Project #1: Decision Making: Cognitive and Institutional Barriers.

Table of Contents:
Overview
Methods
Results
Institutional Barriers
Practical Barriers to Using Green Infrastructure
Recommendations

Project Overview​

Project 1 seeks to understand the cognitive and institutional barriers that currently prevent the adoption of innovative green infrastructure solutions for stormwater management, and to identify ways in which those barriers can be overcome.

Research focused on institutional stakeholders in three Pennsylvania counties with high urban loadings of pollutants and high vulnerability to future urban land conversion in the Pennsylvania portion of the Chesapeake Watershed.

Cognitive barriers refer to mindsets, frameworks or schemas that limit or constrain individuals from conceptualizing the issue at hand as a problem that needs to be addressed. This research reports cognitive barriers as “frames” which capture how individuals make sense of issues (in this case stormwater management) and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Institutional barriers refer to constraints or limits built into routines, practices, laws or regulations that impede organizations or communities from adopting new technologies for stormwater management (e.g., green infrastructure) or implementing or complying with regulations pertaining to stormwater management.

Methods

We learned about cognitive and institutional barriers firsthand from a wide variety stakeholders in the three-county area about their experiences in dealing with green infrastructure to manage stormwater. We conducted a total 33 interviewees with 40 different stakeholders representing the following categories: local government supervisors, state and regional planning staff, state regulators, conservation commissions, developers, citizen advocacy groups (for and against regulation), consulting engineers who design stormwater management systems, homeowners’ associations and technical advisory groups. A few interviews were repeated with key regulatory officials over the three year period during which the interviews were conducted.

​The interviews ranged in length from 45 minutes to 2 hours with the majority about 1.5 hours long. The interview protocol included questions about the interviewee’s responsibilities with respect to stormwater management, their understanding of the hydrological and non-hydrological benefits of stormwater management, their knowledge of and views about stormwater management regulations and their experiences with green infrastructural solutions. They were also asked some scale-based questions about a specific list of literature- identified barriers to the use of green infrastructural solutions which also triggered additional qualitative data. The protocol varied somewhat depending on the type of stakeholder being interviewed.

Results

Cognitive Barriers

The following frames reflect a wide variety of lenses that stakeholders are using to understand stormwater management issues in Pennsylvania. The first six frames convey opposition to and resistance to the regulation of stormwater. The next four reflect the positive hydrological and non-hydrological benefits to managing stormwater and using green infrastructural solutions. The final frame captures the conflicts that result from the wide array of frames in use to understand this issue.

  • Frame 1: Stormwater management as “a necessary evil.”

  • Frame 2: Stormwater management as “defense of kingdoms.”

  • Frame 3: Stormwater management as an “unfunded mandate” and “economically infeasible.”

  • Frame 4: Stormwater management as “curtailing development and violating property rights.”

  • Frame 5: Stormwater management as a “means to redistribute wealth.”

  • Frame 6: Stormwater management as an “attractive nuisance.”

  • Frame 7: Stormwater management as “flood control.”

  • Frame 8: Stormwater management as a “means of conservation.”

  • Frame 9: Stormwater management as “compensation for past sins.”

  • Frame 10: Stormwater management as “a house of cards.”

  • Frame 11: Stormwater Management as a “source of conflict.”

Institutional Barriers

In addition to cognitive barriers, our study identified a number of institutional barriers that impede adoption of green infrastructural solutions to stormwater management. As with the frames above, these are not uniformly agreed upon by those we interviewed, and often stakeholders’ views are in direct conflict about the utility of the regulations. Four important institutional barriers surfaced over and over again in our interviews.

  • Institutional Barrier #1: Conflicting regulatory objectives, priorities and mindsets; no coordinated solutions among agencies.

  • Institutional Barrier #2: Regulatory Ineffectiveness

  • Institutional Barrier #3: A regional solution that involves collaboration across townships and municipalities is needed to address stormwater management effectively

  • Institutional barrier #4: Confusion about and lack of regulatory enforcement to ensure BMPs are properly maintained.

Practical Barriers to Using Green Infrastructure

In addition to cognitive and institutional barriers, our interviews identified a number of practical barriers that make use of green infrastructural solutions difficult or problematic.

  • Practical barrier #1: BMPs are very contrived systems not typical of natural world.

  • Practical barrier #2: Achieving retrofit of systems in built areas is challenging and expensive.

  • Practical Barrier #3: People are not knowledgeable about how to maintain BMPs and need education.

Recommendations

  • Recommendation #1: DEP should take a proactive stance in creating educational opportunities for township officials, planners, engineers, maintenance staff and landscapers to learn about green infrastructure solutions and their maintenance and to provide data about their effectiveness in reducing water conveyance and improving water quality and ultimately providing cost savings.

  • Recommendation #2: Sponsor and participate in the development of regional watershed planning to address stormwater management

  • Recommendation #3: Townships and municipalities should establish dedicated fees or restricted taxes for stormwater management activities.

  • Recommendation #4: Revitalize PA DEP task force to explore opportunities for municipalities to meet stormwater obligations through investments in riparian buffer restoration in rural, suburban and urban areas.

  • Recommendation #5: Streamline the storm water management review and permitting processes at the local level to: 1) provide greater clarity about compliance for townships and municipalities, and 2) ensure that developers don’t incur a penalty for trying new green infrastructure methods.

  • Recommendation #6: Greater publicity about stormwater management and its importance is needed by federal, state and local officials as are resources to provide the necessary training for local officials to effectively implement existing regulations and ensure proper maintenance of BMPs over time.