Defining Watershed Problems
Introduction
How environmental problems get defined in a watershed action plan or Section 319 implementation plan can have a major impact on every decision and action that follows. On the surface, it would seem that coming up with a problem statement would be simple and straightforward. Experience suggests, however, that constructing suitable problem statements actually requires careful analysis of the available data and dialogue with key stakeholders.
Problem statements that are too vague, too narrowly defined, based on unsubstantiated assumptions, or lacking stakeholder buy-in can lead to a domino effect of bad decision-making, eventually resulting in wasted time, money and other valuable resources. In this module, you will practice developing and refining problem statements.
This module includes two assignments. The first assignment (PT2-1) will have you developing and refining problem statements based on a fictional case study. This assignment is designed for those who will not be completing module EDMA1-"How healthy is your watershed?" and/or are not involved directly in a watershed management group in Ohio. The second assignment (PT2-2) will have you developing and refining problem statements based on actual water quality data that you compiled in EDMA1-"How healthy is your watershed?"
Note: Any OWA participant can complete any module they choose.
Note: You must complete Module EDMA1-"How healthy is your watershed?" before beginning assignment PT2-2.
For assignment PT2-1, start by reading the fictional case study of “Cherry Valley Lake” [cherry_valley.doc]. After you have read the case study, you will be asked to define one or more water quality problems in the Cherry Valley Lake watershed based on the information provided. Then – after you have written down your draft problem statement – read the text below on common decision errors and the required readings. You will then have a chance to evaluate and revise your original problem statement based on what you learned from the readings.
We recommend that you choose assignment PT2-2 if you have already completed Module EDMA1-"How healthy is your watershed?". For assignment PT2-2, start by reviewing the aquatic life use attainment findings for one 11-digit HUC watershed identified in your responses to Module PT1: How Healthy is Your Watershed. Then write one or more draft problem statements based on the findings, including the causes and each potential source of impairments. After you have written your draft problem statement, read the text below on common decision errors and the required readings. You will then have a chance to evaluate and revise your original problem statement based on what you learned from the readings.
For assignment PT2-2, keep in mind that, according to OEPA, causes refer to environmental stressors that result in partial or non-attainment of aquatic life use designations. Sources are the activities or features on the landscape that are creating the water quality problems. For example, the cause of impairment to a stream might be nutrients while the source is drainage from agricultural fields.
Learning Objectives
After completion of the module the learner should be able to
- Identify common decision short-cuts and other pitfalls in problem formulation
- Create a draft problem statement for a stream impairment
Common Decision Errors
Note: Read this section and the required readings after you have written your draft problem statements based on the Cherry Valley Lake case study or attainment data from Module 9.
Confusing problems and solutions
"We don’t have enough riparian buffers on our headwater streams".
By defining the problem as "lack of riparian buffers", you have automatically limited the options for solving the problem to only one: increasing riparian buffers. Ask yourself, why do we need more riparian buffers? Is there a more fundamental problem that we’re trying to address that would require other actions in addition to or instead of riparian buffers?
Answers to these questions might lead to an alternative problem statement, such as the following:
"There are excess nutrients entering our headwater streams."
This broader problem definition allows consideration of any alternative that will prevent nutrients from entering the headwater streams. Solutions could include increasing riparian buffers but the second problem statement opens up other possible solutions such as reducing manure application rates or controlling drainage from agricultural fields surrounding the headwater streams.
One reason we often jump to identifying solutions when we are trying to define root problems is that we make assumptions about the actual source of the problem. In the example above, we started with an assumption that the source of the problem was directly related to riparian vegetation. But excessive nutrient loading can be caused by many other factors on the landscape, including types of crops grown, application of fertilizers and manure, slope and soil type. The list goes on and on. When we question our assumptions about a problem and its source, we often find that we need to broaden our definition to get down to the root problem.
Why we jump to solutions
Why do we so often jump to solutions rather than identifying root problems. In a word – assumptions. Too often, we make assumptions about what is causing the root problem. Our assumptions, in turn, are often based on heuristics. Heuristics are mental short cuts that we all use to make decisions quickly and efficiently. Heuristics are essentially decision rules that we employ, often subconsciously, when faced with a difficult decision among several alternatives. For simple decisions these heuristics are often fairly accurate and useful. However, when it comes to more complex problem solving, they may result in systematic biases or predictable patterns of behavior that lead to errors in decision making (Wilson 2007).
One common heuristic is availability. Use of the availability heuristic arises when images or events that first come to mind when we are confronted with a decision have a disproportionately significant impact on our judgments.
For example, following the example above, you might see a water quality report on the headwater streams in your watershed. When you see that levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are a high magnitude cause of impairment, you might form a picture in your head based on a recent drive through the area. If you happen to recall an image of a muddy stream clogged with algae and little or no riparian buffer, you might quickly jump to the conclusion that the real problem is the lack of riparian buffers, ignoring other factors that might contribute to the root problem of high nutrient loading.
However, if you were to question your assumption about the source of the high nutrient loads, you might seek more information and talk with farmers and Soil and Water District technicians who would tell you that most of the farm fields are drained by sub-surface tile drains, which would completely bypass any riparian buffers. So, if you define the problem as insufficient buffers (your first assumption based on the accessibility heuristic), you might mistakenly spend a lot of time and funding promoting a solution (riparian buffers) that would not resolve the nutrient loading problem.
Incorporating stakeholder input
As in the above example, effective deliberation with stakeholders coupled with careful analysis of various data sources can improve your understanding of a problem, dispel assumptions, and help you elicit new ways to define a problem. You may also gain new insights about how key stakeholders are likely to react to different problem statements. For more about incorporating stakeholder input, we refer you to the reading provided under "Additional Resources", below. The reading discusses ways to improve decision-making by incorporating stakeholder input.
Background Readings
Required:
- Hammond, Raffia, and Keeney. (1996). Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Decision Making (Chapter 2). [Academy Students receive a copy of this Chapter].
- Guidance on Problem Statements (Author G. Nageotte, 2008) File: ProblemStatementsGN.ppt
- Problem statement examples that reflect ODNR watershed plan expectations (Author: G. Nageotte, 2008) File: Problem_Statement_ExamplesII.doc
- Evaluating Your Problem Statements (Author: G. Nageotte, 2008) File: problemstatements.doc
Additional Resources:
- Ohio EPA (2006). Getting the Point About Nonpoint: Ohio NPS Pollution Management Plan 2005-201. Solutions, Management Practices and Measures. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/NPSMP/MM/Mmjumppage.html
- Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.
- Ohio EPA. (1997). A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio. (Chapter 3: Defining Problems.)
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/wsguide.pdf (PDF format). - USEPA. (2005). Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. (Chapter 4, Sections 4.1—4.31: Gather Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort). Academy students receive a copy of this handbook.