The Influence of Local Waterways, Recreational Activity, and Community Participation on Quality of Life and Conservation Policy Perspectives

Transcription

1 The Influence of Local Waterways, Recreational Activity, and Community Participation on Quality of Life and Conservation Policy Perspectives Brett Alan Miller, Courtney Flint, Douglas Jackson-Smith, Utah State University

2 Presentation Outline Intro to Water in Utah and Larger Research Context iutah Household Water Survey This Research Research questions Theoretical background Methods and analysis Results Quality of Life Relationship between quality of life and water policy attitudes Local waterways and quality of life Community participation & recreation activity influence on quality of life Cumulative implications for water policy attitudes Discussion & Conclusions

3 Introduction Water in Utah Utah is the second driest state in the U.S. Understanding relationship between people and waterways is vital Previous work tells us: Recreation activity influences environmental perception Community participation is related to place-attachment Place-attachment is also related to environmental perception and attitudes Following up on these ideas, a large-scale household survey explored: Urban Utah resident perspectives on water issues The influence of local rivers on community quality of life Attitudes towards Utah s water resource goals

4 80% of Utah s Population Lives Along Wasatch Front

5 2014 iutah Household Survey To assess water perceptions & actions Drop-Off/Pick-Up Survey The Utah Method - Great Response Rates! Based on social contract theory and a lot of labor Field teams drop off survey & arrange to pick up hours/days later Spanish versions 13 pages of questions Data for several studies, including this one

6 iutah Study Watersheds/Valleys 23 neighborhoods 4,000+ housing units were randomly sampled 69% overall response rate 2406 completed surveys Cache Valley Salt Lake Valley Heber Valley 2,343 usable surveys Over 500,000 data points Source: Enjie Li

7 Respondent Characteristics Education Level Income Level Tenure 2.9% less than high school 24.2% 26.2% 11.8% 32.3% high school diploma some college 4-year college degree graduate degree 22.4% 13.9% 19.3% 15.1% 20.5% Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 Over $100, % 22.4% Rent Own Waterbody Type Race/Ethnicity Length of Time at Residence 44.1% 55.9% Canal River % % Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Native American Hispanic or Latino White 41.1% 12.7% 16.1% 15.3% 10.9% less than 1 year 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years Other more than 10 years

8 Previous Research Findings Water-related recreation is significantly and positively related to concerns about water shortage and poor water quality. Recreation and Water Shortage Concern (Estimate=0.19, p<.05, odds ratio 1.21, t-value 3.17) Recreation and Poor Water Quality Concern (Estimate=0.197, p<0.05, odds ratio 1.22, t-value 3.41) This presentation builds on those findings and focuses on the relationship between engagement in water-related recreational activities as well as community participation and perspectives of local waterways related to quality of life and water policy perspectives.

9 Research Questions 1. Do local waterways contribute to a positive perception of quality of life in one s neighborhood? 1. Does this vary across different types of local water features (canals, rivers, creeks) 2. Does this correlate with overall perception of quality of life? 2. Does community participation mediate the relationship between local waterways and perception of neighborhood quality of life? 3. Does recreation activity mediate the relationship between local waterways and perception of neighborhood quality of life? 4. How does the combined effect of these three constructs on perception of quality of life in one s neighborhood help explain differences in water policy attitudes?

10 Theoretical background to this study Relationship between place-attachment and landscape values (Brown & Raymond 2007) Community-attachment related to place-attachment (Trentelman 2009) Community participation: based on shared identity and territory (Wilkinson 1991) Perception of potential environmental hazards filtered by place-attachment (Burley, Jenkins, Laska & Davis 2007) Recreation activity leads to environmental attitudes and perceptions (Burger, 1998; Cordell, Green & Betz 2002)

11 Local Waterways - Rivers, Creeks, Canals & None

12 Analytical Methods Descriptive statistics on Perceived Quality of Life Bivariate Cross-tabulation with Water Policy Multivariate Ordinal regressions of: Correlation of satisfaction measures with quality of life Add perception of local waterways Add recreation index Add community participation index R1 R2 R3 Analysis of recreation index and community participation index as independent variables R4 Cross-tabulations with water policies Perception of local waterways Recreation index Community participation index

13 Overall, how satisfied are respondents with their respective neighborhoods? 1-5 Likert scale N Mean Std. Deviation How satisfied are you with the APPEARANCE OF HOMES AND YARDS in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the OPPORTUNITIES TO INTERACT WITH NEIGHBORS in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the NUMBER OF SHADE TREES in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the QUALITY OF PARKS AND COMMON SPACES in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 2267

14 Why does perceived quality of life matter? Because it is key to attitudes about environmental policy! Policy measures Significance Value Ensure a supply of drinking water p < Ensure a supply of water for agriculture p < Ensure a supply of water for economic development p < Ensure a supply of water for recreational activities p < Protecting water quality p < Protecting wetland and wildlife habitat Not significant - Saving taxpayer money Not significant - Use funds to build new reservoirs p < Use funds to construct pipelines Not significant - Use funds to improve agricultural systems p < Use funds to improve water infrastructure for cities p < Invest in research for conservation practices p < Allow people with water rights to sell water p < Set state standards for new construction to reduce water waste p < Establish minimum flow requirments to protect fish p < Fasciltate transfers from agriculture to urban users Not significant - Ensure policy protects existing water rights Not significant - Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation

15 Overall, how satisfied are respondents with their respective neighborhoods? Satisfaction compared to perception of QoL Could local waterways explain the 0.49 difference? N Mean Std. Deviation How satisfied are you with the APPEARANCE OF HOMES AND YARDS in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the OPPORTUNITIES TO INTERACT WITH NEIGHBORS in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the NUMBER OF SHADE TREES in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the QUALITY OF PARKS AND COMMON SPACES in your neighborhood? How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 2267

16 How much variance in QoL is explained by local waterway influence? (R1) First, Satisfaction measures alone: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.546 p<.000 Second, What is the average perception of local waterway s contribution to QOL? Average: 4.04 (1-5 Likert Scale)

17 How much variance in QoL is explained by local waterway influence? (R1) Third, Adding perception of local waterway QoL: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.549 p<.000 So, we are.03% closer

18 Does the specific type of waterway influence quality of life in neighborhood? Descriptive Statistics a ANOVA Local water feature type N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Canal Overall, how has the local waterway influenced quality of life in this neighborhood? Overall, how has the local waterway influenced quality of life in this neighborhood? Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total River Creek Valid N (listwise) 628 Overall, how has the local waterway influenced quality of life in this neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 1011 Overall, how has the local waterway influenced quality of life in this neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 510 a. No statistics are computed for one or more split files because there are no valid cases.

19 Satisfaction by waterway type How satisfied are respondents with their respective neighborhoods separated by waterway type? Local waterway type N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation None How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 43 Canal How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 655 ANOVA How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups River Creek How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Valid N (listwise) 1055 How satisfied are you with the OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE in your neighborhood? Total Valid N (listwise) 538

20 Perception of Local Waterways compared to Quality of Life Ordinal regression Local Waterways correlation with QoL Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.057, p<.000 Ordinal regression Local Waterways + satisfaction index correlation with QoL Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.549, p<.000 Ordinal regression Local Waterways + satisfaction index correlation with QoL by waterway type Canal: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.593, p<.000 River: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.603, p<.000 Creek: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.532, p<.000 Ordinal regression Local Waterways correlation with QoL by waterway type Canal: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.034, p<.000 River: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.063, p<.000 Creek: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square:.041, p<.000

21 Community Participation & Water-related Recreation Activity (R2, R3) Water-related recreational activity index: Fishing Boating Gardening Walking/hiking near water Skiing or snowboarding Snowmobiling Birdwatching near waterbodies Hunting waterfowl Community participation index: School group activities Church activities Civic or charity groups Contacted a public official about an issue Attended a public meeting or hearing Worked with others on problem in community Served on government board, committee, or commission

22 Ordinal Regression Correlations (+ satisfaction and local waterways) with Overall Quality of Life The Effect of Community Participation: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square: p<.000 So, 1.5% closer The Effect of Recreation Activity: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square: p<.000 So, 1.8% closer The Combined Effect: Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square: p<.000 So, 2.7% closer!

23 Importantly, Community Participation and Water-related Recreation Activity Not Correlated! Cox and Snell Pseudo R-Square: p= 1.0 So, unrelated variables both independently contributing to perceived quality of life

24 Correlation with Perception of Local Waterway 95% Wald Confidence Interval Hypothesis Test Wald Chi- Parameter B Std. Error Lower Upper Square df Sig. Threshold [E13=1] [E13=2] [E13=3] [E13=4] Community Participation Recreation Activity

25 Perceived Quality of Life by Conservation Policies Policy measures Significance Value Ensure a supply of drinking water p < Ensure a supply of water for agriculture p < Ensure a supply of water for economic development p < Ensure a supply of water for recreational activities p < Protecting water quality p < Protecting wetland and wildlife habitat Not significant - Saving taxpayer money Not significant - Use funds to build new reservoirs p < Use funds to construct pipelines to bring water to urban users Not Significant - Use funds to improve agricultural systems p < Use funds to improve water infrastructure for cities p < Invest in research for conservation practices p < Allow people with water rights to sell water p < Set state standards for new construction to reduce water waste p < Establish minimum flow requirements to protect fish p < Facilitate transfers from agriculture to urban users Not Significant - Ensure policy protects existing water rights Not significant - Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation

26 Influence of Local Waterway on Quality of Life by Conservation Policies Policy measures Significance Value Ensure a supply of drinking water p < Ensure a supply of water for agriculture p < Ensure a supply of water for economic development Not Significant - Ensure a supply of water for recreational activities p < Protecting water quality p < Protecting wetland and wildlife habitat p < Saving taxpayer money p <.000 (-) Use funds to build new reservoirs p < Use funds to construct pipelines to bring water to urban users Not Significant - Use funds to improve agricultural systems p < Use funds to improve water infrastructure for cities p < Invest in research for conservation practices p < Allow people with water rights to sell water p < Set state standards for new construction to reduce water waste p < Establish minimum flow requirements to protect fish p < Facilitate transfers from agriculture to urban users Not Significant - Ensure policy protects existing water rights p < Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation

27 Recreation Activity by Conservation Policies Policy measures Significance Value Ensure a supply of drinking water p < Ensure a supply of water for agriculture Not Significant - Ensure a supply of water for economic development Not Significant - Ensure a supply of water for recreational activities p < Protecting water quality Not Significant - Protecting wetland and wildlife habitat p < Saving taxpayer money p <.002 (-) Use funds to build new reservoirs Not Significant - Use funds to construct pipelines to bring water to urban users p <.000 (-) 0.90 Use funds to improve agricultural systems p < Use funds to improve water infrastructure for cities Not Significant - Invest in research for conservation practices Not Significant - Allow people with water rights to sell water p < Set state standards for new construction to reduce water waste p < Establish minimum flow requirements to protect fish p < Facilitate transfers from agriculture to urban users Not Significant - Ensure policy protects existing water rights Not Significant - Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation

28 Community Participation by Conservation Policies Policy measures Significance Value Ensure a supply of drinking water p < Ensure a supply of water for agriculture Not Significant - Ensure a supply of water for economic development Not Significant - Ensure a supply of water for recreational activities Not Significant - Protecting water quality Not Significant - Protecting wetland and wildlife habitat p <.000 (-) Saving taxpayer money p <.002 (-) Use funds to build new reservoirs Not Significant - Use funds to construct pipelines to bring water to urban users p <.000 (-) Use funds to improve agricultural systems Not Significant - Use funds to improve water infrastructure for cities Not Significant - Invest in research for conservation practices Not Significant - Allow people with water rights to sell water p < Set state standards for new construction to reduce water waste Not Significant - Establish minimum flow requirements to protect fish Not Significant - Facilitate transfers from agriculture to urban users p <.001 (-) Ensure policy protects existing water rights p <.000 (-).093 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation

29 Engaging the Correct Variables for Policies Policy Perceived Quality of Life Local Waterway Recreation Activity Community Participation Protecting wetland and wildlife habitat 0.148*** 0.131*** (-) 0.105*** - Establish minimum flow requirements to protect fish 0.072** 0.156*** 0.179*** Ensure policy protects existing water rights -.079*** - - (-).093***

30 Influence of Specific Recreation on Policy Attitudes Those who fish ***, boat *, garden, walk or hike near water ***, ski ***, go birdwatching ***, or hunt waterfowl * are more likely to support policies to establish minimum flow requirements for streams to protect fish habitat. Those who fish ***, garden, walk or hike near water ***, ski ***, go birdwatching ***,, or hunt waterfowl are more likely to support policies to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat. p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

31 Specific Recreation Effects Influence of Recreation on QoL Those who ski ***, walk or hike near water ***, garden ***, or go boating * indicate higher quality of life in their neighborhood. Influence of Recreation on influence of local waterway on quality of life Those who fish, boat **, garden ***, walk or hike near water ***, ski ***, or go birdwatching *** indicate more positive influence of local waterway on neighborhood quality of life. p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

32 Discussion Perception of Local Waterways contribute to perceived quality of life Consistent with place attachment literature (Stedman 2006). Community Participation contributes to perceived quality of life Consistent with community attachment literature and community field theory (Brennan & Israel 2003; Bessant 2012) Water related recreation activities contribute to perceived quality of life (Theodori, Luloff & Willits 1998; Burmil, Daniel & Hetherington 1999) Recreation isn t on local waterways but correlates with perception of local waterways Need for further analysis on specific recreation types

33 Conclusion Community Participation, recreational activity and perception of local waterways: 3 independent variables that correlate with: Perceived quality of life and water policy attitudes Direct, indirect and diffuse correlations Quality of life correlated with water policy attitudes Recreation activity also correlates directly with perception of local waterways and water policy attitudes Perception of local waterway correlates directly with water policies Each of these three independent variables needs consideration when engaging the public about future water policies

34 Acknowledgements This research was supported by NSF EPSCoR grant IIA awarded to Utah State University, as part of the State of Utah EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. iutah Research Fellows Survey Respondents

35 Thank you! 2016 River Management Symposium and National Outdoor Recreation Conference Questions?

36 Publically Available Resources

37 References Bessant, K. C. (2012). The Interactional Community: Emergent Fields of Collective Agency. Sociological Inquiry, 82(4), Brennan, M. A., & Israel, G. D. (2003). The Power of Community. Community Development, 39(1), Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), Burger, J Attitudes about recreation, environmental problems, and estuarine health along the New Jersey shore, USA. Environmental Management 22(6): Burley, D., Jenkins, P., Laska, S., & Davis, T. (2007). Place Attachment and Environmental Change in Coastal Louisiana. Organization & Environment, 20(3), Burmil, S., T.C. Daniel, and J.D. Hetherington Human values and perceptions of water in arid landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 44(2-3): Cordell, H.K., G.T. Green, and C.J. Betz Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporary American society. Leisure Sciences 24(1): Stedman, R. C. (2006). Understanding Place Attachment Among Second Home Owners. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(2). Theodori, G.L., A.E. Luloff, and F.K. Willits The association of outdoor recreation and environmental concern: reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology 63(1): Trentelman, C. K. (2009). Place Attahcment and Community Attachment: A Primer Grounded in the Lived Experience of a Community Sociologist. Society and Natural Resources, 22, Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The Community in Rural America (First). Middleton, WI: Social Ecological Press.