This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 22 November 2014, At: 10:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Applied Environmental Education &CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueec20

Watershed Outreach Professionals’Behavior Change Practices, Challenges,and NeedsMeghan Kelly a , Samuel Little a , Kaitlin Phelps a , Carrie Roble a &Michaela Zint aa School of Natural Resources and Environment , University ofMichigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan , USAPublished online: 26 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Meghan Kelly , Samuel Little , Kaitlin Phelps , Carrie Roble & Michaela Zint(2012) Watershed Outreach Professionals’ Behavior Change Practices, Challenges, and Needs, AppliedEnvironmental Education & Communication, 11:1, 35-52, DOI: 10.1080/1533015X.2012.728066

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2012.728066

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 11:35–52, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-015X print / 1533-0389 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1533015X.2012.728066

Watershed Outreach Professionals’ Behavior

Change Practices, Challenges, and Needs

Meghan Kelly, Samuel Little, Kaitlin Phelps, Carrie Roble,and Michaela Zint, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University

of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

This study investigated the practices, challenges, and needs of Chesapeake Baywatershed outreach professionals, as related to behavior change strategies and bestoutreach practices. Data were collected through a questionnaire e-mailed toapplicants to the Chesapeake Bay Trust’s environmental outreach grant program(n = 108, r = 56%). Almost all respondents seek to change adult audiences’behaviors and reported using a range of behavior change strategies and bestoutreach practices. However, it is not clear that many use behavior changestrategies intentionally or fully implement best outreach practices.Recommendations are offered for how funders can help outreach professionalsbetter meet mutual environmental behavior change goals.

INTRODUCTION

As environmental professionals in the Chesa-peake Bay Watershed work to meet federallymandated water quality standards and reducedpollution goals, nonpoint source pollutioncontinues to challenge conservation andrestoration efforts. Nonpoint source pollutionis one of the leading sources of pollution in theBay due to the cumulative effect of individualactions and is particularly difficult to regulatebecause of its diffuse nature (Brull, 2006). Inresponse, organizations in the region are ex-ploring the potential of alternative, voluntary

Authors listed alphabetically; allcontributed equally.

Address correspondence to Michaela Zint,School of Natural Resources and Environment,University of Michigan, 2032 Dana Building, 440Church St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail:zintmich@umich.edu

strategies. Environmental outreach programs(outreach programs) designed to fosterchanges in adults’ environmentally responsiblebehaviors (ERB) are one such approach. Suchprograms can have measurable environmentalimpacts through supporting changes in indi-viduals’ behaviors (Dietz, Clausen, & Filchak,2004) and have the potential to help meetcommitments to restore the Bay agreed uponby six governors from surrounding watershedstates (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000).

During the last 40 years, environmentaleducation research on interventions thatmotivate individuals to adopt ERB has grownsignificantly (Heimlich & Ardoin, 2008; Zint,2012). However, there is a lack of studies onthe implementation of outreach programs.This exploratory study sought to begin toaddress this gap by investigating the practices,challenges, and needs of watershed outreachprofessionals in the Chesapeake Bay Water-shed. The study focused on the behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

36 M. KELLY ET AL.

change strategies and select best practicesused by these professionals as part of theiroutreach programs. Findings provide insightinto the outreach programs implemented inthe Chesapeake Bay Watershed and can guidefunders and others interested in supportingoutreach programs that encourage ERB.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed to learn aboutthe practices, challenges, and needs of water-shed outreach professionals in the ChesapeakeBay region, as related to their use of behaviorchange strategies and select outreach best prac-tices. This questionnaire was distributed to allorganizations that applied to the ChesapeakeBay Trust’s (Trust) Outreach and CommunityEngagement (OCE) Grant Program, whichrecently added a Behavior Change ProgramTrack. The Trust is a nonprofit grant-makingorganization located in Maryland.

Questionnaire measures were createdbased on 20 interviews with watershed out-reach professionals in the region and fiveobservations of outreach programs funded bythe Trust’s OCE grant (e.g., garbage clean-upevents and rain barrel workshops). The draftquestionnaire was pilot-tested with eight indi-viduals familiar with outreach programming.

In the questionnaire, behavior changestrategies were described as efforts that “mo-tivate individuals and communities to protectthe Bay and/or local waters.” This language wasadopted to be consistent with wording used bythe Trust and was assumed to be more familiarto respondents than “behavior change strate-gies.” In this article, however, we use the latterlanguage because it is used within environmen-tal education and conservation psychology. Inaddition, respondents were asked to answer theinstrument’s questions from the perspective oftheir organization, rather than their own. Re-sults, however, are reported in terms “respon-dent” rather than “respondent’s organization”for brevity.

The survey asked respondents about 13behavior change strategies, accompanied bya definition and example of each (Table 1).The majority of strategies, such as feedbackand commitment, were included based on areview of conservation psychology researchsupporting their effectiveness. However, two ofthe strategies, highlighting personal benefitsand positive nature experiences, were includedbecause they were frequently mentionedduring the interviews and observed programs.

The instrument consisted mostly of closed-ended questions with Likert type responseoptions to measure respondents’ agreementto statements about their outreach programs.There were also several open-ended questionsincluding three that asked respondents to elab-orate about their use of behavior change strate-gies, rationale for their design of outreach pro-grams, and associated challenges.

The Trust provided the authors with a listof 298 organizations that had applied to itsOCE grant since 2005. Organizations that pro-vided only environmental education for chil-dren rather than programs for adults wereeliminated from the sample, as were organi-zations that no longer existed or for whichcorrect contact information could not be ob-tained, reducing the sample population to193. The primary contact person on eachOCE grant application was asked to completethe questionnaire. Nonrespondents were con-tacted up to five times via e-mail and phonebased on Dillman’s method (Dillman, 1999).Ultimately, 108 watershed outreach profession-als responded (r = 56%).

The majority of respondents reportedworking for nonprofit organizations (69%).The remainder indicated that they workedfor government (19%), academic institutions(13%), grassroots (9%), or other organizations(3%), such as community associations. Re-spondents also verified that they design (82%),implement (88%), and evaluate (62%) theirorganizations’ outreach programs as well aswrite grants to support their organizations’outreach programs (79%). Respondents canthus be concluded to be knowledgeable abouttheir organizations’ outreach programs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 37

Table 1Behavior change strategy definitions and examples included in the questionnaire

Strategy Definition Example

Appealing topositive emotionalstates

Appealing to emotions such as hopeand enjoyment as a way to changepeople’s behavior

Stressing the enjoyable aspects ofgardening

Commitment Using verbal or written agreements,such as pledges, to encourage peopleto adopt a behavior

Asking people to sign a pledge to only useorganic fertilizers on their lawns

Extrinsic rewards Using money, food, or prizes tomotivate behaviors

Rewarding households that save water withtax rebates or entering them in a raffle fora prize

Feedback Providing people with informationabout their level of success or needfor improvement in response to aparticular behavior

Providing homeowners with information ontheir electricity consumption throughoutthe year

Highlightingpersonal benefits

Pointing out the health, financial, orother benefits that may result from abehavior

Emphasizing how using less fertilizer onone’s lawn will save the property ownermoney while also contributing toimproved water quality

Increasing “how-to”skills

Providing people with informationand/or training on how to carry outconservation behaviors

Teaching installation, maintenance, andusage skills through a hands-oncomposting demonstration

Intrinsic rewards Motivating individuals to perform anactivity because of the personalsatisfaction it can offer; this mayinclude stressing values, morals, orhow an activity can be enjoyable orinteresting

Stressing that using resources wisely andavoiding waste is “the right thing to do”or encouraging individuals to participatein a river clean-up because it will be funand enjoyable

Participatoryprograms

Involving members of the communityin program design or implementationto create a sense of communityownership over the program

Creating block leaders to customize andoversee a neighborhood waterconservation program

Positive natureexperiences

Exposing people to nature via anoutdoor experience

Sunset kayak outing that allows people toengage and connect with the Bay and/orlocal waters

Prompts Short, simple reminders to perform adesired behavior

Displaying signs to turn off the lights orturn down the heat

Social marketing Adapting the outlook and techniques ofcommercial marketing to programsto promote environmental and socialchange within target audiences;focused not on profit andorganizational benefits ascommercial marketing practices are,but rather on benefiting individualsand/or society (Definition of SocialMarketing, 2008)

In 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Programcreated a campaign to reduce nutrientpollution flowing into the ChesapeakeBay. Because much of this pollution is theresult of excess lawn fertilizer use, thecampaign targeted homeowners withlawns in the Washington, DC region. Atelephone survey of about 600homeowners was conducted todetermine the best way to reach thisaudience. The survey’s findings showedthat while homeowners were concernedabout the environment and the Bay, thisconcern was not likely to lead toenvironmental actions. Other findingswere that attractive lawns were importantto the audience, and that most were likelyto fertilize their lawns in the spring.

(Continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

38 M. KELLY ET AL.

Table 1Behavior change strategy definitions and examples included in the questionnaire (Continued)

Strategy Definition Example

This led to the design of a campaign thatwould focus on encouraging fertilizer useonly in the fall or to hire a Bay-friendlylawn care service. The campaign did notframe the issue of a polluted Bay as anenvironmental problem, but ratherfocused on the need to protect blue crabsas a source of delicious seafood—thenumerous seafood restaurants in the areasupported this focus. The 7-weekcampaign included: (a) branding thecampaign the Chesapeake Club to createa sense of membership and that doingthese behaviors was the social norm; (b)TV, radio, and print media advertisingtargeting the residents; and (c) apartnership with local seafoodrestaurants that included the use of“Save the crabs, then eat ‘em” coastersand other ways to inform patrons aboutthe importance of fertilizing in fall.Post-intervention surveys wereconducted the following year todetermine the effectiveness of thecampaign in changing fertilizer usebehavior (Kassirer, 2012)

Social norms ormodeling

Demonstrating the importance of abehavior to people either bydescribing the behavior as sociallyacceptable or unacceptable, or byhaving individuals perform thedesired behavior around others toinfluence their behavior

Encouraging people to talk to theirneighbors, family, and friends aboutinstalling rain barrels

Stories Personal verbal or written tales sharingwhat others are doing to solveenvironmental problems, or taleswith embedded environmentalmessages

Sharing a story about one’s experiencefishing in a littered river that motivatedthem to no longer litter and support rivercleanup efforts

For purposes of analysis, the seven- andfive-point response choices were first collapsedinto three options (Conover, 1999) (Table 2).SPSS was used to generate descriptive statistics.Chi-square tests were used to determine thesignificance of relationships between variables,cross tabulations to examine distributions, andSpearman’s rho or Cramer’s V to provide thecorrelations’ direction and strength. The threeopen-ended questions were content analyzedand coded to identify common themes (Miles& Huberman, 1994).

RESULTS

Characteristics of Respondents’Outreach Programs and Factors thatInfluence their Design of EOP Goals

Almost all respondents indicated that their out-reach programs seek to motivate individuals toprotect the Bay (97%) and many also sharedthat their outreach programs have specific

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 39

Table 2Collapsed Survey Likert Scales

Scale Original Collapsed

Strongly disagree →Strongly agree (7 pt scale)

Strongly disagree; Disagree; Somewhatdisagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree Neither agree nor disagreeSomewhat agree; Agree; Strongly agree Agree

Not at all → Very much so(5 pt scale)

Not at all; Very little NoSomewhat SomewhatModerately so; Very much so Yes

Would not help at all →Would help very much so(5 pt scale)

Would not help at all; Would help very little NoWould help somewhat SomewhatWould help moderately so; Would help very

much soYes

Very unlikely → Very likely(5 pt scale)

Very unlikely; Unlikely NoNeutral SomewhatLikely; Very likely Yes

behavioral objectives (62%). Respondents sug-gested that they seek to achieve changes in be-havior through a variety of subgoals, mainly byincreasing audiences’ awareness of issues con-fronting the Bay and increasing audiences’ feel-ings that they can personally protect the Bay(Figure 1). Over half of the respondents alsoidentified other subgoals, ranging from pro-viding audiences with relevant knowledge andskills to stressing how audiences can help future

generations by engaging in actions to protectthe Bay.

Factors that Inform Respondents’Design of Outreach Programs

When asked about the factors that influ-enced their design of outreach programs, themajority identified personal experience (84%),

Fig. 1. Subgoals of respondent organizations’ outreach programs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

40 M. KELLY ET AL.

followed by collaborating with other organiza-tions (76%). Half reported that the design oftheir outreach programs was informed by eval-uations. Fewer respondents indicated that theirdesign of outreach programs was based on datafrom target audiences collected by their organi-zations (40%) or academic research on behav-ior change strategies (32%).

Targeting Audiences

The majority of respondents suggested thattheir outreach programs target specific audi-ences (76%) and felt that they knew how theiraudiences could personally benefit from pro-tecting the Bay (85%). Fewer, however, felt thatthey knew what barriers prevented their targetaudiences from protecting the Bay (63%). Notsurprisingly, those who reported collecting datafrom their target audiences were more likely toagree that they knew how their audiences couldbenefit from the targeted behavior (χ2 (N =101) = 9.756, p = 0.045; rs(N = 101) = 0.28, p =

0.004) and understand what barriers preventedthem from acting (χ2(N = 100) = 15.463, p =0.004; rs (N = 100) = 0.27, p = 0.006).

Use of Behavior Change Strategies

The first question intended to learn about re-spondents’ use of behavior change strategieswas an open-ended question that asked for theidentification of one element that the respon-dents believed made their outreach programseffective in motivating audiences to protect theBay. The content analysis revealed five themes.The majority described the importance of pro-viding hands-on outdoor nature experiences,followed by providing the audience with in-formation, and stressing connections betweenhuman welfare and the quality of the envi-ronment. The importance of involving com-munity members and other stakeholders, pro-viding incentives, and incorporating norma-tive messages were identified less frequently(Table 3).

Table 3Examples of quotes of elements of outreach programs that respondents believed effectively motivateaudiences to protect the Bay

Effective Element Sample illustrative quotes

Providing hands-on, outdoor natureexperiences (n = 36, 35%)

“Getting people out into streams through monitoring and cleanupprojects. This builds interest in and stewardship over localwaters that inspire[s] further action.”

Providing information, training, and/oreducation (n = 27, 27%)

“Showing our participants what a high vegetative cover/healthypasture really should look like and educating them that ahealthy, thick, dense stand of pasture slows or eliminatesnutrient run-off and soil erosion.”

Making connections between humanwelfare and the environment (n = 21,21%)

“Relate the health of the Chesapeake Bay to people’s own wellbeing”

Strengthening relationships, throughcollaboration, with community andother stakeholders (n = 16, 16%)

“Trained Master Gardener volunteers work one-on-one with localresidents by making site visits to residents’ landscapes to teachand encourage them to practice more environmentally friendlylandscape management techniques.”

Using normative messages to motivateothers’ actions (n = 9, 9%)

“Our community association came together to produce a projectthat controls storm water run off, is a pleasant place forcommunity members to enjoy and brought togethercommunity members in the completion of the project. We hopeother communities will think ‘if they can do it we can too.’“

Providing an intrinsic and/or extrinsicincentive (n = 12, 12%)

Extrinsic—”Connecting conservation with a financial argument: Itis cheaper to protect than to restore”

Intrinsic—”Making the health of the Bay relevant to their own wellbeing.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 41

Fig. 2. Respondent organizations’ use of behavior change strategies.

Next, respondents were asked to indicatetheir use of a closed-ended list of behaviorchange strategies and they reported using avariety of these strategies (Figure 2). Respon-dents suggested that their outreach programsmost frequently sought to increase audiences’“how-to” skills and least frequently offered ex-trinsic rewards. Consistent with their earlieropen-ended comments, a large number indi-cated that they provided outdoor nature expe-riences and highlighted personal benefits fromengaging in behaviors that protect the Bay.

However, a significant number indicated thatthey were “not sure” about whether or not theiroutreach programs used the identified strate-gies (Figure 3), suggesting limited familiaritywith these strategies.

This observation is based in part on re-sponses to a subsequent open-ended questionthat asked respondents to describe how theyused one of the identified behavior changestrategies. Although the majority who answeredthis question (n = 63, 58%) gave appropri-ate examples (85%) (Table 4), a number of

Fig. 3. Not sure of behavior change strategies use.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

42 M. KELLY ET AL.

Table 4Examples of quotes demonstrating understanding of behavior change strategies

Strategy Sample illustrative quotes

Appealing to positiveemotional states

“. . . Through research, determined the barriers to changing littering behavior.Message developed is a positive message showing that the litterer will getrewards of a healthy community and family by not littering.”

Commitment “. . . we have viewers call in and make a pledge to help the Bay. We collectcontact information during that call and are able to follow-up with them toensure that they know how and where to fulfill their commitment.”

Extrinsic rewards “We have used incentive awards i.e. Give sways, etc. For some people this ismotivation to attend a workshop or fill out an application and attend a classbut I don’t know that it causes sustainable behavior change but it does drawmore people to a program session.”

Feedback NA—no respondent shared an example of using feedback as a strategyHighlighting personal

benefits“We have implemented a successful pet waste pick up program by providing

bags and receptacles and appealing to their health concerns and concernsabout water pollution.”

Increasing “how-to” skills “After getting someone interested in improving their horticulture practices, weactually show them how to do it, are available to answer questions on thephone, and create web resources for them to refer to. So, hopefully weinspire and then provide the actual know how backed up by publications andlong-term phone access to horticultural consultants.”

Intrinsic rewards “We also make sure that landowners understand the . . . intrinsic rewards(having done good; having made a gift for the future).”

Participatory programs “Participatory programs have become a key part of [our organization’s]education and outreach efforts. We offer a variety of these community basedprograms, to engage audiences on various topics. We see our role asfacilitator and partner, but the members drive the program content.”

Positive nature experiences “Exposure to nature via hands-on activities is the core of all of our programs. . .”

Prompts NA—no respondent shared an example of using prompts as a strategy

Social marketing NA—no respondent shared an example of using social marketing as a strategy

Social norms or modeling “We try to incorporate Social Norms & Modeling in our conservationlandscaping program, encouraging clients to invite friends and neighbors tohelp install their rain garden, cons. landscaping, etc. This reduces the laborcosts to the clients, helps us market our product, and directly models thepractice to a broader audience.”

Stories “We use stories of our [EOP] as a tool for building the strength of the volunteercommunity and as a recruitment tool. We publish these monthly in ourvolunteer letter and quarterly in our newsletter.”

comments also suggested that some misunder-stood these strategies (n = 9, 15%) (Table 5).The most commonly misunderstood strategywas participatory programs, with respondentsinterpreting this strategy as getting participantsto take part in program activities or creatinghands-on experiences (n = 7, 78%).

Answers to this particular open-endedquestion were also analyzed further to deter-mine whether or not respondents appearedto intuitively or intentionally use the identi-fied behavior change strategies. By “intuitively”

we mean respondents were expressing percep-tions of strategies that they believe have thepotential to change behavior. By “intention-ally” we mean that respondents appeared to ex-press a research-based understanding of behav-ior change strategies, suggesting that they maybe using them in a more informed and effec-tive manner. The examples respondents sharedsuggested that our sample was split whenit came to using behavior change strategiesintuitively (52%) versus intentionally (48%)(Table 6).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 43

Table 5Examples of quotes demonstrating misperceptions of behavior change strategies

Strategy Sample illustrative quotes

Participatory programs(n = 7, 78%)

“We held a contest for the design of a storm drain marker. The artist was awardedand featured on a billboard. Participation was on the low side. It is hard in thisarea to get participation.”

“We have a long term program to encourage residents to monitor water quality.They collect information and water samples that we have analyzed at aUniversity laboratory. The results are used annually to create a Report Card ofwater quality conditions.”

“All of our projects include a community outreach component to get folks out toparticipate in the final stages of a project, e.g., planting native plants in a raingarden.”

“Enlisting community volunteers to plant marsh grasses.”“Engaging volunteers to assist with reforestation efforts.”

Commitment (n = 1, 11%) “Commitment best defines the strategy that our organization utilizes. First, grassroot groups apply for small grants up to $1,500 to plant trees. Once theapplication is submitted, it is reviewed by our committee. Once awarded thegrass roots group must implement their project they provide a final report.Commitment is needed by all partners involved in the process.”

Feedback (n = 1, 11%) “We use feedback with group. Capstone projects. Finished projects are sharedthrough presentations.”

Sources of Knowledge aboutBehavior Change Strategies

These findings are not surprising consid-ering that the majority of respondents re-ported learning about behavior change strate-gies through professional experiences (87%).In contrast, far fewer identified workshops(57%), Web sites (41%), academic sources(36%), higher education courses (34%) or we-binars (15%) as sources of learning about be-havior change strategies. A final way that re-spondents indicated that they learned aboutbehavior changes strategies (in response to an“other” response option) was through inter-actions with other organizations (22%). Re-sponses to this set of questions were consistentwith earlier responses about factors that influ-enced the design of outreach programs, identi-fying personal experiences and collaborationswith other organizations as important factors.

Evaluation Practices

The majority of respondents indicated thatthey conduct their own evaluations (78%)

although many also stated that they use ex-ternal consultants (57%). Half reported thatthey pilot test outreach programs before im-plementing them. Many also collect evaluativedata during implementation to improve theiroutreach programs (64%), after implementa-tion to judge the EOP’s success (69%), anduse evaluation results to improve their organi-zations’ outreach programs (78%).

Challenges of Outreach Programsin Motivating Audiences to Protectthe Bay

Respondents were asked a series of closed-ended questions and one open-ended ques-tion to identify the perceived challenges theyface in motivating audiences to protect the Bay.Closed-ended questions asked about challengesrelated to recruiting audiences, evaluation, andthe use of social marketing as well as academicresearch.

Although only about one third of re-spondents indicated that they have difficultyreaching or recruiting audiences (35%), abouthalf reported difficulty reaching or recruiting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

44 M. KELLY ET AL.

Table 6Examples of quotes demonstrating and not demonstrating intentional use behavior change strategies

Strategy Intentional use Not demonstrating intentional use

Appealing topositive emotionalstates

“. . . Through research, determined thebarriers to changing littering behavior.Message developed is a positive messageshowing that the litterer will get rewardsof a healthy community and family by notlittering.”

“. . . we use people’s enjoyment of theriver to encourage stewardship sothat they can continue to enjoy it.”

Commitment “. . . we have viewers call in and make apledge to help the Bay. We collect contactinformation during that call and are able tofollow-up with them to ensure that theyknow how and where to fulfill theircommitment.

“. . . Taking pledges by phone during alive tv program has helped usgreatly.”

Extrinsic rewards “Held photo contest of flooding andstormwater problems in a particularcommunity to raise awareness for theneed to do better stormwatermanagement (and possibly to raise taxesor levy fees to do so).”

“We have used incentive awards i.e.,Give sways, and so forth. For somepeople this is motivation to attend aworkshop or fill out an applicationand attend a class but I don’t knowthat it causes sustainable behaviorchange but it does draw more peopleto a program session.”

Feedback NA—no respondent answer NA—no respondent answerHighlighting

personal benefits“We have implemented a successful pet

waste pick up program by providing bagsand receptacles and appealing to theirhealth concerns and concerns about waterpollution.”

NA—no respondent answer

Increasing “how-to”skills

“After getting someone interested inimproving their horticulture practices, weactually show them how to do it, areavailable to answer questions on thephone, and create web resources for themto refer to.”

“We teach outdoor skills in a fun butslightly competitive daylongprogram. It’s a positive natureexperience that increases how toskills . . .”

Intrinsic rewards NA—no respondent answer NA—no respondent answerParticipatory

programs“. . . With all of our on the ground restorative

programs the goal is to engage, train,motivate and turn the project over to acommunity/local group.”

“All of our projects include acommunity outreach component toget folks out to participate in the finalstages of a project, e.g., plantingnative plants in a rain garden . . .”

Positive outdoornatureexperiences

“. . . Lead 100 volunteers at tree plantingevents. Working together in large groupsto complete a large project is extremelysatisfying for all participants. Participantsthen learn what they can do within theircommunity and at home from plantingtrees to becoming an educated consumer,“voting with their forks” and purchasinglocal food grown by sustainable farms.”

“. . . We use kayak trips, nature walks,and outdoor volunteer opportunitiesto make people feel connected totheir environment. If people get tokayak on the river, they are morelikely to care about what goes intothe river.”

Prompts NA—no respondent answer NA—no respondent answerSocial marketing NA—no respondent answer NA—no respondent answerSocial norms or

modeling“We try to incorporate social norms &

modeling in our conservation-landscapingprogram, encouraging clients to invitefriends and neighbors to help install theirrain garden, cons. landscaping, etc. Thisreduces the labor costs to the clients,helps us market our product, and directlymodels the practice to a broaderaudience.”

NA—no respondent answer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 45

Table 6Examples of quotes demonstrating and not demonstrating intentional use behavior change strategies(Continued)

Strategy Intentional use Not demonstrating intentional use

Stories “[Local watershed groups] were part of aspecial panel discussion presentation tothe audience where they gave personalaccounts (Stories) of how their ownprograms have gone. They described thepros & cons and the barriers they hadfaced trying to motivate their neighbors tochange behavior and participate inconservation.”

“We use stories of our [EOP] as a toolfor building the strength of thevolunteer community and as arecruitment tool. We publish thesemonthly in our volunteer letter andquarterly in our newsletter.”

untraditional audiences (i.e., communities ofColor, low-income communities, individualswho are not already concerned about andengaged in environmental issues; 53%). Asimilar number also felt that they neededgreater participant turnout to fully achieve thegoals of their outreach programs (51%).

Respondents were relatively confident intheir evaluation competencies, with only a fewsuggesting that they lacked the knowledge orskills to conduct evaluations of their outreachprograms (20%). However, about half sug-gested that they do not have the necessary re-sources (47%).

With regard to using social marketing,which weaves together multiple outreach bestpractices such as targeting audiences, collect-ing data on the target audience barriers, andconducting evaluations, there was a significantnumber who suggested that it is too resourceintensive (36%). Moreover, a quarter of respon-dents believed drawing on academic researchwas too theoretical for their programs (27%).

Answers to an open-ended question aboutadditional barriers respondents face in motivat-ing audiences to protect the Bay through out-reach programs (n = 64, 59%) consisted ofchallenges both similar and different to thoseidentified in response to the closed-endedquestions (Table 7). In terms of similar chal-lenges, quite a few respondents pointed to dif-ficulties reaching untraditional audiences. Interms of additional challenges, about half iden-tified concerns related to the limited number

of resources available for outreach programs.Others focused on the difficulties of fosteringbehavior change in general as well as on thelimitations to how grant funding can be used.

Respondents’ Needs andPreferences

A large number of respondents indicated thatthey wanted to learn more about all of the be-havior change strategies, with the majority ex-pressing interest in learning about participa-tory programs (Figure 4). Respondents also ex-pressed a desire to learn about these behaviorchange strategies through workshops (74%),Web sites (63%), and webinars (53%). Thoseinterested in learning about these strategiesthrough a Web site indicated that they wouldlike it to contain stories about other organi-zations’ outreach programs, a downloadablestrategy guide, and information on relevantacademic research (Figure 5).

Many respondents also expressed a desireto learn more about evaluation (63%) as wellas about applying academic research (53%)and social marketing (52%) to their outreachprograms. Interestingly, those who wantedto learn more about academic research onbehavior change were more likely to already beusing academic research to inform their pro-gram design (χ2(N = 92) = 10.761, p = 0.029;rs(N = 92) = 0.333, p = 0.001). In contrast,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

46 M. KELLY ET AL.

Table 7Examples of responses demonstrating challenges respondents’ organizations face

Challenges Sample illustrative quotes

Need more resources, such asmoney, staff, volunteers,time (n = 31, 48%)

“More staff for outreach to educate landowners and encourage them toparticipate in restoration projects. Plenty of volunteers out there to planttrees.”

“We need more time to evaluate our programs and pilot programs. So often weare pulled in several directions to complete other programs or projects andwe [don’t] critically look at past programs.”

“Lack of financial resources and time to engage in design and evaluation. It’s acatch 22 because limited resources make it critical to get best bang for ourbuck, but can also tempt program coordinators to skimp on research,planning, field testing, evaluation, etc.”

“Funding is so scarce and makes it challenging to instigate collaborationinstead of being in competition for limited funds”

Difficulty reaching audiences“outside the choir” (n = 13,20%)

“Getting past those who have self identified as outdoor enthusiasts andreaching all the rest. Conservation often does not take into account what ithas in common with other peoples needs.”

“Being able to reach non-white, non-[m]iddle class, non-college educatedaudiences”

Changing individuals’behaviors (n = 9, 14%)

“People in Western MD have not yet made the connection between theiractivity and the health of the bay. If we can make them realize thisconnection, developments can be made”

“This is true of many conservation organizations who are trying to “save” ourtributaries—the originating sources of the major pollution issues facing theChesapeake Bay. Bringing the private property owners on board, includingwhole communities is essential. The Bay primary source of pollution isprivate property. Government cannot fix it—not enough resources,knowledge, or trust of the taxpayers.”

Funders’ requirements foroutreach programs (n = 9,14%)

“Too often funds are available for specific projects with a beginning and anend. True Bay stewardship has no end in sight. We are often short oninfrastructure funding that is often the bedrock of solid, productive progress.”

“We have limited unrestricted funds to support staff needed to plan and carryout EOPs.”

Fig. 4. Behavior change strategies respondents want to learn more about.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 47

Fig. 5. Desired features of a Web site providing information about how to foster ERB through outreach programs.

respondents who already collaborated withother organizations (χ2(N = 99) = 2.453, p =0.29), conducted evaluations (χ2(N = 96) =4.586, p = 0.10) or used social marketing(χ2(N = 84) = 2.740, p = 0.602) to informthe design of their program, were not morelikely to express a desire to learn more aboutthe corresponding activity. With regard toenhancing their evaluation efforts, over halffelt that all of the following would be help-ful: funding (65%), workshops and training(65%), one-on-one consulting (64%), andinformation on how to measure changes inoutcomes (63%).

Responses to open-ended questionsthroughout the questionnaire (Table 8) werelargely consistent with the needs and pref-erences identified through the closed-endedquestions, such as with regards to needs asso-ciated with strengthening evaluation effortsand reaching untraditional audiences. Inresponse to an open-ended question aboutwhat else might help to improve respondents’outreach programs (n = 8, 43%), however,a strong desire for additional funding was

most frequently mentioned. This was also atheme that emerged repeatedly in responseto the questionnaire’s open-ended questions(Table 8).

Finally, not only did the majority indicatethat they would like to have more opportunitiesto learn from the experiences of other organi-zations, in response to a closed-ended question(73%), but this desire to learn from, as well aswork with, others was yet another theme raisedthroughout (Table 8).

DISCUSSION

This exploratory study set out to learn aboutthe practices, challenges, and needs of water-shed outreach professionals in the ChesapeakeBay Watershed, as related to their use ofbehavior change strategies and select best out-reach practices. The study suggested that themajority of watershed outreach professionals’outreach programs seek to change individuals’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

48 M. KELLY ET AL.

Table 8Example quotes illustrative of common themes identified in responses to open-ended questions across theinstrument

Theme Sample illustrative quotes selected to reflect identified themes

Difficulty of reaching/servingaudiences “outside thechoir”

“Getting past those who have self-identified as outdoor enthusiasts andreaching all the rest. Conservation often does not take into account what ithas in common with other peoples’ needs.”(Q10)

“Lack of available funding to work on empowerment issues with underservedcommunities. Lack of ethnic, intellectual of other forms of diversity in theregional environmental community (limits capacity to raise the mass ofpublic support).” (Q10)

Concerns about evaluation “We have not fully embraced evaluation techniques, though the value in doingso is recognized. Our organization has difficulty planning EOPs beforejumping in and conducting the program.” (Q17)

“Evaluation time. Not necessarily from our funders but we need more time toevaluate our programs and pilot programs. So often we are pulled in severaldirections to complete other programs or projects and we don’t critically lookat past programs.” (Q10)

“By the end of project planning, fund-raising, procurement, volunteerrecruitment, restoration project implementation, report writing to funders,etc., we will use up all of our man power and I do not think we have time toevaluate our effort . . . So, I wonder if a contractor/consultant can evaluate ourprogram correctly or not . . . if our program was given a poor rate by aconsultant who may not have capability to evaluate properly, some of us maybe fired.” (Q10)

Limited funding leading tocompetition

“Top down groups seek to raise money and support to empower their aims.Grassroots groups seek to empower the communities they serve. Far fromtrying to achieve the same ends, these groups are actually working at crosspurposed with one another.” (Q17)

“Funding is so scarce and makes it challenging to instigate collaborationinstead of being in competition for limited funds.” (Q10)

Belief that connections tonature lead to behaviorchange

“Exposure to nature via hands-on activities is the core of all of our programs,and is a powerful tool to establish a personal connection in individuals thatleads to major behavioral changes.” (Q13)

“Even as social marketing and internet usage and resources become morewidespread and effective, the industry need to keep in mind that thesethings, while helpful, are in no way replacements for direct, hands-on,outdoor experiences.” (Q17)

Limited funding “Lack of financial resources and time to engage in design and evaluation. It’s acatch 22 because limited resources make it critical to get best bang for ourbuck, but can also tempt program coordinators to skimp on research,planning, field testing, evaluation, etc.” (Q10)

“The funding for EOP’s pales in comparison to the “in-ground” projects, thisrequires an attitude change by showing that education and outreach mayhave equal, or higher, payback in the eventual behavioral changes that willlead to more in-ground projects.” (Q17)

“We are often challenged to find funding for advocacy work. The ability to takeaction is a powerful motivator and is critical to engaging individuals andcommunities to improve water quality.” (Q10)

Training/support needs,including for smallerorganizations

“I think the train the trainers approach can be useful, but have generally foundthat advice/workshops on how to do it has been very amateurish, andsomewhat condescending to both the prospective trainees and the targetpopulation. / / good resources from experienced folks who really know howto engage folks in a learning/doing process would be welcome.” (Q17)

“It would be helpful if we were given more information on the results of socialmarketing on common issues, rather than having to do it ourselves. It seemsreally inefficient to have multiple little groups trying to identify barriers–therehas to be a lot of similarity. It would be easier to identify unique situationsand test those.” (Q10)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 49

Table 8Example quotes illustrative of common themes identified in responses to open-ended questions across theinstrument (Continued)

Theme Sample illustrative quotes selected to reflect identified themes

Desire for collaboration,learning from otherorganizations

“I think many ‘canned’ programs could be developed to the 80% state, and thentailored to the particular organizational and watershed issues of the user.Most conservation organization[s] have very similar objectives and goals andsimilar community environments and challenges. The program development,evaluation, and implementation could be executed by a “professional”leadership cadre with volunteers from the organization to give it a localflavor.” (Q17)

“It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of all of the organizations andgroups that are currently protecting the Bay, with their contact information.”(Q17)

“Reporting on projects is not as important as stating what the methodologywas and the steps to success. All too often this is neglected and webinars onthese programs just state what was done and rarely state how (the steps) togetting it to work.” (Q17)

Note. Q# refers to the number of the open-ended questions which respondents answered.

watershed behaviors and that they use a varietyof behavior change strategies and best prac-tices to achieve this goal. However, although arelatively large number of watershed outreachprofessionals reported using behavior changestrategies supported by research, results alsosuggest that many outreach programs may alsobe based on behavior change strategies forwhich there is limited research support. Forexample, there appears to be a relatively strongbelief among the majority of respondents thatproviding hands-on outdoor nature experi-ences will strengthen individuals’ connectionsto the Bay and that this will, in turn, resultin ERB. Although ERB has been related toindividuals’ connections to nature, researchsuggests that this relationship is not necessarilya causal one (McPherson-Frantz, 2004). Otherfactors, such as social influences or actionskills, may be much stronger determinants ofERB and possibly more important to leverage(Cialdini, 2001; Hungerford & Volk, 1990).Moreover, the extent to which research-basedbehavior change strategies are used inten-tionally appears limited. This may be becauserelatively few watershed outreach professionalshave had opportunities to formally learn aboutthese strategies. As a result, watershed out-reach professionals in the region can furthermaximize the use of research-based behaviorchange strategies.

Best practices, such as collecting quantita-tive and qualitative data on target audiences,and conducting evaluations, are also importantto achieving behavior change goals throughoutreach programs (Braus, 2009; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999) and many watershed out-reach professionals reported using these prac-tices. However, about half indicated that theydid not use data collected from their audi-ences to inform their program design. This sug-gests that many respondents are not customiz-ing outreach programs to meet target audi-ences’ specific needs. Furthermore, less thanhalf of the watershed outreach professionalsreported that they used evaluation results toinform their programs. Thus, many outreachprograms are not benefiting from insights thatcan be gained from program evaluation find-ings. Watershed outreach professionals also re-ported having limited resources and experi-ence for how to best engage in some best prac-tices, which may help explain why more ofthem are not implementing best practices tothe extent possible.

Importantly, our results show that water-shed outreach professionals in the ChesapeakeBay Watershed are eager to learn more aboutbehavior change strategies and outreach bestpractices. They also expressed a strong de-sire to learn more about social marketing andparticipatory programs. This may reflect their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

50 M. KELLY ET AL.

recognition of the potential benefits of a struc-tured approach such as social marketing and acommunity-inclusive approach such as partici-patory programs.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUNDINGORGANIZATIONS

Based on the study’s findings we encouragefunders, like the Trust, who want to supportorganizations conducting outreach programswith the potential to foster ERB, to consider thefollowing recommendations:

Encourage Applicants to beIntentional in their Use of BehaviorChange Strategies

To support greater intentional use of behaviorchange strategies, funding organizations couldrequest that applicants include justifications forthe strategies they propose to use. Such justifi-cations could come from academic research orprogram evaluations, demonstrating that simi-lar strategies were effective at reaching the de-sired goal. There should also be evidence of therecognition of the complex nature of humanbehavior (De Young, 2000; Spence & Pidgeon,2009), requiring that various combinations ofstrategies be tailored to meet different behav-ioral goals.

Offer Professional Developmentand Resources to StrengthenApplicants’ Ability to Develop,Implement, and Evaluate OutreachPrograms

This study suggests that outreach profession-als may benefit from professional developmenton a variety of topics. These include audience

assessment and program evaluation. Althoughmany respondents suggested they are engag-ing in these best practices, their responses alsoindicated that they are not always leveragingthese practices to their fullest potential. Profes-sional development could focus on skills suchas surveying target audiences as well as conduct-ing formative and summative program evalu-ations. Another topic could be how to incor-porate social marketing and participatory pro-gramming into outreach programs. Use of suchframeworks could help improve strategic plan-ning by introducing practitioners to alternativeprogram designs. Social marketing, for exam-ple, has been effective in fostering sustainedERB (Barr, Gilg, & Shaw, 2011; McKenzie-Mohr,1999). In the Chesapeake Bay, the “Save theCrabs. Then Eat ‘Em” (2005) campaign reliedon social marketing techniques to increase resi-dents awareness of lawn care behaviors that de-grade Bay quality and to decrease their intentto fertilize in the spring, a behavior that ben-efits water quality (Landers, Mitchell, Smith,Lehman, & Conner, 2006).

Funding organizations can also help toraise outreach professional awareness of exist-ing resources to help develop improved out-reach programs (Byers, 2000; Matarasso, 2009;National Audubon Society, 2011; Tetra Tech,Inc, 2010), conduct program evaluations (Of-fice of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2007; Zint,Dowd, & Covitt, 2011), and learn about be-havior change strategies (Kelly, Little, Phelps,Roble, & Zint, 2012). Raising awareness andfacilitating use of such resources seems partic-ularly important in light of respondents’ con-cerns about tight budgets.

Facilitate Collaboration AmongOutreach Practitioners

Throughout the questionnaire, respondents in-dicated that they collaborate with other out-reach professionals and prefer to learn aboutbehavior change strategies and outreach bestpractices in this way. Leveraging this form ofsocial learning, which outreach practitioners

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

WATERSHED OUTREACH PROFESSIONALS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE 51

already use and value, could be very beneficialfor motivating professionals to attempt novelbehavior change strategies and outreach bestpractices. Funding organizations could facili-tate the sharing of examples of how organi-zations have effectively used behavior changestrategies. These examples could describe thestrategies that were used, how they wereadapted, how effective they were, and whatlessons were learned, based on program evalua-tion results. In addition, funding organizationscould prioritize grants that include partner-ships and reflect a commitment to sharing ex-periences as well as program evaluation results.

FURTHER RESEARCH

To the best of our knowledge, this was thefirst study to explore outreach professionals’practices, challenges, and needs as related tooutreach programs designed to foster ERB. Assuch, the study provides preliminary insightsthat should be further examined through stud-ies of outreach programs conducted in otherregions and contexts. Case studies of organi-zations that explore how organizations design,implement, and evaluate outreach programsdesigned to foster ERB, including the chal-lenges they face in doing so and how they over-come these challenges, would be particularlyuseful because of the depth they could pro-vide. There would also be value in conductingresearch on the effectiveness of various inter-ventions in enhancing environmental outreachprofessionals’ use of behavior change strategiesand outreach best practices.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study demonstrates that thereare a multitude of opportunities for funding

organizations to better support environmentalprofessionals, working to foster ERB throughoutreach programs. Together, funding organi-zations and professionals can help strengthenenvironmental stewardship through strategicbehavior change programming.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Chesapeake BayTrust and the University of Michigan School ofNatural Resources and Environment for fund-ing this study. We are also grateful to the Trust’sstaff and Dr. Raymond De Young for their guid-ance and support.

REFERENCES

Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). ‘Helping people makebetter choices’: Exploring the behaviour change agendafor environmental sustainability. Applied Geography, 31,712–720.

Braus, J. (2009). Tools of engagement: How education andother social strategies can engage people in conservationaction. In J. H. Falk, J. E. Heimlich, & S. Foutz (Eds.), Freechoice learning and the environment (pp. 87–104). New York,NY: Alta Mira.

Brull, S. (2006). An evaluation of nonpoint source pollu-tion regulation in the Chesapeake Bay. University of Balti-more Journal of Environmental Law, 13(2), 221–249.

Byers, B. A. (2000). Understanding and influencing behaviors:A guide. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

Chesapeake Bay Program (2000). Chesapeake 2000. Re-trieved from http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp 12081.pdf

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston,MA: Pearson.

Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rded.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Definition of Social Marketing. (2008). Retrieved fromthe Social Marketing Wiki: http://socialmarketing.wetpaint.com/page/Definition+of+Social+Marketing

De Young. R. (2000). New ways to promote proenviron-mental behavior: Expanding and evaluating motives forenvironmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Is-sues, 56(3), 509–526.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

52 M. KELLY ET AL.

Dietz, T., Clausen, J. C., Filchak, K. K. (2004). Educationand changes in residential nonpoint source pollution.Environmental Management, 32(5), 684–690.

Dillman, D. (1999). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored de-sign. New York, NY: Wiley.

Heimlich, J. E., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding be-havior to understand behavior change: A literature re-view. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 215–237.

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner be-havior through environmental education. Journal of Envi-ronmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.

Kassirer, J. (2012). Tools of change: Save the Crabs - ThenEat ‘Em. Retrieved from http://www.toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=90

Kelly, M., Little, S., Phelps, K., Roble, C., & Zint, M. (2012).Strategies for motivating watershed stewardship: A guideto research-based practices. Retrieved from http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5457571/k.50A7/Additional Resources.htm

Landers, J., Mitchell, P., Smith, B., Lehman, T., & Conner,C. (2006). “Save the Crabs, Then Eat ‘Em”: A CulinaryApproach to Saving the Chesapeake Bay. Social MarketingQuarterly, 12(1), 15–28.

Matarasso, M. (2009). Targeting behavior: Working with peopleto design conservation communications strategies. Arlington,VA: Conservation International Foundation.

McPherson-Frantz, C. (2004). The connectedness to naturescale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in communitywith nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,503–515.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustain-able behavior: An introduction to community-based social mar-keting. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative dataanalysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

National Audubon Society. (2011). Tools of engagement:Tools for engaging people in conservation. Retrieved fromhttp://web4.audubon.org/educate/toolkit/toolkit.php

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2007). Educa-tion project evaluation. Retrieved from http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/education/evaluation/evaluation.html

Save the crabs, then eat ‘em. (n.d.). Tools of change:Proven methods for promoting health, safety and environmen-tal citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=90

Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2009). Psychology, Cli-mate Change & Sustainable Behaviour. Environment:Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(6),8–18.

Tetra Tech, Inc. (2010). Getting in step: A guide for con-ducting watershed outreach campaigns (3rd ed.). Retrievedfrom http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf

Zint, M. (Forthcoming). Advancing environmental edu-cation program evaluation: Insights from a review ofbehavioral outcome evaluations. In R. Stephenson, M.Brody, J. Dillon, & A. Wals (Eds.), International hand-book of research on environmental education. New York, NY:Routledge.

Zint, M., Dowd, P., & Covitt, B. (2011). Enhancing en-vironmental educators’ evaluation competencies: In-sights from an examination of the effectiveness of theMy Environmental Education Evaluation Resource Assistant(MEERA) Web site. Environmental Education Research,17(4), 471–497.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 10:

59 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014