What is a successful ecological
restoration process?
West Eugene Wetlands Project
3000 acres, 13 Years
$40 million, 25 funding sources
Many partners, including
Eugene, Lane County,
BLM, TNC, USACE, EPA,
USFW, DSL, DEQ
Court Smith, Department of Anthropology
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/
Ecological Restoration, Corvallis: May 4, 2007
Acknowledgments
Support from the National Science Foundation,
Biocomplexity in the Environment; EPA Water and
Watersheds Program; and Sea Grant Program
Thanks to
John Bolte
Allan Branscomb
Lisa Doolittle
Chris Enright
Jenna Gibson
Jennifer Gilden
Stan Gregory
David Hulse
Davis, Hibbits &
Midghall
Dan Huppert
Long Tom WC
Marys River WC
Andrea Myhre
Lisa Nielson
PNCERS
Bruce Shindler
South Santiam WC
Brent Steel
Interpretations, presentation, associations, confusion,
and errors are solely my responsibility.
Miracle at 33rd Street
M
i
r
a
Questions
• What is the process to get ecological
restoration action?
• Where do people get their ecological
restoration information about restoration?
• What influences the interpretation of
ecological restoration information?
What US Citizens Know
• 40% believe in evolution, dropping from 45%;
only Turkey’s % is lower of 34 nations
• 13% know what a molecule is
• 8th grade math gets a high school diploma in
California
Source: Kristoff 2005; Miller 2006
Sources of Information
Smith et al. 1997
Experiential learning works best for young and old. Can we afford it?
• Values, a lens
through which
we view reality
Schematic of Milbrath’s findings representing the US public’s
position on the DSP-NEP continuum (From Kempton et al. 1995:200).
NEP=New Ecological
Paradigm
AC=adverse
consequences
AR=ascription of
personal
responsibility
Dietz et al. 2005:357
Ecological
restoration
competes
with many
priorities
Connect
ecological
restoration
to many
goals
Ecological
restoration is
about land
use and land
use planning
plays a critical
role.
Values, opinions, attitudes, preferences, desires, beliefs, feelings, intentions are
one of the important aspects of ecological restoration processes.
Rogers 1995:262
Rogers 1995:258
N u m b e r o f P r o je c t s
Willamette Valley Restoration Projects
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1995
1997
1999
Year
2001
2003
What’s this have to do with the restoration process?
Culture, Values, and Social Pressures
Urban Residents and Non-point
Source Pollution:
An Examination of Practices, Influences, and
Values in the Tualatin Watershed
Lisa Nielson
The Goal?
Source: Scott’s Fertilizer Company (www.scotts.com)
Project Design
• Agency perspective:
– In-depth interviews with water quality and
conservation managers
– Content analysis of websites and pamphlets
• Practices, Influences, Values of Urban Residents
– Direct Observations (n=176)
– Direct-mail survey (n=98)
– Short interviews with residents (n=22)
Demographics
Survey
Population
$107-346,000
Residence
Total Value
Education 57% college
grad or higher
Income
$50-75,000
average
Washington
County
90% in same
range
42% in same
range
64% in same
range
Lawn Observations
50
40
30
June
20
August
10
0
green mono yellow mono green mix
yellow mix
Fertilizer/herbicide application per
year
45
40
35
30
25
Lawn Fertilizer
Herbicide
20
15
10
5
0
3 times
Twice
Once
None
Lawn watering per week
45
40
35
30
Daily
2-3 times
Once
Do not water
No lawn
25
20
15
10
5
0
Daily
2-3
times
Once
Do not
water
No
lawn
Lawn type and inputs
Water
2 or
more/wk
Fertilize
2 or more
/yr
Herbicide
2 or more
/yr
Green,
monoculture
lawns
33%
34%
24%
Yellow mixed
lawns
9%
10%
6%
Home, pet, automobile
characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
99% of respondents recycle
60% compost yard waste
7% compost kitchen waste
61% put pet waste in the garbage
16% change their oil at home
28% wash their cars on the street
15% know that water entering a storm
drain goes to the nearest stream
Cultural Influences on
• Yard Care Priorities
“neat” “nice” “clean” “green”
“…would you want your yard looking
scraggly? Why do you take a bath? It is the
same reason.”
Influences Include
• Neighborhood appearance (65%)
– “I think we have a responsibility to our
neighbors to keep our yards nice.”
•
•
•
•
Cost (52%)
Aesthetics (personal enjoyment) (46%)
Property values (44%)
Environment (32%)
Sources of Knowledge
• Other people (friends, family, store
employees, professionals) (95%)
• Labels (5%)
Judgment Day
• Watchful, judgmental neighbors
– “Most of my neighbors do an extremely poor
job, that guy over there only comes out twice
a year!”
– “People have been getting better, but most of
them have a long way to go.”
– Perfect yard = no criticism
Conclusions
• Average watering, fertilizing, and herbicide use
are most likely more than necessary
• Most residents use car washes, properly dispose
of pet waste, but do NOT understand storm
drain-stream connection
• Neighborhood appearance and neighbor
approval are important, along with property
values, costs, time and aesthetics
• People get most information by word-of-mouth
• Residents tend to consider both economics and
environment important
Ames Creek 2001
Ames Creek 2003
South Santiam WC – Ames Creek Project
/Watershed1
Myhre 2004
Elements of
a Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Leadership
Vision
Trust
Networks
Power
Capital
Knowledge
Scientific, technical, legal, and
social knowledge is required
for restoration success.