1. Mae A. Davenport Department of Forest Resources Center for Changing Landscapes University of Minnesota Watershed Planning Workshop Eau Claire, Wisconsin August 6, 2015 COMMUNITY CAPACITY IN WATERSHED PLANNING 1

2. Do you feel personally obligated to engage in conservation practices? Vermillion River Watershed Landowner Survey, n ≥ 303 (some items adapted from Genskow & Prokopy, 2010; Schultz, 2001) 2

3. 3 Multi-level Community Capacity Model

4. 4

5. 5 Behavior Sense of Responsibility Awareness Values Social Norms Perceived ability Moral Norms

6. 6

7. 7 Community Member Action Programmatic capacity Organizational capacity Individual capacity Relational capacity Perceived trust, legitimacy, fairness Community identity & Culture

8. Community Capacity “The interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of that community” (Chaskin et al. 2001, pg. 7) 8

9. What is a community? 9

10. Activity: CC Worksheet 10

11. Programmatic Capacity Organizational Capacity Relational Capacity Individual capacity Individual-based water programming Community-based water programming 11 Trust, legitimacy, and fairness

12. Programmatic Capacity Organizational Capacity Relational Capacity Individual capacity Individual-based water programming Community-based water programming Different Goals Audiences Tools Criteria for success New Challenges Opportunities Outcomes 12 Perceived trust, legitimacy, and fairness

13. Minnesota SWCD Staff Survey: Importance and Performance of Groundwater Protection Actions Source: 2015 Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Groundwater Survey (Pradhananga & Davenport) Responses based on a five-point scale from not at all important (-2) to extremely important (+2) n≥178 13

14. Minnesota SWCD Staff Survey: Importance and Performance of Groundwater Protection Actions Source: 2015 Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Groundwater Survey (Pradhananga & Davenport) Responses based on a five-point scale from not at all important (-2) to extremely important (+2), very ineffective (-2) to very effective (+2) n≥178 14

15. COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMMING 15

16. Programmatic Capacity Organizational Capacity Relational Capacity Individual capacity Individual-based water programming Community-based water programming education regulation technical assistance financial incentives knowledge sharing relationship building community organizing feedback norm activation leadership development partnerships conflict management strategic planning civic engagement evaluation & adaptation education regulation technical assistance financial incentives coordination 16 Perceived trust, legitimacy, and fairness collaborative planning capacity- building

17. Activity: Small Group Discussion 1.What have you already done to build community capacity? 2.What have been outcomes? Community Project/water 3.What more could you be doing? 4.What new outcomes might you realize? Community Project/water 17

18. Regulations Education Technical assistance Financial incentives Individual Capacity Organizational Capacity Programmatic Capacity Trust, legitimacy and fairness Relational Capacity Network & norm development relationship-building knowledge sharing social identity benchmarking norm activation community organizing Organizational & leadership development conflict management strategic planning partnerships State, regional, local coordination assessment & monitoring civic engagement collaborative planning evaluation & adaptation Building trust communicative planning transparency consistency cultural understanding valuing diversity 18

19. Individual Capacity Organizational Capacity Programmatic Capacity Trust, legitimacy and fairness Relational Capacity tcdailyplanet.net Scott County, MN Community capacity-building approach to engaging people in water protection 19

20. Expanding your audience: Important actors/communities of influence in project outcomes Actors…Communities of influence UsersDecision Makers & Managers Social Influencers Create change Are affected by change Affect or block action/decision Have relevant knowledge or expertise Have special regard or influence in community landowners, boaters, vendors, developers elders, faith leaders, citizen monitors, community advocates & organizers, educators local business owners & operators recreationists, interest groups MN residents state level & regional officials, staff local officials, staff future users, decision makers, managers, and social influencers 20

21. Why are community capacity outcomes important? Capacity-building increases Community resilience Community readiness Community competence 21

22. Community Capacity-Building Identifying community assets and needs; capacities and constraints Build community capacity Community change  behavior change Add more tools to the toolbox Traditional tools: regulation, education, technical assistance, financial incentives Contemporary tools: community building Farmer-led councils, master water stewards, civic engagement cohorts, friendship tours, leadership development, benchmarking, feedback Monitor community capacity, evaluate programs and adapt Need interagency support and commitment from policy makers to invest in community assessment and capacity-building 22

23. Mae Davenport mdaven@umn.edu 612-624-2721 23 THANK YOU!

24. 24 Minnesota Study Watersheds

25. Creating Conservation Momentum for Water Resource Protection (adapted from Davenport & Seekamp 2013) Individual Capacity Belief & behavior change (e.g., clean water & civic action) Relational Capacity Network & norm development (e.g., knowledge sharing, relationship-building, social identity, community organizing, benchmarking, & norm activation) Programmatic Capacity State/regional/local coordination in program development (e.g., assessment & monitoring, civic engagement, collaborative planning, evaluation, & adaptation) Organizational Capacity Organizational & leadership development (e.g., conflict management, strategic planning, & partnerships) Improved water resource conditions 25

26. Why are community capacity outcomes important? Conservation behavior problem: People don’t know (information) People don’t care (motivation) Community capacity problem: Individual capacity Perceptions & misconceptions Conservation is too difficult for me Relational capacity Knowledge sharing, cultural norms & social group pressures It’ll hurt my business No one has the time No one else is doing it Organizational capacity Perceptions & misconceptions It’s a losing battle Distrust & skepticism The scientists don’t even know if it works Programmatic capacity Conservation messages miss audience Messages deliver what to do but not why Limited conservation performance feedback Limited conservation outcomes feedback 26 K. Hakanson