Grantee Research Project Results
1997 Progress Report: Community and Conservation in California
EPA Grant Number: R825226Title: Community and Conservation in California
Investigators: Press, Daniel
Institution: University of California - Santa Cruz
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: November 15, 1996 through November 14, 2001
Project Period Covered by this Report: November 15, 1996 through November 14, 1997
Project Amount: $304,782
RFA: Exploratory Research - Early Career Awards (1996) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Early Career Awards
Objective:
This five-year project began in November of 1996 with the generous support of the US EPA and additional support from the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation. This project 1) establishes patterns of local-level open space preservation in California, and 2) accounts for the variations in preservation patterns from community to community. I hypothesize that five major factors offer a plausible, interrelated set of reasons for the observed variation. These are community wealth, urbanization, administrative capacity, environmentalism/place attachment, and civic engagement.My team and I have developed both qualitative and quantitative methods for researching the project's main questions. They range from a telephone survey of residents in 47 of the state's 58 counties (assessing patterns of civic engagement and land use policy preferences), analysis of environmental policy measures on local and state ballots over the last 20 years, and in-depth interviews with local planners, park officials, members of non-governmental organizations, developers, and other land use stakeholders.
Progress Summary:
1. Acreages
We have collected acreage totals for local open space parcels in 47 counties. These acreages include parks equal to or greater than 10 acres, and that are either owned by local entities (cities, counties, special districts, land trusts), or were donated to the state Department of Parks and Recreation by local actors. The database is nearly complete, and includes holdings from all of the major city, county, and special district agencies.
2. Budgets
We have collected land acquisition budgets for all of California's special park districts from 1969-1993. These data help us determine how money has been spent locally for parks acquisition, but do not include city and county park. Since they must be collected onsite, we will gather city and county park budget data in case-study counties only.
3. Survey
Our survey sub-contractor, the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University, surveyed residents of 47 of California's 58 counties (excluding 11 counties with high federal land percentages. These telephone surveys lasted approximately 22 minutes, and were administered to 4,100 Californians (the final survey consisted of 58 categories of questions and a total of 278 possible responses).
The survey was completed in May of 1998. A very preliminary analysis of the survey results shows great promise in that 1) residents of different counties vary widely in their responses to many of the survey questions (differences of 50% are common), and 2) there are patterns in the correlations of county-level responses (e.g., in levels of civic activity) with county open space preservation and other environmental program outcomes.
4. Voting and Environmentalism
Survey data can measure policy preferences, but these will always represent a respondent's stated preferences, not his or her realized preferences. But in California we have access to realized preferences by virtue of the state's long use of the referendum and initiative processes. Since 1911, Californians have seen environmental policy matters appear on the state ballot at least 55 times. Approximately half the counties vote on these measures in very skewed patterns - either very consistently pro- or consistently anti-environment. Moreover, average county approval of statewide environmental measures is strongly correlated with local open space acreages (r=0.7, p<0.0001), suggesting 1) that voters who support statewide environmental measures live in counties that tend to protect more open space through local efforts.
We have also used maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to estimate the likelihood that a Democratic or Republican voter will approve a given measure. For example, we found high partisan differences in likelihood of approval for proposition 130, a 1990 initiative that would have placed restrictions on clear-cut logging and raised money for forest acquisition. The difference in likely Democratic and Republican approval ranged from a low of 9% in Shasta county to a high of 77% in Santa Cruz county. We will be continuing our voting analysis by also analyzing likely differences in approval by income, ethnicity, and education. Finally, we will be comparing approval of local environmental measures versus approval of statewide measures. We will subsequently see whether these policy preferences, as expressed at the polls, translate into environmental outcomes at the local level.
5. Interviews
Along with my research assistants, I have completed approximately 25 interviews in 10 counties. These interviews provide rich perspectives and narratives on historical patterns of open space preservation at the local level. Respondents include park ballot organizers, local park officials, local open space activists, and local policymakers.
Future Activities:
We will be spending much of year three analyzing the survey results, completing our acreage database, and conducting case studies in selected counties.Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 3 publications | 2 publications in selected types | All 1 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Press D. Local environmental policy capacity: a framework for research. Natural Resources Journal 1998. |
R825226 (1997) R825226 (1999) |
not available |
Supplemental Keywords:
Local public policy, open space, land-use, survey, voting, zoning, sustainability., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Geographic Area, State, Ecology and Ecosystems, decision-making, Social Science, Economics & Decision Making, demographic, ecosystem valuation, policy analysis, public resources, social psychology, community involvement, decision analysis, decision making, environmental assets, conservation, environmental values, socioeconomics, changing environmental conditions, community-based, public policy, California (CA), land use, longitudinal datasetProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.