The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing Informed Public Participation in Watershed Management Utilizing GIS and Internet Technology

This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 13:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Water InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20

The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing InformedPublic Participation in Watershed Management UtilizingGIS and Internet TechnologyWilliam James Smith Jr. aa IWRA, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware , Newark,Delaware, USAPublished online: 22 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: William James Smith Jr. (2002) The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing Informed PublicParticipation in Watershed Management Utilizing GIS and Internet Technology, Water International, 27:4, 558-567, DOI:10.1080/02508060208687043

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060208687043

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02508060208687043

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060208687043

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Water Resources AssociationWater International, Volume 27, Number 4, Pages 558–567, December 2002

558

The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing Informed PublicParticipation in Watershed Management Utilizing GIS and

Internet Technology

William James Smith, Jr. , Member IWRA, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy,University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA

Abstract: Geographic Information Systems and Internet technology provide the capability to en-hance informed public participation in watershed management. This is demonstrated by a case study ofthe endeavor resulting in the construction of the Gunpowder Watershed Clearinghouse Website. This“clearinghouse” model represents an important tool for promoting “inclusiveness” in watershed man-agement. This is essential, as watersheds serve the needs of diverse groups of stakeholders with diver-gent agendas and differing jurisdictional allegiances. It is vital to engage these diverse groups becauseit is upon their behavior(s) that watershed health depends. When resource managers incorporate thegeneral public into watershed management public health is guarded, conflict can be mitigated, govern-ment transparency is increased in a digestible manner, better decisions are made, and appreciation ofthe need to protect natural resources nurtured. This incorporation is well served by the creation of anInternet “clearinghouse” to foster a shared watershed-based geographical identity, educate at theuser’s convenience, and connect stakeholders with cultural and physical resources and phenomena.Allowing sharing, rather than hoarding or duplication of resources, and creating awareness amongvarious watershed stakeholders of each other’s activities supports watershed preservation and restora-tion.

Keywords: Watershed management, public involvement-outreach, geographic information systems,Internet, environmental education, water resources.

IntroductionThe modern environmental movement places a high

value on equity in resource management. A strong corre-lation exists between equity and empowerment, which isthe power to act on ones own behalf. If indeed, “knowl-edge is power,” then empowerment results from the ef-fective dissemination of that knowledge. IntegratingGeographic Information Systems (GIS) and Internet tech-nologies nurtures this dissemination, enhancing informedpublic participation in one of the most universally relevantof all environmental concerns, watershed management.

The following is a case study of an Internet and GIS-based project to promote informed public participation inwatershed management in Maryland’s Gunpowder Wa-tershed. The project is the Gunpowder Watershed Clear-inghouse (GWC), on which the author serves as both anobserver and a participant. This work is to serve as a pro-totype for similar projects in other watersheds. This casestudy is particularly noteworthy, as it parallels recent high-profile efforts of several levels of government, Non-Gov-ernmental Organizations (NGOs), and the general publicto improve watershed management in the study area.

Place-based case studies such as this are valuable in manyways, including their ability to “translate abstract infor-mation” so that it is digestible, and to present informationin convincing and concrete terms.

Contemporary studies of the impact of new media oncitizen networks by authors such as Tambini (1999) ex-amine broad themes such as the medium’s potential toprovide new corridors of access to the main transactionsof democracy. These corridors are indicated to be infor-mation provision, preference measurement (voting), de-liberation, and will formation/group organization. Whilesuch treatments are valuable for understanding the bigpicture at a theoretical level, they are particularly illumi-nating when considered in the light of a small-scale casestudy. Such a case study manifests the nuts and bolts ofnetworking with new media, and the power of this ap-proach to alter identities, allegiances, and behaviors throughdissemination of information, pulling environmental issuesinto the public sphere for debate and discussion, and pro-viding a platform upon which broad coalitions may formand act.

Before proceeding with an analysis of the GWC andthe “clearinghouse method,” an understanding of the set-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing Informed Public Participation inWatershed Management Utilizing GIS and Internet Technology 559

IWRA, Water International, Volume 27, Number 4, December 2002

ting of the study area is necessary in order to place thispublic outreach project into proper context. A descriptionof basin characteristics aids in comprehending the needsand demands of stakeholders.

SettingThe Gunpowder Watershed includes areas of Balti-

more, Carroll, and Harford counties in Northeast Mary-land, and Southern York County in Pennsylvania on theeast coast of the United States (Smith, 1999a) (Figure 1).A total of 750 kilometers (466 miles) of first, second, andthird order non-tidal tributaries exist in the Maryland por-tion of the Gunpowder Watershed. The Gunpowder River,the main tributary in the basin, is at minimum a seventhorder stream (Johnson, 1999). This river drains approxi-mately 1,210 km2 (467 mi2) in Maryland, and 29 km2 (11mi2) in Pennsylvania. The Maryland Department of theEnvironment (MDE) has listed the Gunpowder River Sub-Watershed as impaired. Boward et al. (1997) provide anassessment of water quality within the Gunpowder basin.They describe water quality in the basin from poor to good,listing most stream and river segments as good. Issuesinclude elevated bacteria and nutrient levels, strongly cor-related with agricultural and urban/suburban runoff, alongwith elevated suspended sediment loads from agricultural

runoff, erosion, and construction. There are a dozen mu-nicipal and 72 industrial discharges with National DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permits in the watershed— each facility discharges into surface waters. Many ofthese streams feed into the reservoirs on Figure 1 thatsupply water to nearly 1.5 million people in the Baltimoremetropolitan area. Therefore, the biological, chemical, andphysical quality of the water in these tributaries is of vitalimportance.

As depicted in Figure 2, the basin is primarily rural.Based on the 1990 census, 455,000 people live in the Mary-land portion of the basin, or about nine percent ofMaryland’s population. Pressure from commercial andresidential development is significant and is perceived bymany as a threat to the Gunpowder’s natural resources.Due to its close proximity to metropolitan Baltimore, thepopulation of the Gunpowder Watershed is growing rap-idly and is expected to increase 15 percent between 1990and 2020 (Boward et al., 1997). In particular, migration isoccurring from Baltimore City to areas in and around edgecities near the southern region of the watershed wherethe I-695 urban circular beltway joins with “hub-and-spoke”roads (Dear and Flusty, 1998).

Origin and PurposeThe origin of this study is tied to concerns regarding

surface water quality in the Gunpowder Watershed thatled to the establishment of the “Gunpowder WatershedStudy.” Surface water quality is an especially high profileconcern in the area, as many streams in the drainage ba-sin (including the tributaries of Loch Raven and PrettyboyReservoirs) are designated as “Use III Natural Trout” and/or “Use III-P” waters (Figure 1). The first designationrefers to water capable of carrying a self-sustaining troutpopulation and associated organisms that, among otherrestrictions, must not have its temperature raised above20o C (68o F) by human inputs. Use III-P bodies can, andin this case do, serve as public water supply (MDE, 1999a).

Figure 1. The Gunpowder Watershed (created from MDE GIS data1999).

Figure 2. Land use in the Gunpowder Watershed (created from datafrom Boward et al., 1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

560 W. J. Smith, Jr.


The Gunpowder Watershed Study is an inter-jurisdic-tional watershed case analysis that gave birth to the Gun-powder Watershed Clearinghouse. It was organized dueto a controversy regarding water quality violations in PineyRun caused by the Hampstead Wastewater TreatementPlant (WWTP), which is located in Carroll County anddrains into Western Baltimore County (Figure 1) (MDE,1999b). Violations were first reported in 1992. At that timeCarroll County’s actions engendered conflict with the PineyRun Preservation Association (PRPA), an environmen-tally conscientious community group in Baltimore County.Some Baltimore County civic leaders argued Hampstead’sdischarges to Piney Run to be excessive, a point uponwhich the U.S. District Court later agreed (Woodward,1999). Hampstead’s discharges eventually pass into Met-ropolitan Baltimore’s primary drinking water supply, LochRaven Reservoir.

The Piney Run Preservation Association claimed thatMDE sampling proved the plant regularly exceeded itsdischarge limit, resulting in thermal pollution that raisedstream temperatures above 20o C (68o F). Members of thePRPA were exasperated by what they describe as “non-responsive government,” claiming that Carroll County ig-nored their concerns because PRPA members do not votein the jurisdiction. This conflict brought to light the need toimprove management of water resources on a watershed-wide basis, not simply by administrative territories and theirattending politics (Smith, 2000a).

In 1993, the Director of the Baltimore County De-partment of Environmental Protection and Resource Man-agement (DEPREM) approached the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA), RobertPerciasepe, the Assistant Administrator for Water at thattime. Together they were able to secure funding for a studyof the entire Gunpowder Watershed to address the PineyRun problem as well as other basin issues (Outen 1999;Woodward 1999). The stakeholder jurisdictions of the Cityof Baltimore, Baltimore, Carroll, and Harford counties, andthe Maryland Department of the Environment set param-eters for a multi-administrative study.

The project was partially funded by an EPA SmallWatershed Grant, which, like many progressive grants,required a role for public participation in the process. Projectmeetings were open to the public, yet, it soon became ob-vious that attracting large, diverse, and representative num-bers of the general public to meetings was inherently difficult.In fact, as Gundry and Heberlein (1984) note, this tends tobe the rule, not the exception. In addition, people who at-tend such meetings have more years of formal educationand higher incomes than most of the “client public.” Often itis difficult to gather together anyone other than those alreadyactively involved to attend. Similar scenarios appear acrossthe United States, and likely elsewhere. For example, astudy of participation involving public range land in Wyo-ming reports frustratingly low rates of general public at-tendance at public involvement meetings (Paulson, 1998).

A search was initiated for “alternative” ways to en-gage the public so that they could become informed par-ticipants in preserving and restoring the GunpowderWatershed and stay abreast of developments in the Gun-powder Study. Charlie Conklin, former President of a lo-cal NGO, the Gunpowder Valley Conservancy (GVC), wasasked by the EPA to chair the public involvement team in1997 (Conklin, 1999). Selecting an NGO leader, rather than“a bureaucrat” to lead the initiative, set an important tone.Given the burgeoning presence of the Internet in the dailylives of many stakeholders in this region, it was decidedthat Internet-based communication needed to be integratedinto the public outreach campaign.

The project was funded in May 1998, and the authorwas hired to develop the Website. With EPA funding, sup-port from MDE in the form of data, facilities, internshipfunding, and technical assistance — and later, technicalsupport provided by Towson University, the author wasable to collect necessary data and construct the site inapproximately ten months. This Website is known as theGunpowder Watershed Clearinghouse, or GWC (Smith,1999a).

The title “Clearinghouse” denotes that the site is toserve as a systematized and user-friendly warehouse andtransfer point for data and information for GunpowderWatershed stakeholders and other interested parties, anda nexus that can direct citizens to external resources inorder to avoid duplication. The site has for quite sometime been dual hosted on both the Towson University andthe Maryland Department of the Environment’s homepages. As Tambini (1999) notes, who hosts a site greatlyeffects perceptions and realities of content control. There-fore, MDE hosts a more static version of the site, whereasTowson University plans to have academic departmentsproduce research related to the Gunpowder Watershedthat will be appended to the site and which MDE need notvouch for. This will assist in keeping the Gunpowder com-munity growing, learning, and sharing through symbioticrelationships. A similar approach is in progress on anotherof the author’s websites, The Christina Basin WatershedEducation Home Page (2000) for the University ofDelaware’s Water Resource Agency.

The successful release of this Web site was co-pro-moted and coincided with the March 20, 1999 staging ofthe First Annual Gunpowder Watershed Leadership Con-ference. The conference gathered a diverse group ofwatershed coalition leaders together in order to removebarriers to cooperation between actors in the drainage basin,and to ensure the health of the Gunpowder Watershed(Smith, 1999a). In addition, the “First Annual GunpowderWatershed Earth Day Festival” was held April 22, 2000.It drew large numbers of the general public by presentingin a fun way, the theme of protecting drinking water and,garnered the support of political and natural resource lead-ers such as U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. This event wassupported via the Website. Thus, there evolved an inte-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



grated public outreach campaign with the GWC at its corefor purposes of defining basin issues, educating, and orga-nizing stakeholders and interested parties.

Concept and TechniquesClearinghouse Concept

The “clearinghouse concept” is one in which diverseparticipants from all sectors of a population promote shar-ing, rather than hoarding or duplication of resources vis-à-vis an Internet-based form of outreach, one that is integratedwith complementary strategies discussed in this manuscript.In water resource management this also involves provid-ing education regarding water resources that gives mean-ing to data and information for the general public, and thatfacilitates public involvement in preservation and restora-tion across jurisdictions, dissimilar environments, and vestedinterests. Thus, a “clearinghouse” is based on methodsintended to circulate both ideas and participatory opportu-nities to strengthen communities around shared environ-mental concerns in a two-way exchange of knowledgeand concerns between experts and the general public.Rather than relegating management to a few understaffedagencies, whereby government is seen as only interactingwith stakeholders when it desires to enforce regulations,instead a basin-based polity is nurtured. Thus, civil societynetworks with managers and educational institutions to formlong-term partnerships in the search for ways to pull theirresources to reach common goals. It also allows one to goto the target audience that does not normally attend typi-cal forums for interaction such as public meetings, whilesimultaneously providing nodes through which diverse dataand information can be shared with such individuals atvarious scales.

A clearinghouse is not a short-term solution driven byan individual project, it is designed to provide a broad andlong-term forum for communities. Unfortunately, it doeshave an inherent tendency to accentuate the dichotomybetween the public’s “right to know,” and concerns re-garding legal and political liability over data and informa-tion. It can highlight conflict in the short-run, but by fosteringdiscussion it can mitigate long-term conflict by facilitatingsustainable solutions to concerns such as basin degrada-tion. This approach provides an avenue for disseminatinginformation in a relatively value-free way, by providinglong-term multi-use data and information and positive op-portunities for interaction, rather than facilitating one-sideddiatribes. Also, it provides contact information to guidereaders towards dedicated sources for a subjects, ratherthan acting as an in-depth library for particular topics. It isbroader than it is deep and is therefore more broadly use-ful for diverse groups of citizens who wish to become in-volved in watershed community advocacy through theInternet. Through the “clearinghouse approach” publichealth is guarded by changes in environmental behavior,government transparency is enhanced in a digestible man-ner, and understanding of the need to protect water is nur-tured.

A key component of successful public participation inwatershed planning and management is to demonstrate tostakeholders that “there is something in it for them.” Noapproach is perfect, and there are many pros and cons tousing public participatory strategies. Some of these arelisted in Table 1. It is easy to become bogged down in thedetails accompanying various watershed and public out-reach scenarios. However, basic benefits to public par-ticipation can perhaps be best visualized as an escalatingcycle, constantly building upon itself (Figure 3).

Table 1. Pros and Cons of Involving the Public in Watershed Management

Pros Cons

Knowledgeable citizens stand a better chance of making informed Enlargement of bureaucracy resulting in a slowing down of theenvironmentally friendly personal decisions. management process.

Creation of a watershed and environmentally-oriented identity and Increased conflict over issues that have not been, nor need be raised.voting bloc.

High-profile public support of environmental work which brings Misinterpretation of raw data or information resulting from a lack ofpressure to bear upon politicians to offer financial support for expertise in watershed issues or lack of consideration of multiplefuture projects. complex variables.

Infusion of unique ideas in watershed management arising from Potential dissemination of incorrect data and information resultlingdiverse participant backgrounds. in poor decisions on a watershed-wide basis.

Freedom of Information Act requets are met, while minimizing Cost to fund public outreach campaign (“clearinghouse” method shouldlabor costs. minimize cost).

Reduction of duplication of work by connecting stakeholders. Legal liability as information is used for unanticipated purposes.Opportunities to improve public health through increased public Political liability as controversial issues are brought to light.

awareness of hazards.Exposing issues, thereby putting social pressure on those who may Substitution of generalized information for specific consultation.

damage the watershed via pollution, etc.Fostering a sense of shared responsibility in preservation and Potential to cause panic or lower property values as problems are

restoration of a shared watershed. taken out of context or misplaced.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



Traditional Geographic ApproachesDecisions regarding website content and the creation

of the thesis this paper is derived from were influenced bya body of literature reflecting several traditions. Theseincluded humanistic analyses of personal accounts of what“really mattered” to basin stakeholders. In addition, a posi-tivist approach that involved surveying stakeholders wasemployed both on- and off-line. A realist approach is dem-onstrated via participant interaction with those in the gov-ernment decision-making machine, and in-depth meetingsand interviews with government employees to uncover howvarious actors manage the watershed (Johnson et al., 1996;McKendrick, 1999). When this sort of analysis is pairedwith watershed science, the general public can tap into apowerful source of information that can drive informedparticipation in watershed co-management. In addition, thedebates sparked by this information both on and off of theGWC message board are critical for local citizenry(Habermas, 1962). In fact, Internet-based political life isseen by Cleaver (1999) as analogous to water in its “ebband flow of contact at myriad points” (Internet).

Geographic Information Systems and Internet-Based Technology

While it is true that utilization of Geographic Informa-tion Systems (GIS) allows for complex spatial analysis,just as importantly, its output can be placed into a simpleand informative format that can be served to the generalpublic via the World Wide Web. By using appropriate tech-nologies including software graphic editing packages suchas Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Photoshop, and JPEG Optimizer,and by seeking advice concerning subject matter from

environmental experts one can maximize geographic analy-sis and ergonomic fit in Web-based environmental educa-tion. This combination of resources provides the platformfor the clearinghouse approach to pubic watershed-basededucation.

GIS and Internet-based visuals and text can be usedto establish a geographical identity wherein the watershedis viewed as a single, yet complex, and shared resource.This connection provides the underpinning for convincingcitizens to care about their watershed (and sub-sheds) andto contribute positively to its management. This also aidsGIS centers in cities and counties across the U.S. in placessuch as Honolulu to live up to their motto of “Better PublicAccess to Better Public Data” (Ammerman, 1997). Thus,the powerful ability to visualize watershed characteristicscan be brought to the general public when GIS and Internettechnology are used in tandem. Once watershed-orientedresource data and information are brought to the grassrootslevel, the general public can arrive at more informed deci-sions regarding issues such as land use and communitysource water protection. This is the rationale for the cre-ation of the Gunpowder Watershed Clearinghouse.

Proactive Versus Reactive ApproachesCreation of a clearinghouse to enhance public partici-

pation in watershed management represents a proactiveapproach to environmental management. Reactive ap-proaches, on the other hand, are responses to problemsonce they emerge. By anticipating problems and reachingout to stakeholders before issues spiral out of control, orimpacts become too large, it is possible to mitigate water-shed degradation.

LiteratureThe literature does not provide concrete advice re-

garding techniques for constructing a clearinghouse. Thus,the methodology employed in developing the GunpowderWatershed Clearinghouse was adjusted constantly asWebsite construction proceeded.

Relative to other fields of water resource study, thereis a dearth of literature pertaining to the utilization of GISand Internet technology to enhance public involvement andeducation in watershed management via the World WideWeb — this study helps to fill that void. Even high-profilestudies often fail to fully consider the role of Web-basedstudies (Niedermeyer, 1992). Finally, the socioeconomicbreakdown of who has access to computers, the Internet,public meetings, as well as long observed problems of de-fining who “the public” or “stakeholders” actually are con-tinues to be problematic, even after a substantial heritageof literature from many fields exploring the topic (Dewey,1927). Nevertheless, utilizing a spatial unit such as a basincan make establishing such relationships relatively clearin comparison to other avenues of research.

Figure 3. The escalating cycle of public participation in watershedmanagement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



Development of ClearinghouseFive generalized steps are followed in development of

a clearinghouse:

1. Identify stakeholders. Knowing the intended audienceand its needs is essential for establishing a raison d’êtrefor the creation of the Website.

2. Reach out to watershed stakeholders for feedback fromthe earliest points possible.

3. Explain what a watershed is and why the audienceshould care.

4. Foster a geographical watershed-based identity amongwatershed stakeholders.

5. Provide opportunities for informed public involvementin basin management via content.

(How dynamic a site can be is determined by timeavailable to maintain it.)

Participatory Strategies and PartnershipsConsensus-building is as important to developing a

clearinghouse as are technical skills. Therefore, the con-struction of a clearinghouse should parallel the building ofcross-watershed partnerships and reflect the values andconcerns of those both within and outside of those part-nerships. Of course, those stakeholders who become ac-tively engaged in meetings and other forums ofcommunication will exert more influence than those notengaged in the consensus-building process. The terms “en-gage” and “consensus-building” are more than buzz words,for it is vitally important for those involved in the buildingof sites to remind themselves that such partnerships shoulddetermine site content — not merely the efforts and per-sonal viewpoint of the person operating the relevant tech-nology. In addition, partnerships and site constructionshould be transparent, so it is clear to the public how toparticipate and who they are working with. Black (1999)sees the foundation of partnerships as consisting of sixsimple and “simultaneously elegant” characteristics. Thesecharacteristics include:

• Objectives (they must be clear and common);• Participation;• Control (sharing it);• Leadership;• Formality (predictable and well advertised meetings);

and• Cordiality.

Dynes and Wenger (1971) subdivide pools of stake-holders by identifying “power actors,” who are those indi-viduals in a given community that control resources thatcan contribute to solving problems. However, many timesthe hardest work in terms of partnering is to simply find

times and places where and when partners can meet. Onceparticipants do gather it is important to seek out the com-mon ground vis-à-vis a clearinghouse, so that it may beenhanced, and not fall into the trap of focusing chiefly ondifferences (Perdikakis, 1999) (Figure 4).

During GWC construction, data and information wereprovided at no cost by partners such as the MarylandDepartment of the Environment and Baltimore CountyDEPREM. Some of the potentially most expensive re-sources necessary to support a clearinghouse include dataand information. Since, as previously mentioned, water-sheds rarely follow state or other administrative bound-aries, multiple sources of data and information may benecessary to provide complete spatial coverage. Compil-ing such materials can be as time consuming as site con-struction, so time must be scheduled accordingly.

Determining and Reflecting Stakeholder Concerns

The first step in constructing the clearinghouse was toidentify and engage the target audience. At the start of theprocess the Public Involvement Team addressed the fol-lowing key question, “Who are the stakeholders, and howcan the GWC contribute to their empowerment for thebenefit of the Gunpowder Watershed?”

The three general groups targeted were environmen-tal professionals, the general public, and teachers and stu-dents (various levels). These divisions were chosenbecause they are broad enough to be inclusive, yet havevery specific needs. Although there is obviously some over-lap in their requirements, the GWC addresses them di-rectly by way of site construction (Table 2).

Figure 4. GWC design as a “clearinghouse” for diverse contributions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



Fostering a New Geographic IdentityFor a clearinghouse to enhance informed public in-

volvement in watershed management citizens must viewtheir world in terms of watersheds. This mindset emergesthrough the adoption of a watershed-based identity. AsSanger (1997, 5) notes, “Good education already containsstrategies for building a sense of place, but even much ofthe best of current education lacks the depth and breadthof the strategies that educators can use to form an explicitconnection to place.” However, the Internet can providea useful platform for establishing such spatial connections.For instance, the Christina Basin Watershed EducationHome Page (http://www.wr.udel.edu/cb/) demonstrates

on-line a technique for watershed delineations, providespractical watershed preservation tips by land use type, andoffers downloadable pictures and videos of source waterand basin landscapes in order to entrench a watershed-based perspective and cement stakeholder’s connectionsto their basins — it is part art, part science (Smith, 2000b).This can help urban residents connect with their sourcewater, thus, garnering political will to support basin-widepro-environmental work.

Hammering Home the ImageTo foster a geographic and personal connection with

the Gunpowder Watershed an image of the basin is super-imposed over whatever theme is being displayed (Figure5). Using map overlays on nearly every page is the key.The intent is to foster a geographic, environmental, andpolitical identity, and to encourage watershed-friendly ac-tions based on this new allegiance. The key to developingthis new allegiance is to provide information that relates tomultiple aspects of “watershed citizens’” everyday lives.For some this will encourage productive participation inwatershed management across political, economic, eth-nic, racial, and administrative lines.

Table 2. Links Addressing the Three Main Stakeholder Groupsin the GWC

Links on the Gunpower Watershed Clearinghouse Primarytargeted primarily at environmental professionals (EP), Intended general public (GP), and teachers and students (TS) Audience

Announcements EP, GP, TSBathymetry of Loch Raven Reservoir EP, GP, TSBibliographic resources EP, TSCensus EP, GP, TSContacts EP, GP, TSDiscussion board EP, GP, TSDownload the high performance ftp version of EP, GP, TS

the Gunpower Watershed Clearinghouse toyour hard drive

Environmental hazards, with an emphasis on EP, GP, TSComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act sites

GP Watershed Public Involvement Team Meeting EP, GP, TSMinutes

Gunpower Valley Conservancy survey results EP, GP, TSInfrared aerial photography (DOQ composites) EP, GP, TS

of reservoirsLand use. The basin is primarily rural EP, GP, TSLesson plans and directions for those wishing to TS

submit lesson plans.Links EP, GP, TSMeetings EP, GP, TSOngoing projects, stakeholder and organizational EP, GP, TS

contact information.Please click to view pictures of the Gunpower GP

Watershed and to learn how to submit your pictures for publication on this website.

Point sources of pollution (NPDES) EP, GP, TSPolitical perspectives, view legislative districts EP, GP, TS

by watershed.Recreation GPScientific reports EP, TSSoil EP, GP, TSStream data and monitoring sites EP, GP, TSTopography and Geology EP, GP, TSTransportation EP, GP, TSUpper Western Shore Environmental Atlas EP, GP, TSWhat is a watershed? Why should I care about the GP, TS

Gunpower Watershed?Why a Gunpower Watershed Clearinghouse on the EP, GP, TS

Internet?

Figure 5. Hammering home a new watershed allegiance (created fromMDE GIS data 1999).

SustainabilityFor a clearinghouse to be sustainable those respon-

sible for it must plan for the long-term — not only focuson what makes the site attractive at the time of release.This includes advertising through site registration on theInternet, swapping links, and cross-fertilization via meet-ings, conferences, and social events, as well as pitching tocommunity and regional newspapers (Terhune, 1999), tele-vision, and word of mouth. What is the sense of develop-ing such a clearinghouse if weak efforts to raise its profile

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



fail to let people know of its existence? In addition, con-tinual feedback from the intended audience will ensuresustained relevance. Technological issues that impact uponthe site must also be addressed. Equally important, sitemaintenance will be made easier and more reliable by pri-marily utilizing long-term and multi-use data and informa-tion, and assigning a specific person(s) to maintain theclearinghouse.

ValidationThe overall success of a long-term project such as a

clearinghouse must be measured in years, and a long-termcommitment to supporting the approach is necessary. Aclearinghouse must be fashioned so as to be an enduringtool that is integrated into the lives of large numbers ofstakeholders across the watershed. Thus, while judgmentsmust be made concerning the value of a clearinghouse asit develops, its true value will manifest over a more sub-stantial period of time. In addition, a worthwhile test of thevalidity of a clearinghouse will be the site’s utility as re-flected in its frequency of use. Finally, the clearinghouseapproach may not be universally applicable. The asser-tions made in this manuscript assume that the watershedand stakeholders in question have a typically Western pro-file, and this approach relies upon political will, freedom ofinformation, government transparency, organizationalmechanisms, funding, and access to technology that arenot universal (Smith, 1999b). However, the approach canbe modified, and may be especially useful where roughtopography and poor transportation curtail access to dataand information or actual portions of the watershed itself.

Impacts to DateAs stated above, impacts are difficult to value in the

short-run. Nevertheless, included among the concrete ac-complishments that underscore the value of the GWC upto this date are:

• Completion of an on-line survey to help managers gaugethe public’s priorities concerning basin issues.

• Engagement of students of various ages, including threeundergraduate and graduate college level educationalopportunities.

• Formation and support of an accompanying list-serve— several years of dialogue.

• Demystification of basin management.• Provision of concrete volunteer opportunities such as

tree planting and neighborhood stream monitoring, andalerting citizens to workshops on such topics as “greenbuilding” and basin conservation through connecting toa wider regional network.

• Generous opportunities for data and information, shar-ing between environmental professionals and the gen-eral community.

• Lesson planning for local schools.• Successful promotion and support of the well attended

Gunpowder Leadership Conference.• Successful promotion of the well attended Gunpowder

Watershed Festival for the general public. Also, stu-dents from urban areas came to engage in restorationactivities to reduce erosion and discover more aboutwhere their water comes from both in person and viathe GWC.

• Supported a long series of public meetings in order tobring together managers and stakeholders from adjoiningjurisdictions together to mitigate cross-watershed conflictdue to surface water pollution and share basin models.

• Use of the model to inspire similar work in other areas.For example, the GWC was the model for the proposaland creation of the Christina Basin Watershed Edu-cation Home Page in Northern Delaware. That workwas, in turn, formally shared with interdisciplinarygroups from Delaware and Southeast Pennsylvania.Thus, such work plants a seed from which many flow-ers may grow.

Conclusions and RecommendationsUtilization of GIS and the Internet on a large scale has

the potential to provide a scenario of almost “no cost” fornearly all the watershed-based data and information thatmost citizens in a given drainage basin desire. Thus, theclearinghouse approach, once refined and adjusted to matchthe vernacular environmental, political, and technologicallandscape, has the potential to significantly alter the waywatershed-based public outreach is performed.

Certainly there is a growing appreciation of the needfor such grassroots-oriented outreach efforts. And while“watershed science” may be the purview of scientists,progressive watershed management must operate on agrassroots level to be effective. According to Neville (1999,15), “Effective watershed management on the local levelis far more dependent on social and economic variablesthan on watershed science. Full community support isneeded in order to create the necessary changes in landuse laws and policies that will institutionalize the protec-tion of natural systems and processes during developmentand ensure their continued health through comprehensivenatural resource management.”

Because variables change over place and time eachscenario will vary to some extent, and the lessons laid outin this thesis will best serve the reader if they are em-ployed in a flexible fashion and only as guidelines. Thus,the prime requirements for those attempting to apply theclearinghouse approach to a watershed are flexibility andthe capacity to work with a wide variety of stakeholders.

A detailed summary of key recommendations for any-one considering applying the clearinghouse approach is asfollows:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



• Incorporate a wide array of influences and expertisevia diverse partnerships.

• Plan for needs far ahead of time and establish short,intermediate, and long-term objectives.

• Include those with divergent concerns — do not team-up on those with less conventional ideas.

• Select multiple and sustainable forums for continuousdiscussion and input throughout the construction process.

• Create a clear hierarchy in Web site production andmake certain that same hierarchy applies for postingand maintaining materials on the Internet.

• If money must be spent, spend it on human resourcessuch as a geographer to build the site. Gather techni-cal resources and data as in-kind contributions fromgovernment, NGOs, and academic sources (they mayalso offer sponsor internships) as often as possible.

• Incorporate as much team input into clearinghouseconstruction as possible.

• Have a team edit the final product for grammaticaland contextual errors.

• Be realistic about availability of resources to both buildand sustain a clearinghouse.

• Nurture watershed-wide participation in the processfrom beginning to end.

• Foster a new geographic identity by “hammering the(drainage basin) image home.”

• Publicize the Web site via multi-media throughout theconstruction process.

• Utilize long-term and multi-use data and informationand present it in a user-friendly fashion, rather than toimpress colleagues.

• Maintain positive partnerships by being appreciativeof the efforts of other team members.

• Do not rely on a Web-based approach alone for out-reach, or socioeconomic selectivity is almost inevitabledue to differences in access to computers.

A clearinghouse is not intended to be utilized as a stand-alone tool. In fact, it should simply be part of a largerstrategic package for enhancing informed public partici-pation in watershed management. Watershed leadershipconferences, public meetings, citizen land use and streammonitoring, school visits, changes to school curricula (in-cluding Internet access), exhibits, public postings, and otherconventional methods of public outreach are also neces-sary to maximize stakeholder participation in watershedpreservation and restoration. However, the GunpowderWatershed Clearinghouse does serve as an importantmodel by illustrating the power of GIS and Internet tech-nology used in tandem to provide relatively low cost, long-term, multi-use, low maintenance, and comprehensiveenvironmental education to watershed stakeholders acrosseducational, socioeconomic, and administrative boundaries.In addition, through integration of GIS and remote sensingone can help citizens dramatically change scales of per-ception. This allows those without access to expensive

government data or the ability to reach harsh or inacces-sible regions an opportunity achieve a perspective that willallow them to see both the “big” and “small pictures” oftheir basins. Through the clearinghouse approach stake-holders can further their edification in watershed science,and take a proactive role in contributing to the health ofone of the most universally relevant environmental fea-tures on Earth, the watershed.

AcknowledgementsMy sincere thanks to those stakeholders of the Gun-

powder Watershed who so graciously took time to assistin this endeavor. I thank Drs. Kent Barnes, Kenneth Had-dock, and Wayne McKim of Towson University. Also, Dr.Richard Eskin of MDE and Charlie Conklin for my par-ticipation in the project and for providing me with the re-sources to meet our shared objectives. Thanks also to DianaAlegre, Baltimore County DEPRM, and members of theGunpowder Watershed Coalition, TU’s Associate DeanNordulf Debeye, and Dr. Mark Edmonston for their tech-nical support of the GWC. Finally, to Drs. Robert Warren,Young-Doo Wang, John Byrne, and P.E. Jerry Kauffmanof the University of Delaware. Most essential to the suc-cess of all my endeavors is my wife Sarah, as well as myclose friends and family – they are one and the same.

About the AuthorWilliam James Smith, Jr. has

a background in environmental stud-ies, foreign affairs, geography, hu-man rights, and history, and ispursuing a Ph.D. concentrating ontechnology, society, and environmentrelations through the Center for En-ergy and Environmental Policy atthe University of Delaware. Re-

search interests include utilizing low cost and participa-tory basin-based approaches and indigenous knowledgeto support the “human right” to water, and improving eq-uity in access to safe drinking water via source water pro-tection in the less wealthy countries such as Micronesia.For more on the “Clearinghouse” approach explored inthis article please refer to the author’s MA thesis com-pleted at Towson (Maryland) University Summer 1999.He can be contacted at the Center for Energy and Envi-ronmental Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, Dela-ware 19716, USA. Tel: 302-831-8405. E-mail: [email protected]. Research Home Page: http://www.philippinefamily.net/CEEPresearch.html.

Discussions open until June 1, 2003.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4



ReferencesAmmerman, P. 1971. “Sharing the Wealth: Taking GIS Data to

the Public.” Information Delivery Service (ASI Inc.). Flyer: 4.Black, P.E. 1999. “Putting the People in Watershed Manage-

ment.” Journal of the American Water Resources Associa-tion l, No. 1: 5–6.

Boward, DM., HM. Dail, and P.F. Kazyak. 1997. GunpowderRiver Basin, Environmental Assessment of Stream Condi-tions. Annapolis, Maryland, USA: Maryland Department ofNatural Resources, Resource Assessment Service.

Cleaver, H. 1999. Computer-linked Social Movements and theGlobal Threat to Capitalism. http://www.eco.utexas. edu/Home pages/Faculty/Cleaver/polnet.html. Accessed 29 April2000.

Conklin, C. 1999. Community Leader. Gunpowder Valley Conser-vancy, interview with author.

Dear, M. and S. Flusty. 1998. “Postmodern Urbanism.” Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 88, No. 1: 50–72.

Dewey J. 1927. The Public and its Problems. Denver, Colorado,USA: Alan Swallow.

Dynes, R.R. and D. Wenger. 1971. “Factors in the CommunityPerception of Water Resource Problems.” Water ResourcesBulletin 7, No. 4: 645–651.

Gundry, K.G. and T.A. Heberlein. 1984. “Do Public MeetingsRepresent the Public.” Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 50, No. 2: 175–182.

Habermas, J. 1962. The Stuctural Transformation of the PublicSphere: An Inquiry into a Cataegory of Bourgeois Society.Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.

Johnson, D. 1999. MIS/GIS Supervisor, Baltimore County De-partment of Environmental Protection and Resource Man-agement, interview with author.

Johnson, R.J., D. Gregory, and D.M. Smith, eds. 1996. The Dic-tionary of Human Geography. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Massa-chusetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Maryland Department of the Environment. 1999a. Triennial Re-view of Water Quality Standards. http://www.mde.state.md.us/environment/wqsreview.html. Accessed 18 May 1999.

--1999b. Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards. http://www.mde.state.md.us/environment/wqsreview.html. Ac-cessed 18 May 1999.

McKendrick, J.H. 1999. “Multi-Method Research: An Introduc-tion to its Application in Population Geography.” Profes-sional Geographer of the Association of AmericanGeographers 51, No. 1: 40–50.

Neville, L. Robert. 1999. “Effective Watershed Management atthe Community Level: What it Takes to Make it Happen.”Water Resources Impact, Journal of the American WaterResources Association 1, No. 1: 14–15.

Niedermeyer, F.C. 1992. “A Checklist for Reviewing Environ-mental Education Programs.” Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 23, No.2: 46–50.

Outen, D. 1999. Chief of Planning, Policy, Research and Devel-opment, Baltimore County Department of Environmental Pro-tection and Resource Management, interview with author.

Paulson, D.D. 1999. “Collaborative Management of PublicRangeland in Wyoming: Lessons in Co-Management.” Pro-fessional Geographer of the Association of American Geog-raphers 50, No. 3: 40–50.

Perdikakis, G. 1999. Director, Baltimore County Department ofEnvironmental Protection and Resource Management, inter-view with author.

Sanger, M. 1997. “Sense of Place Education.” Journal of Envi-ronmental Education 29, No.1.

Smith, W.J., Jr. 2000a. “The Relationship Between Politics andPublic Drinking Water in the District of Columbia.” The Geo-graphic Bulletin 42, No. 2: 73–83.

--. 2000b. Christina Basin Watershed Education Home Page.http://www.wr.udel.edu. Accessed 19 January 2000.

--. 1999a. Gunpower Watershed Clearinghouse . http://www.towson.edu/gwc/. Accessed 19 May 1999.

--. 1999b. “ Drinking Water Issues and Management in the Re-public of the Philippines.” The Geographical Bulletin 41,No. 1: 8–25.

Tambini, D. 1999. “The Civic Networking Movement.” NewMedia and Democracy 1, No. 3: 305–329.

Terhune, V. 1999. “Gunpowder Offers Virtual Tour on Web.” TheJeffersonian, Section A: 4. The same article also appearedunder different titles in the three newspapers listed below.

Woodward, V. 999. Community leader, Piney Run PreservationAssociation, interview with author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing Informed Public Participation in Watershed Management Utilizing GIS and Internet Technology