Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Performance Information Use by Conservation Agency Staff

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Performance-based conservation has long been recognized as crucial to improving program effectiveness, particularly when environmental conditions are dynamic. Yet few studies have investigated the use of environmental performance information by staff of conservation organizations. This article identifies attitudinal, policy and organizational factors influencing the use of a type of performance information—water quality information—by Soil and Water Conservation District staff in the Upper Mississippi River Basin region. An online survey (n = 277) revealed a number of important variables associated with greater information use. Variables included employees’ prosocial motivation, or the belief that they helped people and natural resources through their job, the perceived trustworthiness of data, the presence of a U.S. Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load standard designation, and staff discretion to prioritize programs locally. Conservation programs that retain motivated staff and provide them the resources and flexibility to plan and evaluate their work with environmental data may increase conservation effectiveness under changing conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Boyer EW, Nolan JV, Brakebill JW (2008) Differences in phosphorus and nitrogen delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin. Environ Sci Technol 42(3):822–830

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alpern KD (1997) What do we want trust to be? Some distinctions of trust. Bus Prof Ethics J 16(1/3):29–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn RD (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Adm Rev 63(5):586–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2007) Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bright L (2007) Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public service motivation and the job performance of public employees? Rev Public Pers Adm 27(4):361–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brossard D, Nisbet MC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res 19(1):24–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R, Cattaneo A, Johansson R (2008) Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: US experience in theory and practice. Ecol Econ 65(4):737–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter RW (2009) Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol Environ 8(4):181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daley DM, Layton DF (2004) Policy implementation and the environmental protection agency: what factors influence remediation at superfund sites? Policy Stud J 32(3):375–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lancer-Julnes P, Holzer M (2001) Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: an empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Adm Rev 61(6):693–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):680–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman DL, Ingram HM (2009) Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather, Clim, Soc 1(1):9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert J (2009) Democratizing states and the use of history. Rural Sociol 74(1):3–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant AM, Campbell EM (2007) Doing good, doing harm, being well and burning out: the interactions of perceived prosocial and antisocial impact in service work. J Occup Organ Psychol 80(4):665–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant AM, Campbell EM, Chen G, Cottone K, Lapedis D, Lee K (2007) Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: the effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 103(1):53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant AM, Sonnentag S (2010) Doing good buffers against feeling bad: prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 111(1):13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatry HP (2006) Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Insitute Press, Washington, D.C

  • Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakeman AJ, Beck MB, McAleer MJ (1993) Modelling change in environmental systems. Wiley, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Keene M, Pullin AS (2011) Realizing an effectiveness revolution in environmental management. J Environ Manag 92(9):2130–2135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling CL (2015) Can voluntary adoption of agricultural practices achieve the hypoxic zone reduction goals? Agric Policy Rev 2014(2):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Konisky DM, Woods ND (2016) Environmental policy, federalism, and the Obama presidency. Publius: J Fed 46(3):366–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2012) Measuring the performance of public-private partnerships. Public Perform & Manag Rev 35(4):769–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll A (2015) Drivers of performance information use: systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Perform Manag Rev 38(3):459–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll A, Vogel D (2014) The PSM–leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Adm 92(4):974–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche M, Bergeron J, Barbaro-Forleo G (2001) Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J Consum Mark 18(6):503–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M (2003) Collaborative institutions, belief-systems, and perceived policy effectiveness. Polit Res Q 56(3):309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M (2007) Familiarity breeds trust: collective action in a policy domain. J Polit 69(1):237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddock TA (2004) Fragmenting regimes: how water quality regulation is changing political–economic landscapes. Geoforum 35(2):217–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire LA (2003) Interplay of science and stakeholder values in Neuse River total maximum daily load process. J Water Resour Plan Manag 129(4):261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mase AS, Babin NL, Prokopy LS, Genskow KD (2015) Trust in sources of soil and water quality information: implications for environmental outreach and education. J Am Water Resour Assoc 51(6):1656–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melkers J, Willoughby K (2007) Staying the course: the use of performance measurement in state governments. Page integrating performance and budgets: The budget office of tomorrow. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP (2008) The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP, Hawes DP (2012) Responsiveness to reform values: the influence of the environment on performance information use. Public Adm Rev 72(s1):S95–S105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP, Landuyt N (2009) How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Adm Rev 69(6):1097–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan DP, Pandey SK, Wright BE (2012) Prosocial values and performance management theory: linking perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance 25(3):463–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N (2004) Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? Environ Sci Policy 7(5):369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg LE, Perry JL, Hondeghem A (2008) From theory to practice: strategies for applying public service motivation. In: Perry J, Hondeghem A (ed) Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 268–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry JL, Mesch D, Paarlberg L (2006) Motivating employees in a new governance era: the performance paradigm revisited. Public Adm Rev 66(4):505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieniak Z, Verbeke W, Scholderer J, Brunsø K, Olsen SO (2007) European consumers’ use of and trust in information sources about fish. Food Qual Prefer 18(8):1050–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper M, Lipshitz R (1998) Organizational learning mechanisms a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. J Appl Behav Sci 34(2):161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS, Carlton JS, Arbuckle JG, Haigh T, Lemos MC, Mase AS, Babin N, Dunn M, Andresen J, Angel J (2015) Extension′ s role in disseminating information about climate change to agricultural stakeholders in the United States. Clim Chang 130(2):261–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63(5):300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor SC, Howe JA, Kunkel KE (2009) How spatially coherent and statistically robust are temporal changes in extreme precipitation in the contiguous USA? Int J Climatol 29(1):31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulwarty RS, Redmond KT (1997) An assessment of the role of climate forecasts in the management of salmon, water and hydropower in the Columbia River Basin. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 78(3):381–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringquist EJ (1994) Policy influence and policy responsiveness in state pollution control. Policy Stud J 22(1):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissman AR, Carpenter S (2015) Progress on nonpoint pollution: barriers and opportunities. Daedalus 144(3):35–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissman AR, Smail R (2014) Accounting for results: how conservation organizations report performance information. Environ Manag 55(4):916–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson DM, Saad DA, Schwarz GE (2014) Spatial variability in nutrient transport by HUC8, state, and subbasin based on Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin SPARROW models. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50(4):988–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortle JS, Horan RD (2001) The economics of nonpoint pollution control. J Econ Surv 15(3):255–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortle JS, Ribaudo M, Horan RD, Blandford D (2012) Reforming agricultural nonpoint pollution policy in an increasingly budget-constrained environment. Environ Sci Technol 46(3):1316–1325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Srebotnjak T (2007) The role of environmental statisticians in environmental policy: the case of performance measurement. Environ Sci Policy 10(5):405–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight. TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):305–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapia AH, Moore K (2014) Good enough is good enough: overcoming disaster response organizations’ slow social media data adoption. Comput Support Coop Work 23(4–6):483–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor J (2008) Organizational influences, public service motivation and work outcomes: an Australian study. Int Public Manag J 11(1):67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2016) FY 2016 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan

  • USDA (2017) FY 2016 Annual Performance Report

  • van Wyk E, Roux DJ, Drackner M, McCool SF (2008) The impact of scientific information on ecosystem management: making sense of the contextual gap between information providers and decision makers. Environ Manag 41(5):779–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenabeele W (2009) The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance: more robust evidence of the PSM—performance relationship. Int Rev Adm Sci 75(1):11–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardropper CB, Chang C, Rissman AR (2015) Fragmented water quality governance: constraints to spatial targeting for nutrient reduction in a Midwestern USA watershed. Landsc Urban Plan 137:64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright BE, Grant AM (2010) Unanswered questions about public service motivation: designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Adm Rev 70(5):691–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang K, Hsieh JY (2007) Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle‐range model. Public Adm Rev 67(5):861–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Science Foundation Water Sustainability and Climate grant DEB 1038759 and Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) DGE 1144752. I appreciate insightful comments on the manuscript from Adena Rissman and Don Moynihan, and from anonymous reviewers. Thanks to all the Conservation District and state Agriculture Department staff who participated in this study, and for their ongoing work.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chloe Bradley Wardropper was formerly at Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources and Society, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS 1142, Moscow, ID, 83844, USA

    Chloe Bradley Wardropper

Authors
  1. Chloe Bradley Wardropper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chloe Bradley Wardropper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wardropper, C.B. Environmental Performance Information Use by Conservation Agency Staff. Environmental Management 61, 563–576 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0990-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0990-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation