Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Environmental Action Does Not Activate Concern: The Case of Impaired Water Quality in Two Rural Watersheds

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Little research has considered how residents’ perceptions of their local environment may interact with efforts to increase environmental concern, particularly in areas in need of remediation. This study examined the process by which local environmental action may affect environmental concern. A model was presented for exploring the effects of community-based watershed organizations (CWOs) on environmental concern that also incorporates existing perceptions of the local environment. Survey data were collected from area residents in two watersheds in southwestern Pennsylvania, USA, an area affected by abandoned mine drainage. The findings suggest that residents’ perceptions of local water quality and importance of improving water quality are important predictors of level of environmental concern and desire for action; however, in this case, having an active or inactive CWO did not influence these perceptions. The implications of these findings raise important questions concerning strategies and policy making around environmental remediation at the local level.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The “no control” response and the “don’t know/no opinion response” were compared across numerous other indicators within the survey using a Chi-squared test for possible differences. To test if respondents’ attitudes were significantly different based on whether they answered 4 or 5, a variable was created in which respondents answering 4 were coded as 0 and respondents answering 5 were coded as 1. Then a series of crosstabs using this variable and numerous other survey questions were computed. The results of each comparison showed no significant difference in response, as evidenced by insignificant chi square statistics, based on whether an individual chose the “don’t know/no opinion” or the “no control” option. This suggests that these two categories could be combined without significantly misrepresenting the data. Accordingly, the don’t know/no opinion response was combined with the “no control” response to create a four-point scale for perceived level of concern.

References

  • Armstrong A, Stedman R, Bishop J, Sullivan P (2012) What’s a stream without water? Disproportionality in headwater regions impacting water quality. Environ Manag 50(5):849–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azjen I (1991) Theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ Int 30:827–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, Bonnes M (2002) Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: the case of natural protected areas. J Econ Psychol 23:631–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braiser K, Lee B, Stedman and Weigle J (2011) Local champions speak out: Pennsylvania’s community watershed organizations. In: Morton L, Brown S (eds) Pathways for getting to better water quality: the citizen effect. Springer, New York, pp 133–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm J, Eisenhauer B, Krannich R (2006) Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern: the case for multiple dimensions of attachment. Environ Behav 37(2):237–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody S, Highfield W, Peck B (2005) Exploring the mosaic of perceptions for water quality across watersheds in San Antonio, Texas. Landsc Urban Plan 73:200–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Harris G, Reed P (2002) Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Appl Geogr 22(1):49–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrus G, Bonaiuto M, Bonnes M (2005) Environmental concern, regional identity and support for protected areas in Italy. Environ Behav 37(2):237–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cline SA, Collins AR (2003) Watershed associations in West Virginia: their impact on environmental protection. J Environ Manag 67(4):373–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Community Survey of Perceived Environmental Health Risks in Western Australia (2009) Government of Western Australia Department of Health. www.public.health.wa.gov.au. Accessed May 2010

  • Corraliza J, Berenguer J (2000) Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a situational approach. Environ Behav 32(6):832–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D, Freudenburg W (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28(3):302–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day R (2007) Place and the experience of air quality. Health Place 13:249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Stern P, Guagnano G (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases for environmental concern. Environ Behav 30(4):450–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap R, Jones R (2002) Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In: Dunlap R, Michelson W (eds) Handbook of environmental sociology. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp 482–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap R, Van Liere K, Martig A, Jones R (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revise NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding K, McDonald R, Louis W (2008) Theory of planned behavior, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. J Environ Psychol 28:318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fransson N, Garling T (1999) Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods and research findings. J Environ Psychol 19(4):369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory G, Di Leo M (2003) Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: the role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(6):1261–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin C (1999) Watershed councils: an emerging form of public participation in natural resource management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(3):505–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter V, Kroll-Smith S (2007) Volatile places: a sociology of communities and environmental controversies. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oakes

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris H (1999) Keystone of democracy: a history of Pennsylvania workers. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission

  • Higdon F, Brasier K, Stedman R, Lee B, Sherman S (2005) Assessment of community watershed organizations in rural Pennsylvania. Center for Rural Pennsylvania. www.ruralpa.org/watersjes_higdon.pdf

  • Hu A, Morton L (2011) Regional water quality concern and environmental attitudes. In Morton L, Brown S (eds) Pathways for getting better water quality: the citizen effect. Springer, New York, pp 95–107

  • Irwin A, Simmons P, Walker G (1999) Faulty environments and risk reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards. Environ Plan A 31:1311–1326

  • Kaiser F, Scheuthle H (2003) Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: moral norms and just world beliefs in conservatism. Personal Individ Differ 35(5):1033–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karp D (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav 28(1):111–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasapoğlu M, Ecevit M (2002) Attitudes and behavior toward the environment: the case of Lake Burdur in Turkey. Environ Behav 34:363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, DS (2000) Are community watershed groups effective? Confronting the Thorny issue of measuring success. In: Brick P, Snow D, Van de Wetering S (eds) Across the great divide: explorations in conservation and the American. West Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 188–193

  • Koehler B, Koontz T (2008) Citizen participation in collaborative watershed partnerships. Environ Manag 41:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach W, Pelkey N (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Resour Plan Manag 127(6):378–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach W, Pelkey N, Sabatier P (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Anal Manag 21(4):645–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall B, Picou J, Bevc C (2005) Ecological disaster as contextual transformation: environmental values in a renewable resource community. Environ Behav 37(5):706–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masuda J, Garvin T (2006) Place, culture and the social amplification of risk. Risk Anal 26(2):437–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSpirit S, Reid C (2011) Resident’s perception of tap water and decisions to purchase bottled water: a survey analysis from Appalachian, Big Sandy Coal Mining Region of West Virginia. Soc Nat Resour 24(5):511–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSpirit S, Scott S, Gill D, Hardesty S, Sims D (2007) Risk perceptions after a coal waste impoundment failure: a survey assessment. South Rural Sociol 22(2):83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore E, Koontz T (2003) Research note a typology of collaborative watershed groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 16(5):451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore R, Weaver M (2006) Upper sugar creek survey. In: Parker J (ed) Land tenure in the sugarcreek watershed: a contextual analysis of land tenure and social networks, intergenerational farm succession, and conservation use among farmers of Wayne County, Ohio. Dissertation, The Ohio State University

  • Morton L (2008) The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershed management. Soc Nat Resour 21:751–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (1998) Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring an Assessment Report. www.dep.state.pa.us. Accessed April 2010

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2006) Acid Mine Drainage Set Aside Program www.dep.state.pa.us. Accessed June 2011

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) www.dep.state.pa.us. Accessed 4 June 2011

  • Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ Behav 36(1):73–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley P, Kiger G (2002) Increasing survey response: the Drop-Off/Pick-up technique. Rural Sociol 22(1):6–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz W, Zelezny L (1999) Values and pro-environmental behavior: a 5 country survey. J Cross Cult Psychol 29(4):540–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker R, Lomax R (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Peters E (2006) Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15(6):322–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stedman R, Lee B, Braiser K, Weigle J, Higdon F (2009) Cleaning up water? OR building rural community? Community watershed organizations in Pennsylvania. Rural Sociol 74(2):178–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern P (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmental significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern P, Dietz T, Kalof L, Guagnano G (1995) Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental action: attitude formation toward emergent objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 25(18):1611–1636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll-Kleeman S (2001) Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition to protected areas. J Environ Psychol 21:369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Story P, Forsyth D (2008) Watershed conservation and preservation: environmental engagement as helping behavior. J Environ Psychol 28(4):305–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stough-Hunter A (2011) Examining the role of community and gender on perceptions of impaired water quality: a comparative case study. Dissertation, The Ohio State University

  • United States Census (2010) www.census.gov. Accessed April 2010

  • U.S. Geological Survey (2011) www.streamstats.usgs.gov. Accessed June 2011

  • Uzzell D, Pol E, Badenas D (2002) Place identification, social cohesion and environmental sustainability. Environ Behav 34(1):26–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorkinn M, Riese H (2001) Environmental concern in a local context: the significance of place attachment. Environ Behav 33(2):249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber E (2000) A new vanguard for the environment: grass–roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement. Soc Nat Resour 13:237–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao C, McCright A (2007) Environmental concern and sociodemographic variables: a study of statistical models. J Environ Educ 38(2):3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A number of individuals and organizations served as valuable resources for the project. Specifically, we would like to thank the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the township supervisors, the watershed organization personnel, and a key individual with the conservation district of the county under study who provided valuable information throughout the project. Dr. Richard Moore and Dr. Tom Koontz gave thoughtful feedback on the research. Kathy Stough aided with survey distribution.

Funding

No funding was obtained for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social and Behavioral Sciences Division, Ohio Dominican University, 202 Sansbury, 1216 Sunbury Rd., Columbus, OH, 43219, USA

    Anjel Stough-Hunter

  2. School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Kristi S. Lekies & Joseph F. Donnermeyer

Authors
  1. Anjel Stough-Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristi S. Lekies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph F. Donnermeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjel Stough-Hunter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stough-Hunter, A., Lekies, K.S. & Donnermeyer, J.F. When Environmental Action Does Not Activate Concern: The Case of Impaired Water Quality in Two Rural Watersheds. Environmental Management 54, 1306–1319 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0370-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0370-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation