Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 563–576 | Cite as

Environmental Performance Information Use by Conservation Agency Staff

  • Chloe Bradley  WardropperEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Soil and water conservation Performance measurement Evidence-based conservation Public management 

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2017_990_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Appendix A

References

  1. 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):822–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpern KD (1997) What do we want trust to be? Some distinctions of trust. Bus Prof Ethics J 16(1/3):29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behn RD (2003) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Adm Rev 63(5):586–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2007) Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):361–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):24–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):737–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter RW (2009) Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol Environ 8(4):181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daley DM, Layton DF (2004) Policy implementation and the environmental protection agency: what factors influence remediation at superfund sites? Policy Stud J 32(3):375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman DL, Ingram HM (2009) Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather, Clim, Soc 1(1):9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert J (2009) Democratizing states and the use of history. Rural Sociol 74(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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):53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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):13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatry HP (2006) Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Insitute Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 18:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jakeman AJ, Beck MB, McAleer MJ (1993) Modelling change in environmental systems. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. Keene M, Pullin AS (2011) Realizing an effectiveness revolution in environmental management. J Environ Manag 92(9):2130–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kling CL (2015) Can voluntary adoption of agricultural practices achieve the hypoxic zone reduction goals? Agric Policy Rev 2014(2):3Google Scholar
  23. Konisky DM, Woods ND (2016) Environmental policy, federalism, and the Obama presidency. Publius: J Fed 46(3):366–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2012) Measuring the performance of public-private partnerships. Public Perform & Manag Rev 35(4):769–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kroll A (2015) Drivers of performance information use: systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Perform Manag Rev 38(3):459–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kroll A, Vogel D (2014) The PSM–leadership fit: A model of performance information use. Public Adm 92(4):974–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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):503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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):240–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lubell M (2003) Collaborative institutions, belief-systems, and perceived policy effectiveness. Polit Res Q 56(3):309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lubell M (2007) Familiarity breeds trust: collective action in a policy domain. J Polit 69(1):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maddock TA (2004) Fragmenting regimes: how water quality regulation is changing political–economic landscapes. Geoforum 35(2):217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maguire LA (2003) Interplay of science and stakeholder values in Neuse River total maximum daily load process. J Water Resour Plan Manag 129(4):261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):1656–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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, MDGoogle Scholar
  35. Moynihan DP (2008) The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Moynihan DP, Hawes DP (2012) Responsiveness to reform values: the influence of the environment on performance information use. Public Adm Rev 72(s1):S95–S105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moynihan DP, Landuyt N (2009) How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Adm Rev 69(6):1097–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moynihan DP, Pandey SK, Wright BE (2012) Prosocial values and performance management theory: linking perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance 25(3):463–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oreskes N (2004) Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? Environ Sci Policy 7(5):369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 268–293Google Scholar
  41. Perry JL, Mesch D, Paarlberg L (2006) Motivating employees in a new governance era: the performance paradigm revisited. Public Adm Rev 66(4):505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):1050–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Popper M, Lipshitz R (1998) Organizational learning mechanisms a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. J Appl Behav Sci 34(2):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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):261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):300–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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):381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ringquist EJ (1994) Policy influence and policy responsiveness in state pollution control. Policy Stud J 22(1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rissman AR, Carpenter S (2015) Progress on nonpoint pollution: barriers and opportunities. Daedalus 144(3):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rissman AR, Smail R (2014) Accounting for results: how conservation organizations report performance information. Environ Manag 55(4):916–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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):988–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shortle JS, Horan RD (2001) The economics of nonpoint pollution control. J Econ Surv 15(3):255–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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):1316–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Srebotnjak T (2007) The role of environmental statisticians in environmental policy: the case of performance measurement. Environ Sci Policy 10(5):405–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight. TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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):483–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor J (2008) Organizational influences, public service motivation and work outcomes: an Australian study. Int Public Manag J 11(1):67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. USDA (2016) FY 2016 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan Google Scholar
  59. USDA (2017) FY 2016 Annual Performance Report Google Scholar
  60. 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):779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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):11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 137:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yang K, Hsieh JY (2007) Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: testing a middle‐range model. Public Adm Rev 67(5):861–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and SocietyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations