Resident perceptions of natural resources between cities and across scales in the Pacific Northwest

As the global population becomes increasingly urban, research is needed to explore how local culture, land use, and policy will influence urban natural resource management. We used a broad-scale comparative approach and survey of residents within the Portland (Oregon)-Vancouver (Washington) metropolitan areas, USA, two states with similar geographical and ecological characteristics, but different approaches to land-use planning, to explore resident perceptions about natural resources at three scales of analysis: property level (“at or near my house”), neighborhood (“within a 20-minute walk from my house”), and metro level (“across the metro area”). At the metro-level scale, nonmetric multidimensional scaling revealed that the two cities were quite similar. However, affinity for particular landscape characteristics existed within each city with the greatest difference generally at the property-level scale. Portland respondents expressed affinity for large mature trees, tree-lined streets, public transportation, and proximity to stores and services. Vancouver respondents expressed affinity for plentiful accessible parking. We suggest three explanations that likely are not mutually exclusive. First, respondents are segmented based on preferences for particular amenities, such as convenience versus commuter needs. Second, historical land-use and tax policy legacies may influence individual decisions. Third, more environmentally attuned worldviews may influence an individual’s desire to produce environmentally friendly outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of acknowledging variations in residents’ affinities for landscape characteristics across different scales and locations because these differences may influence future land-use policies about urban natural resources.

Increased water charges improve efficiency and equity in an irrigation system

Conventional wisdom in many agricultural systems across the world is that farmers cannot, will not, or should not pay the full costs associated with surface water delivery. Across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, only a handful can claim complete recovery of operation, maintenance, and capital costs; across Central and South Asia, fees are lower still, with farmers in Nepal, India, and Kazakhstan paying fractions of a U.S. penny for a cubic meter of water. In Pakistan, fees amount to roughly USD 1-2 per acre per season. However, farmers in Pakistan spend orders of magnitude more for diesel fuel to pump groundwater each season, suggesting a latent willingness to spend for water that, under the right conditions, could potentially be directed toward water-use fees for surface water supply. Although overall performance could be expected to improve with greater cost recovery, asymmetric access to water in canal irrigation systems leaves the question open as to whether those benefits would be equitably shared among all farmers in the system. We develop an agent-based model (ABM) of a small irrigation command to examine efficiency and equity outcomes across a range of different cost structures for the maintenance of the system, levels of market development, and assessed water charges. We find that, robust to a range of different cost and structural conditions, increased water charges lead to gains in both efficiency and concomitant improvements in equity as investments in canal infrastructure and system maintenance improve the conveyance of water resources further down watercourses. This suggests that, under conditions in which (1) farmers are currently spending money to pump groundwater to compensate for a failing surface water system, and (2) there is the possibility that through initial investment to provide perceptibly better water supply, genuine win-win solutions can be attained through higher water-use fees to beneficiary farmers.

Community perceptions of collaborative processes for managing freshwater resources

Six of New Zealand’s 16 regional councils are trialling collaborative planning as a means of addressing complex challenges in freshwater management. Although some work has been undertaken to evaluate similarities and differences across those processes, the success or failure rests with the public’s acceptance of the processes and their outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate public perceptions of freshwater management in regions with collaborative processes. We surveyed 450 respondents in Hawke’s Bay, Northland, and Waikato, some of whom live in catchments in which collaborative processes are under way and some of whom do not. In addition to assessing awareness of the collaborative planning processes, the survey measured perceptions regarding the regional council’s management of freshwater resources, the extent of agreement regarding freshwater management among various interests, the fairness of freshwater management, and the extent to which respondents believe that their interests and concerns are included in freshwater management. We hypothesized that relative to respondents in parts of the region in which traditional processes are in places, respondents in catchments with collaborative management of freshwater resources would have more positive perceptions of management, agreement, fairness, and interests, even if there is low awareness that a collaborative planning process is under way. Survey results indicate that knowledge of collaborative processes is generally low and that living in catchments with collaborative processes does not impact respondents’ perceptions of management, agreement, fairness, or interests in Northland or Waikato. However, relative to Hawke’s Bay respondents living outside of the collaborative catchment, respondents living inside the collaborative catchment believe that the regional council’s freshwater management is better and fairer. Moreover, Hawke’s Bay residents living inside the collaborative catchment perceive less conflict over freshwater management than Hawke’s Bay respondents living outside the collaborative catchment. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for this regional variation.