Public Education: A Horse of Another Color
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
By Brant D Keller
Recently I had the opportunity to listen to a webinar called “Fostering Sustainable Behavior.” The program addressed getting measurable results when implementing a change in behavior regarding the environment. This program reinforced what I have observed as a weakness in the NPDES Phase II permitting program. Every Phase II stormwater manager by now knows intimately the six minimum control measures of the permit: public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction-site runoff control, post-construction runoff control, and pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Five of the six controls can be measured and have calculable, reportable outcomes. Public education, though, is a horse of another color and appears to be the weakest link in the chain.
One Phase II permit that I recently reviewed states that the program’s goal is to stock the local library monthly and distribute 120 brochures relating to a stormwater issue annually—for a population of 40,000 citizens. This correlates to a distribution of 0.003% of the population served. Our program in Griffin, GA, distributes 17,000 brochures annually on different stormwater issues to 24,500 citizens, reaching 71% of population served.
The activities of both cities meet the conditions of their permits, but what is achieved as a measurable goal other than a number of pieces of paper distributed? What has concerned me for many years is the fact that a change in community behavior is supposed to be reflected in a change in our community’s environmental performance. It does not matter if 120 brochures or 17,000 brochures are distributed—there should be a measurable change in behavior. Has the minimum control measure been adequately addressed and a desired result achieved?
Let’s look at an example of a stream cleanup program as it relates to water pollution. Suppose a community holds a stream cleanup in year one and measures the pounds of materials collected, and then, during the following year, distributes 5,000 flyers on stream pollution to the community. If the following year the community conducts another stream cleanup and picks up more poundage on the same stream corridor than the year before, what behavior has been changed? Has the public education measure really been achieved? Has community behavior changed? Or is public education like a dog chasing its own tail?
I am not implying that public education measures are all bad, but are we, as stormwater managers, really putting forth the effort necessary to achieve the end result—an improvement in water quality? Or are we just meeting the provisions of the permit? Do we really develop media to reach a target audience? Have we identified the barriers and benefits associated with the selected tool used? What are the strategies formulated on the front end of the selection? Are strategies refined and improved upon if community behavior does not change? Do we develop pilot studies to review outcomes before we mass market? In many cases I think not, and I am sometimes guilty of these things in my own program.
At the end of the day, more thought and effort should be given to the ever-elusive question “What is the value of public education?” As stormwater managers, we are stewards of the funds we spend and must use the resource wisely. I would encourage all stormwater managers to read Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing by Doug McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith (New Society Publishers 1999). It may open a new perspective on true attainment of the measurable goal of public education.
Author's Bio: Brant D. Keller, Ph.D., is director of public works and utilities for the city of Griffin, GA. |
Advertisement]