Additional Indicators: 7. Types of Residents in The Watershed
Additional Indicators: 7. Types of Residents in The Watershed
Additional Indicators: 7. Types of Residents in The Watershed
Burdge, R.J. 1990. Utilizing social impact variables in the planning model. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 8(1/2):85-100.
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
1 of 17
Average number of acres owned and percentage change in last 5-10 years
USCB - Census of Agriculture Illinois, Table 1. County Summary
Highlights
7c.
7d.
7e.
7f.
7g.
7h.
7i.
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
2 of 17
8c.
Counties in watershed
GIS Database, 7.5 Topographical Map Clearinghouse
ISWS - Watershed Subbasin Maps
9b.
9c.
9d.
9e.
Land Use
In the area of land use, you should seek a clear understanding of the constraints that will be
imposed upon the plan by current land uses and also an understanding of the environmental and
social effects resulting from those uses. Understanding land-use trends that are occurring or are
likely to occur can help you identify both opportunities and constraints for future land
management decisions.
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
3 of 17
11e. Percentage of population or number who use the public water system; percentage with
private wells
Local Water Company
GISP - Census of Population and Housing
11f. Number of drinking water warnings in past year (boil orders, high nitrates, exceed EPA
limits) and percentage change in the last 5-10 years
Local Water Company
Regional IEPA
Regional IDPH
11g. Number of water shortage incidents in past year (restrictions on lawn watering, private
wells) and percentage change in last 5-10 years
Local Water Company
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
4 of 17
Regional IEPA
Regional IDPH
11h. Number of times local industries were not in regulatory compliance with environmental
standards
WMRC
Regional IEPA
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
5 of 17
Community Capacity
Exploring community capacity2 issues will give you knowledge about the ability of your community
to influence local decisions, work together to create and sustain beneficial change, and adapt to
change from outside influences. Community capacity is represented by the communitys ability to
coordinate its efforts and resources in a way that establishes cooperation among stakeholders
and government officials and can be reflected in its ability to access outside information and
financial resources.
Quality of life3 issues can also be included in the analysis of community capacity. Quality of life
issues describe the likelihood of a community to prosper and sustain its unique qualities. Quality
of life may include such attributes as the communitys cleanliness, safety, the friendliness of
neighbors, strength of the economy, and affordability of housing. Another measure of community
capacity is the degree to which community members feel that they belong and have a sense of
relationship which each other. This can be measured by their participation in civic organizations
and by their civic pride. How people feel about their community can be expressed in what they
say they are proud of, what they would like to change about their community, the reasons they live
there or plan to leave, and the characteristics that make their community unique.
Quality of life and community capacity both take human capital into consideration. Human capital
consists of the qualities of individuals, such as values, education, skills, health, and leadership,
that can be used to enhance environmental quality. Strong local leadership is usually the key to
effective community development and long-term vitality.
Adapted from: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Office of Policy.
Community cultural profiling guide: Understanding a communitys sense of place.
Flora, C.B., and J.L. Flora. 1988. Guidelines for conducting social assessments.
3
Adapted from: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Office of Policy.
Community cultural profiling guide: Understanding a communitys sense of place.
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
6 of 17
13b. Percentage of municipal government meetings during the past year that were open to
the public
City Clerk, County Clerk
13c. Number of citizens who attended open municipal government meetings during the past
year
City Clerk, County Clerk
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. D-1
13d. Percentage of citizens who have participated in a local group to address a specific
community problem
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. D-1
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
7 of 17
14f. Percentage of citizens who have cooperated with their neighbor to solve a common
problem
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. D-1
14g. The nature of the farmer/nonfarmer relationship
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-7; D-5
14h. Community preservation of historical, cultural, and/or physical objects (buildings)
Historical Preservation Commission
14i. Number of newspaper articles related to land use, natural resources, or watersheds
Local newspaper, library archives
14j. Community natural resource or agricultural events (farm shows, logging competition,
strawberry festival, fishing day)
Chamber of Commerce
Local SWCD, FS, NRCS offices
14k. Age distribution of community
USCB - USA Counties
Illinois Statistical Abstract Table 1-5. Population by Selected Age Groups
14l. Percentage of population who have lived in watershed less than 5 years, more than 5
years, and more than 20 years
GISP - Census of Population and Housing
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. A-1
14m. Projected population growth or decline and changes in recent years
USCB - USA Counties
Regional Planning Commission
14n. Size of seasonal population (college students, wintering retirees, summering
vacationers, migrant workers)
Local University/College
Local employment/unemployment agencies
14o. Ratio of homes/apartment developments with neat appearance vs. those that are
clearly not cared for
Public Works Department
Surveys, Interviews
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
8 of 17
Economic Vitality
Indicators of economic vitality4 describe your communitys economic history, current economic
well-being, and sometimes its potential for future economic development. This information can
provide an additional context for understanding how and why people in your community might
make decisions related to land use. This information takes into account such factors as
employment levels, types of jobs, per capita income, poverty and unemployment rates, the range
of incomes in the community, trends in employment opportunities, presence of natural resources
(fertile soil, clean water and air), and infrastructure (transportation routes).
In addition, you will need to explore issues of economic growth and prosperity 5 to determine if
economic conditions might pose constraints on your watershed effort. For example, an
economically stable community might be more interested and better equipped to address land
use and natural resource issues. One important factor that allows a community or region to
maintain an adequate level of economic health is the diversity of economic opportunities that
exist. A resilient community has people with a wide range of skills and access to diverse
4
Adapted from: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Office of Policy.
Community cultural profiling guide: Understanding a communitys sense of place.
5
Adapted from: Flora, C.B., and J.L. Flora. 1988. Guidelines for conducting social assessments
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
9 of 17
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
10 of 17
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
11 of 17
Political Structures
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
12 of 17
Information about governmental and political trends in the watershed 6 will indicate how power
structures function within your community, how elected and appointed officials in government
interact and work with other important players in the community, and the role played by other
community members in the political process. This information will also identify political
opportunities and obstacles that might relate to the watershed planning effort, such as existing
regulations and zoning and government programs.
Adapted from: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Office of Policy.
Community cultural profiling guide: Understanding a communitys sense of place.
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
13 of 17
Landowner Attitudes
An assessment of landowner values and attitudes describes what people know, think, and care
about in their community7. The watershed planning committee can use this information in
developing goals and objectives and in assessing impacts of the watershed management plan. A
thorough understanding of these issues will also help you identify potential obstacles that might
keep landowners from participating in the implementation of the watershed plan. A survey of
landowner values and attitudes should focus on issues such as identification of watershed
problems and preferred solutions, income and production concerns, and issues related to
government involvement and recreation.
Adapted from:
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Office of Policy. Community cultural
profiling guide: Understanding a communitys sense of place.
Flora, C.B., and J.L. Flora. 1988. Guidelines for conducting social assessments.
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
14 of 17
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-9, 10, 11
18g. Communitys impression of where responsibility lies (local, state, federal, private)
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-4, 12
18h. Types of recreation on private property
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. C-8
18i. Importance of recreational activities to overall satisfaction and happiness of citizens
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. C-1, 2, 3
18j. Satisfaction of residents with number and type of recreation areas available
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. C-5, 7
18k. Percentage of local citizens who rate each cultural and recreational site as attractive,
pleasant, and/or unique
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-13; C-6
18l. Residents perception of the importance of each cultural and recreational site
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-13; C-1, 2, 3
18m. Percentage of citizens who perceive each cultural and recreational site as important to
preserve
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-13; C-1, 2, 3
18n. Number of leisure hours per week for owner/operators, absentee, tenant, and non-farm
landowners
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. A-2; C-1
18o. Users perception of overall quality of each cultural and recreational site
Surveys, Interviews
Section IV. B-13; C-6, 7
18p. Impediments to use of recreation sites (age, lack of interest, distance to recreation
sites, safety of recreation sites, lack of time, health, crowdedness, and condition of
site)
Surveys, Interviews
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
15 of 17
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
16 of 17
Surveys, Interviews
www.watershedplanning.uiuc.edu
17 of 17