Community Watershed Organizations in Pennsylvania

Rural Sociology 74(2), 2009, pp. 178–200 Copyright E 2009, by the Rural Sociological Society

Cleaning Up Water? Or Building Rural Community? Community Watershed Organizations in Pennsylvania* Richard Stedman Human Dimensions Research Unit Department of Natural Resources Cornell University

Brian Lee Department of Landscape Architecture University of Kentucky

Kathryn Brasier Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Pennsylvania State University

Jason L. Weigle Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Pennsylvania State University

Francis Higdon Matson and Associates

ABSTRACT Recent initiatives from state and federal government agencies have helped foster the formation of community-based watershed organizations. Although there is a great deal of enthusiasm about the potential of these organizations to enhance water quality, relatively little attention has been paid to the impacts these organizations may have on the well-being of rural communities more generally. Assessments of effectiveness have typically focused on specific activities and accomplishments, rather than a broader range of community-based effects. In short, we ask whether community-based environmental management improves community as well as environment. Our research utilized a mixed-methods design, including a statewide mail survey of all Pennsylvania watershed organizations, followed by in-depth interviews with 28 rural watershed organizations. This sequential approach progressively explored in more detail definitions of effectiveness, including the building of rural capacity. We find watershed organizations are potentially effective mechanisms for building local leadership, enhancing the skills of rural residents, and making valuable connections with other communities, facing similar water-resource and rural-development issues. However, the range of issues with which local watershed organizations engage and the methods they currently utilize may eventually limit their usefulness.

* We would like to acknowledge the Center for Rural Pennsylvania for their financial support for a portion of this research. Direct correspondence to Richard Stedman, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14850 (607-255-9729; [email protected]).

Community Watershed Organizations in Pennsylvania — Stedman et al.

179

Introduction There is growing interest among resource management practitioners and academics in community-based resource management (CBRM). In particular, community watershed organizations (CWOs) are experiencing rapid growth (Griffin 1999; Lee 2005). Although some research has examined the effectiveness of these groups in producing a range of outcomes (Leach and Pelkey 2001), less attention has focused on their effectiveness in building rural community well-being. Our research uses quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the effectiveness of Pennsylvania watershed organizations based on community capacity building. We develop predictive models utilizing variables rooted in community: the presence of partnerships and the potential consensus/ divisiveness characterizing the issues around which these groups focus their attention. Literature Review The Emergence of Community-Based Resource Management Our literature review focuses around treatments of CWOs (and CBRM more generally), which have only peripherally engaged the possibility of community outcomes. We organize our work to respond to this gap, focusing our attention on the experience of U.S.-based organizations. In the United States, community-based environmental organizations appear to be increasing in number, size, and complexity (Baker and Kusel 2003; McCloskey 1999; Moore and Koontz 2003). CBRM focuses on the activities of local stakeholders in the development of policies, programs, and environmental problem amelioration and has been applied to forests (Baker and Kusel 2003; Pagdee, Kim, and Daughtery 2006), wildlife, water resources and fisheries (Armitage 2005; Satria, Matusda, and Sano 2006), land, and agriculture (Kellert et al. 2000). In some areas, CBRM has focused on collective ownership and utilization of natural resources. A growing trend emphasizes integrated, participatory decision making in ecological management (Ewing, Grayson, and Argent 2000; Michaels 2001). CBRM emergence is linked to a number of factors, including increased environmental awareness, increased activism by grassroots and indigenous groups, and governmental devolution (Western and Wright 1994). It has become apparent that managing environmental resources via traditional political administrative boundaries has been problematic, leading to calls for emphasizing ecological boundaries (Barham 2001; Christiansen and Dinerstein 2001; Schelhas 2001). Community-based conservation efforts have emerged from conflicts

180

Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009

over national-level conservation policies and regulations imposed on local communities (Baker and Kusel 2003; Western and Wright 1994). Also important are increasing requirements for public participation (Griffin 1999), especially those pertaining to federal resources (Wilson 2006; Selin, Schuett, and Carr 1997). Weber (2000) places this trend within a movement toward renewed civic participation and community revitalization, including citizen initiation, emphases on place, and collaborative decision making among diverse coalitions. Promise and Perils One potential outcome of CBRM efforts lauded by many is the building of community capacity. Place-based collaborative management emphasizes the contribution of local knowledge to decision making (Cheng, Kruger, and Daniels 2003), which may increase trust and acceptance of agencydriven initiatives (Habron 2003). By involving local stakeholders in the management of locally relevant issues, the probability of long-term success is enhanced, as is the development of other outcomes related to community capacity and governance (Morton 2003; Weber 2003). Another outcome of these efforts is civic environmentalism, or identifying and building a community’s capacity to solve its own environmental problems (Shutkin 2000).The relationship between environmental conditions and the quality of civic life is seen as strong and positive. Morton (2003) emphasizes deliberative interaction processes among groups with a stake in community, which allow multiple voices to be heard, create opportunities for conflict resolution, and reinforce civic community. This enhances community response to issues ranging from natural disasters to economic development (Bridger and Luloff 1999). Despite the enthusiasm surrounding CBRM, some sound discordant notes. Moore and Koontz (2003) note the potential variation in how ‘‘citizen-driven’’ these organizations are. Bloomquist (1992) points out that issues addressed within resource management are subject to the whims of local political power structures. McCarthy (2005) suggests that promotion of community control may represent well-organized attempts to weaken central regulatory authority. Further, emphasizing local environmental issues can result in unequal power relationships between communities (Western and Wright 1994) and within communities (Kellert et al. 2000), as well as potential capture by private interests (Weber 2003). CBRM may also struggle with issues of capacity, as it is difficult to capture the wide spectrum of stakeholders needed to represent resource users, particularly those with little skills or expertise (O’Neill 2005).


181

A Focus on Community Watershed Organizations Enthusiasm for managing water resources at the watershed scale has gained momentum (Brezonik et al. 1999; Johnson, Kaunelis, and Cave 2000; Koles 1998; Omernik and Bailey 1997; USEPA 2005), resulting in a rapid expansion of CWOs across the nation (Bonnell and Koontz 2007; Griffin 1999; Leach and Pelkey 2001). Some factors linked to this emergence reflect those identified for CBRM, but others specific to water include emphases on non-point-source water pollution and outcome-based management, such as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs; the maximum pollution a water body can receive per day averaged over a year and still retain its designated use). These TMDLs allow flexibility in the choice of mechanisms taken to meet water-quality objectives (USDA and USEPA 1998). These efforts are marked by several key facets. They (1) use watersheds as an organizing concept; (2) address multiple causes of environmental problems, incorporate diverse sets of information, and seek multifaceted solutions; (3) include biophysical factors, socioeconomic factors, and local knowledge; (4) emphasize stakeholder interaction; (5) draw on publicprivate partnerships; and (6) use collaborative methods of problem solving and management (Born and Genskow 2000). Morton (2003:123) emphasizes citizen control for the common good and changing norms of people in the watershed ‘‘by raising awareness, reinforcing land and water stewardship values, and using group norm pressures to monitor and enforce practices that limit sediment and nutrient runoff.’’ Assessing CBRM/CWO Effectiveness Assessing the effectiveness of these groups poses a challenge: Scott (1998) and Ashby (1968) note there is no such thing as a good organization in an absolute sense (see also Cline and Collins 2003). The localized nature of CBRM poses a challenge to assessing such groups’ effectiveness—the degree to which their issues, resources, and barriers are particular to their own context makes creating general measures of effectiveness difficult (McGinnis and Wooley 2000). Some work has studied the factors contributing to group effectiveness. Leach and Pelkey (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of ‘‘lessons learned’’ by watershed partnerships. Although it was not an analysis of factors related to effectiveness per se, they identified multiple themes, including those related to resources (funding, membership, leadership), styles of resolving conflict, decision-making styles, and agency involvement. Cline and Collins (2003) measure effectiveness via protection activities and financial resources. Lee (2005) describes eight frameworks for assessing

182


organizational effectiveness, including Murray and Tassie’s (1994) notion of the links between goals and means and Mesch and Schwirian’s (1996) leader assessment of process and outcome-based effectiveness. Alexander (1993) takes a purely outcome-based approach, defining effectiveness only by water-quality improvement (see also Draeger 2001). However, Griffin (1999) notes that determining water-quality-related effectiveness is difficult, due to factors such as lag effects (see also Born and Genskow 2000). Collins et al. (1998) suggest that process indicators help keep participants motivated. Examining Watersheds through an Interactional Field Framework Effectiveness definitions have not emphasized community-developmentbased outcomes. The literature has tended to avoid ‘‘community’’ definitions of watersheds, based as they are on ecological rather than interactional or institutional boundaries, but Barham (2001) and Weigle (2006) note the potential for doing so. The intersection between watersheds and communities depends in large part on the approach to defining community. Although community has historically had a wide variety of connotations, Hillery (1955) notes that most definitions cited an area, common ties, and social interactions as defining features. Interactional field theory emphasizes interaction-based social fields or ‘‘sequence[s] of actions over time carried on by actors generally working through various associations’’ (Theodori 2005:663; emphasis in original). Community fields form through the generalization of social fields, cutting ‘‘across social fields that comprise it, integrating them by creating and maintaining the linkages among the special interest organizations and associations’’ (Pigg 1999:198). Community from the field perspective is defined as ‘‘a place-oriented process of interrelated actions through which members of a local population express a shared sense of identity while engaging in the common concerns of life’’ (Theodori 2005:662–63). From this perspective, community development consists of attempts by people to strengthen a community field. It is strengthened through open channels of communication and cooperation among local groups (Wilkinson 1991). According to Wilkinson (1991), community development has several key characteristics. First, purposive action expresses the identity of the local community and the bond between individuals. Further, the purpose of community development is positive, meaning that actors believe they are improving their lives. The interactions themselves do not have to always be positive on every specific issue: the key is activity toward a common goal or interest of the community. Finally, development is structure-oriented: ‘‘Action is what produces structure’’ (1991:88). As


183

Wilkinson notes, ‘‘The very fact of purposive action itself articulates the linkages that comprise the structure of the community field’’ (1991:88). The emergence of the community field and the strengthening of community structure are based around tasks the actors in the community field perform. As Wilkinson (1991) notes, task accomplishment has five phases: initiation and spread of interest, organization of sponsorship, goal setting and strategy formation, recruitment, and implementation. The first phase, awareness, consists of planning and evaluation across interest lines, which increases understanding of the linkages between various interests in the locality. The second phase organizes the activities toward the common interest of the community, extending the vision beyond any particular issue. The third phase, decision making, includes developing long-range goals and programs to address multiple community interests through coordinated actions. The fourth phase, resource mobilization, entails the processes of preparing the field to address problems within the community. These processes may include legitimatization of the group within the community, education and training, increasing and strengthening ties, and taking part in local governance. The final phase, resource application, means applying resources in a manner balancing the community’s current and future needs. Thus, community development is considered a generalizing process across multiple interest groups. It moves toward the betterment of the local community and strengthens community structure through increasing the number and strength of relationships and ties across community interest groups (Bridger and Luloff 1999). Interactional community provides a mechanism to study common concerns, interactions, and social fields in attempts to develop communities. Wilkinson (1995) lists six prerequisites needed to promote equitable community development: (1) opportunity for widespread local participation; (2) overcoming oppressive rural power structures; (3) structural reorganization focusing on common problems; (4) mobilizing resources, including those from outside the area; (5) information gathering by leaders to make good decisions; (6) capacity-building actions by associations and individuals. Wilkinson’s list is similar to those Weber (2000) and Born and Genskow (2000) note as hallmarks of CBRM, suggesting CBRM, and especially CWOs, can develop community structures. Watersheds as Fostering Community Development? In summary, there are multiple ways to examine the effectiveness of CBRM, but we believe there are important gaps in knowledge. Very

184


little research (see Warner et al. 1999 for an exception) has addressed community-development processes or outcomes of community-based watershed organizations. Actual water-quality improvements, implementation of best-management practices, and the capturing of funding for projects, while important in their own right, are not the only success measures of CWOs. CBRM is an opportunity for rural communities to develop. As noted above, watersheds have not often been considered ‘‘communities.’’ Based on the discussion of community development, this area is ripe for inquiry: watersheds span institutional boundaries and bring together people from multiple regions or municipalities, potentially building new coalition structures and increasing capacity to leverage and mobilize resources. Further, watershed planning approaches may be extended to other issues (see Habron 2004). Good watershed management emphasizes the need to achieve balance among economic, social, and ecological goals (Habron 2003; Keough and Blahna 2006), thus opening the door for other, nonenvironmental outcomes. Finally, communion (Wilkinson 1991) matters: mutual recognition and understanding underlie community ability to function and accept differences among stakeholders. Given the circumstances noted above, watershed-based organizations may support the emergence of a community field, making salient the locale around which people form a sense of identity. Actors within watershed groups represent different associations and social fields, which coalesce to address locality-relevant issues whose source spans social and political boundaries. Generalization across social fields forms the structure of the community field. If the CBRM process enacts positive, purposeful change to the social structure of the community, CBRM organizations help develop community. Thus, the effectiveness of CBRM may not solely reside in environmental change but also in its effectiveness at building community structures and processes dealing with change. Research Background, Questions, and Methods CWOs have a strong presence in Pennsylvania. Lee (2005) identified roughly 500 Pennsylvania organizations meeting the CWO criteria of working in watersheds in the state, as nonprofit, voluntary organizations, with or without paid staff, with water issues as a primary theme. This CWO prevalence reflects the general trends identified above, but also context-specific factors. Foremost is Pennsylvania’s richness of flowing water resources: Pennsylvania has over 80,000 miles of streams and rivers which face diverse threats, including acid mine drainage, excess nutrient loading, sedimentation, altered hydrology, chemical


185

pollutants, invasive species, urbanization and recreational conflict. The Susquehanna River, flowing primarily through Pennsylvania, was named in 2005 by American Rivers (http://www.americanrivers.org) as the nation’s most endangered river. A major factor in the emergence and growth of CWOs in Pennsylvania was the Growing Greener Program, which was passed in a statewide 1997 referendum and was authorized in 1999. This program distributed $547,000,000 over five years through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, with targeted grant programs for local CWOs. Growing Greener II was approved in April 2005, and reauthorized the program, adding $625,000,000 of funding. Through Growing Greener, CWOs with nonprofit status can apply for project funds, which may be used for a wide variety of projects, such as hiring watershed coordinators, conducting research, or working for stream remediation. These funds have been crucial to the recent formation and continued support of many groups: Lee (2005) found over half of responding organizations in his study received a Growing Greener grant in 2001. Our research explores the ‘‘effectiveness’’ of CWOs including the emergence of broader community action. Many approaches in the CWO literature emphasize variables such as organizational durability, resources (e.g., grants and membership), or alterations to the physical landscape (e.g., trees planted, stream crossings installed, mine drainage sources mitigated). The accomplishments approach to measuring effectiveness has several shortcomings: from an analysis standpoint, finding common ground among very diverse activities is difficult: for example, how many trees planted equal one presentation given? How many miles of fenced stream banks equal the remediation of one leaking mine? Creating a common denominator is impossible, especially given the need to incorporate local context: in some settings, planting trees may be a crucial need. In others, it may be a ‘‘Band Aid’’ solution. Crucially, the communitydevelopment outcomes in which we have an interest are often not considered as accomplishments by the groups and may be underreported. A second area of our research examines the factors related to effectiveness. Among the possible factors, we focus on several key predictors within the framework of CBRM: the role of collaborative partnerships and the type of issues on which the group focuses. These factors emerged as themes gleaned both from interviews and from core areas in interactional community theory. Action resulting in development of community emerges from the intersection of partnerships. A wide spectrum of people working together on community-oriented issues is important to the development of community. As such, we envision partnerships as a key indicator of the capacity to work collaboratively.

186


The capacity to form collaborative partnerships may be based in part on issue type. Many groups likely form to address widely recognized problems, crucial for garnering community support. However, some issues are more contentious than others. Addressing more contentious issues may lead to partnership bonds being stretched or broken. Ideally, a wide spectrum of people working together on issues widely regarded as important should result in the establishment of partnerships adaptable to divisive situations. The initial phase of this research (see Lee 2005 for further description) involved a mail survey of 506 Pennsylvania CWOs, as defined above. We used a multistage mailing procedure consistent with Dillman (2000).1 We received 232 retuned surveys, for a 46 percent response rate, although only 172 organizations provided useable data (most not providing usable data had been disbanded or did not consider themselves watershed organizations). Our response rate was hampered by several factors: many CWOs had post office boxes for mailing addresses. Thus, our suggested deadlines for replying to the questionnaire often had passed before CWOs had found the survey in the mailbox. We also believe that problems in identifying the correct ‘‘contact person’’ may have reduced our response. To test for nonresponse bias, we called 60 nonresponding groups to collect data on key questions. No significant differences emerged between responding and nonresponding organizations for our variables of interest. This quantitative phase of the research did not explicitly target watershed organizations as community-development groups, but our reflections on this quantitative data helped sensitize us to these issues. Therefore, to explore the role of CWOs in rural community development, we conducted in-depth interviews with leaders of a stratified, random sample of 28 rural watershed groups located in eight watersheds around the state.2 This process allowed us to probe the contacts for insight into complex community-based issues. We also asked for documents related to 1 We had four contacts in total. The first consisted of a letter explaining the purpose of the survey. Where it was possible to ascertain, the contact person typically was a director, elected officer, or part of the CWO leadership. The second mailing included a questionnaire instrument with cover letter. Our third contact consisted of a thank-you/ reminder postcard, sent two weeks after the initial survey mailing. A handwritten note of thanks was included on the postcard. If a questionnaire had been received from the CWO, the written note indicated the questionnaire was received. The fourth contact consisted of random phone calls to 100 nonrespondent organizations to increase response. 2 Given the variation in geographical size of each watershed, the number of organizations selected as part of the sample ranged from two to six per watershed. Within regions, we selected organizations representing different levels of ‘‘partner richness,’’ or number of organizations interacted with (high, medium, and low). In each case, we randomly selected CWOs within the watershed in order to represent the entire range of partnership richness. We worked in collaboration with staff from the Pennsylvania Organization of Watersheds and Rivers (POWR) to finalize our sample selection and assemble a mailing list including email and phone numbers for the entire sample using various databases.


187

the group’s formation, mission statement, goals, and participation in policymaking. Interviews lasted between one and three hours, and were audiorecorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic content. Results Quantitative Results Before turning to our analysis of CWO effectiveness, we first use the quantitative survey results to examine these organizations’ characteristics: membership, internal capacity, reasons for forming, and partnerships. Despite the recent rapid growth of CWOs aided by the Growing Greener funds, nearly 20 percent have been in existence for a quarter century or more while about 40 percent were established during the period of Growing Greener funding. We assessed a variety of resources held by these groups. As expanded upon in the qualitative phase of the research, membership is a key resource. Respondents distinguished ‘‘newsletter’’ members, who may contribute little to the group, from ‘‘core members’’ whom they counted on for active participation. Groups varied widely in their membership size: the mean total membership was 351.4 (median 5 110). Core members were much less common (mean 5 28.2, median 5 12). CWOs also vary widely in their organizational attributes. Most have bank accounts (85.8 percent), and a majority have annual financial reports (66.1 percent), 501c3 (nonprofit) status (61.9 percent), and organizational plans (61.3 percent), but fewer have fund-raising (43.7 percent), member recruitment (40.4 percent) and member retention (27.3 percent) plans. Partnerships are another key resource and are expressed dichotomously, based on whether the CWO had a working relationship with any organization in a given category. Despite the grassroots nature of these groups, partnerships with governmental agencies are most common, especially with local governmental bodies: 83.4 percent listed partnerships with state government, 67.4 percent with local government, 62.6 percent with county government, but only 44.9 percent with federal government. Other partners such as environmental groups (64.2 percent) schools (59.4 percent), businesses (46.5 percent), and media (44.4 percent) are also common. Pennsylvania CWOs form around a wide variety of issues (see Table 1). The broad, simple issue ‘‘water quality’’ was mentioned most frequently. Also commonly mentioned was the closely related issue of aquatic habitat. There was relatively less recognition of the drivers of in-stream issues: decreasing percentages mentioned land use, mining, agriculture, and logging. This may be tied to the regional diversity of water issues: for example, mining problems would (correctly) not be seen as problematic

.680 .665 .414

Percent Variance 5 13.3


.813 .798 .795 .595

EV 5 2.00

EV 5 3.54

.826 .814 .402


EV 5 1.25

Factor 3 Mining

.660 .606 .657


EV 5 1.20

Factor 4 Ag Impact

.713 .815


EV 5 1.06

Factor 5 General Water

42.8 79.5

18.0 29.7 35.6 12.7 38.7 9.9 46.5 27.3 17.9 7.6 28.7 21.4 4.7

Percent Listing as Reason

Loadings of , .30 are suppressed in the display. Factors 1–5 are those identified in our factor analysis of issues focused on by organizations. EV 5 explained variance.

Urbanization Open-space planning Land-use planning Economic development Recreation Logging Environmental education Mining impacts Acid deposition Landfills Water quantity Agricultural concerns Concentrated animal feedlot operations Aquatic habitat Water quality

Issue

Factor 2 Forest

Factor 1 Land Use

Table 1. Reasons for CWO Formation: Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis

188 Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009


189

in the agriculture-dominated southeast part of the state. With the exception of environmental education, there was relatively little mention of issues less directly related to water quality (e.g., open space planning and economic development). Most of these organizations had multiple foci: only 13 percent listed a single issue, and 28 percent listed five or more. A maximum likelihood factor analysis with varimax rotation of these issues identified five dimensions explaining 60.3 percent of the variation: Factor 1 is clearly associated with land use and development; factor 2 with environmental education and recreation; factor 3 with pollutants (mining and landfills); factor 4 with agricultural concerns; and factor 5 with more diffuse, generalized water-quality concerns (table 1). In response to the potential problems identified with the ‘‘activitiesand-accomplishments’’ approach, we turn to groups’ assessments of their effectiveness. These measures may have shortcomings of their own. For example, some groups may have higher or lower self-esteem, which would color their responses. Leaders surveyed may overestimate their organizations’ effectiveness (Leach 2002). However, self-assessments offer several advantages. They are multidimensional, include both process and outcome-based variables, and are content neutral, allowing direct comparisons between groups with very different activities and goals. Among these assessments (Table 2), groups were most likely to agree they have fun working on their projects, and they had gained the support of town/borough officials, residents, and county officials. They were more circumspect about whether they’ve solved problems, what their level of visibility was among residents (i.e., whether most residents had heard of them), and whether watershed stakeholders were well organized. A maximum likelihood factor analysis with varimax rotation revealed three dimensions: accomplishments, garnering local support, and stakeholder mobilization.3 The three domains illustrate how the groups participating in CBRM can develop their communities. The first domain, accomplishments, speaks to resource mobilization, awareness, and decision making underlying task accomplishment. Approximately half of the groups feel they solved watershed problems, illustrating the potential to mobilize resources, raise local awareness, and work with stakeholders. A higher percentage of the groups reported having an influence on decisions made in the watershed, suggesting the groups have gained local legitimacy and status. 3 The ‘‘having fun’’ item failed to load on any of the domains. We exclude it from the multivariate analysis because the high level of agreement with the item attenuated its relationship with any of the predictor variables.

190


Table 2. Effectiveness Assessments: Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis

Our organization has solved watershed problems Our organization has an influence in decisions affecting the watershed In general, residents are in support of our organization’s efforts In general, town/ borough officials support our organization’s efforts In general, county officials are in support of our organization’s efforts We have fun while working on the projects we undertake Most residents in our area have heard of our organization Stakeholders are more aware of the watershed issues Stakeholders of our watershed are well organized for action related to watershed issues

Factor 1 Accomplishments

Factor 2 Support

Factor 3 Stakeholder Mobilization

EV 5 3.68

EV 5 1.36

EV 5 1.09




Percent agree Meana

.758

54.8

3.62

.777

61.1

3.77

.378

76.6

4.07

.826

78.0

4.05

.769

75.6

4.12

84.6

4.35

.520

32.5

3.21

.699

69.0

3.89

.579

30.9

2.95

a The mean reflects a 5-point scale used in the survey: 1 5 Strongly disagree, 2 5 disagree, 3 5 neutral, 4 5 agree, 5 5 strongly agree. Loadings of , .30 are suppressed in the display.

The second domain, local support, addresses the structure-building elements of CWOs. Approximately three-quarters of the groups indicated their efforts are supported by local residents, municipal, and county officials. This indicates the CWO is in line with general local priorities for the watershed and local communities and potential exists for linkages


191

between different stakeholders. The third domain, stakeholder mobilization, illustrates how local stakeholder support emerges within the watershed. Again a large majority of watershed groups agreed stakeholders are more aware of watershed issues after the groups’ efforts. CWOs may facilitate the spread of information and awareness between interest groups and others within the watershed. Some limitations are evident as well: a majority of the groups noted their organization was not well known locally. Likewise, a majority of the groups did not think their watershed was well organized for action. The fact CWOs are not well known may indicate watershed issues are not at the forefront of local thinking: residents may not recognize the watershed as a local place, instead identifying more with the locality. The feeling the watershed is not well organized to respond may indicate a lack of field development. We now turn to the factors predicting effectiveness. Based on our discussion of the CBRM literature, we used reasons for formation and partnerships to predict whether a local organization enjoys widespread community support and broadly involves the community in addressing issues of general concern. The analysis proceeded in three steps: first, we examined bivariate correlations, followed by ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with all of the predictor variables included, and then reduced-form, ‘‘best-fit’’ models to maximize parsimony. The reasons underlying organization formation are tied to effectiveness: groups forming around agriculture-related issues and who expressed more ‘‘general concerns’’ about water quality reported greater success in accomplishments (‘‘we’ve solved problems’’) and mobilizing stakeholders (Table 3). In contrast, organizations that formed around issues of land use reported less success in garnering local support. Partnerships appear crucial to perceptions of effectiveness, especially in the domain of garnering widespread local support for CWO activities (Table 3). Bivariate correlations revealed significant positive relationships between effectiveness assessments and partnerships in every category. Although partnerships with government were most common, the tie to support was strongest for partnerships with local nongovernmental bodies, including local businesses, community organizations, and chambers of commerce. The relationships between garnering support and partnerships with governmental bodies were more modest, but again emphasized the local, with state government the weakest tie and local government the strongest. Clearly, governmental partnerships are not sufficient for a group to perceive local support. Partnerships also play an important, though lesser, role for the other indicators of effectiveness. These results reveal that the object of these partnerships differs from those involved in garnering support. Effectiveness in the accomplish-

.148+ .197* .122

2.115 2.084 .048 .190* .219** .107

2.079 .006 .122 .179* .214**

.146+

.089 .027 .054 .139 2.024 2.003 .113 2.048 .037 2.030 .054 .170+ .013 .206*

Reduced Model (Beta)

.198** .138 .121 .200** .091 .072 .190* .100 .092 .072 .098 .201** .119

+p , .10; *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

Partners Federal government State government County government Local government Agricultural association Chamber of commerce Businesses Community orgznizations Media Educational institutions Recreation groups Environmental groups Landowner association Formation issues Land use Recreation education Mining Agriculture General water quality Explained variance (adjusted R2)

Correlation

Full Model (Beta)

Accomplishments

2.266*** 2.088 2.046 .066 .045

.184* .165* .240** .248*** .277*** .322*** .365*** .322*** .254*** .266*** .232*** .159* .266***

.142

2.195* .042 2.123 .114 .097

.115 .007 .219* .206* 2.113 2.077 .002 .065 .072 2.166+ 2.017 .000 .127

Full Model Correlation (Beta)

Support

.175

.125

2.195*

.113

2.163

.232** .228**


Table 3. Predicting Effectiveness: Bivariate Correlation and OLS Regression

2.063 .044 .100 .173* .240**

.267*** .245** .146 .210** .062 .097 .058 2.027 .004 .044 .081 .104 .153*

Correlation

.170

2.068 2.052 2.004 .156+ .239**

.203* .154 .045 .147 2.042 .125 2.064 2.212* 2.125 2.041 .047 .168+ .145+

Full Model (Beta)

Stakeholders

.211

.128+ .226**

.137+ .148+

2.225**

.141+

.205* .177*


192 Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009


193

ments domain is more associated with partnerships in government: Governmental partnerships thus play a larger role in accomplishments. Partnerships with environmental groups and businesses were also significantly positive. Governmental partnerships also were more important for mobilizing stakeholder support than generating local support. Finally, we used OLS regression to assess the mission and partnership-based factors contributing to the three effectiveness domains. These are apparently quite different, as indicated by the variables predicting them. More variation is explained in stakeholder mobilization than for garnering support or accomplishments. When we examined the reduced models for each indicator, it became apparent that partnerships are important to all measures of effectiveness, but the impact of particular types of partnership varies. Government partnerships, especially those with local governments, seem especially tied to positive outcomes across all three domains. Accomplishments were increased by partnerships with environmental groups (despite their contentious reputation). Overall, partnerships played a smaller role in accomplishments than the other two indicators. In-Depth Interviews These quantitative results were potential entry points for qualitative research focusing on community in more detail. As such, themes emerged from the in-depth interviews with 28 rural watershed organizations that reinforced our understanding of the importance of capacity building through widespread local cooperation (including partnerships as resources bringing together local and extralocal citizens and government) on common problems. Commonly Recognized Workable Problems. Interviewees emphasized what one termed ‘‘workable problems.’’ These share a number of characteristics. First, they are directly observable, and widely recognized as problems: the water smells bad; it carries the orange hue of acid mine drainage; the fish populations are low. Workable problems are perceived as having simple cause and effect, and entailing simple solutions: a leaky gas well can be plugged, an eroding stream bank fenced. Solving these problems raises the group’s profile and local credibility. In contrast, CWOs are less likely to be involved in ‘‘wicked problems’’ (Beck 1999) with indirect, unobservable, or spatially or temporally distant causality. Thus, the divisiveness associated with problems more open to competing interpretations does not emerge, resulting in greater community agreement.

194


Local Cooperation: ‘‘We Aren’t Activists.’’ The CWO focus on relatively simple cause/effect problems supports problem-solving approaches based on the status quo. Consistent with the community-development emphasis on local cooperation, participants rejected ‘‘activist’’ approaches: ‘‘[W]atershed groups are not necessarily activist groups. … [T]here’s no one out here chaining themselves to a tree and no one saying you can’t make your living by timbering. … [W]e’re not even against timbering … we’re for water quality.’’ Nearly all groups mentioned the need to educate people, to ‘‘change attitudes,’’ and thus rely on voluntary behavior, rather than creating ‘‘burdensome regulations’’ or other confrontational regulatory approaches. As one group pointed out, ‘‘Our motto is ‘conservation through cooperation.’’’ Another noted: ‘‘It’s getting better now that they see we’re not an activist group or out to ruin their lives or report to DEP every time they throw a wrapper out the back door.’’ This nonactivist approach is facilitated by the fact that those responsible for many of the problems are often removed in time and space (i.e., groups deal with the legacy of mining rather than ongoing operations), so groups are not dealing with neighbors or local business owners. This separation appears critical to maintaining consensus-based, collaborative approaches. Building Community Capacity through Partnerships. Reflecting the role of partnerships revealed in the quantitative findings, CWOs’ community action largely occurs within established community structures. Garnering support and mobilizing resources from the community is crucial: interviewees noted groups usually included community ‘‘insiders’’ and projects like tree plantings or stream cleanups depended on volunteered labor and supplies. Although improving natural capital is the ostensible goal of CWOs, they build capacity and resources to engage other local issues. This purposeful action contributes to local structure by creating and reinforcing linkages between community members. CWOs also act as conduits for financial capital that flows from programs such as Growing Greener to remote rural areas. These inputs have contributed to local employment, but also to the development of human capital: Some of the skills and abilities are ‘‘imported’’ through the technical expertise of watershed coordinators hired through these monies, but local citizens also build their own human capital through training and skills acquisition. Participants reported participation in their CWO gave them important experience and leadership skills, including scientific monitoring, grant writing, making presentations, facilitating meetings, and gaining familiarity with the legal process (including how to keep the attention of their elected officials):


195

It’s amazing. You can influence the municipal leadership, the politicians, if you go to the meetings, properly informed with good facts. One of the long-term benefits was that people believed they could make a difference. Before [the CWO] happened, most people felt like ‘‘what’s the use,’’ but we really proved that … you can change the destiny of your community. Are CWO members using these skills in other organizational settings? This capacity is reflected in member involvement in local government, and local recognition of the CWO as a contact point for confronting a variety of threats, some beyond initial group scope: I’ve been getting calls from people who have garbage down over their bank, I get calls for bank erosion … and I [say I ] can point you in the right direction, here’s who to call for that problem. … [T]hey look at me like I’m the fix….. CWOs have thus been able to strengthen ties and mobilize resources to address issues beyond those initially defined the scope of the group. In so doing, they extend the reach of governmental regulatory agencies. CWOs are seen locally as a safe and effective resource for reporting illegal activity. [A] mining company had buried some pipes underground and was pumping acid water into the creek secretly … at night, and they had this, you know, covert operation going on, an employee told a guy who was active in that watershed. They got the Fish Commission and the DEP involved, and it was the biggest fine.… The quantitative results opened the door to a community analysis by emphasizing the importance of partnerships to group effectiveness. The qualitative results extended this frame by emphasizing cooperation by a wide range of community interests on common problems. These approaches therefore converge on the key role community interactions play in CWO success. One primary effect of these groups is improved stakeholder relations. CWO effectiveness may lie more in how it gets things done, rather than changes per se to the physical environment. That these CWOs are seen as ‘‘reasonable environmentalists’’ echoes the trust they have built within their community. In turn, their ability to function depends on this trust. Through community events and educational campaigns, they have helped create public forums for increasing the density of interaction. These forums are not limited to the strict geographic watershed boundaries: one of the key outcomes of these groups has been their ability to link with other CWOs and build

196


recognition of common interests, share scarce resources (including expertise), and address common problems through regional networks. Conclusion The movement toward watershed-based management in the United States is based on multiple factors, including regulatory mandates and concerns about centralized control. The emphasis on outcome-based management has granted individual states much latitude in determining how best to address their water-quality issues. The Pennsylvania CWO movement is both distinct from and similar to other watershed programs within the United States. Although the Growing Greener Program provided a unique opportunity for the creation of fledgling groups, leveraging additional resources and expanding issue bases appears to be important to long-term group survival. The essence of Pennsylvania’s CWO movement success appears similar to other self-organized grassroots organizations throughout the United States, where long-term sustainability is tied to overall mission and vision. Effective groups are more likely to form partnerships and concentrate community involvement, allowing them to adapt and move on to address other issues. As such, they tend to build consensus rather than create conflict. Our findings suggest CWO ‘‘success’’ depends on collaborative partnerships within conventional channels, which address recognized issues with tractable solutions. As a result, these groups typically enjoy widespread community support. CWOs appear to fulfill the civic environmentalism promise of CBRM. They have grown capacity in key areas: the infusion of financial resources; the use and expansion of social networks within and between communities; the development of local abilities and agency. By implication, these groups and their communities should recognize and further develop their expanded role as quasi-community-development groups: They build capacity transcending water-quality improvements. We agree with much of Weigle’s (2006) logic that watersheds, which span institutional boundaries and thus may foster new coalitions, represent political opportunity extending to other issues. This is especially so when widespread recognition exists regarding the watershed-based boundaries of the social field and the need for community action to address important issues therein. We believe the CWO movement in Pennsylvania has increased the visibility of watershed boundaries, and fostered watershed-based identity. Multiple groups spoke of their impact as increasing resident understanding of what a watershed is:


197

I think before we started I’m not sure anybody knew what a watershed was.… We have signs all over the area that we put up saying you are now entering … Watershed Area.… [T]hey now think more about what’s going into the lake. Our data, however, also suggest limitations to this optimism. First, we must hold open the questions of to what degree, and in contexts, CWOs can be considered true ‘‘community’’ organizations. While community fields can form within watersheds, can community be defined around a watershed? Recent related research (Ridout 2005) noted watersheds, despite the increased attention they have garnered, usually are not the locality emphasized by most residents. Nor are many institutional facets of social life (e.g., local politics, schools) organized around watersheds. From the interactional perspective, locale for most people is based on the area they interact in rather than the watershed(s) these areas are located within. However, in some conditions, such as when the watershed forms a central part of the culture or ecology of an area, a watershed may become a locale from an interactional perspective. Research identifying these antecedent conditions is a crucial need. An important caveat is many groups do not recognize that an important outcome of their work involves building rural capacity: With the possible exception of environmental education, many groups construe their ‘‘real’’ work in terms of alterations to the physical landscape. We have emphasized the capital assets (monetary resources, human capital skills, social networks) CWOs develop through their work as transferable to broader community issues. Is an outcome an outcome if it is not recognized as such by the CWO? We believe it can be: The multiplier effect of environmental education, outreach, and fieldwork may not be recognized within the group, but can nonetheless develop social structures within the community. Thus, assessing CWO effectiveness vis-a`-vis community development needs to move beyond the effects noted by CWOs themselves. One note of caution for these groups reflects what we have learned about the types of projects undertaken and the approaches used to address them. The collaborative approach taken by Pennsylvania CWOs—and reflecting the CBRM literature—has helped to build community, but there may be hard times ahead based on limits to this approach. CWO successes may reflect their ability to do the work ‘‘everyone’’ agrees is important and that can be remedied within conventional channels. Notably absent are problems characterized by strong disagreement, unclear or complex causality, or controversy, where the ‘‘bad guy’’ is a prominent local individual or institution.

198


What will happen when the culprit is production agriculture in a community heavily dependent on it, or when solutions based on ‘‘changing attitudes’’ simply don’t work? Will the collaborative approach these groups champion break down? As CWOs continue to solve the ‘‘workable’’ problems, they will be poised to tackle more complex ‘‘upstream’’ problems. These will probably engender more controversy: Groups need to think proactively about how to deal with emerging conflict. We are by no means downplaying the accomplishments of Pennsylvania CWOs: The partnerships and community development these groups are developing in addressing ‘‘workable’’ problems will likely aid them in engaging these controversies. However, we worry many of the good feelings these groups have managed to create may be challenged by the next generation of more difficult problems. References Alexander, S.V. 1993. Clean Water in Your Watershed: A Citizens’ Guide to Watershed Protection. Washington, DC: Terrene Institute. Armitage, D.R. 2005. ‘‘Community-based Narwhal Management in Nunavut, Canada: Change, Uncertainty and Adaptation.’’ Society and Natural Resources 18:715–31. Ashby, W.R. 1968. ‘‘Principles of the Self-organizing System.’’ Pp. 108–18 in Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, edited by W. Buckley. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Baker, M. and J. Kusel. 2003. Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the Past, Crafting the Future. Washington, DC: Island Press. Barham, E. 2001. ‘‘Ecological Boundaries as Community Boundaries: The Politics of Watersheds.’’ Society and Natural Resources 14:181–91. Beck, U. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Bloomquist, A. 1992. Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in Sothern California. San Francisco: ICS Press. Bonnell, J.E. and T.M. Koontz. 2007. ‘‘Stumbling Forward: The Organizational Challenges of Building and Sustaining Collaborative Watershed Management.’’ Society and Natural Resources 20(2):153–67. Born, S.M. and K.D. Genskow. 2000. ‘‘The Watershed Approach: An Empirical Assessment of Innovation in Environmental Management.’’ National Academy of Public Administration Research Paper No. 7, Washington, DC. (Also available at http:// www.napawash.org.) Brezonik, P., K. Easter, L. Hatch, D. Mulla, and J. Perry. 1999. ‘‘Management of Diffuse Pollution in Agricultural Watersheds: Lessons from the Minnesota River Basin.’’ Water Science Technology 39(12):323–30. Bridger, J.C. and A.E. Luloff. 1999. ‘‘Toward an Interactional Approach to Sustainable Community Development.’’ Journal of Rural Studies 15(4):377–87. Cheng, A.S., L.E. Kruger, and S.E. Daniels. 2003. ‘‘‘Place’ as an Integrative Concept in Natural Resource Politics: Propositions for a Social Science Research Agenda.’’ Society and Natural Resources 16(2):87–104. Christiansen, S. and E. Dinerstein. 2001. ‘‘Ecoregional Perspectives in Conservation: Recent Lessons and Future Directions.’’ Pp. 51–68 in Biological Diversity: Balancing Interests through Adaptive Collaborative Management, edited by L. Buck, C.G. Geisler, J. Schelhas, and E. Wollenberg. London, England: CRC Press. Cline, S.A. and A.R. Collins. 2003. ‘‘Watershed Associations in West Virginia: Their Impact on Environmental Protection.’’ Journal of Environmental Management 67:373–83.


199

Collins, A., G. Constantz, S. Hunter, and S. Selin. 1998. ‘‘Collaborative Watershed Planning: The West Virginia Experience’’. Conservation Voices 1(2):31–35. Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley. Draeger, K.J. 2001. ‘‘Defining and Evaluating Watershed Organizational Effectiveness.’’ PhD dissertation, College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MI. Ewing, S.A., R.B. Grayson, and R.M. Argent. 2000. ‘‘Science, Citizens, and Ccatchments: Decision Support for Catchment Planning in Australia.’’ Society and Natural Resources 13:443–59. Griffin, C.B. 1999. ‘‘Watershed Councils: An Emerging Form of Public Participation in Natural Resource Management.’’ Journal of the American Water Resource Association 35(3):505–18. Habron, G.B. 2003. ‘‘Role of Adaptive Management for Watershed Councils.’’ Environmental Management 31(1):29–41. ———. 2004. ‘‘A Soft Systems Approach to Watershed Management: A Road Salt Case Study.’’ Environmental Management 33(6):776–87. Hillery, G., Jr. 1955. ‘‘Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement.’’ Rural Sociology 20(2):111–22. Johnson, C., V. Kaunelis, and K. Cave. 2000. ‘‘Can a Watershed Be Managed? Success in Leading Public Agency and Community Efforts in the Rouge River Watershed.’’ Water Environment and Technology, June, pp. 29–35. Kellert, S.R., J.N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and L.L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. ‘‘Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality.’’ Society and Natural Resources 13:705–15. Keough, H.L. and D.J. Blahna. 2006. ‘‘Achieving Integrative, Collaborative Ecosystem Management.’’ Conservation Biology 20(5):1373–82. Koles, M.J. 1998. ‘‘An Integrated Environmental Management Case Study: The Upper Sugar River Watershed Initiative.’’ Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 28(1):73–101. Leach, W.D. 2002. ‘‘Surveying Diverse Stakeholder Groups.’’ Society and Natural Resources 15:641–49. Leach, W.D. and N.W. Pelkey. 2001. ‘‘Making Watershed Partnerships Work: A Review of the Empirical Literature.’’ Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127(6):378–85. Lee, B.D. 2005. ‘‘Pennsylvania Community Watershed Organizations: Form and Function.’’ PhD dissertation, School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. McCarthy, J. 2005. ‘‘Neoliberalism and the Politics of Alternatives: Community Forestry in British Columbia and the United States.’’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(1):84–104. McCloskey, M. 1999. ‘‘Local Communities and the Management of Public Forests.’’ Ecological Law Quarterly 25(4):624–29. McGinnis, M.V. and J.T. Wooley. 2000. ‘‘Changing California: From Watersheds to Healthy Watersheds: A Characterization of California Watershed Organizations and Activities.’’ Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. Unpublished manuscript. Mesch, G.S. and K.P. Schwirian. 1996. ‘‘The Effectiveness of Neighborhood Collective Action.’’ Social Problems 43(4):467–83. Michaels, S. 2001. Making Collaborative Watershed Management Work: The Confluence of State and Regional Initiatives. Environmental Management 27(1):27–35. Moore, E.A. and T.M. Koontz. 2003. ‘‘A Typology of Collaborative Watershed Groups: Citizen-based, Agency-based, and Mixed Partnerships.’’ Society and Natural Resources 16(5):451–60. Morton, L.W. 2003. ‘‘Civic Watershed Communities.’’ Research in Rural Sociology and Development 9:121–34.

200


Murray, V. and B. Tassie. 1994. ‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nonprofit Organizations.’’ Pp. 303–34 in The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Omernik, J. and R.G. Bailey. 1997. ‘‘Distinguishing between Watersheds and Ecoregions.’’ Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:935–49. O’Neill, K.M. 2005. ‘‘Can Watershed Management Unite Town and Country?’’ Society and Natural Resources 18:241–53. Pagdee, A., Y. Kim, and P.J. Daugherty. 2006. ‘‘What Makes Community Forestry Management Successful: A Meta-Study from Community Forests throughout the World.’’ Society and Natural Resources 19:33–52. Pigg, K.E. 1999. ‘‘Community Leadership and Community Theory: A Practical Synthesis.’’ Journal of the Community Development Society 30(2):196–212. Ridout, E.L. 2005. ‘‘Valuing Watersheds and Their Effect on Quality of Life: A Study of Two Pennsylvania Watersheds.’’ MS thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Satria, A., Y. Matsuda, and M. Sano. 2006. ‘‘Questioning Community Based Coral Reef Management Systems: Case Study of Awig-Awig in Gili Indah, Indonesia.’’ Environment, Development and Sustainability 8:99–118. Schelhas, J. 2001. ‘‘Ecoregional Management in Southern Costa Rica: Finding a Role for Adaptive Collaborative Management.’’ Pp. 245–60 in Biological Diversity: Balancing Interests through Adaptive Collaborative Management, edited by L. Buck, C.G. Geisler, J. Schelhas, and E. Wollenberg. London, England: CRC Press. Scott, W.R. 1998. Organizations:Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Selin, S., M. Schuett, and D. Carr. 1997. ‘‘Has Collaborative Planning Taken Root in the National Forests?’’ Journal of Forestry 95(5):25–28. Shutkin, W.A. 2000. The Land That Could Be. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Theodori, G.L. 2005. ‘‘Community and Community Development in Resource-based Areas: Operational Definitions Rooted in an Interactional Perspective.’’ Society and Natural Resources 18(7):661–69. USDA and USEPA. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan:Protecting and Restoring America’s Waters. EPA-840-R-98-001. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA. 2005. Community-based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program. EPA-842-B-05-003. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency. (Also available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.) Warner, M.E., C.C. Hinrichs, J. Schneyer, and L. Joyce. 1999. ‘‘Organizing Communities to Sustain Rural Landscapes: Lessons from New York.’’ Journal of the Community Development Society 30(2):178–95. Weber, E.P. 2000. ‘‘A New Vanguard for the Environment: Grass-roots Ecosystem Management as a New Environmental Movement.’’ Society and Natural Resources 13:237–59. ———. 2003. Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Weigle, J.L. 2006. ‘‘Watersheds: A New Way of Looking at Community Development and Rural Programs.’’ Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University. Unpublished manuscript. Western, D. and R.M. Wright. 1994. ‘‘The Background to Community-based Conservation.’’ Pp. 1–12 in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, edited by D. Western and R.M. Wright (S.C. Strum, associate editor). Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilkinson, K.P. 1991. The Community in Rural America. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press. ———. 1995. ‘‘Social Forces Shaping the Future of Rural Areas.’’ Pp. 65–83 in Investing in People: The Human Capital Needs of Rural America, edited by L.J. Beaulieu and D. Mulkey. Boulder, CO: Westview. Wilson, R.K. 2006. Collaboration in Context: Rural Change and Community Forestry in the Four Corners. Society and Natural Resources 19:53–70.