Thomas A Heberlein Sometimes it is OK to judge book by its cover Attitudes are like rocks in a river Many are underwater and you cannot see them perhaps the most dangerous You dont go down the river trying to move them out of the way dynamite ID: 321043
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Advanced Lake Leaders Conference" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Advanced Lake Leaders Conference
Thomas A. HeberleinSlide2
Sometimes it is OK to judge book by its cover
Attitudes are like rocks in a river
Many are underwater and you cannot see them –perhaps the most dangerous
You don’t go down the river trying to move them out of the way (dynamite!)
But you must know their location and how to read the water to successfully navigate.Slide3
Attitudes and solving environmental problems: The Three Fixes
Technological Fix
Cognitive Fix
Structural Fix
The environment doesn’t have problems, we as humans have problems When we
have problems with the environment,
there are three ways of trying to fix them Slide4
Problem of Flooding in the US
Huge Flood Loses 1920’s-30’sThe response was the change natureBy using technology (Hence the
Technological
F
ix)Massive Dam Building Program Billions of Dollars SpentAssessment of Flood Losses 30 years laterRivers were modified BUT...Flood Losses INCREASED!Why?Slide5
Dams changed the behavior of the river and the attitudes and behavior of people as well
Rivers were “sort of” controlled
Fewer “Floods”
People thought they were safe
Moved into Flood PlainThe Technological Fix, seems to avoid people but it doesn’t.Slide6
The Cognitive Fix
Let’s Change Human BehaviorGet the people rather than the rivers out of the flood plain
Chicago Geographers: “Educate the Public
”
(aka “Knowledge Deficiency Model”)Created Flood Plain MapsTried them out in Kansas CityThey didn’t workSlide7
The Structural Fix
Who really owns houses? Asked the Chicago geographers.Bankers
Smaller Group
Easy to Target
More “Rational”No Loans in the Flood PlainFlood InsuranceFlood Plain ZoningSlide8
The Three Fixes in Stockholm
How do you reduce traffic in the Center of the CitySlide9Slide10
Solving Auto Crowding in Stockholm
Technological Fix Tear down buildings, build new roads and bridges (change the environment)Cognitive Fix
Massive advertising campaign trying to convince people to not drive down town
Structural Fix
Trängselskatt Slide11Slide12
Crowding Tax was implemented
And tested in an adaptive management frameworkReduced travel in the center of the city over 20 %
Passed the “inter-ocular
traumatic test”
Continues today to reduce crowding in the center Slide13
How the Three Fixes WorksSlide14
Technological
Cognitive
Structural
What Changes
Environment
Human Behavior
Human Behavior
How Change is Achieved
Technological change influences the environment directly
Information changes human behavior
Organizational and/or technological change influences human behavior
What Happens
Environmental variation is modified
Attitudes change and behavior change follows
Behaviors are changed. Attitude change may follow
Role of Attitudes
Developments must be consistent with dominant public attitudes and values
Effective change in attitude is necessary and attitudes must influence behavior
Structural changes must be consistent with dominant public attitudes and valuesSlide15
Target
Must change only key groups or key individuals
Must change general public as individuals
Must change key decision makers and other gate keepers
Benefit
Usually effective at modifying the environment in predictable ways
Consistent with freedom and responsibility values. Particularly important in the USA
Likely to be effective with lower cost and with fewer negative effects than the Technological Fix
Public Acceptability
High
High
Low
Problems
High cost. Can fail to solve problem and can create other problems
It is difficult to change public attitudes, and often these attitudes have little to do with what people actually do
Low public acceptability in the US. Seen as social engineering. Design problems because of political compromisesSlide16
Other Examples of Fixes
The Department Coffee RoomThe Merrimac River CrossingLead Free GasolineHeberlein’s 1974 PorscheSlide17
The Departmental Coffee Room
Problem--Using Styrofoam Cups
How to change behavior and save the “environment?”
Cognitive Fix
Put up a sign
Structural Fix
Provide only paper/ or China cups
Technological Fix
Coffee “fountains”
Lesson: Environmental Fixes must be consistent with
attitudes and cultureSlide18
The Merrimac River Crossing
Problem--River Crossing
Solutions: Ferry, Bridge or None
Ferry doesn’t allow crossing in the winter
Other Technological Fixes
Use railroad bridge in the winter
Ice Road
Lesson: Technological Fixes must be
consistent with attitudes and cultureSlide19
Lead Free Gasoline
Problem: Reduce lead in the environment by providing
Lead Free Gasoline--How do you get people to use it
Cognitive Fix--Educate the Public
Structural Fix
Converters Required
Smaller nozzle required
Passed Law Requiring
Technological Fix??
Build lead processor into cars--shell shot out put!Slide20
Heberlein’s 1974 Porsche
Problem: How to get people to wear seat belts?
Cognitive Fix: Educate the Public
Structural Fix: Interlock Device
Car won’t start unless seat belts locked
Technological Fix?
Automatic Seat Belts
Air Bags
Lesson: Structural Fixes must be
consistent with attitudes and cultureSlide21
Attitudes and the Three Fixes
Technological Developments must be consistent with broad Public Attitudes
Cognitive
Effective Attitude Change is Central and Behaviors Must Follow Attitudes
Structural Structural Changes must be consistent with broad Public AttitudesSlide22
Conclusion
No matter which Fix you try you must have scientific information on attitudes or ...Slide23
Reducing Algae in Lake Mendota
The Technological Fix—Change NatureSlide24
Food Web Management Project
Goal was to reduce algae by increasing the number of planktivoresBy decreasing the number of little fish that ate planktivores
How?
By dumping in a lot of big fish (walleyes and northerns) to eat the little fish
ONE PROBLEMSlide25
They Forgot the Top Predator!
Angler numbers increased by almost 600%
“
At the ecosystem scale for lakes, this role of humans is insufficiently appreciated and poorly anticipated. This predator learns rapidly. It communicates quickly. A modest number of those most experienced and skilled can quickly undo a carefully planned food web manipulation.”
James F. Kitchell and Stephen R. Carpenter,Slide26
Ice Fishermen
Came to the limnology labTo ask to use the phoneIn the days before cell phones
To order pizzas
And the scientists helped
them out, which I guess is only reasonable in a food chain experimentSlide27
We need as much knowledge
of the humans outside the lake as we do of biology of the lake
of the 33 authors of the summary book, not one was a social science
IT WASN’T THE LIMNOLOGISTS’S FAULT
At all of UW and the WDNR there was nowhere near the capacity to understand angler population dynamicsOr farmer behavior (the current problem for the water quality)Slide28
Sociologists (namely me) don’t do any better
The sad story of cleaning up Delavan LakeSlide29
1986 Heberlein Directs WRM Masters
16 Students
Designed Lake Delavan Management Plan
Technological Fix—Changed Nature
The WRM curriculum integrates the biological and physical sciences (which identify and measure problems) with engineering (which provides technological alternatives) and law
and the social sciences (
which assess needs and potential for institutional response). Slide30
By 1989, a comprehensive rehabilitation project began. The $7 million project was completed within three years and included:
• Drawing down the lake's water leve
l by 10 feet to facilitate the
eradication of the entire fish population.
• Building three ponds before the water entered the inlet and dredging a sediment control channel
in the inlet.
•
Reconstructing the dam
at the end of the outlet.
•
Treating the bottom of the lake
to trap phosphorus sediments and prevent them from re-entering the lake.
•
Constructing a peninsula
near Community Park to divert sediment-laden water by redirecting it toward the outlet.
•
Restocking game fish
as the lake refilled to its normal level.
Does this sound like social science to you??Slide31
The project was a success! 1991 water clarity was at 26 feet deep.
Property values went up
Some sold theirs and walked with the profits
People could swim and fish
Our CV surveys showed owners would pay $80-100 annually for this improvementBut this money was never collectedAnglers from around the state were attracted by the fisheriesThey didn’t pay any clean water fees eitherSlide32
2005—lake is dirty again
AND NO MONEY TO CLEAN UP!We FORGOT social sustainability
We failed to build in institutional mechanisms to promote sustainability
WHY?
Not enough social sciences1 social psychologist (me)1 economist (visiting faculty)Of the 16 students only 3 had any real social science training
Use Enough Social Science!Slide33
Failure at the Grand CanyonSlide34
The Direct Experience Principle
One of four principles helpful for understanding attitudes
The Consistency Principle
The Identify Principle
The Specificity PrincipleAttitudes based on direct experience are stronger, less likely to change, and more likely to influence our actions. Many attitudes are not based on direct experienceSlide35
Attitudes of Visitors (oar/motor)
Satisfaction of visitors who take oar and motor powered trips is high and about the same.BUT . . . visitors take only one trip.
Few have Direct Experience with BOTH kinds of trips.
So without this, how do they know?
Anyone who has been on both types of trips knows there are vast differences.Slide36
Best of Both Experiment
Worked with an outfitter who ran both motorized and oar powered trips floated half of the canyon on oar or motor powered trips
then switched to the opposite kind.
Attitudes measured after
both experiencesExperimental Design giving Direct ExperienceShelby, B. “Contrasting Recreational Experiences: Motors and Oars in the Grand Canyon.”
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
35 (1980): 129–31.Slide37
After taking BOTH trips
Choose oars for next trip 87%Recommend oars to friend 79%Oars better 90%
Oars described as
quiet, relaxing, natural, friendly
Motors described asloud, big, noisy, crowded
Data pass the inter ocular
traumatic testSlide38
So with such compelling data why are motors still on the river? Slide39
Blame Managers?
SolutionNational Park Service Managers on another Best Both Trip
Bill Whalen—Director National Park Service
Howard Chapman—Western Region Director
Merle Stitt—Superintendent of Grand Canyon National ParkStaff of the Secretary of Interior’s officeBased on their experience they strongly supported phasing out motors as part of the Inner Canyon Management PlanSlide40
Blame Politics?
A first term senator Orrin Hatch from the State of Utah added an amendment to the NPS appropriations bill“If the river management plan with the motorized rafting phase-out was implemented funding for river management at GRCA would be stripped from the budget.”
AND MOTORS STAYED ON THE RIVER.Slide41
Blame Science???
And the scientist?
Were the right studies done?
Enough social science? and in the right place?Slide42
All the science I recommended was done in the canyon
Attitude surveys of visitors, careful measurement of contacts on the river at varying density levels
No studies done of
the rafting industry
the community impacts of a ban on oarsdemonstration projects to understand how transition from motors to oarsSlide43
Think Beyond the RimSlide44
William Freudenburg
“Forty years ago, when a new trend called ‘environmentalism’ swept the county and much of the planet, respected professors were pretty sure they knew what needed to be done. In a nutshell, their ideas involved careful research on every single species on the planet except one—the one that was actually at the root of almost everything they called an ‘environmental’ problem. For that one species, they said that, instead, what we needed to do was ‘educate the public.”Slide45
Use Enough Social Science
Our current efforts are like shooting an elephant with a 22
One Survey is Not Enough!
We need teams of social scientists to join the natural scientists—to balance biocentrism Sociologists (understanding communities)
Political Scientists (governance)
Social Psychologists (attitudes)
Economists (consumer surplus, expenditures)
Even Anthropologists