Social Demand of a Blue Space: Use, Values, and ... · Social Demand of a Blue Space: Use, Values, and Perceptions of the San Marcos River Graham Daly Dr. Jason Julian 1 PC: Stephen

Social Demand of a Blue Space: Use, Values, and Perceptions of the

San Marcos River

Graham Daly

Dr. Jason Julian 1

PC: Stephen Ramirez

Rivers…

2

Blue Space…

(Martin-Ortega et al., 2015)

“ a way of understanding the

complex relationships between

nature and humans to support

decision-making, with the aim of

reversing the declining status of

ecosystems and ensuring the

sustainable use/management/

conservation of resources.”

Rivers & Ecosystems Services

3(Adapted from MA 2005)

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Provisioning

- Food

- Fresh Water

- Energy

- Wood & Fiber

Regulating

- Climate Regulation

- Habitat

- Flood Regulation

- Water Purification

Cultural

- Aesthetic

- Educational

- Inspirational

- Recreational

- Sense of Place

- Spiritual

pic

Cultural Ecosystem Services

4

“ecosystems’ contribution to the nonmaterial benefits

that arise from human-system relationships”

(Chan et al. 2011)

• Aesthetic

• Educational

• Inspirational

• Recreational

• Sense of Place

• Spiritual

San Marcos River as a Blue Space

5

Spring fed

Exceptional water quality

Excellent habitat

High biodiversity

7 endangered species

Flowing since memory

Rapidly Growing City

6

Fastest growing city in U.S. 2012 -2014

City grew 31% from 2010 – 2014

Located between Austin and San Antonio,

two of top ten cities by population (3.5 mil)

Currently + 60,000 residents

Biophysical / hydrological supply & demand are well studied…

What about the people & their social demand?

7

Austin, TX

San Antonio, TX

1000 ft (Brauman, 2015)

What is the impact of rapid population growth on the ecosystem services of the San Marcos River?

8

9

1903 ~ enrollment 300

2015 ~ enrollment 38,000

Increasingly

residential student

population

1,200 students a

year since 2012

~ 39,000

City of San

Marcos ResidentsTouristsTexas State

University Students

picpic

Small Town Feel

Increasing popularity

due to affordable

quality of life, recent

numerous accolades

~ 60,000

Outlet Malls

River Recreation

Meadows Center

Downtown

~ 14 million

o Email, In-person, Mail-out

questionnaires resulting in

convenience response sampling

o Stratified random sampling to

target different sociodemographic

populations

o Primarily forced, closed responses

o Resulted in mostly ordinal data

o 49 questions total

o 20 minute average response time

o Spring & Summer of 2015

Survey Methodology

10(Castro et al., 2016)

Survey Data Analyses

• Socio-Demographics

• Life World Experience

• Use

• Value

• Perception / Preference

• Non-Parametric

Analysis

• Kruskil-Walis

• Wilcoxan Each Pair

11

12

Use Value Perception

Visit per year,

season, time of day,

group size

Rank ES and CES

benefits

Benefits to Human

Well-Being and Fish

& Wildlife

Money spent on river

visits, consumables

and hard goods

Money allocated for

river protection and

enhancement

Cleanliness of water,

affect on use,

preferred crowding

Sites and activities

visited

Rank benefits of

SMR, TXST, and

Outlet Malls

Sensitivity to rapid

growth, endangered

species

13

Socio-Demographic Lifeworld Experience

Age Parental Education & Occupation

Gender Youth Time Outside & Activities

Race/Ethnicity Environment Raised In

Education Glass Bottom Boat Tour

Income Years Lived SM, Proximity to River

14

• 2,581 Students

Representative

Young, Educated

• 240 Tourists

?

Wealthy

• 336 Residents

Email vs. In-Person

Skewed

Uneven

Age 74/15/5

Gender 69/31*

Race/Ethnic 51/32/9

Education 83/14/3

Income 83/10/4

Age 21/18/16

Gender 58/42

Race/Ethnic 67/15/12*

Education 36/32/23*

Income 22/18/19

Age 15/21/19

Gender 60/40

Race/Ethnic 66/27/4*

Education 31/32/20

Income 10/13/23*

15

Use, Value, & Perception

Use Value Perception

Visit per year, season,

time of day, group size

Rank ES and CES

benefits

Benefits to Human

Well-Being and Fish

& Wildlife

Money spent on river

visits, consumables

and hard goods

Money allocated for

river protection and

enhancement

Cleanliness of water,

affect on use,

preferred crowding

Sites and activities

visited

Rank benefits of SMR,

TXST, and Outlet

Malls

Sensitivity to rapid

growth, endangered

species

Use changes with the seasons and purpose, Values of

ecosystem services are generally recognized, Perceptions

vary somewhat

(Nature Conservancy, 2010)

Summarized descriptive statistics

16

Students Residents Tourists

High usage Targeted usage Seasonal usage

Value skewed towards

conservation

Value heightened

overall

Value changes with

experience

Perception more

limited

Perception more

sensitive

Perception more

generalized

Specific socio-demographic & lifeworld experiences

17

Transgenerational Value

Students Residents Tourists

Glass bottom boat Glass bottom boat Glass bottom boat

Rural / Urban Rural / Urban Rural / Urban

• Glass bottom boat tour participation was the most influential experience on individual responses

• Time outside during childhood and rural / urban settings were also strong correlates 18

Experiential Education

Urban planning importance

• Hydrologic services (Braumen, 2015)

• Implementing ES in federal-decision making and planning (BenDor et al. 2017)

• Cultural ES as driver

• Method for measuring & discussing & predicting social demand for ES

19Town-Gown relationship significance

Broader implications

• Blue spaces are increasing gaining importance, especially in places that have geographically limited water availability

20(Steele, 2014)

Broader implications

• Climate change is and will increase the demands placed upon urban blue spaces both biophysically and socially

21(Grimm et al. 2008)

22Graham Daly [email protected]

Questions?

References• Assessment, M. E. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being (Vol. 200). Washington, DC:

Island Press.

• BenDor, T. K., Spurlock, D., Woodruff, S. C., & Olander, L. (2017). A research agenda for ecosystem services in American environmental and land use planning. Cities, 60, 260-271.

• Brauman, K. A. (2015). Hydrologic ecosystem services: linking ecohydrologic processes to human well‐being in water research and watershed management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2(4), 345-358.

• Castro, A. J., Vaughn, C. C., Julian, J. P., & García‐Llorente, M. (2016). Social demand for ecosystem services and implications for watershed management. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 52(1), 209-221.

• Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. science, 319(5864), 756-760.

23