviewee who had participated in multiple community initiatives described a prominent government leader thusly, “He just put people down. He didn’t even listen. He wasn’t respectful. He was just miserable. He told people to sit down and shut up. I was intimidated by him.” Community issues and priorities Several community issues emerged in the discussions that seemed to take precedence over environmental and water issues including education, housing, immigration, and economics. A MWMO participant said, “You know, there are so many priorities in this community. I don’t know that [water] is

17

a priority to them or how much they think about it. We were talking earlier about immigration, about education and health care, and there seems to be so many things that sort of are solo on the top of the list." The need for community revitalization and concerns about education, safe and affordable housing, healthcare, and social inequities were emphasized in MWMO and CRWD. One MWMO participant observed, “Revitalization in this neighborhood looks like better quality education, more job opportunities, safer housing, all of those kind of inequities that have made it difficult for people to thrive in this kind of a space.” Another MWMO participant acknowledged foreclosures as a persistent problem: “[In] our zip code we’ve had the highest number of foreclosure in the whole State of Minnesota.” Concern about safety and crime emerged as a prominent narrative among a few RWMWD participants. One participant observed, “I think up the block there are some rental properties and some people moved in that have some kids that I don’t think they necessarily watch or care what kind of trouble…they are out after curfew, that kind of stuff.”

4.1.3 Water Narratives Participants were asked what comes to mind when they think about water in their community, how they use water, how water is important to them, and if they have or their community has concerns about water. Four general water topics were discussed (Table 5): Clean water abundance When asked about natural resources and water, several distinct narratives emerged that reflected different worldviews, uses, cultural backgrounds, and risk perceptions. Across the watershed areas, participants noted that water is not a high priority community issue. One reason for this perspective may be the clean water abundance narrative. Participants in each area noted that water quantity and quality for various uses is not a problem. One RWMWD participant appreciated the community’s drinking water: “Well it’s clean you know it doesn’t have odors or a funny taste to it, to me it’s not very strong chemical wise”.

18

Table 4. Community Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors MWMO* CRWD RWMWD Community character

Socially connected, close-knit communities

Intergenerational ties, social networks, strong religious institutions

X X X

Engaged community members X Strength in diversity Racial and ethnic diversity,

new immigrants X X

Greenspace and nature centers As an amenity X As a need X

Changing character Concern about gentrification X Concern about diversification X Increasing social fragmentation X

Resistance to change X Community-based organizations

Trusted and legitimate Cultural understanding X X X

Community-centered mission Positive community outcomes X X X

Service-oriented mission Schools reach youth X X X Religious institutions serve the community X X X

Community networks

Active, accessible informal networks X X Inaccessible formal networks X X X Active organization-based networks X X Networks lacking altogether X

Community governance

Weak government relations Low trust, inaccessible planning processes X X X

Historic tensions X Limited community representation X X

Regulatory complexity Uncertainty about roles, jurisdictions, authority X X X

Hardships on businesses, perceived discrimination X

Strong leaders In the community, for community needs X

Weak leaders X High priority community issues

Education X X Housing Safe and affordable X X Immigration X X Economics X X Healthcare X X Safety and crime X

*An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant affiliated with that watershed. It is important to note, that these cells represent common or diverging areas of emphasis rather than any agreement or disagreement on whether the issue is important or relevant.

19

Participants also suggested that for many new immigrants, having clean and abundant tap water is a new experience and a luxury. One MWMO participant explained, “if you’re in Central or South America and in Mexico as well, you don’t let the tap run. Here it’s not as big of a concern. In their home countries, water was considerably more precious than it is here.” Similarly, another participant linked resource scarcity in new immigrants’ countries of origin to perceived resource abundance in Minnesota:

I think in this community, the community that comes from fairly disadvantaged countries, that these sorts of things were a part of the main stay while they were there. I mean, and it wasn’t necessarily because it was conservation, it was because there was no resources. So you had limited resources, and what we have here, we have a bounty of resources, but we’re trying to limit…we’re trying to increase our understanding so that we limit the impact that we have on those resources.

One MWMO participant also acknowledged disparities in water infrastructure and sanitation in developing countries, as well as limited public awareness of water issues that may contribute to an abundance perspective.

When I think about water, what comes to mind is living in America, comparing to situations in the developing world, is huge blessings because we have good infrastructure here, separation between sanitary sewer and stormwater and organizations who care about the source of water, and how it is connected to our health. And I see, unfortunately, clear evidence where I came from where people have less awareness and education about water issues...So I think it's a blessing, living in America when it comes to water issues.

Community-water barriers Several participants in the CRWD and MWMO identified community-water barriers that limited access to water for recreation or other uses or impaired views of water. Participants believed opportunities exist to make water resources less of a liability and more of a community asset. A MWMO participant offered an example, “… Ryan Lake, it looked like a jungle, and nobody wanted to be there. Now, we need to make it more of an amenity, and people with gather.” Another MWMO participant noted disparities in water resource amenities and management in different communities:

I wish that our community was a rich in the kind of water resources [like] when you think of South Minneapolis, I think there is four, or five, or six interesting lakes and channels right off of the bat. The creek, the Minnehaha Creek, which runs through there is much more celebrated and much more taken care of. The Basset Creek kind of just meanders around and goes underground and back up. There have been some attempts to clean it up here and there. There are groups that, once a year, clean it up right where the ridge is and so on. I still think some of our water resources are second cousins to other parts of the city.

20

Cultured relationships with water A MWMO participant acknowledged institutionally driven cultural barriers to water including limited swimming programming and access in African American communities.

So, historically in the African American community, a lot of kids don’t know how to swim. You also look at again, one of these things, like access to community pools and beaches. Ones that are supervised where you could get swimming lessons and things are pretty limited. There is also some recent drownings and stuff where there has been some movements to change some of that. So those are the kinds of things that I think are relevant and important to me as far as water goes. It’s just straight access, both for fun, but also just as a skill and an ability and everything else.

When asked about community engagement in water, a MWMO participant described cultural differences in leisure and recreation styles:

There are other barriers, some of it is a cultural barrier, and some of it is, they don’t have the leverage. I wouldn’t say they don’t have the leverage, but they don’t have the mindset to really go to the lakes and relax and enjoy and have fun. I mean, those things, it’s a cultural thing. It’s very rare in Somalia that a family goes for vacation.

For recent immigrants, adjusting to life in a new community and a different natural environment is also a constraint to outdoor recreation. One participant explained,

The new immigrant community, a lot of them don’t have a long history of being involved with the outdoors. And a lot of them are also, you know, struggling with becoming acclimated making a living, learning English, whatever their issues are. They don’t have a lot of time for that kind of thing…

Notably, a few participants expressed a strong cultural identity associated with water within their communities. For example, a CRWD participant described water’s spiritual and intergenerational values to the community:

We believe that the water has a spirit. So, it’s water spirits that we talk to when we have a ceremony. That is who you are talking to. We are saying to the river that we wish for you to be here and continue to flow for the next seven generations and then the next seven generations after that.

Water as a community issue Many participants expressed confidence in water resource conditions or admitted uncertainty about water problems. For those who did express concern, drinking water, flooding, groundwater contamination from superfund sites, and fish contamination were the most pressing issues. Concerns appeared to vary by community. For example, concern about fish contamination was a prominent

21

narrative among some CRWD participants: “When I used to fish we would fish in Cedar Lake, and we actually ate the fish because it was really clean lake, but I wouldn’t eat any other fish. I wouldn’t go anywhere else and eat the fish.”

Table 5. Water Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors MWMO* CRWD RWMWD Clean water abundance For drinking Observed disparities in

new immigrants’ countries of origin

X X

For fish consumption, gardening

X

For recreation X Community-water barriers Access Limited opportunities to

access water, social inequities

X X

Lack of surface water X Viewscapes Limited views, low scenic

quality X X

Cultured relationships with water

Cultural constraints and disconnects

Outdoor or water-based recreation and leisure not part of cultural norms

X X

Constraint of adjusting to new natural and social environment for new immigrants

X X

Cultural connections Identity X X Spirituality X

Water as a community issue

Low priority relative to other pressing community issues

X X X

Concern about drinking water

X X

Concern about fish contamination

For consumption X

Concern about superfund sites

Groundwater contamination X

Concern about flooding and property damage

X X


22

4.1.4 Community-Stormwater Interaction Narratives Participants were asked about their understanding of stormwater issues, any problems they had observed with stormwater, who should be responsible for addressing stormwater issues, and what practices they had adopted related to water protection or stormwater management. Three overarching community-stormwater topics were discussed (Table 6): Community-stormwater linkages Several participants across the three watershed areas made an explicit link between stormwater management and community values. Investing in community infrastructure and green space maintenance was viewed as being good for residents and businesses alike. One MWMO participant stated:

I think that they are worth the investment over time, and I think that fact this makes a big contribution, not only to our community, but the larger City of Minneapolis that we preserve and invest in this community, an inner-city community with beautiful infrastructure and beautiful buildings. We preserve it for the group that is coming after us. That is part of why I like to invest in it. It’s important to do it.

For some participants stormwater management practices add aesthetic value to the neighborhood, like this CRWD participant who said: “I’d love to, just for aesthetic reasons … have a rain garden on the boulevard.” Similarly, certain property maintenance practices were seen as a homeowner’s responsibility. As this RWMWD participant put it : “I don’t think it’s good to let your property go. I think you have a community responsibility to maintain your stuff because a crappy house makes everyone else’s house go down.” Other participants noted that stormwater management projects that include interpretation and education programming contribute to a community’s identity. One participant in the CRWD gave this example:

The first things that came out to my head was Maplewood Mall. You’ve seen the rain garden display. That is something that I want here that helps advocate water quality and water savings. It teaches something. It teaches people certain things. That is one of the things that I would like to have here. We are more than a shopping center. We are a community.

Community image was important to several participants. One MWMO participant described the effort of a business and environment committee to add green infrastructure to make an intersection and a neighborhood more welcoming: “The intersection here that the city and county did all of the infrastructure and left us with loads of concrete. So now, our business and

23

environment committee are putting their head together and saying that we need to green this up. We need to make it more friendly.” One MWMO participant described the community’s image to outsiders as being counter to the “green” values held by residents:

We are one of the greenest parts of the city, because we are green as far as we use public transit, you know there is a lot of people who walk and bike often, not only just out of choice but out of necessity at times. But we often aren’t treated in the same way that other parts of the city are, as in eco-friendly or whatever else kinds of things. Those are values that are here.

Community engagement in stormwater issues Three prominent narratives emerged around community engagement in stormwater issues. Participants from each watershed area identified barriers associated with stormwater information. For some the problem was a matter of not knowing where to get information or distrust in information sources. For others language and heuristics used in stormwater information and communication programming was a barrier. Though limited multilingual translation was a problem, several participants noted that even the heuristics, symbols and images used in communication and messaging efforts were not culturally relevant or inclusive. A CRWD participant acknowledged that many families do not understand the environmental symbols used in environmental programs: "A lot of people don't know those symbols and that's why it doesn't make sense, I mean my parents didn't know what the toxic symbol meant." Similarly, several participants spoke about the challenge of translating and conveying complex environmental processes or conservation practices to recent immigrants. One participant noted that certain concepts like recycling and composting do not exist in some cultures or languages:

In the Hmong community, there is really no scientific word out there for composting. You don't really have a word for composting. That was one of the challenges the students [working with the Hmong community] came on to. Students actually had to describe recycling. I don't think that they actually used the word recycling.

In some cases even simple nuances or contexts in messaging can be a problem. Idioms, acronyms and images used in messaging can be culturally exclusive. For example, one CRWD participant observed, “Sometimes in America, there is a certain phrase that make sense for people who live here, and they explain things. Like, ‘whatever floats your boats,’ stuff like that. It’s not going to register with someone [with a different background].” Similarly, another CRWD participant noted,

A lot of things that I see are like pictures or graphics of nice water and green places and trees, but it’s nothing that hits them or that they understand. [You] need to put pictures that they like or they can relate to, like pictures of their own gardens or home gardening or things that they do or see every day.

24

A second narrative that has bearing on community engagement in stormwater management is frustration with land use planning processes and decisions. For example a RWMWD participant recalled a public meeting about installing sidewalks in the neighborhood and felt that resident input was not used in the decision: “I went to several meetings, we all did, and said why do we need sidewalks? We do not want them. There was only one couple that wanted them down on the end for their little boys, they said. But we didn’t want them, but they didn’t listen to us. They had already set in their minds they were going to put in sidewalks.” Not feeling represented or heard in local decision making was a common theme among participants in all three watershed areas and appeared to be a source of distrust in government. Some participants asserted that new immigrants feel especially alienated from decision making processes. One CRWD participant explained, “We feel like those structures were not meant for us and yet, we know that those are the places the decisions are coming from. So how do we just encourage in our communities to [identify] those people who can actually bring our voices, to be able to impact those broad scale changes that have to happen.” Similarly, a CRWD participant observed that Hmong community members and others who are new to the U.S. feel powerless and don’t know where to start when it comes to engaging in decision making processes:

I think Hmong people in general, and I think for refugees or immigrants, people [who] are new to this country, they don’t feel like they have any power so they kind of feel like, okay, we’ll just let things go and just live. We don’t want to get involved, we don’t want to interfere. Not they don’t care about anything, it’s just maybe they don’t feel like they know the right people to help them in case they run into obstacles. I think they don’t know where or how to look for solutions.

Despite these barriers, several participants from each of the watersheds identified many partnership opportunities for engaging community members in stormwater management issues. According to participants, strong community-based organizations such as schools, religious institutions and non-profits could be valuable assets to watershed managers’ efforts to engage the community. For example, a CRWD participant with ties to a community-based organization that supports local businesses said,

I think working with groups like us … is just a smart way to go. And, the more that we buy into it, the more that we are educated in it—know where to send people and understand it enough to send people at the right times or provide the information—the better we are. Because in many cases, we are sometimes the first folks that are getting introduced to a business. Or when they are ready to expand and make some exterior/interior changes, because we do lending, we’re engaged, and those are key moments…

25

When describing a previous collaboration with a technical group working in the community, CRWD participant stressed the advantages of pairing an established local organization with outside technical expertise:

It was smart … to utilize relationships that had already been built, because I can go in anywhere, I have complete access, I've known these folks for so long, we have people here who have known these businesses for ten to fifteen years. They trust us; we have not done them any harm. So when we bring someone new, and say, “Hey, this is a good idea. Why don't you listen to what they have to say,” they trust us.

A few participants expressed enthusiasm for existing programs and partnerships that link water issues to community needs. One MWMO participant praised a small grant program:

I am very thrilled by how [watershed managers] take a look at what the community needs are. They offer small grants for community to develop activities like education or even art, support some kind of art that has to do with water management on site. I really love that they participate in that way.

Stormwater management practices Many different narratives emerged when participants were asked about stormwater management practices. Several MWMO participants described their community as having a high awareness of environmental issues and willingness to do “little things” that might make an impact: “I’m not planning on making any big decisions, but yeah, using a rain barrel as an example. And I think a garden has a better impact than regular grass, so some of those kind of things. I’m not planning on putting in a bunch of asphalt just for kicks.” Still participants from each watershed characterized their community members as having limited stormwater understanding. They noted misperceptions, apathy, and low self-efficacy as constraints to action. When asked “who” should be responsible for addressing the stormwater issues, participants responses varied, ranging from a specific personal sense of responsibility, to a more general “everyone’s responsible.” Still, watershed area participants expressed or acknowledged uncertainty as to who is responsible, what roles different entities play and what triggers action. Social pressures appeared to be a prominent stormwater management practice narrative in the RWMWD. Participants suggested that neighborhood norms and conflict avoidance in property management decisions have a strong influence on residents. A participant asserted, “We wouldn’t decide to do anything that was going to make the neighbors mad, or by any means be totally different from the rest of the neighbors.”

26

A predominating narrative across each watershed area was the economics of stormwater management practices. Economics were described as primary driver and constraint to action. Participants contemplated the financial costs and benefits of stormwater management practice installation and maintenance. Business owners represented most prominently in CRWD interviews spoke positively about the energy efficiencies of “green” building improvements. For one participant, sustainable business practices help to set green businesses apart from competitors, but those differences need to be made explicit to customers:

My competitors aren’t going to say, “Well, we waste your money by wasting electricity, and we contaminate the environment by using chemicals, and we don’t change our filters because it saves us money, and we don’t really care what the air is like that you breath, we care about the economics.” No one is ever going to talk about that stuff. I have to be the one that talks about it when customers come and I say, “This is how we manage our building, and so as you look at our competition, see what they do.”

Still, several CRWD participants acknowledged businesses are driven by the “bottom line” and so any property improvements must be cost effective. For many business owners, macro level economic conditions can be a barrier to adopting new stormwater management practices: “We’re trying to survive an economic downturn … that has been here since 2008. So we are six years into finding ways to deliver the same product, quality of product to our customers with flat or decreasing rental rates. …We have to survive or we won’t be contributing to the stormwater management. If we can do it from an economic standpoint that is a good thing.”

27

Table 6. Community-stormwater interactions Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors MWMO* CRWD RWMWD Community-stormwater linkages

Community values Community aesthetics X X X Neighborhood property values X X X

Community-water identity development potential

Community self-identity X X X Community image among outsiders X X

Community engagement in stormwater issues

Stormwater information barriers

Information sources unknown or untrusted X X X

Language and heuristic barriers X X

Frustration with land use planning processes, decisions

Not feeling represented X X X Not being heard X X X

Many partnership opportunities

Strong community-based organizations exist X X X

Success in strong partnerships with water managers

X X

Stormwater management practices

General environmental awareness and behaviors

High awareness X Incremental behavior change X

Limited stormwater understanding

Misperceptions or incomplete knowledge X X X

Apathy X X X Low perceived ability, self-efficacy X X X

Stormwater issue relevance

Focus on point source polluters, superfunds, drinking water, flooding

X X X

Diffusion, dismissal, or uncertainty around responsibility for stormwater problems and solutions

Who, what roles, when they act

X X X

Social pressures in property management

Neighborhood norms, conflict avoidance X

Perceived economics of practices

Financial costs X X X Financial benefits X X X Business energy efficiencies X


28

4.2 STORMWATER PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

4.2.1 Evaluation of the Central Corridor Green Line Stormwater Management Projects CRWD participants were asked to consider stormwater management projects installed along University Avenue. Participants, many of whom were business owners or property managers in the area, were asked if they were familiar with the project, what they think of the project, and how to get more community members involved. Participants were read a short description of the project:

Capitol Region Watershed District has installed several gardens and a tree trench system along University Avenue that receive polluted rainwater from the street and allow it to soak into the ground instead of flowing to the Mississippi River. The plants in the gardens and trees in the tree trench prevent water pollution and add beauty and plant life to University Avenue. This project has been implemented in neighborhoods throughout the Green Line route, as have educational signs explaining the purpose of the gardens and tree trenches.

When participants were asked about their familiarity with the green infrastructure projects installed along the Green Line in the Central Corridor, common responses were “I haven’t heard of that” or “I don’t know what that is.” A participant who was aware of the projects reflected on community member awareness: “I think a lot of people don’t know it’s there, sadly.” Another participant echoed this sentiment: “I think if you were to ask anyone else along here, they probably wouldn’t know about why they put the trees here other than the visual.” One participant recalled that a project had been installed near their business but admitted to not knowing much about it: “It was just something that was done and got installed. I was not involved with anything. But I’m responsible to watch that and keep it clean.” Confusion and concern about project maintenance emerged as a prominent narrative. One participant expressed uncertainty about maintenance expectations. Another participant who had a rain garden project installed nearby their business said, “I think they are going to put me on training soon. They talked briefly about it, but I suppose if there is something else I should know about, maybe I should start thinking about that, now that I’m in charge of it.” Another expressed concern about what would happen if projects were not maintained: “If you don’t have [maintenance of tree trenches and rain gardens], and people just throw their trash and things like that into it, I think it would just defeat the purpose. I think if you have something like that in place, I would say maintenance in place also at the same time is important.” Those study participants who expressed awareness and understanding of the project, valued the aesthetics and “green” aspects of the project. For example, one participant observed, “It improves the visual image, I think a lot of people feel, when the trees are starting to bloom, it looks really nice outside and I think it makes business more welcoming.” Another participant echoed that sentiment: “I think it’s

29

nice for the community. It’s nice, it’s pretty the way they planted it. It’s a nice idea overall for the community.” Water quality benefits seemed less prominent among participants. However, a few participants voiced strong support for outcomes including reduced water pollution and flooding. One participant called for more projects: “Would it improve [water quality]? Yes. Would it trap polluted water? Then they should do more of it.” Another participant suggested that community-wide benefits like reduced flooding should be better communicated: “I think if people actually knew how much water [the rain gardens and tree trenches were] collecting, and keeping off of University Ave., I think people would be really happy. Because I haven’t seen any flooding issues along the corridor at all. Whereas we used to get a little bit more of that before the train was built” (Table 7). Table 7. Central Corridor green infrastructure evaluation

Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors

Project awareness Community members generally unaware

Of green infrastructure improvements Of the rules and responsibilities involved

Ongoing maintenance Responsibilities unclear or perceived as unfair

Regular maintenance and repairs Sidewalk maintenance Raingarden, tree upkeep

Project outcomes Many individuals recognize the positive impacts

Aesthetic improvements Greening of the corridor Positive impacts on water resources Identified as place making efforts Support for further implementation projects

4.2.2 Evaluation of the Living Streets Program

Several participants expressed frustration in the planning process and voiced dismay over not feeling their concerns or opposition was considered or properly addressed in decision making:

We got to look at what the residents want. And residents didn’t get exactly what they want. Most of the ones I’ve talked to are not real happy about it. But, we fought it and it’s…unfortunately government dictates to us, we don’t dictate to government anymore. It’s unfortunate.

One participant suggested that community leaders were intimidating to residents in public meetings. Another participant described not having a choice in design decisions:

[The streets here are] narrower than the average street in St. Paul. …There [were] not very many people in the neighborhood that [were] pleased with that, but we didn’t have a choice. They told us this is the way it is, and we had to pay for a third of the whole project.

30

The community appeared fairly divided about the outcomes. While some lamented the sidewalks and narrow streets, others appreciated the changes:

I really like it. It really made the neighborhood look nice. The kids can use the sidewalks, and I don’t have to be nervous. Not that there is much traffic back here anyways. There’s not the big potholes in the street. I just think overall it made our neighborhood look, appearance-wise, much nicer.

One prominent narrative was concerns about safety. Participants expressed apprehension about the narrow streets and effects on two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access:

They can’t make the street twice as small as it was before. You’ve got too many cars going up and down these streets. You’ve got one plow coming down this street and you are pretty much done for. There is just no way. You can’t get a plow and a car coming down the street at the same time.

Another interview commented, “I really and seriously am worried that there are times when a fire truck wouldn’t be able to get down the street. Some of the people across the street sometimes don’t park real close to the curb. There isn’t really much space if the snow is there.” Some participants were critical of the lack of maintenance, or watering of trees and sod. One participant blamed the city and another blamed residents: “[the trees the city planted are] stuck, deformed, or dead. They didn’t take care of them. They didn’t water them. They didn’t do any maintenance up there. They didn’t cut the grass.” Another participant observed: “They sent out a notification with the sod saying that when they were done, it was our responsibility and stuff to take care of it. They did water it. They had a truck come down the street. Quite a bit of the people didn’t do anything to try to help it. A lot of it died. “ A few participants acknowledged seeing improvements in stormwater management because of the Living Streets Program. Participants recalled seeing new gutters full of water and minimal surface level pooling of water after rain events: “I really like the gutters. And we do notice that there’s a lot of water in them after it rains. So I know they’re doing their job, as far as collecting that rain water.” Similarly, another participant noted, “You never see any water pool anymore, where it did before and things. I think overall it was a pretty good project” (Table 8).

31

Table 8. Living Streets program neighborhood evaluation Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors

Watershed role Project viewed as a city project, not a watershed project

Mixed positive and negative perceptions of city involvement Very little knowledge of the watershed involvement in the project

Satisfaction with planning process

Some felt unrepresented and unheard in the process

Perceived decision made without community input Many did not want sidewalks Many did not want narrowed roads Perceived that the project changed the community for the worse

Those who saw outcomes as positive, viewed process as neutral or positive

Like the new sidewalks Like the additional green areas See the project as positive for property values Like park updates

Community divided about outcomes

Sidewalks viewed as positive and negative

Dangerous and slippery Good for kids and families

Road narrowing viewed as positive and negative

Slows traffic down (for better or worse) Dangerous Makes parking more difficult Cheaper Neutral on road width

General safety concerns

Rain gardens Drivers ending up in them Children playing in them

Narrower roads Fire trucks cannot pass Conflicts between drivers in opposite directions Snow plowing problems

Ongoing maintenance

Responsibilities unclear or perceived as unfair

Regular maintenance and repairs Sidewalk maintenance and snow removal Raingarden, tree upkeep

Stormwater improvements

Water benefits generally viewed as positive

Perceived as beneficial by those with previous knowledge Individuals without prior knowledge of project also viewed water benefits as positive once they were introduced to more information

4.3 FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS Three focus group sessions were conducted with project partners, project advisory team (PAT) members, and representatives of select sub-groups in the community. The intent of the focus groups was to triangulate methods and further explore stormwater decision making and water resource issues from a resource professional perspective, as well as gather additional input regarding the motivations of

32

community member’s stormwater decision making. The sessions were designed to offer opportunities for involvement for individuals in decreasing levels of previous involvement with the study. The first focus group session included partner watershed organization staff whose roles and responsibilities are directly tied to community engagement. The next two focus group sessions included PAT members and other community representatives. Data presented here were drawn from idea listing exercises conducted with participants, as well as background information collected in a short questionnaire. The focus group engaged participants in discussions about two primary topics:

• Constraints and opportunities for promoting water and stormwater programing in the Twin Cities metro area

• Critical issues associated with perceptions, attitudes, values, and norms of residents in the Twin Cities metro area related to water and stormwater

Table 9. Focus group participant sociodemographic characteristics

Focus Group Participant Characteristics

No. of participants 11 Age (min/max) 26 - 64 Age (median) 46 Gender 9 female

2 male Reported race/ethnicity White (8)

Asian (1) Hispanic/Latino (1) American Indian or Alaska Native and White (1)

Participants identified several opportunities for and challenges to engaging their communities in stormwater management. Emergent themes were categorized as internal challenges and opportunities (i.e., driven by conditions and forces internal to watershed organizations) or external challenges and opportunities (i.e., driven by conditions and forces external to watershed organizations). Participants across all focus group sessions noted the challenges and opportunities that exist for watershed districts and resource managers. The structure of watershed districts was described with funding, prioritization of work load, and evaluation and measurement as notable challenges. Funding, as well as working with other management agencies, also was seen as an opportunity for organizations to explore intermediate results in long term projects. Developing effective messaging to reach diverse audiences and forging meaningful partnerships with community stakeholders also emerged as opportunity areas. Participants listed strategies for creative outreach and messaging, including working with artist, use of technology and social media, and storytelling. Adapting messaging to unique audiences with different understanding and values for water resources was viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity. While developing partnerships with schools, religious institutions, and other trusted organizations was generally viewed as an opportunity, identify best partners and taking the time to build relationships was noted as a challenge (Table 10).

33

Table 10. Internal challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement

Categories Themes and descriptors Opportunity* Challenge

Organizational bureaucracy and management

Seeking and dedicating funds and resources to engaging communities

X

Lack of funding for outreach and infrastructure X Heavy workloads and prioritizing competing tasks X Valuing intermediate results for projects with long implementation timeframes

X X

Working with other management agencies with similar goals

X X

Evaluation and measuring effectiveness X Internal procedural barriers to action (e.g., red tape) X

Effective messaging and outreach

Social media outreach X Connecting youth with technology to explore the outdoors X Connecting to communities on topics they are already interested in (non-water issues)

X X

Adapting messaging to different audiences’ understanding of the issues

X X

Developing materials in appropriate languages and cultural context

X X

Working with artists and visual materials to communicate X Storytelling and field trips to reach audiences X

Developing meaningful partnerships with existing community stakeholders

Working with schools to engage youth in STEM education and community outreach programs

X

Providing job and internship opportunities for diverse youth

X

Working with local businesses and property owners X X Identifying and building relationship with trusted community organizations

X X

Working with faith-based groups and organizations X Engaging communities that do not have strong formal or informal networks

X

Working closely with the Master Water Stewards program X *An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant.

Focus group participants also identified many challenges and opportunities to community engagement in stormwater management based primarily in external conditions and forces. For example, participants described land use changes that could diminish best management practice effectiveness, such as increased impervious surfaces from roads, builds, and parking lots. Yet, comprehensive planning processes, new development, and redevelopment were all seen as important opportunities for the promotion or installation of green infrastructure projects. Participants acknowledged multiple community-water access issues including physical, financial, and cultural barriers. Finally, participants

34

listed characteristics of other management agencies that may influence community engagement in stormwater management. A historic lack of trust in government and a lack of diversity in some communities were seen as distinct challenges for engagement (Table 11). Table 11. External challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement

Theme Item Identified by Participants Opportunity* Challenge

Landscape characteristics and changes

Land use changes impacting existing natural systems

X

New development and redevelopment as chances to incorporate green infrastructure

X

Comprehensive planning cycles X Changes in natural systems (e.g., invasive species, weather)

X

Appropriateness of green infrastructure on different land types

X

Access to water Water pricing not reflecting actual value X Physical barriers to water resources X X Cultural and educational barriers to engagement in water issues

X X

Other managers Little diversity represented in government and natural resource management

X

*An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant.

4.4 SURVEY FINDINGS Survey findings are drawn from analysis of 268 completed and returned surveys out of 1,000 surveys distributed proportionately across the three study areas. The survey response rate as of the time of reporting was 32% overall (adjusted for 158 surveys returned undeliverable) (Table 12). RWMWD had a significantly higher response rate than MWMO or CRWD. Survey findings are organized into 3 sub-sections that respond to 8 unique research questions. Complete statistics for all survey questions in aggregate, as well as statistics for select watershed comparisons, are presented in tabular form in Appendix M. Table 12. Survey response rate by watershed

Watershed No. of completed surveys Response rate MWMO 71 25.7% CRWD 70 26.4% RWMWD 127 42.6% Total 268 31.9%

MWMO = Mississippi Watershed Management Organization CRWD = Capitol Region Watershed District RWMWD = Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

35

4.4.1 Survey Respondent Profile Who are respondents and what are their housing arrangements? Respondents were asked a series of questions about their socio-demographic background and housing arrangements. Across the three watersheds, sociodemographic and housing profiles were similar in terms of gender, formal education levels, years living in the community, and housing’s proximity to water (Table 13). Overall, about half of the respondents were female (52%), median age was 58, more than half had attained a college bachelor’s degree (56%), and about half reported an annual household income of less than $50,000 (49%) (Table 13). More than one-third of respondents (37%) reported that they make decisions about the property where they live (Table 14).A vast majority of respondents (93%) reported that the property where they live does not touch a stream, lake, or river (Table 14). Comparing survey respondent sociodemographic profiles with census profiles provides insight into how the study sample might differ from area residents. According to census statistics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) between 50% (Minneapolis) and 53% (Roseville) of residents in the study areas are female. Between 40% (Roseville) and 51% (St. Paul) of residents in the study areas have an annual household income of less than $50,000. While study respondents are older than residents in the study area (median = 31 to 42), the study specifically targeted adult (age 18 or older) residents. Compared to census statistics, the study sample also represents a higher proportion of residents who have attained at least a bachelor’s degree (Table 13). Other sociodemographic and housing data varied by watershed. Altogether the majority of respondents reported being white (79% overall), however, a significantly higher proportion of RWMWD respondents (88%) were white than MWMO (79%) or CRWD (63%) respondents. Significant differences were found among watershed respondents in age and housing arrangements as well. Respondents in RWMWD (mean = 61) were significantly older than respondents in MWMO (54) or CRWD (mean = 50) (Appendix M, Table 1). The RWMWD respondent group (95%) also had a higher proportion of homeowners than MWMO (75%) or CRWD (47%) respondent groups and fewer renters (Appendix M, Table 2).

36

Table 13.Survey respondents' sociodemographic characteristics

Socio-demographic characteristics MWMO CRWD RWMWD Total N % N % N % N %

Gender Male 33 48.5 26 40.6 62 52.1 121 48.2 Female 35 51.5 38 59.4 57 47.9 130 51.8

Race White 60 78.9 49 62.8 115 87.8 224 78.6 Other Race

Hispanic 16

1 21.1

1.4 29

3 37.2

4.3 16

5 12.2

3.9 61

9 21.4

3.4 Black 5 7.0 14 20.0 2 1.6 21 7.8 Asian 5 7.0 4 5.7 3 2.4 12 4.5 American Indian or Alaska

Native 2 2.8 2 2.9 1 0.8 5 1.9

Middle Eastern or North African

0 0.0 2 2.9 2 1.6 4 1.5

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0 0.0 2 2.9 1 0.8 3 1.1

Other (e.g., Creole, Italian) 3 4.2 2 2.9 2 1.6 7 2.6 Age Mean 54.2 - 50.3 - 61 - 56.6 -

Median 55 - 53.5 - 63 - 58 - Minimum 25 - 24 - 25 - 24 - Maximum 86 - 93 - 90 - 93 -

Years lived in community

Mean 15 - 17 - 19 - 17 - Median 8 - 10 - 15 - 12 - Minimum 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - Maximum 60 - 70 - 65 - 70 -

Education Did not finish high school 3 4.3 2 3.1 1 0.8 6 2.3 Completed high school 10 14.3 7 10.8 15 12.1 32 12.4 Some college but no degree 11 15.7 10 15.4 15 12.1 36 13.9 Associate degree or vocational degree

17 24.3 6 9.2 18 14.5 41 15.8

College bachelor's degree 15 21.4 19 29.2 37 29.8 71 27.4 Some graduate work 1 1.4 3 4.6 6 4.8 10 3.9 Completed graduate degree (Masters or Ph.D.)

13 18.6 18 27.7 32 25.8 63 24.3

Income Under $10,000 5 8.1 5 8.6 4 3.7 14 6.1 $10,000- $24,999 11 17.7 9 15.5 15 13.8 35 15.3 $25,000 - $34,999 5 8.1 9 15.5 12 11.0 26 11.4 $35,000 - $49,999 10 16.1 8 13.8 18 16.5 36 15.7 $50,000 - $74,999 9 14.5 11 19.0 19 17.4 39 17.0 $75,000 - $99,999 13 21.0 7 12.1 16 14.7 36 15.7 $100,000 - $149,999 8 12.9 6 10.3 18 16.5 32 14.0 $150,000 or more 1 1.6 3 5.2 7 6.4 11 4.8


37

Table 14. Survey respondents' housing/property characteristics

Housing/property characteristics MWMO CRWD RWMWD Total N % N % N % N %

Housing arrangement

I own my own home 50 70.4 31 44.9 107 85.6 188 70.9 I rent 17 23.9 35 50.7 6 4.8 58 21.9 I am the landlord 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0 .0 1 0.4 Other (e.g., condo, mobile home) 4 5.6 2 2.9 12 9.6 18 6.8

Decisions about property

I make the decisions 30 42.3 20 29.0 49 39.2 99 37.4 A family member makes the decisions 2 2.8 0 0.0 3 2.4 5 1.9

A family member and I make decisions together 22 31.0 19 27.5 45 36.0 86 32.5

I leave it up to my renter 1 1.4 1 1.4 0 0.0 2 0.8 I leave it up to the landowner/property owner 6 8.5 17 24.6 5 4.0 28 10.6

I work together with the renter/landowner to make the decisions

3 4.2 4 5.8 3 2.4 10 3.8

Some decisions are up to me; others are up to the property owner

1 1.4 7 10.1 7 5.6 15 5.7

Other (e.g., homeowners association) 6 8.5 1 1.4 13 10.4 20 7.5

Property touches a stream, lake, or river

Yes 4 5.7 1 1.5 13 10.3 18 6.9 No 66 94.3 65 98.5 113 89.7 244 93.1


38

Table 15. Survey area residents’ sociodemographic and housing characteristics

Socio-demographic and housing characteristics

MWMO CRWD RWMWD

Minneapolis Fridley Columbia Heights St. Paul Roseville

Gender Male 50.3% 49.5% 48.5% 48.9% 47.1% Female 49.7% 50.5% 51.5% 51.1% 52.9%

Racea White 66.7% 78.5% 72.8% 62.7% 83.6% Other Race 33.3% 21.5% 27.2% 37.3% 16.4%

Age Median 31.4 37.1 36.9 30.9 42.1 Education Less than high school 10.7% 9.4% 16.0% 13.7% 6.4%

High school 17.0% 30.7% 29.0% 22.3% 20.5% Some college or Associate degree

30.1% 35.2% 35.6% 29.7% 30.0%

Bachelor’s degree or higher 42.1% 24.6% 19.5% 34.3% 43.1% Household income

Median 50,767 54,509 48,857 48,258 62,464 Under $10,000 10.7% 4.8% 4.4% 10.2% 5.0% $10,000- $24,999 16.5% 13.1% 21.2% 17.6% 14.0% $25,000 - $34,999 9.1% 9.8% 10.6% 10.6% 8.0% $35,000 - $49,999 13.0% 17.2% 14.9% 12.9% 13.2% $50,000 - $74,999 16.3% 23.3% 19.8% 17.4% 17.8% $75,000 - $99,999 11.5% 13.6% 12.7% 12.0% 13.8% $100,000 - $149,999 12.9% 12.9% 13.0% 11.4% 18.2% $150,000 or more 10.0% 5.4% 3.5% 7.8% 10.2%

Housing tenure

Owner occupied 49.2% 65.4% 68.3% 51.3% 67.2% Renter occupied 50.8% 34.6% 31.7% 48.7% 32.8%

aPercent among those reporting one race; excludes Hispanic/Latino origin Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

4.4.2 Divergences: Unique Respondent Attributes by Watershed Area Though the three watershed study areas are geographically and hydrologically distinct, this study revealed that when it comes to community and water, survey respondents share many beliefs, norms, and behaviors across the watersheds. However, this section highlights the few respondent attributes that varied statistically by watershed. In instances where survey responses show no statistically significant differences by watershed, any observable differences in respondent attributes (e.g., variations in means or frequencies) are likely to be chance differences. In contrast, this section reports on differences in respondent attributes that, based on statistical testing, are more likely to be actual differences between watershed respondent groups than they are to be merely chance differences. Thus, these findings highlight areas where the need for watershed- and community-tailored or customized programs and projects is greatest. What are important differences between watershed respondents? Watershed respondents were compared for differences in their sociodemographic and property characteristics, social influences on decisions about getting involved in their community, perspectives on

39

their neighborhood, perspectives on water resources, concern about water issues, familiarity with and current use of clean water actions, familiarity with and participation in community activities, and likelihood of future clean water actions. First, some notable differences emerged in respondents’ reported social influences on their decisions about getting involved in their community, and perceptions of neighborhood qualities. Respondents in MWMO were influenced to a greater extent by business owners/leaders in their community, by county government and by local media than CRWD or RWMWD respondents (Appendix M, Table 3). Respondents in MWMO were influenced by their neighbors to a greater extent than RWMWD respondents. Respondents in MWMO and CRWD were influenced by neighborhood associations to a greater extent than RWMWD respondents. CRWD respondents placed greater importance on access to public transportation than MWMO and RWMWD respondents (Appendix M, Table 3). Important differences also were identified in respondents’ familiarity with clean water actions and in their participation in community activities and water projects. Respondents were asked about 11 actions aimed at preventing stormwater runoff. While responses to 8 of the 11 actions were consistent across watershed respondent groups, responses to 3 of the actions varied significantly. A greater proportion of RWMWD respondents indicated that they had heard about clean water actions including “planting native plants or shrubs in their yard” (70%), “rain gutters to direct water to lawn, flower bed or garden” (75%), and “picking up after your pet and putting waste in trash” (79%) than MWMO and CRWD respondents. A greater proportion of MWMO (13%) and CRWD (15%) respondents indicated that they had attended a meeting, public hearing, or community discussion unrelated to the watershed district/organization about water in the last 12 months than RWMWD respondents (4%) (Appendix M, Table 4). On a 5-point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2), RWMWD respondents (mean = -0.24) overall reported being less likely to volunteer for clean water projects in the future than did the other watershed respondents (mean ≥ 0.14) (Appendix M, Table 3).

4.4.3 Confluences: Common Respondent Attributes Across Watersheds How do respondents define their communities and view their neighborhoods? Survey respondents were asked to identify what comes to mind first when they think of their community. Several choices were provided including neighborhood, county, ethnic group, and city. A majority of respondents (55%) defined their community as their neighborhood. More than one-quarter of the respondents (27%) also define their community as their city (Appendix M, Table 5). Respondents were asked to rate the importance of several neighborhood qualities on a 5-point scale from very unimportant (-2) to very important (+2). Respondents also were asked to rate a series of statements about their neighborhood on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2). Water appears to be highly valued amenity for respondents. A vast majority of respondents rated clean drinking water (98%), clean streams, rivers and lakes (96%), access to basic services (94%) and

40

good relationships among neighbors (96%) as important (Appendix M, Table 6). Most respondents expressed optimism that residents are able to make a difference in their neighborhoods. A majority of respondents agreed that people like them are able to make an impact and make their neighborhood a better place to live (64%) and that their neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues (59%) (Appendix M, Table 7). However, only a third of respondents (33%) agreed that their neighborhood has strong leadership. A majority of respondents (70%) were neutral or disagreed that local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in their neighborhood (Appendix M, Table 7). How engaged are respondents in their communities and who influences their civic action? Respondents were asked to indicate if they have heard about and participated in a list of 8 different community activities in the past 12 months. While more than half of the respondents had heard about neighborhood meetings (51%), only 27% of respondents have participated in neighborhood meetings in the past 12 months (Appendix M, Table 8). Less than one-quarter of respondents had heard about opportunities to talk with others about water problems (23%) and only 17% had talked to others about water problems in the last 12 months. A majority of respondents had not heard about (85%) or participated in (95%) a watershed district/organization program or event (Appendix M, Table 8). Respondents rated the extent to which individuals or groups influence their decisions about getting involved in their community on a 4-point scale from not at all (1) to a lot (4). Overall, respondents rated family (mean = 2.90) and neighbors (mean = 2.71) as most likely to influence their decisions about getting involved in their community (Appendix M, Table 9). Respondents were also asked to list the three most trusted sources of information regarding community issues. The three most trusted sources of information regarding community issues were neighbors (39%), city government (39%) and family (30%). On average, faith leaders and state government agencies were the least influential in respondents’ decisions to get involved in their community (Appendix M, Table 10). About half of respondents (51%) agreed that they generally do what people who are important to them want them to do. However, a majority of respondents either disagreed or were impartial that people who are important to them expect them to attend meetings, hearings or community discussions (62%) (Appendix M, Table 11). What are respondents’ beliefs and concerns about water resources? Respondents were asked to report what first comes to mind when they think of water. Respondents were also asked to report how they use water in or near their neighborhood. A majority of respondents (69%) reported that the first thing they think about when thinking about water is drinking water (Appendix M, Table 12). Most respondents reported using water for drinking (95%), watering plants/lawn (78%) and experiencing scenic beauty (63%) (Appendix M, Table 13). Respondents reported their familiarity with water issues in their neighborhood on a 4-point scale from not at all familiar (1) to very familiar (4). Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of water in the stream, lake or river closest to them on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to very good (5). Over one-third of respondents (35%) reported that they are not at all familiar with water issues around their

41

neighborhood (Appendix M, Table 14). Over one-third of respondents (37%) rated the quality of water in the stream, lake or river closest to them as good to very good (Appendix M, Table 15). Respondents were also asked to rate four statements regarding their beliefs about water pollution on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2). An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that water pollution can affect human health (99%). Over three-fourths of respondents (79%) also agreed that water in Minnesota needs better protection (Appendix M, Table 16). Respondents identified who they think should be responsible for protecting water in their neighborhood. Most respondents believed that it was the city government’s (89%) and residents’ (83%) responsibility to protect water in their neighborhood. Respondents also believed that it was watershed district/organization’s (76%), local neighborhood organization’s (55%) and federal government’s (55%) responsibility to protect water in their neighborhood (Appendix M, Table 17). Respondents were asked to identify the most important information sources about water issues. Overall, the three most important information sources were local media, city government and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Appendix M, Table 18). Respondents were asked to indicate if they had heard of any water problems around their neighborhood in the past 3 years. Respondents were asked about the extent to which they were concerned about 13 water issues in their neighborhood. Less than one-third of respondents (29%) indicated that they had heard of water problems around their neighborhood in the past 3 years (Appendix M, Table 19). Of those who had heard of water problems, 45% identified storm drain issues, and 42% reported problems with algae. About 20% reported problems with unsafe drinking water and lake water levels (Appendix M, Table 20). About three-fourths of respondents (75%) reported that they were somewhat to very concerned about water pollution in general. A majority of respondents were also somewhat to very concerned about “water that is not healthy for fish” (69%), sanitary sewer issues (66%), aquatic invasive species (65%), and storm drain issues (69%). A majority of respondents were either not concerned or neutral about flooding in their neighborhood (69%) and flooding at their residence (71%) (Appendix M, Table 21). How engaged are respondents in clean water actions? Respondents were asked to indicate if they have heard about and use 11 different clean water actions on their properties. A vast majority of respondents reported that they had heard (86%) of “keeping grass clippings and leaves out of streets” and currently use (85%) the clean water action. Similarly, a majority of respondents reported that they had heard (87%) of “minimizing use of fertilizers/ pesticides on lawns and gardens” and currently use (74%) the action. A majority of respondents had heard about rain gardens (70%) and rain barrel or cistern to store water (75%). However, only 18% currently use rain gardens and 15% use rain barrels on their property (Appendix M, Table 22).

42

How likely are respondents to be engaged in clean water actions in the future? Respondents were asked the extent to which they were likely to take 7 different clean water actions in the next 12 months on a 5-point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2). Almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) reported they were likely to change something they do at home to protect water. However, less than half of the respondents (40%) reported they were likely to encourage others to get involved in clean water activities. A majority of respondents reported they were either impartial or unlikely to work with other neighborhood residents to protect water (61%) or to volunteer for clean water projects (69%) (Appendix M, Table 23). What might inspire clean water action and community engagement in the future? Respondents were asked to indicate the conditions that would make them more likely to use clean water actions and get involved in community activities. A majority of respondents indicated that they would be more likely to use clean water actions if they knew more about how to use the actions (59%) and if they knew why the actions helped clean water (58%). Respondents were also more likely to use clean water actions if they had financial assistance to help them use the actions (44%) and if they knew that the city/county encouraged the actions (43%) (Appendix M, Table 24). Respondents were more likely to get involved in community activities if they knew why the activities helped the community (49%) and if they knew more about how to get involved (47%). Respondents were also likely to get involved if they could talk to others who have been involved (28%) (Appendix M, Table 25). To examine the factors that influence respondents’ clean water actions and engagement in community activities, subgroup comparisons were conducted between respondents with varying levels of clean water action (i.e., high action, low action) and levels of civic engagement (i.e., high engagement, low engagement). Respondent subgroups were compared for differences in their socio-demographic and housing characteristics, social norms of civic action, water resource and neighborhood beliefs, and concern about water issues. Some notable differences emerged between high clean water action (HA) respondents (respondents who have used 6 or more of the 11 clean water actions) and low clean water action (LA) respondents (respondents who have used 5 or fewer of the 11 clean water actions) in social norms of civic action, beliefs about their neighborhood and concern about water issues. HA respondents (mean = 0.30) agreed to a greater extent than LA respondents (mean = -0.06) that people who are important to them expect them to be involved in community issues. HA respondents agreed to a greater extent than LA respondents that their neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues (HA mean = 0.77, LA mean = 0.48) and that residents in their neighborhood work together to solve local issues (HA mean = 0.38, LA mean = 0.06). HA respondents were also significantly more concerned about stormwater runoff than LA respondents (mean = 0.53) (Appendix M, Table 27). Differences also were identified between respondents with high level of civic engagement (HCE) (respondents who have participated in 1 or more of the 8 listed community activities in the last 12

43

months) and low level of civic engagement (LCE) (respondents who have not participated in any of the 8 listed community activities in the last 12 months) in social norms of civic action, importance of neighborhood qualities and beliefs about their neighborhood. HCE respondents agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that people who are important to them expect them to be involved in community issues (HCE mean = 0.50, LCE mean = -0.16). HCE respondents also agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that people who are important to them attend meetings, hearings, or community discussions (HCE mean = 0.57, LCE mean = -0.09). HCE respondents also placed greater importance on several neighborhood qualities than LCE respondents, including good relationships with neighbors (HCE mean = 1.73, LCE mean = 1.40), opportunities to be involved in community projects (HCE mean = 0.82, LCE mean = 0.36), a welcoming place for people of all backgrounds and perspectives (HCE mean = 1.42, LCE mean = 0.92), access to good schools (HCE mean = 1.62, LCE mean = 1.19), and opportunities to express their culture and traditions (HCE mean = 0.76, LCE mean = 0.45) (Appendix M, Table 29). HCE respondents agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that their neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues (HCE mean = 0.97, LCE mean = 0.31) and that residents in their neighborhood work together to solve local issues (HCE mean = 0.59, LCE mean = -0.09). HCE respondents also agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that their neighborhood has strong leadership (HCE mean = 0.38, LCE mean = -0.25) and that local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in their neighborhood (HCE mean = 0.24, LCE mean = -0.18). HCE respondents (mean = 0.95) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.48) that people like them are able to make an impact and make their neighborhood a better place to live. HCE respondents (mean = 0.45) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.02) that their local government does a good job of listening to residents about problems. HCE respondents (mean = 0.70) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.28) that their neighborhood has become a better place to be in the past 5 years. Lastly, HCE respondents (mean = 0.39) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.02) that they are generally trusting of government agencies (Appendix M, Table 29).

44

High action (n = 132)

Low action (n = 127)

• Sociodemographics • Housing arrangements • Importance of

neighborhood qualities • Beliefs about water

pollution

• Lower social norms of civic action

• Less likely to believe that residents are committed and work together to address local issues

• Lower concern about stormwater runoff

32%

15 – 28%

15%

Low action target audience

• Higher social norms of civic action

• More likely to believe that residents are committed and work together to address local issues

• Higher concern about stormwater runoff

44%

53 – 66%

72%

High action target

audience

Figure 4. Differences and commonalities between high clean water action and low clean water action respondents

45

Low CE Target audience

High CE (n = 115)

Low CE (n = 127)

• Sociodemographics • Housing arrangements • Beliefs about water

pollution

• Lower social norms of civic action

• Neighborhood qualities (e.g., relationships, involvement in community projects, expression of culture and traditions) are less important

• Less likely to believe that their neighborhood has the commitment, leadership, and ability to address local issues

31 – 34%

3 – 19%

10 - 37%

• Higher social norms of civic action

• Neighborhood qualities (e.g., relationships, involvement in community projects, expression of culture and traditions) are more important

• More likely to believe that their neighborhood has the commitment, leadership, and ability to address local issues

55 – 62%

65 – 100%

40 – 79%

High CE Target

audience

Figure 5. Differences and commonalities between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement

46

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project’s aim was to provide a science-based assessment of community capacity to manage stormwater. Project partners expressed concern in particular about stormwater management inaction in their communities and sought insight into drivers and constraints to community action. Partners also initiated the study to learn more about communities that they had not effectively engaged in water issues. A multiple methods design, including a resident survey, interviews with diverse community members, and focus groups with community and water leaders, enabled both depth and breadth in understanding community capacities and constraints to stormwater management. The data illuminate convergent and divergent worldviews and relationships with water. A concerted effort was made to reach historically excluded community groups and to document diverse ways of knowing and engaging with water. Above all, we see this report as providing strategic guidance to water managers as they negotiate their way up the ladder of community participation (Arnstein 1969) from informing to empowering actors in stormwater management. We learned that multiple barriers and constraints to civic, public-sphere action (e.g., participating in planning processes) and individual, private-sphere action (e.g., adopting stormwater management practices) exist. Some barriers are physical and institutional, others are psychological and cultural. Yet, this project also illuminates the rich and varied resources communities have to offer in stormwater management initiatives. Below we identify several stormwater management opportunity areas and present strategies for empowering community members and communities. 1. Tap into existing community assets Each community represented in this project has a suite of resources used to influence members, address problems, and achieve goals. One clear message from community members is that communities lack leadership not leaders. Leadership in environmental planning, water restoration and protection, and stormwater management is limited but community leaders abound. The most prominent and perhaps accessible resource and source of leadership is the existing, trusted, community-based organization (CBO). A variety of CBOs exist with different missions and distinct structures, but several common threads exist. First, CBOs are non-profit organizations that operate at the local level, with local member staffing, and a bottom-up approach to community needs. Thus, CBOs have a keen understanding of community needs. CBOs vary in their missions—health, education, social welfare, economic development, affordable housing, accessibility, youth development, and faith. Watershed managers would do well to treat CBOs as a form of “monitoring station,” where they can sample community stories of success and failure and explore community assets and needs. CBOs are often repositories of community knowledge and resources. Community monitoring stations also serve as entry points to present and deliberate water problems and opportunities within the community. In this study we identified several CBOs with partnering potential including neighborhood associations/councils, block

47

clubs, cultural centers, faith-based organizations, business associations, nature centers, and chambers of commerce among others. A second message from community members is that the conventional structures and processes local governments use to facilitate public participation likely will not lead to more meaningful community engagement in stormwater issues. Participants lamented a lack of representation and diversity among formal decision leaders in local governments. A community networking style of engagement is more likely to bring diverse voices earlier into the public participation process. Multiple informal social group and CBO networks exist with community-relevant communication pathways and culturally connected dialogue. We recommend that watershed managers avoid reinventing the network. Rather, managers will find promise in using a bottom-up approach to community organizing around water. A bottom-up approach requires getting out into the community and getting to know and understand its social and cultural networks. A simple network analysis may be a good starting point. What networks exist and how do they vary (e.g., how do people share information and influence one another)? What are network membership attributes (i.e., who is and isn’t represented)? How do members interact (e.g., awareness-raising, assistance, support)? What flows within the network (e.g., beliefs, information, resources) and between networks? As organizations and networks are better understood, people and groups serving as nodes of information or influence will emerge who can become great allies in connecting water issues to community issues. 2. Connect with community issues and link to community identities While watershed organizations have a very sophisticated and science-based approach to identifying and articulating water quality goals, these goals and related management objectives do not clearly resonate with community members for many reasons. First, water does not rise to the top of the list of community concerns. Though clean drinking water is a priority, many more pressing or distressing issues were identified with a higher sense of urgency such as education, housing, immigration, economics, and safety. Second, the scale of a watershed organization, a watershed, has relatively little meaning to community members. In fact, even many better known geo-political boundaries (e.g., municipalities, counties) have little bearing on the community boundaries members identify that encompass their day-to-day social interactions such as neighborhoods, ethnic groups, business associations, and school systems. Third, human and social connections to water, and therefore goals and measures of success for positive water interactions, have little to do with the metrics managers use in watershed management, even in more integrated approaches to watershed management. Community members in the study watersheds emphasize clean drinking and cooking water, water for gardening, healthy fisheries for fish consumption, and reduced flooding as water-related community needs. Still, opportunities for several community-centric values and identities that intersect with stormwater management goals are noteworthy. Skill-building activities, more formal training programs, and various other forms of community-based water education represent potential areas of mutual value and benefit. Community members were keen on projects that improve neighborhood aesthetics and develop a more welcoming atmosphere for residents, visitors, and customers. Projects like Living Streets and the Central Corridor green infrastructure, if paired with meaningful community engagement, have the potential to enhance community image and pride, as well as draw attention to overlooked water resources. Community-

48

centric greenspaces that link residents and visitors to water physically, visually, and culturally hold great promise. Many participants expressed hope that communities could reconnect with water and leverage water as a prominent feature of their community’s identity: as a source of pride, a safe and nurturing gathering place, a sustainable economic resource, and an inspiration for community-building and collective action. 3. Remove community-water barriers An important first step to community engagement in stormwater management for many community members is removing community-water barriers. The project revealed several physical, institutional, psychological, and cultural conditions and forces that impede water engagement. For example, the world of water management, including water systems, water threats, and water user responsibilities, is largely unfamiliar to most community members. This finding is likely not surprising to water resource professionals. However, many participants perceive seemingly universal public benefits of water including physical interactions with water, social and psychological benefits from water-rich environments, and political influence in water-associated decisions, are inaccessible to community members and in particular, certain historically excluded groups such as recent immigrants, People of Color, and low income populations. Addressing language and heuristic barriers, offering public transportation, providing childcare in water programming, and attending to water safety training and safe water environments are prudent strategies for breaking down community barriers to water. However, an even bolder and more durable strategy is to build passageways that connect water to the community. For example, what role can water managers play in rethinking and redesigning how community members interact with water and interact with each other in the context of water? How can water projects and programs be a stepping stone toward community empowerment? How can water become a central feature of community pride and attachment? 4. Emotivate in water programming Finally, we recommend that all projects and programs aimed at educating community members about stormwater management practices be revisited and redesigned with a central emphasis on emotivation. Emotivation, in contrast to education, is the act of appealing to an individual’s emotions, basic values and beliefs, sense of responsibility, and personal ethics of behavior. We do not discount the value of basic awareness or subject matter knowledge. However, learning that motivates, that leads to empowerment and behavior change happens through personal, transformative experiences, social modeling and persuasion, and confidence building. Emotivation often requires a significant shift in education program objectives. Managers may have traditionally asked themselves, “What do people need to know to get engaged in stormwater management practices?” We argue that the more imperative question is “What do people need to feel to get engaged?” Concerned? Responsible? Safe? Empowered? Supported? Stormwater management projects and programs that appeal to the hearts and minds of their audiences will not only educate but also inspire people to learn, to feel, to act, and to talk to their friends and neighbors about why learning, feeling, and acting are necessary. Managers may address the “everyone is responsible, so no one is responsible” nature of the nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff by making the problem and its solutions personally relevant to

49

community members. Psychologically speaking, it is human nature for a community member to filter or reinterpret information to protect his or her ego (“I’m not the cause of the problem) or to support current behaviors (“my fertilizer use isn’t to blame”). Certain tactics such as psychological distancing (i.e., thinking the problem is far away or unlikely to occur), optimism bias (i.e., wishful thinking—“it’s really not that bad”), and guilty bias (i.e., avoiding the problem altogether because of feeling both responsible and helpless) and other cognitive biases are believed to curb concern and impede behavior change (Scannell and Gifford 2013, Markowitz and Shariff 2012). Thus, while general information campaigns may change the behavior of community members who are willing and able to objectively and carefully process information about something they currently know or care little about (e.g., stormwater runoff), most community members will need to connect to the issue on a different more personally meaningful level. We believe community members are more apt to change behavior because of a conversation (e.g., with a neighbor about rain barrels), an observation (e.g., of a rain garden installation at a respected business), or an experience (e.g., at a volunteer neighborhood clean-up day). The resident survey showed a significant gap in the likelihood of individual action (e.g., stormwater management practices) and civic action (e.g., talking to others about stormwater actions). In other words, while residents may try a practice at home, they are far less likely to talk to others about the practice or their experiences with it. Community-building activities like community arts projects, cultural story-telling, and social events and venues like parks and open spaces, scenic vistas or gathering places, and interactive public spaces enable collective reflection on and celebration of water. The survey also indicated that while financial support for practices is an incentive to some, understanding how and why practices work has a broader impact. Additionally, feedback on the performance of conservation practices (e.g., How much water is my rain garden retaining? How many people are using rain barrels on my block? How are my neighborhood’s practices making a difference in water quality?) is an important source of feelings of self-efficacy. Community members not only want to know the results of their actions, but see and feel the outcomes. Localized and meaningful feedback on program outcomes for water and for community will build confidence, ownership, and pride in action. Managers and policy makers may find these findings useful for leveraging funding for performance monitoring on local scales. One important caveat to shifting toward water emotivation, however, is the need to address the economics of practices when attempting to engage people in high effort or high cost stormwater management. This is especially true for business owners and commercial property managers for whom economics is a primary concern. Several business owners interviewed in this project were averse to new regulations or practices with uncertain financial outcomes. Many stormwater practices were viewed as requiring major investment with little or uncertain return, despite the promise of energy conservation or broadening appeal to eco-sensitive markets. Financial assistance and technical support, however, appear to be motivators for business owners and property manager to take clean water actions. Managers should work to address and reduce, when possible, the uncertainty surrounding various conservation practices and to articulate the economic and ecological return on investments.

50

Table 16. Watershed-specific recommendations

Project Findings Watershed-Specific Recommendations

MWMO CRWD RWMWD • MWMO respondents in particular were

influenced by business owners/leaders in their community, by county government and by local media

• MWMO respondents in particular were influenced by their neighbors

• MWMO and CRWD respondents in particular were influenced by neighborhood associations

Engage business owners/leaders and neighborhood associations in water programming; integrate water related messaging from county government and business owners/leaders; use local media for information campaigns

Engage neighborhood associations in water programming; develop community ties through established neighborhood groups

Work with local non-profits and place-based organizations (e.g., schools, homeowners associations, etc) to foster place-making and connection to water resources. Participate in community events and design event/community-relevant water messaging.

• CRWD respondents in particular placed great importance on access to public transportation

Identify key transportation systems and craft messaging that aligns with users (e.g., water-themed “paint the pavement” projects, intersections signage, billboards, train/bus stop signage)

Consider public transportation needs when planning community programming and events; use public transportation as a medium for messaging (e.g., train & bus stops)

Identify key transportation systems and craft messaging that aligns with users (e.g., water-themed “paint the pavement” projects, intersections signage, billboards, train/bus stop signage)

• CRWD participants identified public greenspace, nature centers, and surface water as lacking in the community

• RWMWD participants identified local lakes and nature centers, as important in the community

• MWMO and CRWD participants identified access to water and limited water viewscapes as barriers to community engagement

Increase water access and viewscape opportunities

Prioritize stormwater management projects that acquire new or improve existing public greenspaces; develop water-centered nature centers; find ways to “daylight” water resources; increase water access and viewscape opportunities

Link programing to existing efforts at local nature centers and use popular surface water resources as a rallying and place-identification opportunities.

51


MWMO CRWD RWMWD • CRWD participants identified

nonconventional urban water uses and connections including fishing for consumption, gardening, and spiritual identity

• CRWD and MWMO participants noted that many conventional forms of water recreation are not part of cultural norms

• CRWD and MWMO participants acknowledged the challenges for new immigrants to adjust to a new social and natural environment

• RWMWD faith-based institutions identified stewardship as a component of their mission

Strive to learn more about how diverse cultures want to connect with water for leisure and recreation (e.g., as gathering places, for fishing); provide safe and welcoming discovery opportunities for new immigrants to experience water; hire multilingual and culturally diverse staff

Validate and integrate these uses and connections into messaging and programming; partner with organizations that promote these uses and foster these connections; strive to learn more from community members; strive to learn more about how diverse cultures want to connect with water for leisure and recreation (e.g., as gathering places, for fishing) ; hire multilingual and culturally diverse staff

Connect with schools and faith-based institutions to present water and environmental stewardship messaging that aligns with existing curriculum and mission/values statements

• CRWD and MWMO participants saw potential in developing community identity through stormwater management

Seek, develop, and promote positive community-water linkages; prioritize projects and programming that enhance community identity (e.g., with current or potential iconic water features) and build community pride and efficacy

Seek, develop, and promote positive community-water linkages; prioritize projects and programming that enhance community identity (e.g., with current or potential iconic water features) and build community pride and efficacy

Seek, develop, and promote positive community-water linkages; prioritize projects and programming that enhance community identity with existing links to water – lakes and natural/protected areas

52


MWMO CRWD RWMWD • CRWD and MWMO noted member

diversity as a community strength, but participants were concerned about language and heuristic barriers to stormwater information

Address language and heuristic barriers in information and messaging with multi-lingual and culturally relevant communications and programming; hire multilingual and culturally diverse staff. Engage youth with diverse backgrounds as interns, volunteers

Address language and heuristic barriers in information and messaging with multi-lingual and culturally relevant communications and programming; hire multilingual and culturally diverse staff. Engage youth with diverse backgrounds as interns, volunteers

Work with urban planners and demographers to think forward on likely shifts in the watershed communities. Identify opportunities to prepare for near-term future demographic conditions (e.g., ethnic diversity trends, current population aging in place, influx of new families, etc.)

• CRWD participants saw potential in stormwater management practices increasing business energy efficiencies

Reach out to existing housing and economic development organizations to assess interest and willingness to integrate water related messaging into their work

Work with existing housing and economic development organizations to supply the support to increase water related messaging in their work

Reach out to existing housing and economic development organizations to assess interest and willingness to integrate water related messaging into their work

• MWMO participants believed many community members were highly engaged and noted strong leaders exist within the community

• MWMO participants noted past success in partnerships with water managers and acknowledged a high environmental awareness and potential for behavior change among members

Create opportunities to partner with local leaders in projects and programming; prioritize community member outreach and training programs (e.g., Master Water Steward Program)



53


MWMO CRWD RWMWD • RWMWD participants identified public

greenspaces and nature centers as an asset in the community but expressed concern about a lack of social networks and increasing social fragmentation

• RWMWD participants also noted strong neighborhood norms around property management (e.g., landscaping)

Seek opportunities to bring community members together and to expand social identities around public greenspaces and water; foster inclusive social networks (e.g., citizen monitoring, water-based recreation clubs, volunteer programs, Master Water Steward Programs and other training programs) around natural and water resources ;

Seek opportunities to bring community members together and to expand social identities around public greenspaces and water; foster inclusive social networks (e.g., citizen monitoring, water-based recreation clubs, volunteer programs, Master Water Steward Programs and other training programs) around natural and water resources

Seek opportunities to bring community members together and to expand social identities around public greenspaces and water; foster inclusive social networks (e.g., citizen monitoring, water-based recreation clubs, volunteer programs, Master Water Steward Programs and other training programs) around natural and water resources ; use Master Water Steward Programs, stormwater management demonstration sites to shift neighborhood norms around landscaping

• The Central Corridor Green Infrastructure evaluation revealed that many business owners and others community members are unaware of or unsure of responsibilities associated with the green infrastructure

• The Living Streets Program neighborhood evaluation revealed that residents had mixed reviews of the process and outcomes of the program and overall they had little knowledge of RWMWD’s involvement

For future programs play an explicit role; be clear about planning processes and roles of various participants; engage diverse stakeholders early on in visioning

Develop guidance for business owners in stormwater management and green infrastructure maintenance that is simple to use and links stormwater management to benefits business owners value; continue to expand interpretation of green infrastructure and consider dynamic message signage

Play a more explicit role in the program; be clear about the planning process and what residents should expect up front; provide opportunities for meaningful dialogue early on, such as a visioning session in which residents can express concerns and discuss options

54

6 REFERENCES Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4),

216-224. Braden, J., Brown, D., Dozier, J., Gober, P., Hughes, S., Maidment, D., Schneider, S., Schultz, W., Shortle,

J., Swallow, S., Werner, C. 2009. Social science in a water observing system. Water Resources Research, 45, W11301, [online].

Bradshaw, B. 2003. Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. The Canadian Geographer, 47(2), 137-150.

Brehm, J.M., Eisenhauer, B.W. & Krannich, R.S. (2006). Community attachments asa predictors of local environmental concern: the case for multiple dimensions of attachment. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(2), 24.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2007). Situational and personality factors as direct or personal

norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: Questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 323–334.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K.M., Guest, G. & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Family Health International: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Markowitz, E.M. & Shariff, A.F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243-247.

Morton, M. 2008. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershed management. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 751–766.

Prokopy, L., Genskow, K., Asher, J., Baumgart-Getz, A., Bonnell, J., Broussard, S., … others. (2009). Designing a regional system of social indicators to evaluate nonpoint source water projects. Journal of Extension, 47(2), 8.

Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., and Matlock, M. 2005. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. In P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management, (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60-85.

Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism1. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.

55

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 984–1001.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348

Tarlock, A. D. 2003. The potential role of local governments in watershed management, Pace Environmental Law Review, 20 (1): 149-176.

56

7 APPENDICES

57

7.1 APPENDIX A. PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT FLIER

58

COMMUNITY CAPACITY FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE

TWIN CITIES METRO AREA In partnership with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, researchers at the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, are gathering community data through interviews, focus groups and a resident mail survey in the Twin Cities Metro Area. The project will investigate: 1. Community-based drivers and constraints associated with stormwater management; 2. Diverse community member values, beliefs, norms and behaviors related to water resources and stormwater management; 3. Community member perceptions of existing water resource programs; and 4. The effectiveness of water resource programming in engaging Metro Area communities. Results and recommendations for enhancing community engagement in stormwater management will be shared with interested organizations and groups through a summary report and interactive presentations. Ultimately, this project will inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

Project Timeline: November 2013 – October 2015

Comments or questions? Please contact Principal Investigator: Mae Davenport, PhD Department of Forest Resources University of Minnesota [email protected] 612-624-2721

Field personnel: Vanessa Perry Research Associate

University Of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

59

7.2 APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW CONTACT SCRIPT

60

Hello [name], My name is [X]. I am a [position] conducting research on communities and water resources for Mae Davenport, Associate Professor in the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota. This study involves community residents, local leaders and natural resource professionals in the [Ramsey-Washington Metro, Capitol Region, or Mississippi Watershed Management Organization] watershed. One goal of this study is to identify different resources communities need and strategies they can use to enhance their ability to respond to water resource problems. To do this, we’ll be conducting interviews with local residents and professionals in the watershed.

I am hoping you would be able to assist me by participating in the study and sharing your perspectives with me. We are also offering an optional $50 gift for your participation. The interview takes about one hour. Would you be willing to participate?

If yes: “Thank you. I am available on ______ (days of week, times, have alternates ready) is there a time that would work best for you? [Set date, time, location (get directions)]. I would like to send you a confirmation email with date, time and location information. The email will include all of my contact information, in case you have any questions or concerns. Do you have an email address I can send the confirmation to?

a. If yes, take it down or confirm we have the correct email address for them. “Thank you. I look forward to meeting with you on ___(agreed upon date)___.”

b. If no, “Is __(phone # you contact them with)___ the best way for me to get a hold of you? In case you need to get a hold of me with questions or concerns, my phone number is ______.” I look forward to meeting with you on ___(agreed upon date)___.

If no: “Ok, thank you for your time. Good bye.”

If they seem unsure: “Just to be clear, participation is completely voluntary and if you decide to participate you can withdraw at any time. Your identity will remain confidential and we won’t include any information that would make it possible to identify you in the final report. We’re only talking to a limited number of key representatives, so capturing your perspective is important. Can I ask what you concerns about participating are?” [Try to address their concerns]

If they want to know why they are being asked to participate: “We’re interviewing a variety of stakeholders in the watershed to try to get diverse perspectives and a range of experiences. We’ve been conducting a stakeholder inventory in your community and your name came up as

61

someone who would be a good person to talk to. Since we are only able to conduct a limited number of interviews, capturing your perspective is important.”

If they want to know how the information will be used: “We are trying to better understand people’s perspectives on water resources, water conservation practices, and programs to determine what influences communities to engage in water resource management. We’ll be putting together a final report that describes how participants view these issues to share with community leaders, educators and resource professionals. Your information will be kept confidential and there will not be any identifying information in the report.”

If they want to know what the study is for: “This project is aimed at informing communication and outreach programs associated with metro stormwater conservation. Participant input is critical to making these programs work for both water resource protection and for citizens.”

If they want to know who is supervising the research: “Mae Davenport is the supervisor for this study. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Forest Resources at the U of M. If you would like to contact her directly I can give you her phone number [612-624-2721] or email address [[email protected]].”

If they ask about IRB: The research project was reviewed by the IRB/Human Subjects Committee at the University of Minnesota and given exempt status.

62

7.3 APPENDIX C. INTERVIEW GUIDES

63

I. Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

64

Metro Community Capacity for Stormwater Management Interview Guide FINAL (Updated June 2, 2014) FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS

First, I have some general questions about you and your community. Many people have different definitions of community ranging from a geographic area to a community that is based in social relationships. So, before I ask you questions about your community, I would like to know how you define it. 1. When you think of “your community,” what comes to mind?

a. How would you describe your connection to the community? 2. How would you describe the [x] community to someone who is new to the community? 3. What would you say are the best things about [working in/being a member of] the

community? 4. Do you have any concerns about the community? Please explain.

a. What challenges do you face in working in this community? 5. Can you describe any situations in which the community came together to respond to a

problem or opportunity? Please explain. a. How did the community respond? b. What things led to success (or failure) of the community action?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY Next, I have a few questions that relate to you as a property owner and/or property manager in this area. 6. What are the most important things to consider when making decisions about your

[household/business/organization]’s property? 7. When decisions are made, do those decisions take into account potential impacts on

a. Other community members? b. The natural environment? c. Local streams, lakes and wetlands?

8. Do you consult with others when making decisions about the property? a. Who are your most trusted contacts? What makes them trustworthy?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS

We are focusing our research project on community connections to water in this watershed (refer to the watershed map]. Next, I have some general questions about water in this local area. 9. When you think of water in this local area, what comes to mind? 10. How do you use water in this area? 11. What about water is important to you? 12. Do you have any concerns about water in this area? Please explain. 13. Have you ever talked to anyone about water or water resource issues before? Please

explain.

ID#: _______ Date: ______________

65

a. If you had a question or concern about water in this area, who would you go to? 14. What about water is important to your community? 15. Do you think the community is concerned about water in this area? Please explain. 16. Have you worked together with other community members to protect water (or the

environment)? Please explain. 17. Do you think the community is working to protect water? Please explain.

a. How could water resource professionals increase your community’s interest and engagement in water resource protection?

As you may know, there is increasing concern about water in the [X] watershed. One issue local resource professionals are particularly concerned about is stormwater runoff. 18. First of all, how familiar are you with stormwater runoff? 19. Many people have different things in mind when they think about stormwater runoff.

When you think about stormwater runoff, what comes to mind? Now, I’d like to read a definition of stormwater runoff to you and show you a diagram (Figure 1) that will provide some background to the next set of questions. Stormwater runoff is water that flows over ground and in stormwater sewers after a rain event or snowmelt. When water flows over surfaces like streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops, it can pick up trash, leaves, dirt, chemicals and other pollutants. If untreated, stormwater can lead to poor water quality in streams, lakes and wetlands. 20. Have you observed any problems with rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff in the

area? Please explain. 21. Who do you think should be responsible for addressing these types of water resource

problems in this area?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY 22. How important is managing rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff on [your/this]

property? 23. Are you concerned about water on [your/this] property? 24. Do you do things on [your/the] property that help to manage stormwater or address other

water problems? Please describe those for me. a. How long have you done this? b. What first motivated you to do this? c. Is it working? How do you know? Please explain. d. Do you plan to continue doing this over the next five years? Please explain.

25. Are there other things you have been considering? (if yes, ask a-c for each, if no, skip) a. What have you heard about this? b. What factors have kept you from doing this? c. Would you do this if things were different? Please explain.


A few final wrap-up questions:

66

26. What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to improving your community’s engagement in water issues?

27. What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to improving community’s engagement in water issues?

28. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water in this area?


29. I would like to get some recommendations from you as we proceed with this project. What other community representatives (e.g., from government, organizations or interest groups) could give us an important point of view on community assets and needs or water resources in this area? (Those with similar or very different perspectives than you.)

30. What makes them a key representative (organizations they are involved in, how are they involved in water resources in this area)?

31. We would like to identify representatives willing to provide input, receive information and serve as community connections for the duration of this project. Would you be interested?

_____ Yes _____ No

67

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff

68

II. Capitol Region Watershed District

69

Metro Community Capacity for Stormwater Management Interview Guide FINAL (Updated June 2, 2014) FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS First, I have some general questions about you and your community. Many people have different definitions of community ranging from a geographic area to a community that is based in social relationships. So, before I ask you questions about your community, I would like to know how you define it. 32. When you think of “your community,” what comes to mind?

a. How would you describe your connection to the community? 33. How would you describe the [x] community to someone who is new to the community? 34. What would you say are the best things about [working in/being a member of] the community? 35. Do you have any concerns about the community? Please explain.

a. What challenges do you face in working in this community? 36. Can you describe any situations in which the community came together to respond to a problem

or opportunity? Please explain. a. How did the community respond? b. What things led to success (or failure) of the community action?





FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS We are focusing our research project on community connections to water in this watershed (refer to the watershed map]. Next, I have some general questions about water in this local area. 40. When you think of water in this local area, what comes to mind? 41. How do you use water in this area? 42. What about water is important to you? 43. Do you have any concerns about water in this area? Please explain. 44. Have you ever talked to anyone about water or water resource issues before? Please explain.

a. If you had a question or concern about water in this area, who would you go to? 45. What about water is important to your community?

ID#: _______ Date: ______________

70

46. Do you think the community is concerned about water in this area? Please explain. 47. Have you worked together with other community members to protect water (or the

environment)? Please explain. 48. Do you think the community is working to protect water? Please explain.

a. How could water resource professionals increase your community’s interest and engagement in water resource protection?

As you may know, there is increasing concern about water in the [X] watershed. One issue local resource professionals are particularly concerned about is stormwater runoff. 49. First of all, how familiar are you with stormwater runoff? 50. Many people have different things in mind when they think about stormwater runoff. When you

think about stormwater runoff, what comes to mind? Now, I’d like to read a definition of stormwater runoff to you and show you a diagram (Figure 1) that will provide some background to the next set of questions. Stormwater runoff is water that flows over ground and in stormwater sewers after a rain event or snowmelt. When water flows over surfaces like streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops, it can pick up trash, leaves, dirt, chemicals and other pollutants. If untreated, stormwater can lead to poor water quality in streams, lakes and wetlands. 51. Have you observed any problems with rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff in the area?

Please explain. 52. Who do you think should be responsible for addressing these types of water resource problems

in this area?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY 53. How important is managing rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff on [your/this] property? 54. Are you concerned about water on [your/this] property? 55. Do you do things on [your/the] property that help to manage stormwater or address other

water problems? Please describe those for me. e. How long have you done this? f. What first motivated you to do this? g. Is it working? How do you know? Please explain. h. Do you plan to continue doing this over the next five years? Please explain.

56. Are there other things you have been considering? (if yes, ask a-c for each, if no, skip) d. What have you heard about this? e. What factors have kept you from doing this? f. Would you do this if things were different? Please explain.

PROGRAM/PROJECT EVALUATION QUESTIONS 57. Are you familiar with the clean water gardens and the tree trench system that has been installed

along University Ave by Capitol Region Watershed? a. [If yes,] what have you know about the program?

i. How would you describe the project to a friend? ii. How did you first hear about the project?

71

iii. What first motivated you to get involved with the project? iv. What were your initial impressions of the project? v. What do you think of the project now?

vi. What value have you gotten out of the project thus far? Please explain. vii. In your opinion, what might improve the project for you?

viii. What do you think would improve the project for other community members? Next, I would like to read you a short description of the project to get more input from you on it.

Capitol Region Watershed District has installed several gardens and a tree trench system along University Avenue that receive polluted rainwater from the street and allow it to soak into the ground instead of flowing to the Mississippi River. The plants in the gardens and trees in the tree trench prevent water pollution and add beauty and plant life to University Avenue. This project has been implemented in neighborhoods throughout the Green Line route, as have educational signs explaining the purpose of the gardens and tree trenches.

58. Do you think the [X program/project], as I just described it, is a good idea? Please explain. 59. Do you think this program could have effects on…

a. The health of water resources in the area? Please explain. b. Others in the [x] community? Please explain.

60. On a scale of 1-5, one being “not at all likely” and five being “extremely likely” how likely are you to [continue to] participate in this program in the future? Please explain.

61. Program leaders would like to continue to get more participation from community members in the program. What would you suggest they do to increase participation in [X program/project]?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS A few final wrap-up questions: 62. What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to improving your community’s engagement in water

issues? 63. What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to improving community’s engagement

in water issues? 64. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water in this

area? FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS




_____ Yes _____ No

72

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff (www.lexingtonky.gov)

73

III. Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

74

Metro Community Capacity for Stormwater Management Interview Guide FINAL (Updated June 2, 2014) FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS First, I have some general questions about you and your community. Many people have different definitions of community ranging from a geographic area to a community that is based in social relationships. So, before I ask you questions about your community, I would like to know how you define it. 68. When you think of “your community,” what comes to mind?

a. How would you describe your connection to the community? 69. How would you describe the [x] community to someone who is new to the community? 70. What would you say are the best things about [working in/being a member of] the community? 71. Do you have any concerns about the community? Please explain.

a. What challenges do you face in working in this community? 72. Can you describe any situations in which the community came together to respond to a problem

or opportunity? Please explain. a. How did the community respond? b. What things led to success (or failure) of the community action?





FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS We are focusing our research project on community connections to water in this watershed (refer to the watershed map]. Next, I have some general questions about water in this local area. 76. When you think of water in this local area, what comes to mind? 77. How do you use water in this area? 78. What about water is important to you? 79. Do you have any concerns about water in this area? Please explain. 80. Have you ever talked to anyone about water or water resource issues before? Please explain.

a. If you had a question or concern about water in this area, who would you go to? 81. What about water is important to your community? 82. Do you think the community is concerned about water in this area? Please explain.

ID#: _______ Date: ______________

75

83. Have you worked together with other community members to protect water (or the environment)? Please explain.

84. Do you think the community is working to protect water? Please explain. a. How could water resource professionals increase your community’s interest and

engagement in water resource protection? As you may know, there is increasing concern about water in the [X] watershed. One issue local resource professionals are particularly concerned about is stormwater runoff. 85. First of all, how familiar are you with stormwater runoff? 86. Many people have different things in mind when they think about stormwater runoff. When you

think about stormwater runoff, what comes to mind? Now, I’d like to read a definition of stormwater runoff to you and show you a diagram (Figure 1) that will provide some background to the next set of questions. Stormwater runoff is water that flows over ground and in stormwater sewers after a rain event or snowmelt. When water flows over surfaces like streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops, it can pick up trash, leaves, dirt, chemicals and other pollutants. If untreated, stormwater can lead to poor water quality in streams, lakes and wetlands. 87. Have you observed any problems with rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff in the area?

Please explain. 88. Who do you think should be responsible for addressing these types of water resource problems

in this area?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY 89. How important is managing rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff on [your/this] property? 90. Are you concerned about water on [your/this] property? 91. Do you do things on [your/the] property that help to manage stormwater or address other

water problems? Please describe those for me. i. How long have you done this? j. What first motivated you to do this? k. Is it working? How do you know? Please explain. l. Do you plan to continue doing this over the next five years? Please explain.

92. Are there other things you have been considering? (if yes, ask a-c for each, if no, skip) g. What have you heard about this? h. What factors have kept you from doing this? i. Would you do this if things were different? Please explain.

PROGRAM/PROJECT EVALUATION QUESTIONS 93. Have you heard of the Living Streets program?

b. [If yes,] what have you heard about the program? c. How did you first hear about the program?

94. Do you live in an area where Living Streets improvements have been implemented? a. [If yes] What were your initial impressions of the program? b. What do you think of the program now? c. How would you describe the impact of the program on the neighborhood?

76

d. Did you choose to have improvements (rain garden, trees planted) on your property? i. [if, yes] What first motivated you to get involved with Living Streets?

ii. [If no] Would you consider improvements on your property in the future? e. What value have you gotten out of the program thus far? Please explain. f. In your opinion, what might improve the program for you? g. What do you think would improve the program for other community members?

95. Do you think this program could have effects on… c. The health of water resources in the area? Please explain. d. Others in the [x] community? Please explain.

96. On a scale of 1-5, one being “not at all likely” and five being “extremely likely”, if you were to move, how likely would you be to purchase a home in an area where Living Streets had been implemented or where implementation was planned?

97. Program leaders would like to continue to get more participation from community members in other neighborhoods. What suggestions would you have to increase the success of Living Streets in other areas?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS A few final wrap-up questions: 98. What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to improving your community’s engagement in water

issues? 99. What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to improving community’s engagement

in water issues? 100. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water in this

area? FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS




_____ Yes _____ No

77

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff (www.lexingtonky.gov)

78

7.4 APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

79

Community Capacity for Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area Study Consent Form

You are invited to participate in a research study that explores community capacity to engage in water issues in the metro area. You were selected as a possible participant for an interview because you current living or working in the metro area. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. This study is being conducted by: Mae Davenport, Associate Professor at Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. Background Information The purpose of this study is to better understand community resources for water resource protection and to build community capacity for engaging in water resource management. Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, we would ask you to do the following things: Participate in an interview, lasting approximately 60 minutes. The interview will be audio recorded and transcribed. Risks and Benefits of being in the Study Risks associated with this study are minimal, responses are confidential and names will not be linked to any information in any publications. Benefits of participation include increased awareness of watershed and community issues. Study results will be made available to the public and all participants will have access to them. Compensation: A gift or cash, valued at $50, will be offered for participation in an interview. Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers will have access to the records. Your responses to the interview questions will be audio recorded, transcribed and kept for three years in a locked office. Afterward, these tapes will be destroyed. Only those directly involved with the project will have access to the audio tape of the interview notes. Voluntary Nature of the Study: Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the University of Minnesota. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships. Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is: Mae Davenport. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at address: 115 Green Hall1530 Cleveland Ave. North, St. Paul, MN 55108-6112, phone: 612-624-2721, email: [email protected].

80

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects’ Advocate Line, D528 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; (612) 625-1650. You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study. “I agree______ I disagree______ to have my responses audio recorded” “I agree______ I disagree______ that Mae Davenport may quote me anonymously in her papers” Signature:_________________________________________________Date: __________________ Signature of Investigator:_____________________________________Date: __________________

81

7.5 APPENDIX E. INTERVIEW BACKGROUND INFORMATION FORM

82

Community Capacity Assessment for Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Participant Demographic Information Age:

Highest level of formal education:

Years lived in community:

Occupation:

Gender:

Race/Ethnicity:

Community groups/organizations:

ID#: _______ Date: ______________

83

7.6 APPENDIX F. FOCUS GROUP CONSENT FORM

84

FOCUS GROUP CONSENT FORM

Thank you for participating in this project! We are seeking resource professionals’ insight on the opportunities and challenges associated with water and stormwater management in the Twin Cities Metro Area. You were selected as a possible participant because of your experience and expertise in resource management in this area. Study findings will be used to improve communication between local resource professionals, community partners, and local decision makers to better design and improve water and stormwater management. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The focus group lasts approximately two hours. You will be asked questions about your perspectives on water and stormwater management and best strategies to engage the public in programing. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the project at any time. Your decision will not affect your current or future relations with the University of Minnesota. Risks associated with this study are minimal, responses are confidential and names will not be linked to any information in any publications. Benefits of participation include increased awareness of agricultural and water resource issues. Study results will be made available to the public and all participants will have access to them. If you agree to participate in this project, all reasonable efforts will be made to maintain confidentiality. Since the focus group session takes place in a group setting and others are privy to your responses, the research team cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. However, your name will not be associated with the data collected. Only those directly involved with the project will have access to the focus group notes. Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is: Mae Davenport. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at address: 115 Green Hall 1530 Cleveland Ave. North, St. Paul, MN 55108-6112, phone: 612-624-2721, email: [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects’ Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; (612) 625-1650. You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent:


85

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study. “I agree______ I disagree______ to have my responses audio-recorded” “I agree______ I disagree______ that Mae Davenport may quote me anonymously in her papers” Signature:_________________________________________________Date: __________________ Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________Date: __________________

86

7.7 APPENDIX G. FOCUS GROUP AGENDA

87

Metro Stormwater Focus Group Agenda

Focus Group Objectives: (1) Present and receive feedback on study findings to date, (2) Identify constraints and opportunities for promoting water and stormwater programing in the Twin Cities Metro Area and (3) Increase awareness and understanding of critical issues associated with perceptions, attitudes, values, and norms of residents in the Twin Cities Metro area related to water and stormwater.

Agenda and Questions:

1. Welcome and agenda 2. Introductions and ice-breaker

3. Interview data presentation and discussion 4. Survey data presentation and discussion

5. Break (10min)

6. Idea listing 7. Idea prioritization, open discussion

8. Wrap Up

88

7.8 APPENDIX H. FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND INFORMATION FORM

89

Metro Stormwater Focus Group Background Information Form

We would like to know more about your background. This information will only be used as group data and will remain completely confidential.

1. Are you ______ female ______ male?

2. What is your year of birth? ____________

3. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (Check one) [ ] 8th grade or less [ ] Some high school [ ] High school graduate or GED [ ] Some college, business or trade school [ ] College graduate [ ] Some graduate school [ ] Masters, doctoral or professional degree

4. In what ethnicity(s) and race(s) would you place yourself? (Check all that apply) Ethnicity [ ] Hispanic or Latino [ ] Not Hispanic or Latino Race [ ] American Indian or Alaska Native [ ] Asian [ ] Black or African American [ ] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander [ ] White

5. What is your occupation? ______________________________________________

6. With what organization/agency are you employed? __________________________________________

7. How many years have you been employed by this organization/agency? ________________

90

7.9 APPENDIX I. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

99

7.10 APPENDIX J. SURVEY COVER LETTER

100

[Date] [First Name] [Last Name] [Street Address] [City] [State] [Zip code]

Clean Water, Community and You: Neighborhood Resident Survey Information and Consent Form

Dear [First Name] [Last Name], Will you please help us with a study about clean water in your neighborhood? The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and is funded by local watershed organizations including Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. You are a resident in one of these watershed areas and we want to know what you think about water. We will use study findings to help water managers and community leaders get residents involved in water issues. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us with this study. It should take you only about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We are only contacting a random sample of residents in this neighborhood; so it is important that we hear from you!

***We have enclosed a small cash gift to thank you in advance for your help with this study.*** This survey is voluntary and completely confidential. The risks of participating in this study are minimal. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. You are free to withdraw at any time. Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate. Your decision to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with the University of Minnesota. The ID # on the front page of your survey is used to help us track mailings, ensuring that your name is never affiliated with your responses. Please answer the questions as completely as possible. Once you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in thirds and mail it back in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. We would be happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments you may have about this study. Please feel free to contact me at 612-624-2721 or [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects' Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mae Davenport Associate Professor

tel:%28612%29%20625-1650

101

7.11 APPENDIX K. SURVEY REMINDER LETTER

102



Dear [First Name] [Last Name], Will you please help us with a study about clean water in your neighborhood? I am hoping that you will be able to give about 15 minutes of your time to complete a questionnaire about your views on your community and its water. If you have already returned your questionnaire, thank you for your response. We sincerely appreciate your input! If you have not yet responded, I am writing again because of the importance of your participation to the study and its intended outcomes. The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and is funded by local watershed organizations including Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. You are a resident in one of these watershed areas and we want to know what you think about water. We will use study findings to help water managers and community leaders get residents involved in water issues. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us with this study. It should take you only about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We are only contacting a random sample of residents in this neighborhood; so it is important that we hear from you! This survey is voluntary and completely confidential. The risks of participating in this study are minimal. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. You are free to withdraw at any time. Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate. Your decision to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with the University of Minnesota. The ID # on the front page of your survey is used to help us track mailings, ensuring that your name is never affiliated with your responses. Please answer the questions as completely as possible. Once you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in thirds and mail it back in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. We would be happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments you may have about this study. Please feel free to contact me at 612-624-2721 or [email protected] or Amit Pradhananga at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects' Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mae Davenport Associate Professor


tel:%28612%29%20625-1650

103

7.12 APPENDIX L. SURVEY REPLACEMENT COVER LETTER

104



Dear [First Name] [Last Name], Will you please help us with a study about clean water in your neighborhood? I am hoping that you will be able to give about 15 minutes of your time to complete a questionnaire about your views on your community and its water. If you have already returned your questionnaire, thank you for your response. We sincerely appreciate your input! If you have not yet responded, I am writing again because of the importance of your participation to the study and its intended outcomes. The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and is funded by local watershed organizations including Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. You are a resident in one of these watershed areas and we want to know what you think about water. We will use study findings to help water managers and community leaders get residents involved in water issues. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us with this study. It should take you only about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We are only contacting a random sample of residents in this neighborhood; so it is important that we hear from you! This survey is voluntary and completely confidential. The risks of participating in this study are minimal. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. You are free to withdraw at any time. Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate. Your decision to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with the University of Minnesota. The ID # on the front page of your survey is used to help us track mailings, ensuring that your name is never affiliated with your responses. Please answer the questions as completely as possible. Once you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in thirds and mail it back in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. We would be happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments you may have about this study. Please feel free to contact me at 612-624-2721 or [email protected] or Amit Pradhananga at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects' Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650. I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mae Davenport Associate Professor


tel:%28612%29%20625-1650

105

7.13 APPENDIX M: SURVEY FINDINGS

106

Table 1. Differences among watershed respondents in age Watershed N Mean SD F# MWMOa 63 54.2 17.86

7.550** CRWDa 54 50.3 19.25 RWMWDb 114 61.0 16.71

#F-statistic for testing differences in means. **Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. a, b, cEach superscript letter denotes no significant difference among watersheds at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 based on a least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc test. Table 2. Differences among watershed respondents in race and housing arrangement

Watershed χ2 MWMO CRWD RWMWD

Race White 78.9% 62.8% 87.8%

18.122** Other Race 21.1% 37.2% 12.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Housing arrangement I own my own home 74.6% 47.0% 94.7%

52.823** I rent 25.4% 53.0% 5.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2Chi-square statistic for testing differences in proportion **Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01.

107

Table 3. Differences among watershed respondents in their social influences, perceptions of neighborhood qualities and likelihood of future clean water action

Survey item Watershed N Mean SD F# Influence of individuals/groups in decisions about getting involved in community (4-point scale from not at all (1) to a lot (4)) Business owners/leaders in my community MWMOa 67 2.63 0.97

11.435** CRWDb 68 2.10 0.98 RWMWDb 115 1.95 0.89 My neighbors MWMOa 67 3.01 0.95

5.587** CRWDab 70 2.76 1.04 RWMWDb 122 2.52 0.95 My county government MWMOa 67 2.43 0.96

4.266* CRWDb 67 2.04 0.96 RWMWDb 116 2.03 0.93 Neighborhood associations MWMOa 65 2.43 1.00

3.997* CRWDa 66 2.39 1.05 RWMWDb 115 2.04 1.02 Local media MWMOa 65 2.34 0.80

3.472* CRWDb 66 2.02 0.97 RWMWDb 115 1.99 0.89 Importance of qualities of a neighborhood (5-point scale from very unimportant (-2) to very important (+2)) Access to public transportation MWMOa 71 0.96 1.25

8.740** CRWDb 67 1.42 0.86 RWMWDa 124 0.69 1.24 Opportunities to earn an adequate income MWMOa 71 1.55 0.82

3.146* CRWDab 67 1.36 1.05 RWMWDb 121 1.17 1.13 Opportunities to gather/harvest plants or to fish MWMOa 70 0.47 1.28

3.124* CRWDab 68 0.34 1.23 RWMWDb 124 0.02 1.29 Likelihood of taking clean water actions in the next 12 months (5-point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2)) Attend a community discussion, meeting or public hearing about water

MWMOa 67 0.31 1.21 4.395* CRWDab 67 0.07 1.27

RWMWDb 118 -0.22 1.16 Volunteer for clean water projects MWMOa 67 0.15 1.16

3.628* CRWDa 66 0.14 1.23 RWMWDb 119 -0.24 1.07

#F-statistic for testing differences in means. Items are listed in descending order by F-statistic. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. a, b, cEach superscript letter denotes no significant difference among watersheds at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 based on a least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc test. SD = Standard deviation

108

Table 4. Differences among watershed respondents in familiarity with clean water actions and participation in community activities

Survey item Response Watershed

MWMO CRWD RWMWD χ2 Heard about these clean water actions? Native plants or shrubs in my yard Yes 70.1% 59.1% 80.3%

9.797** No 29.9% 40.9% 19.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Rain gutters or direct water to lawn, flower bed or garden

Yes 74.6% 65.2% 82.0% 6.637* No 25.4% 34.8% 18.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Picking up after your pet and putting waste in trash

Yes 79.4% 82.8% 92.9% 7.554* No 20.6% 17.2% 7.1%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Participated in the community activity in the past 12 months? Attended a meeting, public hearing or community discussion unrelated to the watershed district/organization about water

Yes 12.7% 14.5% 3.9%

6.270* No 87.3% 85.5% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2Chi-square statistic for testing differences in proportion *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. Table 5. Respondents’ perception of their community

N Percent My neighborhood 144 55.2 My city 71 27.2 My close friends and family 19 7.3 My county 9 3.4 Other (e.g., church, condo association) 9 3.4 Organization/groups 6 2.3 My workplace 2 0.8 My ethnic group 1 0.4 My school system 0 0.0

Source: Question 1; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey

109

Table 6. Respondents’ perceived importance of the qualities of a neighborhood

N Mean* SDa

Very

uni

mpo

rtan

tb

Som

ewha

t un

impo

rtan

t

Nei

ther

impo

rtan

t no

r uni

mpo

rtan

t

Som

ewha

t im

port

ant

Very

impo

rtan

t

Clean drinking water 264 1.85 0.56 1.5 0.0 0.4 8.0 90.2 Clean streams, rivers and lakes 263 1.75 0.64 1.1 0.8 1.9 14.4 81.7 Access to basic services (e.g., health care, trasportation) 265 1.61 0.75 1.9 0.4 3.4 23.8 70.6

Good relationships among neighbors 264 1.56 0.68 .8 1.5 1.9 33.0 62.9

Access to natural areas/views 264 1.55 0.81 1.9 0.8 6.8 21.6 68.9 Opportunities for outdoor recreation 264 1.47 0.85 2.3 1.1 6.4 28.0 62.1

Access to good schools 265 1.36 1.07 4.2 2.3 14.0 12.8 66.8 Opportunities to earn an adequate income 259 1.32 1.04 4.2 2.3 10.8 22.4 60.2

A welcoming place for people of all backgrounds and perspectives 262 1.13 1.04 3.4 4.2 15.3 30.5 46.6

Strong family ties 258 1.02 1.10 3.9 5.8 18.6 27.5 44.2 Access to public transportation 262 0.95 1.19 7.6 3.8 16.0 31.3 41.2 Opportunities to communicate in my primary language 258 0.85 1.22 7.8 2.7 28.3 19.4 41.9

Opportunities to express my culture and traditions 261 0.57 1.11 6.5 8.0 29.1 34.9 21.5

Opportunities to be involved in community projects 262 0.56 0.94 2.7 9.9 29.4 44.7 13.4

Opportunities to gather/harvest plants or to fish 262 0.23 1.28 14.9 11.1 28.2 28.2 17.6

Opportunities to serve in leadership roles 261 0.08 1.10 12.3 10.3 44.4 23.4 9.6

Source: Questions 4a-4p; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from Very unimportant (-2) to Very important (2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

110

Table 7. Respondents’ perceptions about their neighborhood

N Mean* SDa

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

eeb

Som

ewha

t di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

agr

ee

nor d

isag

ree

Som

ewha

t ag

ree

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

People like me are able to make an impact and make our neighborhood a better place to live.

264 0.72 0.95 3.0 5.7 27.7 43.9 19.7

My neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues. 264 0.64 1.01 3.4 8.3 29.5 38.3 20.5

My neighborhood has become a better place to be in the past 5 years (or since moving here if less than 5 years).

263 0.48 1.15 7.2 10.3 31.2 30.0 21.3

My local government (e.g., city, county) does a good job of listening to residents about problems.

262 0.27 1.15 9.9 13.7 29.0 34.4 13.0

Residents in my neighborhood work together to solve local issues. 263 0.24 1.15 10.6 13.3 28.9 35.7 11.4

I am generally trusting of government agencies. 263 0.24 1.17 9.5 19.0 20.9 39.2 11.4

My neighborhood has strong leadership. 263 0.04 1.16 12.5 15.6 38.8 21.7 11.4 Local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in my neighborhood. 263 0.02 0.98 9.1 14.4 46.8 24.3 5.3

Source: Questions 5a-5h; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent Table 8. Respondents’ familiarity with and participation in community activities in the past 12 months

Heard about the opportunity

Participated

N Yes a No N Yes No Attending neighborhood meetings 252 51.2 48.8 238 26.5 73.5 Volunteering for neighborhood projects 249 46.6 53.4 229 22.7 77.3 Obtaining additional information about neighborhood issues 247 38.5 61.5 226 23.0 77.0

Talking with others about water problems 252 23.0 77.0 221 17.2 82.8 Helping organize community programs 245 25.7 74.3 221 9.5 90.5 Attending a meeting, public hearing or community discussion unrelated to the watershed district/organization about water

251 18.3 81.7 220 9.1 90.9

Working with neighborhood residents to protect water (unrelated to the watershed district/organization) 251 9.2 90.8 216 7.4 92.6

Participating in watershed district/organization program or event 250 14.8 85.2 220 5.0 95.0

Source: Question 17; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey

111

a Percent Table 9. Individuals or groups that influence respondents’ decisions about getting involved in their community

N Mean* SDa Not at

allb Slightly Moderately A lot Don't

know/Not applicable

My family 263 2.90 1.13 18.3 12.9 26.6 39.5 2.7 My neighbors 260 2.71 0.99 14.2 24.2 36.9 24.2 0.4 My city government 258 2.45 0.95 17.8 33.7 32.6 14.7 1.2 Community non-profit organizations 257 2.31 0.98 22.2 36.6 24.5 13.6 3.1

Neighborhood associations 257 2.24 1.04 29.6 26.5 26.8 12.8 4.3

Environmental organizations 253 2.19 0.99 29.2 30.8 26.5 10.7 2.8

Business owners/leaders in my community

256 2.17 0.97 29.3 32.0 26.6 9.8 2.3

My county government 256 2.14 0.96 30.5 30.9 28.1 8.2 2.3 Elders in my community 257 2.14 1.00 31.9 27.2 26.5 9.3 5.1

Local media 256 2.09 0.90 30.5 30.9 30.5 4.3 3.9 Faith leaders in my community 257 2.07 1.06 40.1 21.0 24.9 10.9 3.1

State government agencies 257 2.00 0.90 35.0 32.3 25.7 4.7 2.3

Source: Questions 2a-2m; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 4-point scale from not at all (0) to a lot (4) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent Table 10. Respondents' most trusted sources of information regarding community issues

N Percent* My neighbors 104 38.8% My city government 104 38.8% My family 80 29.9% Local media 78 29.1% Environmental organizations 59 22.0% My county government 41 15.3% Community non-profit organizations 40 14.9% Neighborhood associations 37 13.8% Faith leaders in my community 36 13.4% Business owners/leaders in my community 30 11.2% State government agencies 24 9.0% Other (e.g., Minnesota Public Radio, newspaper) 24 9.0% Elders in my community 16 6.0% My watershed district or organization 14 5.2%

*Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

112

Table 11. Respondents’ perceived social norms of civic action

N Mean* SDa

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

eeb

Som

ewha

t di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

agr

ee

nor d

isag

ree

Som

ewha

t agr

ee

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

I generally want to do what people who are important to me want me to do. 265 0.34 1.12 9.4 10.9 28.3 38.9 12.5

People who are important are important to me attend meetings, hearings or community discussions.

265 0.22 1.12 10.2 13.6 30.2 36.2 9.8

People who are important to me expect me to be involved in community issues. 265 0.14 1.07 9.8 13.2 38.5 29.8 8.7

Source: Questions 3a-3c; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent Table 12. Respondents’ perceptions about what comes to mind first when they think of water

N Percent Drinking water 181 68.8 Streams, rivers or lakes 56 21.3 Groundwater 13 4.9 Rain water/snowmelt 13 4.9

Source: Question 6; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey Table 13. Respondents’ uses of water in or near their neighborhoods

N Percent* Drinking water 255 95.1 Watering plants/lawn 209 78.0 Experiencing scenic beauty 170 63.4 Place to observe wildlife (e.g., birding) 151 56.3 Setting for picnicking and family gatherings 103 38.4 Swimming in pools 74 27.6 Swimming in lakes or streams 67 25.0 Canoeing/kayaking/other boating 49 18.3 Fishing for sport 37 13.8

Source: Question 7; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268) Table 14. Respondents’ familiarity with water issues around their neighborhood

Response N Percent Not at all familiar 91 34.6 Slightly familiar 94 35.7 Moderately familiar 68 25.9 Very familiar 10 3.8

Source: Question 9; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey

113

Table 15. Respondents’ perception of the quality of water in the stream, lake, or river water closest to them

Response N Percent Very poor 9 3.4 Poor 20 7.6 Fair 91 34.7 Good 74 28.2 Very good 22 8.4 Don't know 46 17.6

Source: Question 10; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey Table 16. Respondents’ beliefs about water pollution

N

Mean*

SD a Stro

ngly

di

sagr

eeb

Som

ewha

t di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

So

mew

hat

agre

e

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

Water pollution can affect human health. 267 1.93 0.35 0.4 0 0.4 5.2 94.0

Water in Minnesota needs better protection. 264 1.18 0.87 0.4 3.4 17.4 35.2 43.6

Water in my neighborhood is adequately protected. 265 0.58 0.93 3.0 8.3 30.2 44.9 13.6

Protecting water in my neighborhood is a lost cause. 263 -0.94 1.01 37.3 27.0 30.0 3.4 2.3

Source: Question 14; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent Table 17. Respondents’ beliefs about responsibility for water resource protection in their neighborhood

N Percent a My city government 239 89.2 Residents 221 82.5 I should be 214 79.9 My watershed district/organization 203 75.7 My county government 202 75.4 Local business owners 199 74.3 State government 189 70.5 Local neighborhood organizations 148 55.2 Federal government 148 55.2

Source: Question19; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

114

Table 18. Respondents’ most important sources of information about water issues N Percent Local media (e.g., newspaper, television) 156 58.2% My city government 114 42.5% MN Department of Natural Resources 82 30.6% Neighbors 80 29.9% Internet 59 22.0% My watershed district/organization 51 19.0% MN Pollution Control Agency 51 19.0% My family 47 17.5% MN Department of Health 42 15.7% Other environmental organizations 38 14.2% My county government 31 11.6% Federal government agencies 8 3.0%

Source: Question 13; Clean Water, Community and You Table 19. Respondents’ reported experience with water problems around their neighborhood in the past 3 years

N Percent Yes 76 29.1 No 185 70.9

Source: Question 12; Clean water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey Table 20. Water problems identified by respondents who have heard of water problems in their neighborhood in the past 3 years

N Percent Storm drain issues 34 44.7 Algae 32 42.1 Aquatic invasive species 20 26.3 Sanitary sewer issues 16 21.1 Unsafe drinking water 15 19.7 Lake water levels 15 19.7 Flooding 14 18.4 Stream pollution 12 15.8 Water damage to streets or sidewalks 12 15.8 Salt or chloride levels 9 11.8 Industrial/commercial spills or contamination 8 10.5 Don't know 3 3.9

Source: Question 12b; Clean Water, Community and You

115

Table 21. Respondents’ concerns around water issues in their neighborhood

N Mean * SDa Very

unc

once

rned

b

Som

ewha

t unc

once

rned

Nei

ther

con

cern

ed n

or

unco

ncer

ned

Som

ewha

t con

cern

ed

Very

con

cern

ed

Water pollution in general 263 0.94 1.00 3.0 6.5 15.2 43.7 31.6 Water that is not healthy for fish 262 0.86 1.14 5.3 7.3 18.3 34.0 35.1 Sanitary sewer issues 263 0.82 1.12 4.9 7.2 21.7 33.5 32.7 Aquatic invasive species 262 0.81 1.11 5.0 6.5 23.7 32.4 32.4 Storm drain issues 262 0.79 1.08 5.7 5.3 20.2 42.0 26.7 Overuse of water for lawns 263 0.75 1.09 4.6 8.0 23.6 35.7 28.1 Loss of scenic views 262 0.73 1.17 6.9 7.3 22.5 32.4 30.9 Stormwater runoff 261 0.70 1.06 4.6 7.7 24.1 39.8 23.8 Lake water levels dropping 263 0.68 1.12 5.3 8.7 25.5 33.8 26.6 Water that is not safe for drinking 263 0.66 1.29 8.4 11.0 21.7 24.0 35.0 Water that is not safe for swimming 262 0.66 1.16 7.3 6.9 25.6 33.6 26.7

Flooding in my neighborhood 264 -0.25 1.31 23.5 20.1 25.0 20.8 10.6 Flooding at my residence 262 -0.37 1.36 27.5 22.5 21.4 16.4 12.2

Source: Question 15; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a five-point scale from very unconcerned (-2) to very concerned (+2). a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

116

Table 22. Respondents’ familiarity with and use of clean water actions Heard about the

action Action used on

property N Yesa No N Yes No

Keeping grass clippings and leaves out of the street 258 86.0 14.0 246 84.6 15.4

Minimizing use of fertilizers/pesticides on lawn and gardens 257 86.8 13.2 242 74.4 25.6

Using less tap water in my house or on my lawn 256 79.7 20.3 246 70.7 29.3 Minimizing the use of sidewalk salt and deicers 257 79.4 20.6 241 66.8 33.2 Clearing storm drains of leaves, sand and litter 257 81.7 18.3 241 64.3 35.7 Native plants or shrubs in my yard 255 72.2 27.8 246 53.7 46.3 Picking up after your pet and putting in the trash 240 86.7 13.3 254 48.8 8.3 No pet

42.9 Rain gutters to direct water to lawn, flower bed or garden 255 75.7 24.3 245 48.2 51.8

Rain garden 253 70.4 29.6 242 17.8 82.2 Rain barrel or cistern to store water 260 75.0 25.0 249 14.5 85.5 Pervious/permeable pavement 253 40.7 59.3 229 5.7 94.3

Source: Question 16; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent Table 23. Respondents’ likelihood of taking clean water actions in the next 12 months

N Mean* SDa Very

unl

ikel

yb

Som

ewha

t un

likel

y

Nei

ther

like

ly

nor u

nlik

ely

Som

ewha

t lik

ely

Very

like

ly

Change something I do at home to protect water 257 0.95 1.00 3.9 3.1 19.5 41.2 32.3

Encourage others to get involved in clean water activities 253 0.17 1.12 11.1 11.5 37.5 28.9 11.1

Work with other neighborhood residents to protect water 254 0.13 1.13 11.4 13.4 36.6 28.3 10.2

Talk to neighbors about clean water activities 255 0.08 1.19 14.9 12.2 32.9 29.8 10.2

Attend a community discussion, meeting, or public hearing about water 252 0.00 1.22 15.9 15.9 31.0 27.0 10.3

Participate in a clean water stewardship program 254 -0.02 1.12 15.0 11.0 43.7 22.0 8.3

Volunteer for clean water projects 252 -0.04 1.15 15.1 13.9 39.7 22.6 8.7 Source: Question18; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

117

Table 24. Conditions that make it more likely that respondents would use clean water actions N Percent * Knew more about how to use the actions 159 59.3 Knew why the actions helped clean water 154 57.5 Had financial assistance to help me use the actions 117 43.7 Know that the city/county encouraged the actions 116 43.3 Could be assured the actions are safe for your family 105 39.2 Had help with the physical labor needed to use the actions 89 33.2 Could attend a community meeting to learn more about the actions 80 29.9 Could talk to others who use the actions 75 28.0 Nothing would make me more likely to do these actions 22 8.2

Source: Question 16b; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268) Table 25. Conditions that make it more likely that respondents would get involved in community activities

N Percent a Knew why the activities helped the community 131 48.9 Knew more about how to get involved 126 47.0 Knew that the city/county encouraged the activities 94 35.1 Could talk to others who have been involved 76 28.4 Had financial assistance to get involved 56 20.9 Had transportation to the activities 30 11.2 Could have access to childcare during the activities 22 8.2 Nothing would make me more likely to do get involved in community activities 54 20.1

Source: Question 17b; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268) Table 26. Number of respondents by adoption of clean water actions

Levels of clean water actiona N Percent High action 132 51.0 Low action 127 49.0 259 100.0

aBased on an index of survey questions 16a through 16k. High action = respondents who have used 6 or more of the 11 clean water actions, low action = respondents who have used 5 or fewer of the 11 clean water actions

118

Table 27. Differences between adopters of clean water actions and non-adopters in their social norms, beliefs about their neighborhood, and concern about water issues

Survey item N Mean SD t# Social norm (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) People who are important to me expect me to be involved in community issues.

Adoptersa 132 0.30 0.96 -2.640** Non-adopters 125 -0.06 1.17 Beliefs about their neighborhood (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) My neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues.

Adopters Non-adopters

132 124

0.77 0.48

0.95 1.06 -2.302*

Residents in my neighborhood work together to solve local issues.

Adopters 132 0.38 1.13 -2.236* Non-adopters 123 0.06 1.17 Concern about water issues (5-point scale from very unconcerned (-2) to very concerned (+2)) Stormwater runoff Adopters 130 0.89 0.95 -2.691** Non-adopters 124 0.53 1.13

aBased on an index of survey questions 16a through 16k. Adopters = respondents who have used 6 or more of the 11 clean water actions, non-adopters = respondents who have used 5 or fewer clean water actions #T-test statistic for testing differences in means. Items are reported in descending order by t-statistic. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. SD = Standard deviation

Table 28. Number of respondents by levels of civic engagement Levels of civic engagementa N Percent High 115 47.5 Low 127 52.5 242 100.0

aBased on an index of survey questions 17a through 17h. High = respondents who have participated in 1 or more of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months, low = respondents who have not participated in any of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months.

119

Table 29. Differences between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement in their social norms, perceptions of neighborhood qualities and beliefs about their neighborhood

Survey item Levels of civic engagementa

N Mean SD t#

Social norm (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) People who are important to me expect me to be involved in community issues

High 115 0.50 0.96 -4.975** Low 125 -0.16 1.07 People who are important to me attend meetings, hearings or community discussions.

High 115 0.57 1.02 -4.692** Low 125 -0.09 1.13 Importance of neighborhood qualities (5-point scale from very unimportant (-2) to very important (+2)) Good relationships with neighbors High 115 1.73 0.52 -3.921**

Low 124 1.40 0.74 Opportunities to be involved in community projects High 114 0.82 0.86 -3.812**

Low 124 0.36 0.97 A welcoming place for people of all backgrounds and perspectives

High 114 1.42 0.82 -3.811** Low 124 0.92 1.17

Access to good schools High 115 1.62 0.79 -3.183** Low 125 1.19 1.22

Opportunities to express my culture and traditions High Low

113 124

0.76 0.45

1.02 1.16

-2.167*

Beliefs about their neighborhood (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) My neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues.

High Low

115 124

0.97 0.31

0.97 0.93 -5.435**

Residents in my neighborhood work together to solve local issues.

High Low

114 124

0.59 -0.09

1.14 1.11 -4.642**

My neighborhood has strong leadership. High 114 0.38 1.20 -4.217** Low 124 -0.25 1.09 People like me are able to make an impact and make our neighborhood a better place to live.

High 115 0.95 0.96 -3.819** Low 124 0.48 0.91 Local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in my neighborhood.

High 114 0.24 1.02 -3.257** Low 124 -0.18 0.94 My local government (e.g., city, county) does a good job of listening to residents about problems.

High 113 0.45 1.14 -2.914** Low 124 0.02 1.15 My neighborhood has become a better place to be in the past 5 years (or since moving here if less than 5 years)

High 114 0.70 1.09 -2.816** Low 124 0.28 1.20 I am generally trusting of government agencies. High 114 0.39 1.09 -2.493* Low 124 0.02 1.24

aBased on an index of survey questions 17a through 17h. High = respondents who have participated in 1 or more of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months, low = respondents who have not participated in any of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months. #T-test statistic for testing differences in means. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. Items are reported in descending order by t-statistic. SD = Standard deviation

A Community Capacity Assessment of Stormwater Management ... · This project is an assessment of...

Documents

Transcript of A Community Capacity Assessment of Stormwater Management ... · This project is an assessment of...