Evaluation of the Hudson River Estuary Program’S Biodiversity Outreach Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Land-Use Planning in the Hudson Valley: Evaluation of the Hudson River Estuary Program’s Biodiversity Outreach Program May 2015 HDRU Series No 15-8 Prepared by: Shorna Allred, Richard Stedman, Caroline Tse, and Maureen Mullen Human Dimensions Research Unit Department of Natural Resources Cornell University 1 HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCH UNIT PUBLICATION SERIES This publication is one of a series of reports resulting from investigations dealing with public issues in environmental and natural resources management. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University studies the social and economic aspects of natural resources and the environment and the application of social and economic insights in management planning and policy. A list of HDRU publications may be obtained by accessing our World Wide Web site at: http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru. TO CITE THIS REPORT: Allred, S., Stedman, R., Tse, C. and M. Mullen. 2015. Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Land-Use Planning in the Hudson Valley: Evaluation of the Hudson River Estuary Program’s Biodiversity Outreach Program. Human Dimensions Research Unit Publ. Series 15-8. Dept. of Nat. Resources, Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 192 pp. http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/pubs/HDRUReport15-8.pdf This report is available electronically at http://dnr.cornell.edu/hdru 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Since 2001, the goal of the Hudson River Estuary Program’s (hereafter, Estuary Program) Biodiversity Outreach Program has been to help municipalities and other local and regional decision makers in New York’s Hudson River Estuary watershed to conserve and enhance biodiversity through land-use planning. The Estuary Program conducts programming to foster inclusion of biodiversity objectives and principles into local plans, policies, and procedures. The Outreach Program educates and builds capacity in local governments using tools such as workshops and training, data sharing, grants, and technical assistance. To date, decision-makers representing over 112 different municipalities have engaged in the program, but little is known about long-term impacts, nor are there protocols in place with measurable criteria and indicators for assessing overall program effectiveness. Overview of Research In response to the gap identified above, the Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) worked collaboratively with Estuary Program staff to create an evaluation framework to assess the impact of the Biodiversity Outreach Program. The primary objectives of this project were to understand indicators of program success and effectiveness, including short- and long-term impacts such as behavior, attitudes, motivations, and constraints for incorporating biodiversity considerations into land-use plans, policies, and procedures. Methods The primary methods used to create this evaluation framework included: 1) A literature review and synthesis of key factors influencing program and policy effectiveness and impact 2) Interviews with key Estuary Program and partner staff to determine goals and objectives of programs 3) Preliminary review and assessment of existing evaluation materials 4) Survey of past program participants and non- participants using the evaluation framework, and 5) Final analysis and recommendations to inform the program and a long-term evaluation protocol. Summary of Results Based on our findings, the Hudson River Estuary Program has met the stated program goals of providing the tools, information, assistance, and funding to enable participants to be more effective in decision-making roles around land use, biodiversity, and conservation issues in their communities. More than 70% of respondents to the participant survey stated that the Estuary Program helped them in their position. At least two-thirds considered the Program to be useful; almost all stated that several offerings—such as the Biodiversity Assessment Short Course, Estuary Program presentations, technical assistance, and receipt of Estuary Grants—were very useful. Participants gained an understanding of the principles of conserving biodiversity, factors that contribute to the loss of biodiversity, and its importance to their municipalities. As a result of the 3 training, they are now able to identify specific land-use practices to conserve or enhance habitat and are better able to inform land-use decisions. Technical skills, such as habitat identification, mapping methods and field assessment, were developed. Participants demonstrated application of knowledge and skills gained when describing their successes, such as advocacy and awareness-raising, and planning, conservation, stewardship, and recreation outcomes. Results showed that participants often serve on concurrent boards, and certain pathways may exist between board positions; for example prior Comprehensive Plan Committee members later serve on Planning Boards and Conservation Advisory Councils, demonstrating continuity in land-use planning activities. Other findings showed that municipalities were less likely to have planners, wetland inspectors or biologists/ecologists on staff, instead relying on contractors for these roles; however, more than half of municipalities do use computer-based mapping technologies. Participants also shared Estuary Program information and resources with their boards, colleagues, and officials from other towns or municipalities, further expanding the reach and impact of the program. Participants were able to draw on the existing local network of experts and practitioners in biodiversity and land-use conservation for guidance and technical assistance. Town and Village Board and City Council membership was underrepresented in outreach program participants; recruitment could be targeted to these elected officials. Additionally, those in the early stages of their land-use planning experience could benefit from participation in the program. Training modules emphasizing communications, empowerment and leadership skills development could improve participants’ ability to communicate biodiversity and conservation issues to elected officials, local leaders and fellow residents. The majority of respondents were 55 years of age or older and tended to have graduate degrees. This is consistent with prior findings on the composition of volunteer advisory boards, from which the pool of Estuary Program participants is drawn. In general, greater diversity (age, education, race, socio-economic) of municipal leadership positions is encouraged to better represent the composition, needs, and interests of local communities and their land-use planning goals, but this is a larger issue of the boards from which the Estuary Program draws participants. We also found that sharing among peers was common. Future iterations of the program could build on existing networks to encourage greater interaction and information exchange. One of the key barriers identified was lack of funding. We recommend the continuation of funding and grant opportunities to maintain or increase education offerings and technical assistance, resulting in the greater likelihood of sustaining longer-term biodiversity conservation goals. Acknowledgments We would like to thank all the municipal officials and organizational staff who completed the survey and shared their experiences with us. We are also grateful to Karen Strong and Laura Heady of the Hudson River Estuary Biodiversity Program for their contributions as collaborators in this research. This Project was funded by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund through the Hudson River Estuary Program of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 5 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 7 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 9 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 10 Biodiversity and Land-Use Planning .......................................................................................................10 Biodiversity Outreach Program ...............................................................................................................11 PROGRAM EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 12 Training Program Evaluation ..................................................................................................................14 Social and Policy Capacity as Program Outcomes ..................................................................................15 Indicators .................................................................................................................................................16 Evaluation Framework for the HREP Biodiversity Outreach Program ..................................................17 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................