depts.washington.edudepts.washington.edu/.../urbanstewardship_rn.docx · web viewwhat is urban...

FS Research Note Manuscript :: May 20, 2010

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Working Toward a Practitioner-

Derived Definition in Seattle

Michele Romolini, Weston Brinkley, and Kathleen Wolf

MICHELE ROMOLINI is a Doctoral Candidate at the Rubenstein School for Environment & Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT 05405; WESTON BRINKLEY is a Social Science Analyst, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th St, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; and KATHLEEN WOLF is a Research Social Scientist with joint appointments at the College of the Environment, University of Washington, and the US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA.

AbstractWhile “stewardship” is often used to describe environmental improvement efforts, it is difficult

to find an agreed upon definition of the term. Current research examines stewardship

programs, activities, networks, and outcomes. A comprehensive definition should take into

account the perspectives of all stakeholders. Practitioners and project managers have

particularly direct experiences of stewardship, however little has been done to determine how

they define the term and its implementation. Establishing a shared concept of stewardship is

essential to further research, and the intent of this preliminary study is to begin to develop a

definition. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of nine

Seattle environmental organizations, who collectively have over 100 years of experience in the

field. Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping (3CM) was used to elicit responses to the question

“what is environmental stewardship?” The 3CM method encourages participants to reveal and

explore their cognitions and perceptions about an idea or activity. Responses are open-ended,

rather than constrained by finite lists of questions or variables. Analysis of 3CM responses

generates thematic, structural representations of shared concepts and their interactions across

study participants. Results show that these practitioners have a multi-layered definition of

stewardship, from environmental improvement to community building, from actions to

outcomes. This array of perceptions is displayed in their organizational activities, and as further

research may show, in organizational networks and outcomes. This initial work builds upon

1


ongoing stewardship mapping research in New York City, and is part of a larger project

comparing stewardship networks in Seattle and Baltimore. Through continued study in these

and other cities, this work can be expanded and replicated to create a framework for urban

environmental stewardship research.

Keywords: stewardship, urban environment, community-based organizations, civic ecology,

natural resources management

RationaleThe motivation to define stewardship arose during the design of research to assess the social

and environmental outcomes of natural resource stewardship networks in Seattle and

Baltimore. This emerging research program builds on investigations that demonstrate the

important roles that community-based organizations and their networks play in urban natural

resources stewardship, including the pioneering work on organizations in New York City

(Svendsen and Campbell 2008). However, the intent of our new two-city research program will

be to first, replicate the process of inventory and mapping of environmental stewardship

organizations in Seattle and Baltimore, and then, to expand the work to better understand

social interactions. Through an analysis of the organizational networks that exist among urban

stewardship groups, we will examine whether these networks impact social and environmental

outcomes within the neighborhoods they serve, as well as the consequences of networks across

broader natural systems (such as watersheds) or social systems (such as a metro region).

Urban based natural resource research, while long conducted by the USDA Forest Service in the

Northern Research Station through their Urban Natural Resource Stewardship theme, has only

more recently taken place elsewhere in the country. Nationally, State and Private Forestry has

been dealing heavily with urban topics in their Urban and Community Forestry program.

Additionally, urban conditions have appeared in the US Forest Service strategic plans (USDA FS

2007), articulating the need for urban research, and explicitly delineating the goal of engaging

urban America with forest service programs (goal 6). Despite this foundation and

acknowledgment of the importance of urban work, research in the field is now just emerging in

2


the Pacific Northwest. The need for foundational work in the Pacific Northwest is therefore

paramount at this time. Research needs specific to the region have been compiled and assessed

based on considerable input from stakeholders and professionals. These results are being used

to further develop a regional approach to urban natural resource science in the Pacific

Northwest (Wolf and Kruger 2010).

Urbanized areas face increasing environmental issues and concerns. Government agencies may

be able to identify and formulate policy to address these issues, yet do not have adequate

resources (particularly in current economic conditions) to restore or mitigate environmental

systems. Stewardship activity is increasingly acknowledged by citizens, scientists, and policy

makers as a viable strategy to address ecological concerns. Yet, until recently, systematic

understanding of the spatial distribution and characterization of stewardship has not been

pursued. Effects of stewardship have more often been measured in rural landscapes, where

stewardship activity is dispersed on the landscape and cumulative effects of multiple

organizations are negligible (Hajkowicz and Collins 2009). The situation in cities may be quite

different; there may be synergistic effects due to the multiple programs and actions that

typically focus on any urban green space. Initial studies of stewardship within urban areas

suggest that environmentally targeted activity is a stated purpose, but that social consequences

are substantially important to many organizers and participants (Brinkley and Wolf, In prep.).

Social benefits of stewardship activities are likely to be at least as important as direct or

perceived ecological benefits for motivating participation in stewardship.

To test these emergent assertions, and develop hypotheses regarding urban environmental

stewardship, we propose that it is important to construct a shared definition for the term. As

described below, the term “stewardship” is currently applied to a variety of meanings and

practical settings, which can confound potential research questions, analyses, and results.

Imbedded within a definition should be understandings of geographic and social scale, range of

participants, expected land or resource outcomes, and research methods and analyses. Less

ambiguous treatment of the concept will be beneficial not only to our future research, but also

3


to other researchers studying these themes. A shared definition will also facilitate long term

and cross-site comparisons of stewardship outcomes.

In an effort to identify a practitioner-derived definition of stewardship, we conducted

Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping (3CM) interviews with individuals of nine nonprofit

environmental stewardship groups in Seattle, representing a cross section of organizational size

and mission focus. This participatory approach to concept building acknowledges the

particularly relevant and complex perceptions and knowledge of those who are actively working

in environmental stewardship. Actively engaging stewardship leaders can provide

understandings about a significant, but likely underestimated, environmental action community

across urban landscapes. This can lead to a more accurate understanding of urban

environmental stewardship. The results presented in this report provide a preliminary concept

of environmental stewardship, informed by organizations in Seattle. We hope this work

launches additional dialog on the definition, functions, and outcomes of urban environmental

stewardship.

BackgroundThere are several literature themes that are important to an understanding of the importance

and consequence of environmental stewardship. First, several decades of research indicate that

people are positively affected by having nature in everyday built settings, with benefits accrued

from both passive and active encounters. At times, people come together to manage resources

(for a variety of purposes) and improved social capital can be a consequence. We have little

understanding of the organizational relationships or networks that constitute effective natural

resource action, including urban environmental stewardship. More information about these

social dynamics is provided in this section. This complex interplay of nature reactions, largely

taken for granted by organizations and institutions, contributes to the ambiguity of definition

that now marks environmental stewardship.

4


Nature-Based Benefits

Studies indicate a full range of benefits that may be obtained through passive experiences of

urban natural resources, as well as through the active participation in the development and

management of these resources. The existing literature identifies multiple benefits provided by

nearby nature for individuals, including personal restoration and healing (Kaplan 2001, Ulrich

1984), stress and anxiety reduction (Heerwagen 2009, van den Berg et al. 2007) and ecological

literacy or a place-based knowledge (Orr 1992).

Additionally, community-based benefits are associated with both active and passive encounters

with city nature. These include empowerment (Westphal 2003), place attachment (Grese et al.

2000, Ryan 2006), social ecology (Grove et al. 1999), community resilience (Svendsen 2009,

Tidball and Krasny 2007), ecological democracy (Hester 2006), establishing and improving social

ties (Kuo 2003), and developing social learning (Wals and van der Leij 2007).

Collaboration and Networks

Community-based environmental organizations can play a role in developing stewardship

programs and can impact both social and environmental conditions in the communities where

they work. For instance, some studies suggest that such organizations can be used as a proxy to

assess social capital1 in communities (Fukuyama 2000, Kramer 2007). Participation in

associations has also been shown to play a role in community management of local natural

resources (Weber 2000). Beyond the single organization; however, a large body of research

exists on collaborative natural resources management (Koontz et al. 2004, Ostrom 1990,

Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), which can sometimes take the form of polycentric governance

systems (Andersson and Ostrom 2008, McGinnis 1999). This work is relevant to an examination

of networking among environmental stewardship groups.

In addition to direct environmental improvement, several studies provide evidence that

collaborative resource management increases social capital (Mandarano 2009, Schneider et al.

2003, Wagner and Fernandez-Giminez 2008) and that greater social capital can lead to

successful management and improvement of natural resources (Kramer 2007, Pretty and Ward

2001). In the interest of developing measures to evaluate these benefits, an emerging literature

5


identifies the numerous applications of social network analysis (SNA) to understand

collaboration in natural resources management. Recent relevant examples include using SNA to

categorize and understand stakeholder relationships in natural resource management (Prell et

al. 2009) and to evaluate social capital in collaborative planning efforts (Mandarano 2009).

The studies suggest that community-based organizations play an important role in managing

natural resources and building social capital, and that successful outcomes often rely on

effective collaborations through organizational networks. Recent research in the field of

networks describes different types of network structures (Baldassari and Diani 2007) and

provides support that the effectiveness of a network is dependent on its structure (Provan and

Milward 2001). What is missing from the literature is empirical research analyzing network

structure as it relates to social and environmental outcomes of stewardship. In the study of

Seattle and Baltimore, we will examine this relationship as it pertains to urban environmental

stewardship. To move forward with this work, we must first develop a working definition of

environmental stewardship.

Existing Stewardship Definitions

Environmental stewardship represents the commitment of a person to the land, where land has

the broad natural place-based connotations first developed through the writings of Aldo

Leopold in the 1940s. His definition of the Land Ethic and its manifestation through stewardship

was one of the early and foundational discussions on the meaning of environmental

stewardship (Leopold 1949). In the time since his writing the concept of stewardship has

continued to grow and expand into a ranging notion applied to many disciplines.

Though environmental stewardship may be a vital component of a wide variety of activities

such as volunteerism, civics, environmentalism through collaboration and partnership, and

community-based activity, there is no widely shared definition of the term. The literature of

stewardship presents a broad array of actions, activities, motivations, values, and feelings.

Stewardship is variably classified as an ethic, a tool, a result, or a goal. Little, if any work has

been done to synthesize or categorize environmental stewardship types or components.

6


One barrier in defining the term is that aspects of environmental stewardship are occasionally

contradictory. For example, stewardship is often perceived as ownership of place (Kaplan et al.

1998, Svendsen 2009); however, the term is often used to refer to something that cannot be

owned or is strictly communal (Hester 2006, Svendsen and Campbell 2008). Another common

contradictory assumption is that stewardship work is meant for the benefit of others; the

community as a whole (Svendsen and Campbell 2008) as opposed to efforts for personal

benefit (Grese et al. 2000, Svendsen 2009, Ulrich 1984). (See app. 1 for a sample list of

additional stewardship definitions.)

Each of these insights is indicative of a spectrum of attitude or assumption that is now

environmental stewardship. The collection of themes does not lend itself to an easily

discernable or applicable framework. Though each of the components of environmental

stewardship is significant, it is obvious that there is not an agreed upon definition of the term.

Despite this, environmental stewardship as a concept is widely used and crucial to research in

many fields. In attempting to outline a research program, a more practical and accessible use of

environmental stewardship can be established. We seek to define stewardship in the ways that

practitioners, as well as researchers, understand it. This will allow for a shared functional and

practical understanding of the components of stewardship and its spectrum of variations, which

will lead to improved implementation of stewardship methods.

MethodsAs outlined, environmental stewardship is believed to provide a variety of benefits, which

can be realized and multiplied through organizational activities and collaborative networks.

Yet there is not a coherent definition or direction of stewardship in the literature. To

address this within the scope of a broader research program, we conducted interviews

with representatives from nine environmental organizations to attempt to identify a

practitioner-derived definition of stewardship in Seattle. It was determined that interviews

would be the best approach to tap into the rich perceptions and historical knowledge of

Seattle stewardship leaders. In addition to guiding questions, the two-hour interviews

included a cognitive mapping task, which allowed the participants to construct a map of

7


their personal definition of “environmental stewardship.” This definition will help provide

a foundation from which to further develop a working framework to study the activities,

collaborative networks, and eventual outcomes of environmental stewardship

organizations in Seattle. It can also provide a template to be applied to future research on

urban environmental stewardship.

Selection of Organizations and Participants

As in many qualitative research approaches, careful selection of participants was important in

this study. Selection criteria for participant organizations were that they:

had been working in the Seattle area for at least 15 years (to tap perceptions based on rich

historical context)

work directly with communities (to give the context of “on-the-ground” activities that could

contribute to a definition of stewardship)

had a history of collaborating with other organizations (to allow for construction of a shared

definition)

In addition to these criteria, organizations were screened based on organizational size (from

one volunteer to a staff of more than 50), geographic scope of programs (from a 60 acre park to

the entire Puget Sound watershed), and stewardship goals (from watershed restoration to

youth engagement) (table 1). Over a period of several months a list of 15 organizations was

constructed. Recommendations were solicited from staff of one particularly well-established

and connected organization (Cascade Land Conservancy) as well as the extensive knowledge of

the senior researcher on our team, who has worked with community-based organizations in

Seattle for more than a decade. Every organization on the list of 15 was contacted, with 12

responding. Interviews were conducted with nine organizations representing three size

categories. As seen in table 1, three organizations (Friends of Leschi, Friends of Interlaken, P-

Patch Trust) were completely volunteer-based, with no paid staff members. These three were

clearly designated as “small” organizations. Three organizations were considered to be “mid-

sized” (Earthcorps, Seattle Tilth, Student Conservation Association) and three designated

“large” (Cascade Land Conservancy, Mountains to Sound Greenway, People for Puget Sound).

8


These categories were based on knowledge of the scope of their activities, funding, and

partnerships. The range of sizes and missions was purposefully constructed to avoid

overrepresentation of one type of organization.

In addition to organizational selection, we were equally particular in our choice of which

organizational representative to interview. Tenure was the main criterion in selecting

participants; each interviewee had extensive experience and historical context from which to

interpret a personal definition of stewardship. All participants were in high level leadership

positions within their organizations. Several of the participants had been with their respective

organization since its founding, and all organizations were represented by participants that

were among the longest-tenured staff members. Since three organizations elected to have

more than one interviewee, there were 13 participants in total.

It is important to note that while both organizational and participant selections were

deliberate, the individual respondents do not necessarily represent the organization as a whole.

Interviewees were asked questions about their organizations but were also asked to provide

their own thoughts and perceptions. It is expected that participant experiences are shaped by

their affiliations, though we recognize that personal cognitions can be quite different from

official organizational statements.

Interview Process

Interviews with the nine organizations were conducted during later summer 2009. Two of the

authors conducted each interview. The number of people who participated varied for each

organization. Six groups were represented by one person, two were represented by two

people, and one group was represented by three people. The meetings were semi-structured

with two-three overarching questions that prompted the participants to provide free-form

responses, and included:

What is the history of your organization?

Can you describe your organization’s main activities?

Which groups do you collaborate with?

9


The general timeframe of each interview was that the first hour was generally warm-up and

information gathering about the group, with recorded responses. Thirty minutes was dedicated

to the3CM exercise (see below), and the final 30 minutes given to discuss the broader project,

and wrap up. The varied format of the interviews seemed to effectively capture the activities of

many of these organizations. Three groups (Friends of Leschi, Friends of Interlaken, and P-Patch

Trust) offered us tours of their sites, where the participants were better able to illustrate their

stewardship efforts. Four of the nine interviews took place outdoors, providing an informal

meeting location and the opportunity to use place cues to enrich the interviews.

Conceptual Cognitive Content Mapping

Given the depth of knowledge of the interviewees, a cognitive mapping process seemed an

appropriate method of inquiry. Specifically, Conceptual Cognitive Content Mapping (3CM) is a

model developed by Kearney and Kaplan (1997) to collect information that fully reflects

respondents’ conception of a topic and encourages them to display their thoughts in a graphical

representation. As explained by Kearney and Bradley (1998):

The open-ended 3CM method highlights the concepts or factors that participants consider

relevant to a particular issue and provides an indication of the perceived relationships among

these factors. 3CM differs from other cognitive mapping techniques in that it focuses on the

notion of “ownership”; it assesses what is already in an individual’s head, related to a particular

topic, as opposed to what one might have wished were there. (p. 7)

As opposed to methods that provide respondents a finite list of choices, the 3CM process elicits

individualized and rich perceptual response that may include hierarchies, systems,

relationships, and groups within the theme of environmental stewardship. In this way, 3CM

draws out a person’s most salient understandings, allowing the respondent to externalize

potentially inaccessible notions. Within a 3CM interview the responder is the only one

providing information, taking direct ownership of her cognitive map about a phenomenon, and

is not biased or prompted by any other ideas or perceptions beyond the initial question

(Kearney and Kaplan 1997).

10


The prior work of Kearney and Bradley (1998) served as a template for the 3CM exercise. We

began by asking the organization representative(s) to consider “what is environmental

stewardship?” We then asked them to provide ideas, phrases, or terms that described

environmental stewardship. With each piece of information provided, we wrote it on a note

card and placed it in front of the representative. This process continued until the

representatives had a range of note cards in front of them. Once the respondent had finished

providing new items, we asked if they felt satisfied that they had a complete construct of

representative items for “environmental stewardship”; they were also told that they may

choose to add more ideas and note cards at any time.

For the next step of the process, representatives were asked to arrange or group the cards in

clusters that would further explain environmental stewardship. They then arranged the cards

into groups or systems that provided added meaning and displayed relationships (fig. 1). Such

perceived relationships were expressed as commonalities in groupings, hierarchies in

relationships, or processes in systems. We then asked questions about the arrangement or

groups of cards (e.g. Why this grouping? How are these related?). The discussions were

recorded, the final arrangements were photo documented, and the cards were collected and

retained.

The responses were analyzed in several ways. First, a simple word count was employed to

indicate the frequency of specific terms. Next, each researcher combined the response cards

from all of the interviews and attempted to organize or group them using the 3CM principles. In

addition to our own separate analyses, we asked a third researcher outside of the project to

categorize the same data. Finally, we compared individual clusters to determine if the

participants grouped items together in similar ways.

Analysis and Results

Participant Interview

As mentioned, during the first part of the interview, participants were asked exploratory

questions about the history of their organization and their activities. In addition to discovering

11


more about each organization, this part of the interview provided insight into the remarkable

depth of each respondent’s experiences. Three organizations were represented by individuals

who had helped found the group, and therefore had 25 or more years of experience. These

interviewees were able to provide a rich description of how their organization began and how it

changed through time. The remaining organizations were represented by individuals who had

from 6 to 16 years experience with their respective group. These participants also had an

impressive breadth and depth of knowledge about their organizations’ founding and history.

Content analysis of the transcripts illustrated that each respondent has an array of

responsibilities, including managing a large staff or large groups of volunteers, building

partnerships, overseeing programs, fundraising, and more.

Participants were also asked to provide information on collaborations. Content analysis of the

interview transcripts revealed that participants consider other stewardship organizations,

government agencies, local schools and universities, and corporations as collaborators. The

groups reported working with a range of other organizations, with six organizations as the

smallest number of collaborators and 22 as the largest. On average, each group is collaborating

with 15 other organizations, though all reported that their recalled list was not exhaustive. The

groups are interconnected as well, with all having collaborated with at least one other

interviewed group. One (Cascade Land Conservancy) was listed as a collaborator by seven of

the other organizations.

3CM: Rapid Brainstorming of Terms and Phrases

The 3CM process revealed an interesting set of responses. In total, the nine groups provided

162 words or phrases. One observation that emerged immediately during each interview

debriefing was the passion that all participants had for their work. In fact, “passion” was

included among the responses of two of the groups interviewed. Other repeated responses

were noted across the varied group types. Overwhelmingly, the respondents spoke of

environmental stewardship as a means to social ends, with words such as “people” and

“community” among the most frequently used. It also became clear that volunteerism is an

important component in environmental stewardship, illustrated by responses such as

12


“voluntary commitment” and “service to the community.” While biophysical benefits are often

the driving force to starting an environmental organization, social and individual benefits and

motivators were much more commonly mentioned. For example, respondents provided ten

permutations of “care” or “caring” (e.g. “caring for place” and “taking action about the things

you care about”). Appendix 2 provides a complete list of 3CM responses.

Table 2 reports a word count analysis across all respondents. This confirmed a preliminary

review of the interviews; the organizations tended to place much more emphasis on human

relationships and actions than some of the biophysical terms we may have originally expected.

In fact, of the 17 most commonly used items, “people” is the third most common, with words

such as “volunteer(ism),” “relationships,” and “community” also ranking on the list. The word

count analysis also shows that organizations place importance on how these people and

communities act, with action words “taking/acting/doing,” “service,” and “decisions” among

the items provided most often. Other items frequently mentioned such as “impact(s),”

“sustainable,” and “continuum/continue” suggest that participants place importance on

outcomes. Even the more biophysical ideas were stated in social language. Terms such as

“environment(s),” “space(s),” and “place” are often associated with societal use or enjoyment

of resources.

3CM: Clustering Exercise

In the 3CM exercise a person rapidly brainstorms words and phrases, or items, and then turns

to the more deliberate task of assembling clusters of ideas, or constructs, based on his or her

perceptions. At this point in the interviews the participants’ self-generated collections of terms

and words began to meld into conceptual meaning. In fact, only one interviewee determined

that his response phrases were best left as a collection of separate ideas. While participants

often struggled to sort their responses into clusters, they generally created a whole greater

than the sum of its parts. For example, one respondent provided items ranging from “voluntary

commitment” to “how we can collectively sustain ourselves.” As shown in figure 2, when

organizing the items, he offered a cohesive definition, describing environmental stewardship as

beginning at the individual level, growing out into the community, and becoming a more

13


communal construct. Figure 2 displays three 3CM clusters to illustrate how this respondent and

others organized their items into conceptual maps.

We note the effectiveness of the 3CM exercise in engaging participants as well as in eliciting

responses that they may not have otherwise provided. After looking at the large collection of

cards in front of him, one interviewee said in disbelief, “Wow. Did I say all of that?” Several

groups asked us to share pictures or discussed using the activity within their organization. As

we wrapped up the exercise, an interviewee who had entered the meeting mentioning her

overwhelming and frustrating schedule left energized, stating “It makes me feel like when I go

back to my job, I feel like, we’re doing this!”

Content Analysis Across all Responses

Using our preliminary word and cluster analyses as input, we used content analysis to devise a

collection of constructs that characterized the stewardship items provided. These themes are

meta-level interpretations, and directly incorporate the organizational and systemic structures

constructed by the respondents in the 3CM clustering activity. Each theme is described below,

along with a few examples of terms provided by the groups.

Values. Stewardship was defined as being motivated by a set of values.

o Environmental values. Concepts in this category included restoration, getting

back to true nature, and reducing our impacts on the environment.

o Personal ethics. These included responses such as moral obligation, spirituality,

and taking action about things we care about.

o Concern for community. Ideas here included camaraderie and taking back our

neighborhoods (from crime).

Behaviors and action. Environmental stewardship was described as taking physical

action to improve the local environment.

o Individual actions and decisions. These included concepts such as planting,

carrying a reusable mug, and picking up trash on the sidewalk.

o Collective actions. Responses in this category included concepts such as noticing

each other’s actions and getting others to help.

14


Organizational tools. Groups described not only the mechanisms that they currently

employ, but also those that they would need to achieve their desired outcomes.

o Directed natural resources programs. Respondents gave examples of some

direct activities, such as organizing tree plantings and invasive removal.

o Outreach, education, citizen engagement. Groups mentioned concepts such as

advocacy, educating for stewardship, and creating activities to engage everyone.

o Collaboration with other organizations. Responses such as collaboration, center

of a cooperative, and government encouragement indicate that groups consider

the efforts of other organizations in addition to their own.

Desired and realized outcomes. Respondents often indicated that stewardship should

produce end products such as change in a community through restoration or

improvement.

o Environmental improvement. Respondents mentioned potential outcomes such

as creating healthy green spaces and a sustainable balance between built and

natural environments.

o Community building. Responses here included opening up to your neighbors,

creating a continuum of stewardship behavior, being open to other’s ideas, and

cultivating the health of relationships.

Discussion of ResultsUsing the content analysis of the terms and phrases provided by the stewardship

representatives, we propose a conceptual model that serves as a preliminary characterization

of environmental stewardship in Seattle (fig. 3). This model, being derived from the 3CM

process, is practitioner based and represents the perceived relationships between the types

and components of environmental stewardship.

As depicted, groups tended to conceptualize stewardship at two social scales, the individual

level and the organizational level. In the 3CM process, individual stewardship was generally

defined as more value-based. Specifically, values included environmental ethics, personal

ethics, and concern for community. Individuals apply their stewardship values both through

15


direct behaviors, actions and decisions as well as the involvement of others. Through acting on

their values, outcomes such as environmental improvement and community building as well as

personal benefits such as meaning or realization of passion were met. These positive outcomes

can strengthen initial motivations.

Organizational stewardship was often represented as goal-based, separated into the broad

categories of environmental improvement and community building. To reach their desired

outcomes, organizations use several approaches, or tools. These include direct collective

programsto improve and protect natural resources; outreach, education, and citizen

engagement; and collaboration with other stewardship organizations, often through networks.

Realized outcomes appear as outputs of this process. Resulting outcomes generate feedback,

motivating further goals, values, and thus actions.

Interestingly, the themes presented in the empirical literature are similar to those collected

through the 3CM exercise reported here. The use of environmental stewardship to achieve

social goals as explored by Kramer (2007), Westphal (2003), and Svendsen (2009) was a

prominent theme in nearly all the 3CM group responses. Moreover, the social aspects of

community, also called out in the literature, were the most common report of social benefits

gathered from the exercise. While the 3CM responses may not provide a full orfinal definition

of the term, our interpretive conceptual model does begin to specify and refine aspects of

environmental stewardship. We look forward to further dialog and discussion working towards

shared understandings.

Future DirectionsThis preliminary study of groups working in Seattle demonstrates that the widely used concept

of “environmental stewardship” is not easily defined by a few words, and is probably more

complex than many would assume. Stewardship organizations are providing essential services,

as they respond to identified environmental issues and threats with programs that engage

citizens. This most direct purpose is perhaps best understood by the public and public agencies.

16


Yet environmental stewardship goes beyond the biophysical; community-oriented

organizations also strive to build stronger communities through their stewardship activities.

This exploratory research is informative, but the development of a stewardship definition with

broad applications will require a combination of the intensive methods described in this paper

with surveys and other methods that can reach a larger sample size. Some future directions

may include:

Additional work in Seattle. While they provide an unusual depth of knowledge and experience,

the nine groups studied here may not be representative of the population of stewardship

organizations within Seattle. The 3CM method is too time intensive for large sample sizes, but

the concepts revealed in this study can be used as a basis for future surveys to determine if

the views of the nine organizations studied here are shared by other Seattle environmental

stewardship organizations.

Replication in other cities. Seattle groups may not be representative of those working in other

cities and nationally. Replicate and comparison studies are important. The first study

replication is projected to take place in Baltimore in mid-2010. As with any study, replications

are important to determine the degree to which findings in one place are generalizable to

other locations. Similarities and differences across cities could provide insight into whether

successful environmental stewardship programs and other sustainability initiatives can be

transferred from one city to another.

Compare with rural definitions of stewardship. In addition to studying other cities, a

comparison of concepts of urban and rural stewardship could provide insights into natural

resource management strategies across the urban to rural gradient.

Apply results to research on stewardship networks. The driving force behind this study was to

discover and articulate shared concepts of stewardship within an initial sample of

organizations. This work will give greater context and clarity to our developing research on

the environmental stewardship networks in Seattle and Baltimore. The study of collaborative

environmental stewardship networks will look at attributes such as how groups share

activities and resources, set interorganizational goals, exchange information, and evaluate

17


outcomes. We believe future work will be facilitated by a deeper understanding of how

practitioners define stewardship within their own organizations.

18


References

Andersson, K.; Ostrom, E. 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric

perspective. Policy Sciences. 41(1): 71-93.

Baldassarri, D.; Diani, M. 2007. The integrative power of civic networks. American Journal of

Sociology. 113(3): 735-780.

Brinkley, W.; Wolf, K.L. Forthcoming. Seattle-area environmental stewardship database and

census: preliminary data on environmental stewardship organizations in King and Pierce

Counties. Res. Note. PNW-RN-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Xx p.

Carr, A.J.L. 2002. Grass roots and green tape: principles and practices of environmental

stewardship. Annandale Australia: Federation Press. 268 p.

Fukuyama, F. 2000. Social capital and civil society. IMF Work. Pap. WP-00-74. Washington, DC:

International Monetary Fund. 13 p.

Grese, R.E.; Kaplan, R.; Ryan, R. L.; Buxton, J. 2000. The psychological benefits of volunteering

in stewardship programs. In: Gobster, P.H.; Hull, R.B., eds. Restoring nature: perspectives from

social science and the humanities. Washington, DC; Covelo, CA: Island Press: 265-280.

Grove, J.M.; Hinson, K.E.; Northrop, R.J. 1999. A social ecology approach to understanding

urban ecosystems and landscapes. In: Berkowitz, A.R.; Nilon, C.H.; Hollweg, K.S., eds.

Understanding urban ecosystems. New York: Springer-Verlag. 523 p.

Hajkowicz, S.; Collins, K. 2009. Measuring the benefits of environmental stewardship in rural

landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 93(2): 93-102.

19


Heerwagen, J. 2009. Biophilia, health, and well-being. In: Campbell, L.; Wiesen, A., eds.

Restorative commons: creating health and well-being through urban landscapes. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern

Research Station: 39-58.

Hester, R.T. 2006. Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 480 p.

Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environment and

Behavior. 33(4): 507.

Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Ryan R. L. 1998. With people in mind; design and management of

everyday nature. Washington, DC; Covelo, CA: Island Press. 239 p.

Kearney, A.R.; Bradley, G. 1998. Human dimensions of forest management: an empirical study

of stakeholder perspectives. Urban Ecosystems. 2(1): 5-16.

Kearney, A.R.; Kaplan, S. 1997. Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge

structures of ordinary people: The Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM). Environment and

Behavior. 29(5): 579.

Koontz, T. M.; Steelman, T.A.; Carmin, J.; Korfmacher, K.S.; Moseley, C.; Thomas, C.W. 2004.

Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC:

Resources for the Future. 210 p.

Kramer, D.B. 2007. Determinants and efficacy of social capital in lake associations.

Environmental Conservation. 34(3): 186-194.

Kuo, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture.

29(3): 148.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. 318 p.

20


Mandarano, L. A. 2009. Social network analysis of social capital in collaborative planning.

Society and Natural Resources. 22(3): 245-260.

McGinnis, M.D. 1999. Polycentric governance and development: readings from the workshop in

political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 432 p.

Orr, D.W. 1992. Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 210 p.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in

natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources. 22(6): 501-518.

Pretty, J.; Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development. 29(2): 209-

227.

Provan, K.G.; Milward, H.B. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating

public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review. 61(4): 414-423.

Putnam, R.D. 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy.

6(1): 65-78.

Ryan, R. 2006. The role of place attachment in sustaining urban parks. In: Platt, R.H., ed. The

Humane Metropolis. Cambridge: University of Massachusetts Press: 61-74.

Schneider, M.; Scholz, J.; Lubell, M.; Mindruta, D.; Edwardsen, M. 2003. Building consensual

institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science.

47(1): 143-158.

21


Svendsen, E. 2009. Cultivating resilience: urban stewardship as a means to improving health

and well-being. In: Campbell, L.; Wiesen, A., eds. Restorative commons: creating health and

well-being through urban landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 58-87

Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K. 2008. Urban ecological stewardship: understanding the

structure, function and network of community-based land management. Cities and the

Environment. 1(1): 1-31.

Tedesco, L.P.; Salazar, K.A.; Covitt, B. 2006. Advancing urban environmental stewardship

through service learning and community partnerships. Paper presented at the 35th Annual

Meeting North American Association for Environmental Education, St. Paul, MN.

Tidball, K.G.; Krasny, M.E. 2007. From risk to resilience: What role for community greening and

civic ecology in cities? In: Wals, A.E.J., ed. Social learning towards a more sustainable world.

Wagengingen: The Netherlands: Wagengingen Academic Press: 149-164.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science.

224(4647): 420-421.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. Forest Service stretegic plan

FY 2007-2012. FS-880. Washington, DC. 32 p.

van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized societies:

stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues. 63(1): 79-96.

Vemuri, A.W.; Grove, J.M.; Wilson, M.A.; Burch, W.R. 2009. A tale of two scales: evaluating the

relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income, and the natural environment at

22


individual and neighborhood levels in metropolitan Baltimore. Environment and Behavior

OnlineFirst. vol. 0: pp. 0013916509338551v1.

Wagner, C.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2008. Does community-based collaborative resource

management increase social capital? Society and Natural Resources. 21(4): 324-344.

Wals, A.E.J.; van der Leij, T. 2007. Social Learning. Wals, A.E.J., ed. Wageningen: The

Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers: 17-32; 497-506.

Weber, E.P. 2000. A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem management as

a new environmental movement. Society and Natural Resources. 13(3): 237-259.

Westphal, L.M. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment outcomes.

Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3): 137.

Wolf, K.L.; Kruger, L.E. 2010. Urban forestry research needs: a participatory assessment

process. Journal of Forestry. 108 (1): 39-44.

Wondolleck, J. M. Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in

natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 277 p.

23


Appendix 1: Varying Stewardship Definitions as they appear in the Literature:

Stewardship is…

Definition Source(s)

Recogni[zing] that humanity is but one element of a complex web in ecology

Carr 2002

Actions based on different extrinsic and intrinsic motivations Ryan 2006, McPherson 1993Guided by peer leadership or on recommendation of ecologists and urban planners

Carr 2002

Often compelled by personal connections to a natural resource or system that is in decline, neglect, or is threatened

Carr 2002

An expression of human creativity driven by perceptions of need, premised on the deep-seated traditions of volunteerism in America

de Tocqueville 1835

Place-based over issue-based Francis and Hester 1990; Barlett 2005

About the cause rather than the place Barlett 2005Work strictly for the environment Tedesco et al. 2006For the community Westphal 2003; Svendsen

2009Something that is voluntary use of discretionary time Svendsen and Campbell 2008;

Grese et al. 2000Something that is responsibility Hester 2006Ownership of place Svendsen 2009; Kaplan et al.

1998 Something that cannot be owned or is strictly communal Hester 2006; Svendsen and

Campbell 2008Work meant for others Svendsen and Campbell 2008Environmental work for personal benefit Svendsen 2009; Grese et al.

2000; Ulrich 1984

Specific Quotes:

“Urban land stewardship is a strategy that includes elements of direct action, self-help, and often education and community capacity building” (Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p.1)

24


“less rooted in oppositional social movements and more in accessing the rights to space through collaborative, community-based resource management”(Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p.1) “urban environmental stewardship combines land management with the desires of civil society, the private sector and government agencies.” (Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p.1)

“help with monitoring, clearing invasive plants, collecting seeds, planting…are directly involved with land stewardship. In addition, numerous volunteers perform services that are less directly tied to the land, including disseminating information (via newsletters for example) and maintaining databases.” (Grese et al. 2000, p.265)

“taking positive action to repair and heal past ecological damages while building a positive relationship with a place.” (Grese et al. 2000, p.275)

“to protect, nurture, and advocate” (Grese et al. 2000, p.62)

“flower plantings and urban gardening” (Grese et al. 2000, p.70)

“Tree- planting projects and other horticultural activities…ongoing commitment by local volunteers to maintain and nurture ... Watering, pruning, and weeding…” (Ryan 2006, p.70)

“Stewardship also implies a relationship with the earth that is based on respect for nature, and a current and ongoing commitment to “active earthkeeping” akin to a custodial or guardianship role.”(Carr 2002, p.15)

“…implies a moral or religious responsibility to life on earth, as part of nature, not having dominion over nature.”(Carr 2002, p.15)

“…is not only about identification and connection with out little blue-green planet, but also about ‘shared lifestyle preferences and beliefs about the way in which common property resources contribute to a unique quality of life for the residents’; and ‘beyond an individual connection to encompass collective responsibility’.” (Carr 2002, p.15)

Additional Sources:

Barlett, P., ed. 2005. Urban place: reconnections with the natural world. Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press. 330 p.

de Tocqueville, A. 2002. Democracy in America. Mansfield, H.C.; Winthrop, D., trans. ed.

[Published originally as De la democratie en Amerique, 1835]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press. 722 p.

McPherson, E.G. 1993. Monitoring urban forest health. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment. 26: 165-174.

25


Appendix 2: Complete List of 3CM Responses:The responses to the 3CM exercise are provided below. They are displayed as lists of words without the organization and grouping

that the respondents provided.

Cascade Land Conservancy Earthcorps Mountains to Sound Greenway

People for Puget Sound Student Conservation Association

Public space Volunteering Pragmatism Mindset Cultivating volunteerism

Backyard Service Avoid NIMBYism Getting others to help Voluntary commitment

Outreach Creating activities that engage everyone

Center of cooperative Reducing your impacts on environment

Humans are part of the environment

Relationships Working Actions Walking the talk Starts with self

Education for stewardship Planting Trees and forests Taking action about things you care about

How we can collectively sustain ourselves

Getting people to care for a resource

Adopt A ____ Reusable mug Leaving a place better than you found it

Grows out into community

Natural thing Caring Shade-grown coffee Taking care of the place where we live

Cultivating health of relationships

Growing thing Care for the environment Purchasing decisions Helping fix what's broken Relationships and connectivity

Sweeping the sidewalk Understanding culture & landscape

Biking vs. carpooling Understand impact of our everyday lives

Systems and interactive processes

Monitoring Continuum Act of being a steward Continuum

Caring for place Engagement Personal act Changing your behavior

26


Restoration Creating healthy green spaces

What society needs to do Consider long-term impacts of decisions

Connections Moral obligation

Values Wise decisions

Using stewardship to educate people

Sustainable balance btw built and natural environment

Responsibility Hiking

Provides benefits Redefining "pristine"

Sidewalk steward

More than just work

27


Friends of Interlaken Park Friends of Leschi P-Patch Trust Seattle Tilth

Pickaxes Not insular Communication Support

Bow-saws People Government encouragement Careful

Machetes Enriching Advocates Thoughtful

Organization People-oriented Organization Service

Volunteerism Building sense of community Knowledge Presence

Reliability We're all part of being stewards Thoughtful design Shared

Dedication Picking up trash Fundraising Active

Personable Ornamental horticulture Volunteer coordination Caretaking

Monkey see monkey do Taking back your space (from crime) Resources ($) Caring

Participation Inter-generational Continuity Nurture

Competition Spiritual Outreach Protect

Camaraderie Opportunities and assets of your surroundings

Inclusion Promote growth

Weeding Many forms Collaboration Internal value

Pulling Protecting your own space Inspire people Wise use

Something that makes them feel good Taking back your land (from invasives) People Sustainable

Hauling Wilderness near home Appreciation and acknowledgment Meaningful

28


Cutting Promise of wilderness Conservation

Pinning down burlap sacks Getting back to true nature Organic

Putting mulch in wheelbarrows Taking care of the environment Sustainable and local

Taking the wheelbarrow to the area Volunteer service to the community Passion

Laying down the cardboard Opening up to your neighbors Ongoing

Learning on the job Open to others' ideas about taking care of the environment

Commitment

Crash course learning Recognize that home impacts public space and vice versa

Court-appointed groups One person noticing another's actions

Passion

Lifetime work

Humor

Footnote

1 Social capital here will refer to the shared knowledge, norms, rules, and networks that facilitate collective experience within a neighborhood (Putnam 1995,

Vemuri et al. 2009).

29


Table 1—Seattle organizations participating in the study of urban environmental stewardship

Organization Age (yrs)

No. of paid staff

Geographic scope Stewardship goals (from mission Statement)

Cascade Land Conservancy

20+ 47 Washington State Conserving great lands, creating great communities

EarthCorps 17 22 Western Washington Building global community through local environmental restoration service

Friends of Interlaken 26 0 Interlaken Park (Seattle)

None available

Friends of Leschi 25 0 Leschi Neighborhood (Seattle)

None available

Mountains to Sound Greenway

19 17 King and Kittitas Counties

Leads and inspires action to conserve and enhance the landscape from Seattle across

the Cascade Mountains to Central Washington, ensuring a long-term balance

between people and nature

P-Patch Trust 31 0 (14 member board)

Seattle To acquire, build, preserve and protect community gardens... Through, advocacy,

leadership and partnerships…expands access to community gardening across

economic, racial, ethnic, ability and gender lines; promotes organic gardening and

builds community through gardening…seek to break urban isolation by providing opportunities for people to garden

together, learn from each other, develop a sense of neighborhood, and create a more

livable urban environment

30


People for Puget Sound

19 24 Puget Sound To protect and restore the health of our land and waters through education and

action

Seattle Tilth 22 20 Seattle Inspire and educate people to garden organically, conserve natural resources and

support local food systems in order to cultivate a healthy urban environment and

community

Student Conservation Association

55 9 (in Seattle

office; 1,000+

national)

National To build the next generation of conservation leaders and inspire lifelong

stewardship of our environment and communities by engaging young people in

hands-on service to the land

31


Table 2—The most common items that appeared in the 3CM exercise

Common words Count Common words Count Common words Count

Taking/acting/doing 11 Impact(s) 4 Community 3Care/caring 10 Volunteer(ism) 4 Service 3People(s) 7 Place 3 Sustainable 3Environment(s) 5 Relationships 3 Decisions 3Space(s) 5 Back 3 Continuum/continue 3Steward(ship) 5 Part 3

32


Figure 1—Participants organize their responses to the question “what is environmental stewardship?”

Figure 2—Conceptual Cognitive Content Maps of environmental stewardship. Sample respondent clusters with associated self-generated terms. All cluster titles also generated by respondents.

Figure 3—Conceptual model of “environmental stewardship” using 3CM results from Seattle environmental organizations.

33


Figure 1

34


Figure 2

Personal Bridge CommunalStarts with self Grows out into

CommunityHow we can collectively sustain ourselves

Voluntary commitment Relationships & connectivity

Personal Accountability Systems & interactive processesResponsibility Humans are part of environmentCultivating voluntary commitment (in others)

Cultivating health of relationships

Actions/Physical Things Connections Conceptual/Feelings/Outcomes

Restoration Relationships Getting people to careSweeping sidewalk/ Sidewalk steward

Educating for stewardship

Caring for place

Natural thing/Growing thing Responsibility

Monitoring Values

Outreach More than just work

35


Backyard Stewardship for education

Public space Provides benefits

Organic Organizational resources Knowledge PeopleResources Ongoing Passion

Fundraising Sustainable & local Inspire people

Thoughtful design Continuity Volunteer coordination

Organization Conservation Appreciation & acknowledgment

Collaboration Awareness Commitment

Government encouragement Belief that it’s valuable Making it part of people’s lives

Inclusion

Advocates

Communication

36


Figure 3

37


38

depts.washington.edudepts.washington.edu/.../urbanstewardship_rn.docx · web viewwhat is urban...

Documents