TY - JOUR
T1 - Is a clean river fun for all? Recognizing social vulnerability in watershed planning
AU - Cutts, Bethany B.
AU - Greenlee, Andrew J.
AU - Prochaska, Natalie K.
AU - Chantrill, Carolina V.
AU - Contractor, Annie B.
AU - Wilhoit, Juliana M.
AU - Abts, Nancy
AU - Hornik, Kaitlyn
N1 - Funding Information:
BC, AG were awarded funding from Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, grant no. NA14OAR4170095 and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Graduate College Focal Point Initiative “Focal Point: Urban Environmental Equity”. Funding supported partial salary for KH and NS and travel for BC, AJ, NP, AC, CC, JW, NS, and KH. The funder (Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant) aided in initial contacts with watershed planning groups in the study area. Key personnell helped to validate interpretations of interview responses along with the research team. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors would like to thank R. Wilson, B. Breyer and E. Lower for their assistance with interview data collection and analysis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Cutts et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2018/5
Y1 - 2018/5
N2 - Watershed planning can lead to policy innovation and action toward environmental protection. However, groups often suffer from low engagement with communities that experience disparate impacts from flooding and water pollution. This can limit the capacity of watershed efforts to dismantle pernicious forms of social inequality. As a result, the benefits of environmental changes often flow to more empowered residents, short-changing the power of watershed-based planning as a tool to transform ecological, economic, and social relationships. The objectives of this paper are to assess whether the worldview of watershed planning actors are sufficiently attuned to local patterns of social vulnerability and whether locally significant patterns of social vulnerability can be adequately differentiated using conventional data sources. Drawing from 35 in-depth interviews with watershed planners and community stakeholders in the Milwaukee River Basin (WI, USA), we identify five unique definitions of social vulnerability. Watershed planners in our sample articulate a narrower range of social vulnerability definitions than other participants. All five definitions emphasize spatial and demographic characteristics consistent with existing ways of measuring social vulnerability. However, existing measures do not adequately differentiate among the spatio-temporal dynamics used to distinguish definitions. In response, we develop two new social vulnerability measures. The combination of interviews and demographic analyses in this study provides an assessment technique that can help watershed planners (a) understand the limits of their own conceptualization of social vulnerability and (b) acknowledge the importance of place-based vulnerabilities that may otherwise be obscured. We conclude by discussing how our methods can be a useful tool for identifying opportunities to disrupt social vulnerability in a watershed by evaluating how issue frames, outreach messages, and engagement tactics. The approach allows watershed planners to shift their own culture in order to consider socially vulnerable populations comprehensively.
AB - Watershed planning can lead to policy innovation and action toward environmental protection. However, groups often suffer from low engagement with communities that experience disparate impacts from flooding and water pollution. This can limit the capacity of watershed efforts to dismantle pernicious forms of social inequality. As a result, the benefits of environmental changes often flow to more empowered residents, short-changing the power of watershed-based planning as a tool to transform ecological, economic, and social relationships. The objectives of this paper are to assess whether the worldview of watershed planning actors are sufficiently attuned to local patterns of social vulnerability and whether locally significant patterns of social vulnerability can be adequately differentiated using conventional data sources. Drawing from 35 in-depth interviews with watershed planners and community stakeholders in the Milwaukee River Basin (WI, USA), we identify five unique definitions of social vulnerability. Watershed planners in our sample articulate a narrower range of social vulnerability definitions than other participants. All five definitions emphasize spatial and demographic characteristics consistent with existing ways of measuring social vulnerability. However, existing measures do not adequately differentiate among the spatio-temporal dynamics used to distinguish definitions. In response, we develop two new social vulnerability measures. The combination of interviews and demographic analyses in this study provides an assessment technique that can help watershed planners (a) understand the limits of their own conceptualization of social vulnerability and (b) acknowledge the importance of place-based vulnerabilities that may otherwise be obscured. We conclude by discussing how our methods can be a useful tool for identifying opportunities to disrupt social vulnerability in a watershed by evaluating how issue frames, outreach messages, and engagement tactics. The approach allows watershed planners to shift their own culture in order to consider socially vulnerable populations comprehensively.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046340832&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046340832&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0196416
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0196416
M3 - Article
C2 - 29715285
AN - SCOPUS:85046340832
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 13
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 5
M1 - e0196416
ER -