11/18/24 - 107 New Stories - REAL Environmental & Conservation Leadership In PA: http://tinyurl.com/3zb7jppr
| Share this: | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight - Conewago Creek Conservation Initiative Preliminary Survey Results
|
|
The Conewago Creek Conservation Initiative is Pennsylvania’s ‘Discovery Watershed,’ a place to target resources and test approaches to improve water quality.
This article discusses using surveys as a tool to initially describe the context for conservation efforts, then assess the effectiveness of these efforts and describe preliminary results from the initial survey.
Watershed management projects often use education as a means to encourage individual land owners to use best management practices. A critical component is understanding the landowners’ existing knowledge and landscape behaviors to appropriately target educational efforts.
A survey of watershed residents is one way to gain the information needed. For example, survey results can identify the main barrier to the use of a rain garden among suburban landowners as information about where to get one and how to use it.
Educational efforts can then focus on this audience’s need for this type of information. Surveys at the beginning and end of educational efforts can provide information to assess the effectiveness of those efforts.
Earlier this year, residents in the Conewago Creek watershed received surveys asking about their management practices and perceptions of water quality in Conewago Creek, Susquehanna River, and Chesapeake Bay.
The results of this survey are being analyzed and will be used by the Conewago Conservation Initiative’s Project Advisory Team to develop partnerships and educational efforts to improve water quality in the Watershed.
The goals of the survey were to: Understand context of the CCI’s efforts; Describe landowners in the watershed and their current attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, knowledge; Describe current conservation activities in watershed; Identify opportunities for education and intervention; Identify appropriate methods of intervention, and by whom; and Develop baseline data for future assessment and evaluation.
The survey was mailed to a list of 190 farmers and 1500 randomly sampled non-farm landowners in the watershed between February and May of 2011.
A total of 93 responses were received from farmers and 563 responses were received from non-farm landowners. After removing the bad addresses from the mailing list, this results in a 51 percent response rate from farmers and 40 percent from non-farmers.
Below are preliminary results from the survey, focused on water quality.
Water quality is described as worse in the Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River than the Conewago Creek. Farmers are split on their views on water quality in the Conewago Creek; non-farmers generally see the water quality in the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay as worse than farmers see it.
-- Conewago Creek: 34 percent of farmers and 28 percent of non-farmers rated water quality in Conewago Creek as poor/fair; 44 percent of farmers and 35 percent of non-farmers rated it as good/excellent.
-- Susquehanna River: 47 percent of farmers and 52 percent of non-farmers rated water quality in the Susquehanna River as poor/fair; 26 percent of farmers and 16 percent of non-farmers rated it as good/excellent.
-- Chesapeake Bay: 41 percent of farmers and 46 percent of non-farmers rated water quality in the Chesapeake Bay as poor/fair; 19 percent farmers and 13 percent of non-farmers rated it as good/excellent.
Concern about water quality in these places was relatively high, and equal across all groups and water bodies. About 80 percent of farmers and non-farmers described their level of concern as somewhat or very concerned for the Conewago Creek, Susquehanna River, and Chesapeake Bay.
The majority of respondents report equally little knowledge of water quality in each of the three water bodies. Farmers generally report slightly more knowledge than non-farmers.
-- Conewago Creek: 42 percent of farmers and 34 percent of non-farmers described themselves as somewhat or very knowledgeable about water quality in Conewago Creek.
-- Susquehanna River: 44 percent of farmers and 36 percent of non-farmers described themselves as somewhat or very knowledgeable about water quality in the Susquehanna River.
-- Chesapeake Bay: 39 percent of farmers and 32 percent of non-farmers described themselves as somewhat or knowledgeable about water quality in Chesapeake Bay.
Respondents were also asked to describe water quality in Conewago Creek related to specific activities. Farmers generally saw water quality as less of a problem than non-farmers across all activities. The primary concerns of both groups were related to fishing.
-- For eating fish caught in the Creek: 39 percent of farmers and 28 percent of non-farmers report water quality as good/excellent;
-- For fish habitat: 38 percent of farmers and 32 percent of non-farmers report water quality as good/excellent;
-- For swimming or wading: 46 percent of farmers and 38 percent of non-farmers report water quality as good/excellent;
-- For canoeing, kayaking, or other boating: 48 percent of farmers and 46 percent of non-farmers report water quality as good/excellent;
-- For scenic beauty: 74 percent of farmers and 60 percent of non-farmers report water quality as good/excellent;
-- For wildlife habitat: 70 percent of farmers and 54 percent of non-farmers report water quality as good/excellent.
Complete reports will be made available on the Conewago Creek Conservation Initiative website later this fall.
For more information, visit the Conewago Creek Conservation Initiative website.
(Written by: Kathryn J. Brasier, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology, Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology, Penn State University and reprinted from the Penn State Cooperative Extension Watershed Winds Newsletter.)
|
|
9/5/2011 |
| Go To Preceding Article Go To Next Article |
