79

Universities Council on Water Resources

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education
Issue 166, Pages 79-94, April 2019

Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community

Engagement in Urban Water Restoration
*Amit Pradhananga1, Mae Davenport1, and Emily Green2
1
Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
2
Center for Changing Landscapes, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
*Corresponding Author

Abstract: Natural resource professionals increasingly recognize that water protection and restoration efforts
require not only technical solutions, but also the active engagement of stakeholders who live and work in the
local community. People of color, and those of lower income brackets, are frequently underrepresented in
water-related programming or decision-making, although they are often disproportionately affected by water
problems. Effective engagement of diverse community members in water programs and projects requires
understanding and addressing constraints to action. We conducted 25 interviews with community members
who live or work in a highly urbanized Minnesota watershed to explore perceived obstacles to community
engagement in local water resource protection and restoration. Based on self-reported race, ethnicity, and
general community engagement level, interviewees were assigned to one of three “stakeholder groups” for
comparative analysis: formal decision-makers, active white community members, and active community
members of color. Qualitative analysis of responses revealed perceived constraints to engagement
common to all three groups: inaccessibility and invisibility of water, lack of local leadership in water issues,
and limited community dialogue about water problems and solutions. Additional constraints were perceived
uniquely by community members of color: cultural constraints around water uses, recreation, action, and
inequities or disenfranchisement in community decision-making processes and water programming. Study
findings suggest partnership building is needed for collaboration in designing civic engagement programs
and improving water protection and restoration projects.
Keywords: watershed protection, stakeholder engagement, public participation, social disparities

H
ealthy lakes and streams can greatly vulnerable to environmental risks are also least
benefit urban communities by fostering likely to be engaged and represented in natural
community identity, boosting local resource decision-making processes (Sarokin
economies, and improving residents’ quality of and Schulkin 1994; Moraes and Perkins 2007;
life. Urban water resource managers increasingly Larson and Lach 2010; Phadke et al. 2015). Not
recognize that protecting and restoring healthy surprisingly, research shows that people within
water requires not only careful land and water dominant social groups (e.g., men, middle aged,
management, but also the engagement of homeowners, and higher income and education
community stakeholders to support funding levels) are more engaged in water issues than their
and implement plans. Unfortunately, fostering counterparts (Koehler and Koontz 2008).
meaningful and inclusive community engagement Research shows public participation in
in planning processes has been a challenge for water water resource planning and management can
and land resource managers (National Research have multiple ecological and cultural benefits.
Council 2008). Moreover, the populations most Participatory water resource management

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 80

enhances implementation of water plans (Lubell and Agyeman 2011). Another study focused on the
2005; Sabatier et al. 2005), increases community engagement of Hispanic communities found that
support for long-term planning (Selfa and Becerra formal approaches to public participation were
2011), bolsters public funding for water programs not accessible to the broader Hispanic community
(Larson and Lach 2008), and builds social capital, (Gibson-Wood and Wakefield 2013). Participants
or networks of community influence (Prokopy may also lack the confidence to express themselves
and Floress 2011). Public participation in water in formal settings, and their contributions may be
planning can increase public trust in and perceived viewed as unrelated and unhelpful (Pothier et al.
legitimacy of planning processes (Trachtenberg 2019). Further, participation also involves real
and Focht 2005). Participatory processes also have costs (e.g., transportation, childcare costs to attend
diffused community tensions around environmental meetings) that may differentially affect lower
problems and policy interventions (Fraser et al. income community groups (Wakefield and Poland
2006). Questions persist around what communities 2005).
are excluded from or underrepresented in planning Closer to our study area, researchers
processes and why. Planning processes that treat investigated water-related perceptions and
the public as having a singular unified interest fail behaviors in Minnesota’s Hmong community
to recognize different voices, empower diverse (MWMO and City of Minneapolis 2007). Findings
leaders, or inspire collective and sustained action suggest that the Hmong community faces multiple
(Lane 2005). In the case of urban water planning institutional and communication barriers when it
and management, narratives of the cultural comes to accessing water use information. These
constraints to civic engagement have been largely barriers inhibit community members’ awareness of
absent from the literature. environmental problems and risks, as well as their
Research shows that communities of color and causes, consequences, and solutions. Conventional
low-income communities face unique cultural modes of water communication (e.g., print
constraints to engagement in environmental materials, websites) often do not take into account
issues. The environmental justice literature points cultural preferences for communication (e.g., oral,
to a broader set of socio-political and institutional inter-personal). Language barriers emerged as a
constraints to racial and ethnic minority community major obstacle for Minnesota’s Hmong community
members’ engagement in environmental issues, members.
including the separation of “environmental” from More recently, the concept of recognition has
“social” issues (Di Chiro 2008). Communities gained prominence in the environmental justice
facing pressing social issues (e.g., employment, literature. Recognition of whose experiences and
poverty, housing, immigration) commonly knowledge is included and excluded in the way the
prioritize those issues over environmental environmental values and problems are defined or
problems (e.g., Gibson-Wood and Wakefield 2013), prioritized can also be a constraint to marginalized
especially if institutions separate environmental communities and their engagement in water
and social issues. programs or projects (e.g., Schlosberg 2004, 2007).
The structure and method of a public Lack of recognition denies an equal voice to those
participation opportunity may constrain diverse who define and experience the environment in
community engagement. Conventional methods ways that are different from the dominant culture
of public participation (e.g., formal meetings) may (see Gibson-Wood and Wakefield 2013).
exclude marginalized communities. For example,
a study of environmental participation among Study Context
communities of color in the United Kingdom found
that the formality of facilitated, local sustainability Multiple waterways in the Minneapolis-St. Paul
meetings was a constraint to public involvement. Metropolitan area (Twin Cities) of Minnesota have
This same study found that people of color were been shown to be seriously impaired or at risk
more involved in community-oriented events, (U.S. EPA 2018). The natural hydrology of the
rather than environment-oriented events (Clarke area was profoundly altered during the mid-20th

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
81 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

century building boom, resulting in substantially Methods

increased vulnerabilities to flooding and pollution
(MCWD 2017, 2018). The 22-mile Minnehaha Study Area
Creek experienced serious impairments stemming The Minnehaha Creek watershed encompasses
from industrial, residential, and transportation eight major creeks, 129 lakes, and thousands of
development within the watershed. Land use wetlands; it spans 178 square miles from Lake
changes, building construction, and increased Minnetonka to downtown Minneapolis. The
impervious surfaces within the watershed have led watershed is divided into 11 subwatersheds, and
to creek channeling, habitat loss, and decreased partially or wholly contains 27 municipalities and
base flow, limiting many of the stream’s ecosystem two townships. The region includes several water
services, especially cultural services (e.g., spiritual, bodies of recreational and cultural significance,
aesthetic, recreational, educational, human health, including Minnehaha Creek, Lake Minnetonka,
and social cohesion) (MCWD 2018). The creek the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, and the iconic
is listed on the state’s Impaired Waters list (U.S. Minnehaha Falls, one of the state’s most visited
EPA 2018) for excess chloride, fecal coliform, and attractions (Figure 1) (MCWD 2018), and a sacred
biotic community impairments. site within the ancestral lands of the Ocheti Sakowin
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Dakota) People (MPRB 2019). The watershed
(MCWD) is a local unit of government with taxing population is estimated at more than 300,000 with
authority. It is charged with the management and a projected growth of 24% in the next two decades
protection of water resources within the watershed. (Metropolitan Council 2012). Population densities
The MCWD has made significant investments to are highest in the lower reaches of the watershed,
protect, enhance, and restore water quality through which include Minneapolis’s urban core. The
lower watershed’s population is more racially
large-scale capital improvement projects including
and ethnically diverse with significant clusters of
habitat restoration. Over the last decade, the MCWD
Hispanic, Hmong, Somali, Ethiopian, and other
has remeandered the mainstem stream channel,
non-Hispanic ethnic groups (e.g., Asian Indian,
restored adjacent wetlands, and constructed new
Chinese). Municipalities in the upper watershed
stormwater management facilities (MCWD 2018).
have higher median household incomes (e.g.,
Yet the MCWD acknowledges that engineering
Shorewood and Minnetrista exceed $100,000) than
alone is not sufficient to achieve watershed-scale
municipalities in the urbanized lower watershed
protection and restoration. Recent comprehensive (e.g., Hopkins is less than $50,000) (U.S. Census
plans emphasize integrated approaches to Bureau 2010).
management, including the need for “an informed
and engaged constituency” to support their water Data Collection and Analysis
protection strategies (MCWD 2018). Given this We gathered data through 24 key informant
prioritization, the MCWD sought insight on how interviews with 25 community stakeholders.
to better engage the diverse community members An initial list of stakeholders, including water
who live and work in the watershed so as to inform resource professionals, government officials, and
their efforts to achieve implementation goals. community actors (i.e., people with leadership roles
In 2012, the researchers collaborated with the in community organizations or businesses) within
MCWD to assess community capacities for, and the communities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and
constraints to, engagement in watershed protection Edina, was developed through internet searches
and restoration projects along the highly urbanized and discussions with MCWD staff. We then used
Reach 20 segment of the Minnehaha Creek. Reach a chain referral sampling technique (Miles and
20 spans three municipalities: St. Louis Park, Huberman 1994) to expand and diversify the
Hopkins, and Edina. Our specific study objective sampling frame. Participants were contacted
was to explore community member perspectives by phone or email and were offered a $50 cash
on constraints to community engagement in water incentive for participation. First, we recruited
resource protection and restoration. formal decision-makers (FD) (e.g., government

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 82

Figure 1. Study sites.

officials) engaged in (or responsible for) water including 21 primary questions (Appendix 1),
resource protection and restoration activities in but also allowing unscripted probing for clarity
the study area and community members active in and meaning. Participants also were asked to
water resource and other community issues, often complete a short background survey consisting
from local organizations and businesses. After of basic sociodemographic questions (e.g., age,
preliminary analysis, it was clear that the sample gender, occupation, race, education, organizational
underrepresented community members of color membership). Sampling was limited by funding
(CMC), a population that had been historically resources, though it continued until we reached what
excluded from watershed planning. Thus, we we believed was sufficient theoretical saturation
intentionally recruited CMC who were active (Charmaz 2006; Corbin and Strauss 2008) around
in community organizations or participated in our research questions. While new theoretical
community meetings and events. insights may have been gained from further data
Interviews were conducted at participants’ collection, we determined the richness of our
homes, places of work, and in public spaces existing data and diversity of narratives captured
(e.g., coffee shops, libraries) and ranged from would offer water managers and community actors
45 minutes to two hours. Standard procedures with important insights.
of informed and voluntary consent were used to Data were analyzed using an adapted grounded
protect participants (University of Minnesota IRB theory approach consistent with Charmaz (2006).
#0609E92806). Interviews were audio-recorded First, we assigned labels or codes to all meaning
and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were semi- units including words, sentences, or paragraphs
structured (Brinkman and Kvale 2015) with that represent a distinct idea or belief. Next,
the interviewer following scripted questions, we organized the codes into broader themes or

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
83 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

categories (Saldana 2009). The themes were (Table 3). Narratives 1 and 2 were conveyed by all
used to develop sets of participant narratives. stakeholder groups, narrative 4 by FDs and active
Analysis was performed using QSR International’s WCMs only, and narratives 3 and 5 were unique to
Nvivo 10 software. Constant comparison was CMCs.
conducted between stakeholder groups to identify
common and unique perspectives on community Narrative 1: The Community Lacks Awareness
engagement in water resource protection. Theme about Local Water Issues
and stakeholder group attribution were tracked Participants from all stakeholder groups spoke
throughout analysis. about a perceived widespread lack of awareness of
water problems and limited connections to local
Results water resources as key constraints to community
engagement; some also referenced this as a
Participants’ age, years of residence in the personal challenge. Several opined that local water
watershed, formal education, and occupation varied. issues receive little attention because there is no
Participants’ roles in the community included perceived connection or threat to drinking water
government officials or employees, business supply. A CMC explained, “I cannot tell whether
owners/operators, community organization leaders, [the community is] really facing water problems
civically active residents, and educators. Nineteen here, because as long as [drinking water is fine],
of the 25 interviewees were residents of St. Louis no one will know.”
Park, Hopkins, or Edina (Table 1). For comparative A FD suggested that many community members
analysis of water narratives, participants were have little awareness of the “impact of water quality
assigned to one of three “stakeholder groups” based on their lives.” Several participants contemplated
on reported race and ethnicity, and engagement in why awareness is low. One FD asserted that the
water or community issues: 1) FD (n=7), 2) active “ways in which water quality affects people is often
white community members (WCM) (n=11), or 3) invisible.” Another FD communicated their sense
active CMC (n=7) (Table 2). Participants in the FD of the broader community’s oblivion to serious
group described their connection to the community local water quality impairments: “the actual levels
through their professional roles in local government of the chlorides in the creeks and the ponds, if they
(e.g., city manager, planner). FD participants understand how bad it is getting, it’s getting to
generally described a high level of engagement in the point where it’s killing fish and making water
water resource protection and restoration activities. stagnant.” Meanwhile, a WCM admitted that water
Active WCMs described being connected to the quality is a personally “very intimidating subject,”
community through the work they do in community suggesting that the complexity of the topic may
organizations, neighborhood associations, (e.g., hinder interest and awareness.
block leader, school board member), or local Some participants bemoaned water
businesses. WCMs were engaged in water inaccessibility in their communities. Though
resource protection and restoration through local the Minnehaha Falls are a locally prominent
organizations and neighborhood associations. and beloved water feature, the creek is not a
Active CMCs described their connection to the perceptible landscape feature in the Reach 20 area.
community as associated with their ethnic group, the A FD conceded, “Right now in this area, you don’t
work they do in the area through organizations, and even know where Minnehaha Creek is. You can’t
as residents participating in local events or meetings see it from any of the roads. It’s back behind a lot
(e.g., community organization leaders, educators). of industrial-commercial businesses.” Similarly,
Although involved in other community activities, several participants described the creek as
CMC participants had limited engagement in water “covered up.” Participants also agreed that despite
resource protection and restoration activities. being a water-rich region, water is not “central to
We present study findings on constraints the community identity” in the Reach 20 corridor.
to community engagement in water resource A FD added, “Besides a couple small lakes, water
protection along five predominating narratives doesn’t make up as big of a proportion, as visible of

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 84

Table 1. Study participant profile.

Sociodemographic characteristic
Gender Male 13
Female 12
Race White 18
African American 1
Somali 3
Ethiopian 1
Indian 1
Chinese 1
Age Minimum 26
Maximum 61
Years of local residence Minimum Non-resident
Maximum 52
Formal education Completed high school 1
Associate degree or vocational degree 1
College bachelor’s degree 6
Completed graduate degree (Masters or Ph.D.) 10
JD 1
Occupation Government 7
Business 3
Organization/Association 5
Resident- apartment 7
School/Education 3
City/County St. Louis Park 11
Hopkins 9
Edina 2
Others 3

Table 2. Stakeholder group characteristics.

Formal decision-makers White community Community members of
members color

No. of participants 7 11 7

Ethnicity White White Somali, African American,

Chinese, Ethiopian, Indian

Primary connection to Professional Organizations and Participation in community

community associations events

Role/Position Water resource Resident, business owner, Community advocate,

professionals, government leadership positions in resident
officials organizations

Engagement in water Engaged in professional Engaged through Limited engagement

resource issues capacity organization activities

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
85 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

Table 3. Constraints to community engagement in water resource protection. FD = formal decision-makers. WCM =
white community members. CMC = community members of color.
Theme Stakeholder Group
Descriptors FD WCM CMC
Narrative 1: Water is an invisible and inaccessible community resource
Lack of awareness of water issues
Community members lack awareness of water resource problems, impacts of water
x x x
pollution, consequences of their actions on local water resources, and their own
connections to water.
Complexity of water resource problems
x x
Water quality is difficult to define and can be an “intimidating subject.”
Limited visibility and accessibility of water resources
Water resources are not a visible and central part of the community’s landscape; Negative x x
perceptions of the creek (i.e., as “a swamp”).
Narrative 2: Water discourse lacks community relevance
Ineffective communication about water issues
Water resource issues are not discussed in the community; community leaders do not
x x x
address water resource issues; water resource issues are not linked to other community
issues.
Language barriers
Language barriers exist in communicating issues with the community. x x

Narrative 3: Culture shapes water uses, values, and civic engagement

Recreation styles
Recreational use of water resources varies across cultural groups. Boating, swimming,
x
or fishing for recreation (e.g., non-subsistence fishing) may not be common practices in
certain ethnic groups.
Communication styles
Some community members of color are not outspoken because of cultural differences in x
communication styles or language barriers.
Cultural integration
Adapting to new cultural norms around water takes time. Perceptions of water and water x
issues vary based on cultural uses, water conditions in country of origin.
Strained intercultural relationships
Lack of understanding and trust between community members of different racial/ethnic x
identities affects engagement.
Narrative 4: Water management is complex and uncoordinated
Multiple authorities/property owners
There are too many organizations and too many rules around water resources; lack of x x
clarity exists in property ownership along the creek.
Lack of coordination
Lack of coordination between multiple jurisdictions in addressing water resource issues. x

Narrative 5: Community members of color are disempowered in decision-making

Civic engagement not inclusive
x
Water plans, projects, and programs are not inclusive of community members of color.
Community needs not addressed
Needs of communities of color (e.g., transportation, child care, basic cultural differences) x
are not addressed in civic engagement efforts.
Lack of decision-making power
Community members of color are underrepresented in organizations with decision-making x
authority or with influence on decision-making.

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 86

a proportion, of the [geographic] community. And, kind of from-up-to-down thing. So if the [school]
[it’s] just not as central to the community identity principal doesn’t care, we don’t care as well.”
as some of the lakeside communities [nearby].” The way in which water issues are framed also
Several participants linked the physical and visual appears to influence community engagement.
inaccessibility of water to reduced awareness of One WCM stressed that when “the issue of water
water problems. A FD participant reflected: resource or pollution… is presented in a way that
If you’re not an outdoors person and you doesn’t connect with [community members’] lives,
don’t live on the creek in St. Louis Park, a lot it will be hard to make progress on that issue.”
of people might not even know it’s there. They Similarly, other participants emphasized the need
don’t really see it on a day-to-day basis. So to make water communications personally relevant
that’s probably the biggest issue, awareness to people. A FD elaborated:
of what types of runoff impact the quality of What isn’t helpful is when we hear about a
water and how that filters into the system. I certain species that no one’s ever engaged
think that’s better than it was 20 years ago, with. Trout, that would be a species that we
but I’m sure there’s a lot of people that don’t could all get behind, but if it’s a slimy mud flea
get that connection between fertilizer running or whatever, and we just don’t have enough of
into the storm sewers and that ultimately them, the biotic integrity just isn’t there, that’s
getting to the creek. hard for people to understand. It might be the
right move. It might be a natural resource
Narrative 2: Water Discourse Lacks Community
service and the habitat side that we want to
and/or Personal Relevance and Investment by
get…but man, when you come at them with the
Local Leaders
chemistry equations, and you come at them
Participants in each of the stakeholder groups with the scientific names of the little bugs that
characterized communication about water you don’t see in the stream because it’s not a
resource issues by local leaders as ineffective and healthy one, I think people just kind of glaze
a constraint to community engagement. When over.
asked about community engagement in water Beyond message framing, language barriers
resource protection, several participants expressed were a distinct and significant challenge in water
concern about the lack of community leaders who communication for several CMC participants. A
are engaged in water issues. A WCM believed CMC participant offered an example of typical
community leaders should play a more active role communications they receive about upcoming
in guiding community dialogue: meetings: “If you knock the door and say ‘Hey, this
I think we need to engage our leaders to be is a letter, it’s a project, you need to come attend
addressing [local water quality goals] more. this meeting,’ maybe I don’t understand English
I don’t think that it’s talked about much. I and I don’t understand you, I just took the letter
think it should be something that we can have and say ‘oh, thank you.’”
upfront like at community gatherings, such as
the Raspberry Days, things like that…have Narrative 3: Culture Shapes Water Uses,
booths or something where you’re interacting Values, and Civic Engagement for Community
with the public. Members of Color
CMCs expressed similar concerns about a lack CMCs explicitly identified cultural factors
of community discussions around water. One as constraints to their own engagement in water
CMC stated, “I never see [community leaders] resource protection. For many of their community
talk about water. They never talk about water.” members, cultural heritage and experiences shape
To illustrate how important local leaders are in their interactions within their communities and
guiding community member engagement, a CMC their connections to water. CMC participants
used an analogy of a school principal’s role in identified their primary use of water is for
setting the tone of a school’s environment: “It’s household purposes, including drinking, cooking,

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
87 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

and washing. Several CMC participants stressed just use me to get your agenda across.” So
that water-related recreation is not consistent with then there is that kind of suspicious thing in
their cultural traditions, practices, or lifestyles. our area, which is, I think, something normal.
When asked about use of the creek, a CMC said When you’re a minority of the area and people
succinctly, “No, I don’t go down the creek in a don’t understand who you are, they have their
canoe. It’s not part of my culture.” Another CMC own little bias, so we have ours as well.
suggested that her upbringing has influenced her
use of the creek. She explained, “If you didn’t have Narrative 4: Water Management is Complex
water around you growing up maybe, you haven’t and Uncoordinated
developed that culture.” Similarly, adjusting to Participants from the FD and active WCM
new cultural norms in water recreation can be stakeholder groups believed that a lack of clarity
particularly difficult for women and for older around water management in the watershed is
generations. A CMC explained, a constraint to community engagement. WCM
You wouldn’t see a Somali person diving participants noted that they felt put off by the
in, especially women because we have not complexity of management and strategies, as
learned to swim into lakes. You don’t have multiple agencies, organizations, and businesses
that training as a kid, and back home you may appear to have varying responsibilities, goals, and
take a chance to swim [in an area that has interests in water. In addition, the Minnehaha Creek
rainfall], but you’re not going to drown. …But flows through several municipalities and several
here because everything has to be structured, participants expressed uncertainty about “who owns
you have to learn how to swim, wear the better the land” and “who has jurisdiction.” Balancing the
dress, better swimming suits. Somalis will not, interests of multiple agencies and organizations is
most of them, my generation will not wear a a clear challenge. A WCM participant described
swimming suit and go into the lake. this in the context of a nearby lake (outside of study
CMC participants also referenced cultural area) and that lake’s management:
factors as constraining their participation in public The most challenging aspects are just the
water protection dialogue. CMC participants sheer number of agencies and organizations
characterized their communities as not “vocal” that have their fingers in the lake. Lake
about water issues. A CMC member attributed Minnetonka is probably the most highly
limited engagement in water issues to her “cultural managed or highly…regulated lake in the state
upbringing”: of Minnesota. It’s got several state agencies
Ethiopians in general… our culture, I believe like all lakes do- Minnesota Pollution Control
hinders us. If you take the Somali culture, Agency, Department of Natural Resources,
they’re more [out]spoken, they’re more Department of [Agriculture], and probably
visible. Whereas Ethiopians are more subdued a few others that I’m not thinking of…whose
and kind of in the background. And, I attribute programs and regulations affect the lake.
that to our cultural upbringing. So maybe that There are 14 cities around the lake, a couple
has to do with that, of us not standing up and of park districts and many businesses and non-
facing those issues and resolving it, maybe. profits all with similar interests most of the
A lack of engagement is further fueled by strained time, but many with competing or opposing
intercultural relationships. Participants portrayed interests as well. And balancing all that to get
community members’ distrust in the dominant things done is challenging.
culture as a result of the dominant culture’s Some FD participants recognized that the state
limited intercultural understanding and history of of Minnesota has an “organizational infrastructure”
oppression. A CMC participant explained: in place through city, county, and watershed-
It’s trust, and that trust comes in with… “You wide plans. However, they also lamented the
hear what my needs are, and I want you to lack of cross-jurisdictional coordination and
help me get there,” or “Let’s partner.” “Don’t collaboration to address water resource issues. A

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 88

FD questioned the value of having multiple plans have the conversation …we’re not part of the
and organizations in addressing problems in an dialogue. So that’s the biggest barrier.
expansive geographical area: According to CMC participants, not being
We have 11 organizations in Hennepin County, meaningfully engaged in dialogue has led to weak
and they don’t talk to each other very much, programs or disparities in resource distribution.
and we have cities, they’re in four different For example, a CMC noted that multiple requests
watershed organizations… We have a system from the Somali community for a community
where everybody’s generating plans. We’ve center have been ignored:
got 11 watershed management plans, we have We ask a lot of times, many times to have a
all these local water plans, and still we’re not center for the community, Somali community…
addressing the fact, well how do you? Over to learn the culture or whatever, teach kids
a larger geographical area, how do you set language. They don’t answer. So that’s why
priorities? How do you implement? How do everybody say “Oh no, they’re same thing.”
you allocate resources? So last five years …they ask us something,
used to ask us, then when they say “What do
Narrative 5: Community Members of Color are
you want as a community, what do you need?”
Disempowered in Decision-making
and then we never see something.
According to CMC participants, lack of Fueled by frustrations over historic oppression,
representation in community decision-making many CMCs may reject any new programming that
processes generally, is a significant constraint to is not designed specifically for their community:
their water engagement. Participants emphasized
[Agency or organization leaders] start the
that a strong motivation to be engaged in
intervention, and the intervention does not
community issues exists in communities of color.
fit us because we’re not the community that
A CMC participant noted her community’s strong
that program was developed [for]. Then
desire to be engaged while acknowledging feeling
immediately the rejection happens, and that’s
outside the decision-making “circle”:
why everything that’s happening is ineffective
We actually know what we want to do. We because the program is not catered to us. It was
actually know where our needs are. I want to not for us, it was for the general population,
be able to be in the circle where decisions are and we don’t fit that category.
made, and I will help you make the decision…
ones best for us… I think some people call
Discussion
it discrimination, but I call it…a challenge.
But one of these days we’ll get through it. In this study, we interviewed 25 community
Somebody has to do it, right? members in the MCWD regarding their views on
Several CMC participants expressed ongoing water engagement and we documented five key
frustration that their communities are not taking narratives on engagement constraints. Narratives
part in the water dialogue. A CMC observed, “We 1 and 2 were conveyed by participants from all
get water, we drink it…it’s not been part of our stakeholder groups, narrative 4 by FDs and active
dialogue, it’s never been. But I think it should be.” WCMs only, and narratives 3 and 5 were conveyed
Another CMC participant stressed the importance uniquely by CMCs:
of engaging CMCs as program planners and 1. The community lacks awareness about local
designers rather than simply end users: water issues.
People get used to telling us what to do, or 2. Water discourse lacks community and/or
bring in programs into our doorstep, but personal relevance and investment by local
we’re never are part of the planning. So then leaders.
if you’re not part of the planning, nobody 3. Culture shapes water uses, values, and civic
knows how you… your feedback’s not there. engagement for community members of
Your ideas [are] not there. Then if you don’t color.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
89 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

4. Water management is complex and the community is physically and intellectually

uncoordinated. disengaged from water, or 2) within the nature
5. Community members of color are of water management: water management is too
disempowered in decision-making. complex and confusing for the community to
These narratives are significant because they be engaged. Though participants from all three
serve not only as cultural stories, but also as stakeholder groups stressed that the community
cultural worldviews that frame and impede water lacks awareness of water issues, CMC participants
action. They reflect varying water beliefs, social were forthcoming about institutional barriers in
and cultural norms, attitudes, and behaviors. water communication, cultural insensitivity of
Comparative analysis of comments by participants participation opportunities, and historic oppression
from all three stakeholder groups (FDs, active of people of color in decision-making. CMC
WCMs, and active CMCs) identified areas of narratives were tied to broader socio-economic
convergence as well as areas of clear divergence in and cultural context and programmatic inequities.
perceptions and lived experiences associated with Two emergent narratives were unique to CMCs:
water and community engagement. the role of culture in shaping community-water
Common ground emerged around water interactions, and inequities in decision-making that
communication and community awareness of specifically disadvantage or disempower CMCs.
water issues. Specifically, lack of awareness about Culture was central to CMC participants’ discussion
local water resource problems and ineffective of community engagement constraints including
communication about water by local leaders were cultural differences in water-based recreation,
common themes across the three stakeholder heterogeneity within and across ethnic groups,
groups. According to participants from all the challenge of adapting to new cultural norms
stakeholder groups, there is a need for local leaders for recent immigrants, and limited cross-cultural
to put greater focus on water issues. Respected understanding and competencies of the dominant
leaders in the community have the ability to culture. Similar work in Minnesota has shown
stimulate community member engagement and that language barriers, limited access to culturally
activate a currently absent dialogue about water relevant water recreation, and cultural differences
issues among community members. Participants in water recreation are barriers to engaging some
also stressed the need to focus water discourse communities of color in water management (e.g.,
on dimensions that connect to the real issues and MWMO and City of Minneapolis 2007; Davenport
values of community members, such as drinking et al. 2016). Research has shown high levels of
water. FD and WCM participants also perceived engagement in social issues such as housing,
that community members are not motivated to employment, health, and immigration among
engage in water protection because local water CMCs (e.g., Mohai and Bryant 1998; Clarke and
is largely unseen and inaccessible. FD and WCM Agyeman 2011) and lower levels of engagement
participants believe that the complexity of water in environmental issues. This trend was echoed in
management, including roles and jurisdictions, has narratives captured in this study. Water management
stymied public participation in water planning and efforts that lack cultural or social relevance are less
priorities. likely to be successful (Di Chiro 2008).
In our view, the emergent FD narratives reflect Finally, CMC participants referenced the
the archetypal “urban water manager” or synoptic lack of representation in community decision-
planner who frames public participation as a making or leadership as a significant constraint
matter of raising awareness and educating citizens to their community’s engagement in water
about expert-driven water goals. Lane (2005) issues. Participants spoke candidly about the
characterizes this approach to public participation exclusion of their communities in programmatic
as tokenistic and a product of assumptions that design or project planning, limiting their sense of
the public interests are homogenous. In our ownership in water programs and projects, and
study, FDs located constraints to community fueling frustration and detachment from water
engagement as being 1) within the community: issues. While CMCs acknowledged community

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 90

willingness to engage in issues, they also want forms of public participation create community
to be part of the decision-making process, and partnerships, and allow for greater levels of
not mere recipients of programs. In watershed community involvement in decision-making
planning, perceived fairness in the decision- (Arnstein 1969). This is particularly important
making process enhances trust among stakeholders when engaging traditionally underrepresented
(Leach and Sabatier 2005), increases perceived communities. CMCs expressed a willingness to
legitimacy of planning processes (Trachtenberg engage in water issues. However, they also want
and Focht 2005), and leads to greater satisfaction their voices represented in community decision-
with and acceptance of decisions and confidence making. Thus, the community should drive
in decision-makers (Lind and Tyler 1988). Study engagement process design and definitions of
findings suggest that lack of representation and success. Of utmost importance is to listen carefully
decision-making power is a significant constraint to CMC concerns, and to take active steps to
to the engagement of diverse, underrepresented address those concerns, even if those concerns are
groups in water resource protection. As one CMC not perceived to be “environmental” or “water-
participant in this study explained, the lack of related” by resource managers.
representation and decision-making power can CMCs should be included early on in the
lead communities of color to become disengaged engagement process in defining local community
and to reject community programs. problems, rather than being informed about and
In addition to issues of procedural fairness, asked to participate in community interventions that
this study also shows that the lack of recognition do not represent their perspectives and concerns.
(Schlosberg 2004) of the experiences, values, As one CMC participant explained, negative
and voices of marginalized communities can be experiences with agency-driven community
significant constraints to their engagement. Lack of interventions can lead to rejection of community
recognition denies an equal voice to communities of programming and a general distrust of agencies.
color in community planning and decision-making, There is a need to build and regain trust. An
and can fuel their frustration with the planning important step in a new community engagement
process. This “frustration effect” (Lawrence et approach will be to build trusting relationships
al. 1997) among CMC participants stems from with communities of color through trusted and
past experiences with attempting engagement in respected minority group leaders and existing
community events and meetings in which their community institutions such as community centers
needs and concerns were not taken seriously. and places of worship.
While this study documents important While CMCs were not highly engaged
constraints to community engagement for in water issues, they were engaged in other
communities of color, it is important to note here community issues (e.g., health, education). Water
that “communities of color” are not a homogenous managers should reflect on the linkages between
group. There could be critical differences among water and expressed community needs around
ethnic groups that this study does not capture. housing, transportation, immigration, workforce
While examining interethnic differences in water development, youth mentoring, or parks and trails
engagement is beyond the scope of this study, it is access. Which community-based organizations are
an important area for future research. having success in these areas and how might water
managers best partner with these organizations to
Conclusion build mutual capacity? As past research suggests,
the segregation of environmental from social
We believe several important recommendations issues (e.g., Di Chiro 2008) can be a barrier for
can be drawn from the narratives that could community engagement among CMCs. Strategies
improve water protection. Chief among them that connect water issues with broader community
is to re-envision the approach to community issues are more likely to resonate with local
engagement, from a top-down, agency-driven communities, particularly CMCs. In a community-
approach to a community-driven approach. Active driven approach, rather than defining and leading

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
91 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

engagement efforts, managers could play the role Her primary interests are in supporting natural resource
of supporting culturally inspired and community- protection, climate change understanding, sustainable
led public events to help build collaborative land use, and community engagement in environmental
relationships and trust. Building trust is a long- protection and conservation. She has an M.S. degree in
Conservation Biology from the University of Minnesota.
term commitment. Managers should prioritize
and incentivize relationship building within their
institutions, and commit to relationship building References
beyond specific project timelines. Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation.
Finally, findings suggest the need to increase Journal of the American Institute of Planners
the visibility and accessibility of water resources 35(4): 216-224.
in the urban corridor. Water managers may want Brinkman, S. and S. Kvale. 2015. Interviews: Learning
to consider daylighting streams and creating the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3rd
more community-water access points, but above ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
all proactively engaging community members in Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A
dialogues on community values and needs related Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage
to water access. Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Clarke, L. and J. Agyeman. 2011. Is there more
Acknowledgments to environmental participation than meets the
eye? Understanding agency, empowerment and
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the disempowerment among black and minority ethnic
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for communities. Area 43(1): 88-95.
funding this research. Corbin, J. and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Author Bio and Contact Information Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Amit Pradhananga (corresponding author) is Davenport, M., V. Perry, A. Pradhananga, and J.
a research associate in the Center for Changing Shepard. 2016. A Community Capacity Assessment
Landscapes and the Department of Forest Resources at for Stormwater Management in Three Twin Cities
the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on Metro Area Watersheds: A Social Science-Based
the human and policy dimensions of natural resource Assessment. Final technical report prepared for
management, particularly water resources, invasive Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District,
species, parks and trails management, and climate Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi
change adaptation. He is especially interested in Watershed Management Organization. University
investigating constraints and strategies to engage racial of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Available at: https://
and ethnic community members in natural resource www.forestry.umn.edu/sites/forestry.umn.edu/
issues. He has a PhD in Natural Resource Science and files/metro_stormwater_full_technical_report_
Management from the University of Minnesota. He may final.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2019.
be contacted at [email protected] or by mail at 37
Di Chiro, G. 2008. Living environmentalisms: Coalition
McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108
politics, social reproduction, and environmental
Mae Davenport is the director of the Center for justice. Environmental Politics 17(2): 276-298.
Changing Landscapes and professor in the Department Fraser, E.D.G., A.J. Dougill, W. Mabee, M.S.
of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota. Her Reed, and P. McAlpine. 2006. Bottom up and
research interests are focused on the human dimensions top down: Analysis of participatory processes
of natural resource management, specifically land use for sustainability indicator identification as
planning, community-based ecosystem management, a pathway to community empowerment and
recreation planning; as well as human beliefs, attitudes, sustainable environmental management. Journal of
and behaviors associated with landscape change. She Environmental Management 78(2): 114-127.
has a PhD in Natural Resource Science and Management
Gibson-Wood, H. and S. Wakefield. 2013.
from the University of Minnesota.
“Participation”, white privilege and environmental
Emily Green is an editor and researcher in the Center justice: Understanding environmentalism among
for Changing Landscapes at the University of Minnesota. Hispanics in Toronto. Antipode 45(3): 641-662.

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 92

Koehler, B. and T. Koontz. 2008. Citizen participation minnehahacreek.org/sites/minnehahacreek.

in collaborative watershed partnerships. org/files/attachments/MCWD%2050th%20
Environmental Management 41(2): 143-154. Publication%20Final_compressed_0.pdf. Accessed
Lane, M. 2005. Public participation in planning: An March 25, 2019.
intellectual history. Australian Geographer 36(3): Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
283-299. 2018. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Larson, K. and D. Lach. 2008. Participants and non- Comprehensive Water Resources Management
participants of place-based groups: An assessment Plan 2007-2017. Available at: http://www.
of attitudes and implications for public participation minnehahacreek.org/sites/minnehahacreek.org/
in water resource management. Journal of files/attachments/Comprehensive%20Plan_
Environmental Management 88(4): 817-830. amended%20thru%208-15-13.pdf. Accessed
March 25, 2019.
Larson, K. and D. Lach. 2010. Equity in urban water
governance through participatory, place-based Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
approaches. Natural Resources Journal 50(2): 407- (MWMO) and City of Minneapolis. 2007. Hmong
430. Water Research Project Kev Cob Qhia Zej Tsoom
Hmoob Txog Dej. Assessing Attitudes, Perceptions
Lawrence, R., S. Daniels, and G. Stankey. 1997. and Behavior about Water in Minnesota’s Hmong
Procedural justice and public involvement in Community. Prepared by Katherine Barton and
natural resource decision making. Society and Associates.
Natural Resources 10(6): 577-589.
Mohai, P. and B. Bryant. 1998. Is there a ‘race’ effect on
Leach, W. and P. Sebastier. 2005. To trust an adversary: concern for environmental quality? Public Opinion
Integrating rational and psychological models of Quarterly 62(4): 475-505.
collaborative policymaking. American Political
Moraes, A. and P. Perkins. 2007. Women, equity,
Science Review 99(4): 491-503.
and participatory water management in Brazil.
Lind, E.A. and T.R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology International Feminist Journal of Politics 9(4):
of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press, New York, 485-493.
NY.
National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation
Lubell, M. 2005. Do watershed partnerships enhance in Environmental Assessment and Decision
beliefs conducive to collective action? In: Making, T. Dietz and P. Stern (Eds.). The National
Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Watershed Management, P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht,
Phadke, R., C. Manning, and S. Burlager. 2015. Making
M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M.
it personal: Diversity and deliberation in climate
Matlock (Eds.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
adaptation planning. Climate Risk Management 9:
pp. 201-232.
62-76.
Metropolitan Council. 2012. 2030 Regional Development
Pothier, M., N. Zewge-Abubaker, M. Cahuas, C. Borstad
Framework – Revised Forecasts as of January Klassen, and S. Wakefield. 2019. Is “including
1, 2012. Available at: https://metrocouncil.org/ them” enough? How narratives of race and class
Planning/Planning/2030-Regional-Development- shape participation in a resident-led revitalization
Framework/RDF-Forecasts-January-2012.aspx. initiative. Geoforum 98: 161-169.
Accessed March 25, 2019.
Prokopy L. and K. Floress. 2011. Measuring the citizen
Miles, M. and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative effect: What does good citizen involvement look
Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage like? In: Pathways for Getting to Better Water
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Quality: The Citizen Effect, L.W. Morton and S.S.
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB). 2019. Brown (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp.
Minnehaha Regional Park. Available at: https:// 83-94.
www.minneapolisparks.org/parks_destinations/ Sabatier, P., W. Leach, M. Lubell, and N. Pelkey. 2005.
parks__lakes/minnehaha_regional_park/. Accessed Theoretical frameworks explaining partnership
March 25, 2019. success. In: Swimming Upstream: Collaborative
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Approaches to Watershed Management, P.A.
2017. MCWD 50th Anniversary: Celebrating 50 Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A.
Years of Protecting Some of our State’s Most Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds.). The MIT Press,
Iconic Resources. Available at: https://www. Cambridge, MA, pp. 173-200.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
93 Pradhananga, Davenport, and Green

Saldana, J. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative

Researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Sarokin, D. and J. Schulkin. 1994. Environmental
justice: Co-evolution of environmental concerns
and social justice. The Environmentalist 14(2):
121-129.
Schlosberg, D. 2004. Reconceiving environmental
justice: Global movements and political theories.
Environmental Politics 13(3): 517-540.
Schlosberg, D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice:
Theories, Movement and Nature. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Selfa, T. and T. Becerra. 2011. Upstream, downstream:
Forging a rural-urban partnership for shared water
governance in central Kansas. In: Pathways for
Getting to Better Water Quality: The Citizen Effect,
L.W. Morton and S.S. Brown (Eds.). Springer, New
York, NY, pp. 121-132.
Trachtenberg, Z. and W. Focht. 2005. Legitimacy
and watershed collaborations: The role of
public participation. In: Swimming Upstream:
Collaborative Approaches to Watershed
Management, P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell,
Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds.).
The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 53-82.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American FactFinder.
Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed
March 25, 2019.
U.S. EPA. 2018. Impaired Waters and TMDLs in
Region 5. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/
impaired-waters-and-tmdls-region-5. Accessed
March 25, 2019.
Wakefield S. and B. Poland. 2005. Family, friend or
foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of
social capital in health promotion and community
development. Social Science and Medicine 60(12):
2819-2832.

UCOWR Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

 1936704x, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2019.03303.x, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Cultural Narratives on Constraints to Community Engagement in Urban Water Restoration 94

Appendix 1. Minnehaha Creek Assessment Interview Guide

First, I have some questions about you and your connection to this community.
1. How would you define community?
2. How would you describe your connection to this community?
3. What has been your role as [position] in this community?
4. What would you say are the best things about the work you do in this community?
5. What have been some of the most challenging things about the work you do in this community?
Next, I have some general questions about community assets and needs.
6. What would you say are the biggest assets of the community?
a. What makes these assets important?
7. What do you believe are the most pressing needs in the community?
a. What makes these needs important?
8. In the past 5 years, what would you say have been the most significant problems the community has faced?
9. How effective has the community been at responding to or managing these problems?
a. What made it effective/ineffective? Can you provide examples?
Now, I have some specific questions about community planning and water resources in the [X] watershed, which
intersects the community [Map: point to watershed boundaries on map].
10. How important are water resources such as local streams and lakes to quality of life for residents in this
community?
11. Is the community actively engaged in land use planning in this watershed?
a. What success has it experienced? Please explain.
b. What challenges or setbacks has it experienced? Please explain.
12. Is the community actively engaged in water resource protection and restoration in this watershed?
13. What success has the community had related to water resource protection? Please explain.
a. What has contributed to these successes? (e.g., leadership, funding, citizen groups, etc.)
14. What challenges or setbacks has the community had related to water resource protection? Please explain.
a. What has contributed to these challenges?
15. As you may know, certain streams and lakes in the area have been identified as polluted or impaired with
respect to water quality and aquatic habitat. How concerned are you about the quality of water resources in
the community? Please explain.
a. Are there any issues that you are most concerned about?
16. If the community was going to be more effective at addressing these types of water resource problems…
a. What would it need to do?
b. How would it do this?
c. What resources would it need to accomplish this?
17. What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to better engage this community in water resource protection and
restoration?
18. What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to better engage this community in water resource
protection and restoration?
19. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water resources in this area?
Finally, I would like to get some recommendations from you as we proceed with this project.
20. What other community representatives (e.g., from government, organizations or interest groups) could give
us an important perspective on community assets and needs on water resources in this area? (Those with
similar or very different perspectives than you.)
a. What makes them a key representative (organizations they are involved in, how are they involved in
watershed management in this area)?
b. May we tell them you recommended them?
21. We would like to identify representatives willing to provide input, receive information and serve as
community liaisons for the duration of this project. Would you be interested? ___Yes ___No

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education UCOWR