Community-Based Social Marketing—Creating Lasting,Sustainable,Environmental Change: Case Study of a Household Stormwater Management Program in the Region of Waterloo,Ontario

Abstract

With increased frequency of extreme weather events due to climate change, there is growing need for urban, small-scale adaptation and preventative measures such as stormwater management to reduce the risk of flooding. Homeowners are often reluctant to adopt preventative stormwater measures without tangible benefits or direct experience with the flooding risks or other negative externalities. Using community-based social marketing (CBSM) as a framework, we investigated how to more effectively encourage stormwater management at the household level. In collaboration with the Canadian non-profit organization, Reep Green Solutions (Region of Waterloo, Ontario), we focused on an existing program, the RAIN Home Visit (RHV), which was designed to increase engagement in pro-environmental stormwater management behaviors. Reports from the RHV were assessed, and past program participants were interviewed using a semi-structured question set to identify barriers encountered in enacting these behaviors and to assess the program for inclusion of CBSM principles and tools. Surveys were used to collect demographic data from participants. We found that while preferred behaviors were explained and incentives were provided, more thorough, clear explanation was needed for homeowners as well as incentives of suitable size and value to effectively motivate homeowners to change. Key features that should be included in future RHV programs are public commitments, follow-up, and reminders. Further research should consider risk perception impacts with CBSM, to determine how these can work together and, perhaps, which precedes the other. Some people may be more influenced by social norms to act and others by risk perception.

Keywords

behavior change climate change urban stormwater management flooding community-based social marketing

We have seen unprecedented rural and urban flooding in landscapes that are currently designed for extreme flooding events to occur only every 50 or 100 years. These extreme events, long anticipated by water managers and researchers, will increase in frequency due to climate change (Coopersmith, Minsker, & Sivapalan, 2014; Stott, 2016). For example, there have been devastating floods in Calgary, Alberta (2013), and repeatedly in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick (2017, 2019) with increasing costs and implications for all levels of responsible government (Botzen, van den Bergh, & Bouwer, 2010; Stott, 2016). Intense rain events can create major stormwater flooding with even a few inches of precipitation—particularly in densely populated urban areas with significant proportions of non-permeable surfaces. Rainfall, unable to percolate into soil because of concrete and asphalt surfaces, collects at the surface level (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996; Jacobson, 2011). This surface level water accumulation leads to residential flooding events because urban soils cannot absorb excess stormwater (Viavattene & Ellis, 2013). Although stormwater sewers help redirect some flood waters, stormwater systems were not designed to manage the intensity and frequency of precipitation (Mariga, 2011).

Stormwater infrastructure is costly to update because the system components have been mostly located underground and much of it is long overdue for replacement. In Ontario, Canada, the average age of stormwater sewer treatment systems is between 17 and 20 years (Statistics Canada, 2009). Average life span of these systems is 33.5 years, and upgrades are highly disruptive and take many years to complete (Aquije, 2016; Mariga, 2011; Statistics Canada, 2009). Thus, actions that can help decrease the demand or stress on these systems—prolonging their life span—are beneficial and cost effective. Strategies examined here are those designed to adjust typical citizen behavior in order to promote sustainable, pro-environmental behavior change regarding household stormwater management. Behavior change programs can also encourage protection of existing permeable surfaces, preventing these surfaces from becoming non-permeable.

Strategies to mitigate aging, overloaded stormwater infrastructure have included updating these systems, encouraging appropriate water run-off from buildings, and increasing permeable surface area. However, urbanization reduces permeable surfaces, particularly in large cities, further exacerbating the problem (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996; Jacobson, 2011). While updating stormwater infrastructure is expensive and time-consuming (Aquije, 2016; Mariga, 2011), reverting impermeable surfaces areas to permeable areas is labor intensive and slow (Mariga, 2011). To help address these challenges, we focused on redirecting water run-off from residential buildings and the necessary behavior change by homeowners.

Government agencies and environmental advocacy groups often use behavior change programs to promote pro-environmental behaviors, with varying degrees of consultation with behavior change literature. For this study, we collaborated with a local environmental group to assess their behavior change program in the context of the community-based social marketing (CBSM) framework (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). We compared their existing behavior change program for residential stormwater management to CBSM best practices.

Research has shown that behavior change programs that focus on stormwater management, such as the one examined in this study, have the dual benefit of being more cost-effective than large infrastructure upgrades (Mariga, 2011). In addition, these programs decrease the quantity of stormwater run-off into infrastructure systems, thus decreasing the load for stormwater sewers and ideally prolonging their life span.

Research Context

We used the theoretical lens of CBSM (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011) to examine mechanisms to encourage homeowners to adopt pro-environmental stormwater management behaviors in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. CBSM is a five-step framework focused on fostering sustainable, pro-environmental behaviors (Figure 1). This framework is based on social psychology and behavior change theories, with emphasis on selecting behaviors that are specific, that is, “insulating basements” as opposed to “home energy conservation.” The focus is also on efforts to clearly identify barriers and benefits perceived by the target audience of both the behavior being encouraged and the competing behavior. It should be noted that while CBSM advocates for behavior change strategies to focus both on encouraging desired behaviors while discouraging competing behaviors, the program we examined did not include measures for the latter (i.e., competing behaviors). Therefore, the focus of this article will be on assessing the ways in which the desired behavior change was encouraged.

At the strategy design phase of CBSM, tools are used to reduce barriers and increase benefits of the desired behavior, while increasing barriers and reducing benefits of competing behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr & Schultz, 2014; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). An example of a CBSM-type tool to encourage behavior change through social norms is the feedback that many utility companies now provide to residential customers in terms of household performance in relation to their neighbors. Participation in a program may be indicated by a sticker on a house window or mailbox, while performance feedback relative to one’s community may be indicated by a happy face or sad face on an electricity bill, noting lower or higher energy use, relative to one’s neighbors. These strategic mechanisms are drawn from social network theory insights (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003), which allow for social norms, one’s need for embeddedness, reliance on social capital, structural holes, and centrality (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). These social network concepts correspond with and validate CBSM tools of social norms and social diffusion, convenience, and commitment (McKenzie-Mohr & Schultz, 2014; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999).

The range of strategic tools that can be used to reduce barriers and increase benefits are supported by significant research into the best methods to encourage adoption of new behaviors (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). For example, the European Commission analyzed over 80 pro-environmental behavior change program studies and identified four key techniques of successful programs: convenience, information, monitoring, and social-psychological (European Commission, 2012). According to the European Commission, convenience techniques involved making the desired behavior as easy to adopt as possible by, for example, providing the tools necessary to the target audience and by reminding that audience to act (Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012). This corresponds with CBSM’s convenience and incentive tools. Information techniques included providing the reasoning, knowledge, and facts supporting the desired behavior, which also correspond with CBSM’s communication tools. Monitoring techniques involved feedback to the audience about how well they performed and the impact of their behavior change, or lack thereof (Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012). Monitoring is different from the prompts tool as monitoring allows for tracking program performance. While monitoring can also prompt the target audience, it is not the primary goal. As such, monitoring connects with CBSM’s prompt tool. Social-psychological techniques refer to participants committing to the desired behavior—using specific amounts or terms—and interacting with others who already perform or value the desired behavior (Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012). These techniques correspond with CBSM tools of commitment, social norms, and social diffusion. These vital techniques are in coherence with those of CBSM (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999) and are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparing Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) Key Tools to the Key Techniques for Pro-Environmental Behavior Change From the European Commission.

European Commission Key Technique	CBSM Key Tool
Convenience	Convenience, incentives
Information	Communication
Monitoring	Prompts
Social-psychological	Commitment, social norms, social diffusion

Research on these well-recognized best practices for pro-environmental behavior change programs served as guides to determine what a successful behavior change program regarding household stormwater management would look like. As CBSM incorporates components from social network theory and the European Commission’s techniques, and is a recognized method for pro-environmental behavior change, CBSM was used as a best practices standard for this study.

Case Study

The RAIN Home Visit (RHV) program was the research focus to determine how well it followed CBSM best practices, the program’s success at changing behavior, opportunities for improvement to increase behavior change, and to assess why behavior change was or was not observed. The RHV was designed and run by the environmental non-profit, Reep Green Solutions, to promote residential stormwater management behavior. CBSM served as a best practice standard to compare the RHV to because it offers proven, influential behavior change techniques. Household stormwater management strategies are described below followed by a description of the program.

Household Stormwater Management

Residential stormwater best management practices address a given problem or situation, considering economic, environmental, and social implications and help guide management strategies in taking the most appropriate action for the most effective results (Martin, Ruperd, & Legret, 2007).

Household-level stormwater management includes four main components:

increasing property surfaces’ permeability,

decreasing runoff flow and stormwater quantity into streets and/or sewers,

preventing stormwater intrusion into the home, and

preventing contaminants from entering runoff and stormwater systems (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2011; Reep, 2016).

Households that use these four components to manage stormwater on their property better protect their homes, surrounding municipal infrastructure, and local environments.

For permeability and reduction of runoff, installation of rain barrels, permeable pavement, and rain gardens are common effective options (Niu, Lv, Zhang, & Cui, 2016). Other yard renovations include infiltration beds, cisterns, and weeping tiles, all of which help to increase permeability and hold water on the property for slow release (Zimmer, Heathcote, Whiteley, & Schroeter, 2007). To protect a home from water infiltration, it is important that downspout extension and regrading occurs to ensure land slopes away from the home (Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, 2019; RAIN, 2015). It is also critical to ensure that a sump pump is installed and working properly to minimize flooding damage (Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, 2011). To minimize contaminant entry to waterways—both natural and urban—household chemicals should be avoided as they can be washed over impervious surfaces and into storm drains (City of Waterloo, 2015; Green Communities Canada, 2017). This contamination concern is heightened when driveways are impervious and driveway sealants are used as these tend to contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, as commonly was the case for driveways in our study (Reep, 2016). Using alternative de-icing products in winter months, such as sand, beet juice, molasses, or cheese brine, are safer options for waterways (Hossain, Fu, & Lake, 2015; Rocha, 2015).

RHV Pilot: Region of Waterloo, Canada

Located approximately an hour west of Toronto, Ontario, the Region of Waterloo consists of three cities—Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge—and four townships—North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich (Region of Waterloo, 2019a). The Region had a population of 556,000 (2016) and is expected to grow to 742,000 by 2031 (Region of Waterloo, 2019b). This population growth is largely attributed to an expanding technology and innovation sector (Waterloo EDC, 2019). While population growth will add predictable additional demand on urban water and wastewater services, a simultaneous pressure is that the Region’s stormwater infrastructure is reaching, or has already surpassed, its life expectancy, requiring significant repair investments (Siva, 2009). Reducing demands and pressures on stormwater systems can be an opportunity to create both time for repairs and reduce environmental damages to local waterways (City of Waterloo, 2015; Roy et al., 2008). Program development and implementation designed to reduce stormwater runoff quantity and improve runoff quality are essential to reduce current and anticipated urban stormwater damages (Roy et al., 2008). However, these programs must be crafted and implemented both efficiently and effectively.

The RHV program was designed as a multi-step effort with scheduled home visits by a stormwater expert. The program was run by Reep Green Solutions from 2012 to 2014. Home visits occurred once per home and lasted approximately 1–2 hr. In general, the RHV expert advised the homeowner and provided informational resources on what changes were necessary to better prepare their property for increasing stormwater quantities, increasing stormwater frequencies, and residential scaled efforts that would contribute to Regional stormwater management overall (Reep, 2016). The RHV had three “talking points” for managing stormwater:

Slow it down, that is, increasing permeability and slowing runoff;

Soak it up, that is, minimizing infiltration; and

Keep it clean, that is, minimizing contaminants in runoff.

At the conclusion of the visit, a selection of information pamphlets were typically left with the homeowner as well as a sticker or sign for their lawn and/or rain barrel promoting the three talking points (Schaefer, 2015). Each participating homeowner received a comprehensive assessment report after the visit that included digital photographs of particular landscape or structural features. The assessment report recommended priority areas or tasks to improve stormwater management, rated the property’s performance regarding stormwater management, and provided resources for improvements. The report was designed as a mechanism to engage the homeowner in conversations about any problems they may have experienced and to answer any questions they may have (Evans, 2015; Schaefer, 2015). Following report delivery, contact from the RHV expert ended unless reinitiated by the homeowner.

Method

The authors sought to compare the pre-existing household stormwater management program, the RHV, with CBSM best practices. This comparison would allow recommendations for improvement of the program to obtain greater pro-environmental stormwater-related behavior change. The research analysis was based on homeowner reports and cross-referenced to residential surveys and in-depth interviews with a selection of homeowners who had participated in the RHV. Survey and interview selection and questions were approved by the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics. Participants were assigned an alphanumerical code for identity confidentiality. Recordings, transcripts, and associated documents were kept in a secure, locked location, to be destroyed after 5 years. Interviews were conducted until no novel information was collected from participants, indicating data saturation was reached (Baker & Edwards, 2012; Mason, 2010). Twenty-three interviews were conducted. While it is acknowledged that the findings provide only indicative data, not statistically significant findings, the quantity of interviews fits general qualitative research recommendations found by the National Centre for Research Methods (Baker & Edwards, 2012).

Surveys: Between summer 2015 and spring 2016, study participants were identified through random cold calls from a past participants list of the RHV. Participants agreed to a demographic survey and an in-person interview designed to explore and identify demographic trends relating to behavior change and/or risk perceptions. Surveys (n = 23) were compiled, highlighting key interview responses, which were then grouped by similar response types, for example, low, mid-range, high concern levels associated with future stormwater damage.

Interviews: In-person interviews (n = 23) were conducted to deeply explore and identify common barriers to the implementation of the recommended stormwater management features, envision how homeowners could overcome those barriers, and to compare the existing program to the successful CBSM model. The interview questions were designed to evaluate the program experience, extract specific barriers to change, and identify participants’ risk perceptions. These data allowed for a comparison of the RHV with CBSM pro-environmental behavior change best practices.

Interviews were designed to identify what recommended features from the RHV were implemented and identify any homeowner-perceived implementation barriers. Interview questions were developed to be straight-forward and understandable. For example, participants were asked questions related to their experiences with the program. More specifically, they were asked what was helpful and unhelpful about the visit, what changes they had and had not made, what barriers prevented completion of changes, what helped in completing changes, and what would have been helpful or needed to complete changes. Participants were asked to rate their risk perception of stormwater inundation before and after the visit, and to consider whether the visit or changes resulting from the visit had had any effect on this. Finally, participants were asked whether they currently had or felt the need for extreme weather home insurance, what a desired coverage program would entail, and how much they would be willing to pay for such coverage.

CBSM requires barrier identification specific to the group, situation, and behavior of interest to then best identify the most appropriate methods to overcome these barriers, ultimately leading to sustainable behavior change (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). In this study, a broad exploration of potential barriers was required to best recommend improvements for the RHV program going forward. Implementation barriers associated with stormwater management tools were identified, and methods to overcome these barriers were explored.

During interviews, specific attention was paid to participants’ perceived and experienced barriers as well as their ideas for how to resolve those challenges. The longest interview was 1 hr and 45 min, while the shortest was 30 min; average interview length was 50 min. Interview length was managed to avoid participant fatigue, though details provided by some respondents varied actual interview time considerably. Once completed, each interview audio recording was transcribed verbatim, and data were then analyzed to identify emergent and common themes. Trends in survey and interview responses were identified through comparison of themes and demographic data. Key themes, such as noted barriers and benefits, risk perception, and helpful versus unhelpful components of the visit and report, described below, were repeated throughout the interview to ensure consistent answers.

Reports assessment: Copies of participants’ recommendations reports provided during the RHV were obtained to compare responses and for clarification purposes. By cross-referencing report recommendations to participant responses, increased clarity was obtained as generally several years had passed since the visit. This study occurred during 2015–2016, so some participants’ memories of detailed recommendations may have faded. This cross-referencing helped clarify whether information participants wanted was missing from the report or whether the information had actually gone unnoticed by the participant—two distinct issues. Report information was cross-checked with interview and survey responses to ensure consistency. If there were contradictions between sources, such as in property size, report information was used. The report was used because during the RHV, participants were better prepared for detailed questions about their property, which they may not have expected in a follow-up interview. Discrepancies between top priorities and/or recommendations were noted, as some issues may have been stressed or discussed more during the in-person visit but were not the most important recommendations to act on for improvement. Cross-checking was done by referring to the Home Visit report to note how conflicting or harmonious the recommendations made were compared to what participants remembered. This was done because participants may remember particular issues more vividly, even if they were not in actuality the most pressing concerns in the report (Ackil & Zaragoza, 2011; Cohen & Java, 1995; Conway, 1990).

Results

Program reports were used to verify information gathered from participant interviews; both data sources were combined to provide insights on participant benefits or barriers to household stormwater management and experience with the RHV program. Surveys gathered demographic data on participants that was not analyzed in this study. Similar responses from participants were categorized into groups established by the researcher, based on participants’ open-ended responses.

Personal and Homeowner Benefits

Participants were asked to consider what personal and/or homeowner benefits of better managing household stormwater issues might be, as well as what was preventing action on these changes and how to overcome those barriers. Personal benefits involved the participant thinking of benefits they would experience directly while homeowner benefits involved the participant considering benefits for homeowners more broadly. Benefits reported are those perceived by the participant. Additional benefits that may be unperceived or not indicated are not included as they were not elucidated to the researcher. For personal benefits specifically, 50 responses were made, categorized into 14 groups. The most frequently mentioned benefit was stress relief from flooding, at n = 10, 20%, followed by financial benefits and protection, at n = 7, 14% each (Figure 2).

Homeowner benefits were less varied than personal benefits, with 31 responses categorized into 12 groups. The most common noted benefit was water reuse/conservation at n = 7, 23%, followed by environmental responsibility at n = 5, 16% (Figure 3).

Personal and Homeowner Barriers

When asked about barriers to implementing recommendations for homeowners to better manage stormwater on their property, 65 responses were collected, categorized into 20 groups. The most common barriers to homeowners were cost, n = 15, 23%, homeowners’ perceived lack of knowledge, n = 15, 23%, and property specific obstacles, n = 6, 9% (Figure 4).These responses relate to the literature’s standard barriers to change: individuality, responsibility, and practicality (Blake, 1999) and to barriers found in a similar study on adoption of permeable driveway surfaces (Cote & Wolfe, 2014). Property specific obstacles tie to the standard barrier of individuality, as it is an individual difference among participants (Blake, 1999). Overall, a lack of communication hindered participants’ adoption or implementation of recommendations due to perceived need for additional information, resources, assistance, or knowledge about how to go about the recommendations. This need for additional knowledge ties to the standard barrier of responsibility as participants feel unable to change their situation without the necessary resources. Often mentioned was a lack of additional resources, for example, a list of recommended and reliable contractors, which ties to the standard barrier of practicality.

Other participants’ actions were limited by more fundamental identity barriers—for example, preconceived judgments within the participant themselves, linked to attitude, personality, or character (Blake, 1999; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Participants did not feel that they could make a difference, that their actions would be impactful enough to matter, and/or that they had control over stormwater. For example, some participants did not believe governing bodies would be able to make pro-environmental choices, leaving the participant feeling powerless given the scope of environmental challenges. For some participants, a lack of motivation to act on recommendations was a barrier. Some participants simply forgot to make recommended changes as they were not seen as urgent tasks and there were no associated consequences for inaction. This finding confirms what is recommended in CBSM literature: Successive programming stages or phases, coupled with appropriate dis/incentives, could be useful for one-time behaviors.

Overcoming Homeowner Barriers

Research has shown that minimizing barriers to behavior change, making the barrier easier to overcome, is important for that change to be successful, both for personal and homeowner barriers. When asked what was needed to overcome such barriers, 59 responses were given and categorized into 24 groups. Sixteen groups had only one or two responses, comprising n = 22, 37% total. The most common responses were regarding funding, n = 8, 14%, providing education, n = 7, 12%, and showing examples of successful projects, n = 6, 10%. This corresponds to education-based approaches to behavior change (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), success of which relies on the depth and participants’ immersion in educational content.

Municipality and Community Benefits and Barriers

Participants were asked to consider the same three questions from municipality and community perspectives:

What the benefits are for these groups from making changes?

What the barriers are preventing change?

What would help these groups overcome those barriers?

Fifty-two responses for benefits were recorded and categorized into 17 groups. Most common responses were financial benefits, n = 8, 15%, infrastructure protection; n = 7, 13%; and waterway protection, n = 5, 10% (Figure 5).

Most participants noted cost as a barrier to better managing stormwater at the community and/or municipality scale, at n = 13, 30% of 44 responses that were categorized into 13 groups. Lacking public support and municipal conflicts were the second most common responses, at n = 7; 16% each (Figure 6).There was a theme in responses relating to lack of importance and urgency for implementing stormwater management best practices. Barriers mentioned were diverse, with seven groups having only one response, comprising 16% of responses recorded.

To overcome barriers noted, most common responses were increasing education, communication of costs, appropriate incentives, clarification of savings/simplification of rebate process, and increased community involvement, all at n = 4, 8% each. This was another diverse response area, with 53 responses categorized into 27 groups. Nineteen groups had only one or two responses, comprising 45% of total responses at n = 24.

Interview findings allowed for comparison to CBSM best practices and assessment of the RHV in general and are discussed below, following research limitations.

Limitations

Several research limitations should be addressed. As noted, our small sample size of 23 interviews limits findings to indicative data, not statistically significant results. By 23 interviews, repetition in responses and themes was noted. Thus, according to qualitative research recommendations, and resource limitation, data collection ceased at this point (Baker & Edwards, 2012). Relatedly, data collected provide relative response frequency but not relative strength of each barrier and/or benefit for participants. Items participants indicated as benefits nay or may not be what actually motivated participants to act. These may be perceived benefits but not the most influential benefit that motivated participants to act (Epley & Gilovich, 2016; Steg, 2016). Due to time and resource constraints of this research, actual motivations for participants were not examined but would be worthwhile in future studies.

Discussion

This research contributes to existing literature on pro-environmental behavior change and CBSM through an analysis of an existing program for stormwater management, the RHV. Successful behavior changes through well-designed stormwater management programs will help preserve the life span of stormwater infrastructure as well as natural waterways into which stormwater is drained. Homeowners, municipalities, communities, and insurance companies will realize financial benefits, as stormwater damages and costs would be reduced through use of household stormwater management best practices and tools. Findings will guide new pro-environmental behavior change programs and better protect communities facing increasing household flooding risk due to climate change.

The RHV program’s inclusion of CBSM steps, stages, and best practices are summarized below, followed by recommendations for program improvement allowing greater pro-environmental behavior change.

Desired Behavior Identification

The RHV program clearly defined preferred and undesirable behavioral outcomes. This identification process is an important first step for a behavior change program; behaviors must be easily understood by participants. Participants learned preferred behaviors through their assessment report, provided at the end of their RHV. We found that more thorough explanation of desired behaviors was needed because participants were confused or unsure how to follow through on the desired change. The RHV program needs increased clarity on what change is desired and better communication on how to go about change that would be beneficial. Some participants expressed a desire to know what change would be most worthwhile to know where to focus their energies. Clear articulation of priority behaviors, that is, most impactful changes, would be beneficial for homeowners. While the typical report includes “Priorities for Action,” explanatory augmentation is necessary if participants are unsure of priority actions.

It would be beneficial to consider how probable various behavior options were, that is, how likely homeowners were to adopt a particular behavior and how much that change would permeate into surrounding social environment. For example, the high cost of installing a permeable drive was a significant barrier for participants. Including permeable pavement installation as a priority behavior change may have deterred participants and, more critically, perhaps decreased their openness to other changes. Instead, suggesting easier, more affordable changes first may increase adoption of new behaviors and open participants up to future, larger changes (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011).

Barrier and Benefit Identification

While the RHV provided much information for participants, responses indicated it was not as usable as it could have been. Some participants stated feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information presented, while others felt it was not enough. Participants often desired information specific to their property and not the additional, inapplicable information. A more effective approach would be to present specific, guiding information for each recommendation, only leaving participants with information relevant to their specific issues. Additionally, examples of other successful participants could be helpful in providing a model for the participant to follow. Prior to the visit, separate packages could be prepared relating to various issues or scenarios, for example, implementing a rain garden, contracting a permeable driveway, or maintaining rain barrels. Only the relevant packages would be given to the participant during a home visit.

In addition to non-specific information packages, the RHV did not specifically identify barriers for participants, and the benefits were not clearly articulated beyond a vague sense of “doing good” for the environment. The program should revisit literature to emphasize the benefits of participation for homeowners, as this may increase participants’ implementation of recommended actions. By considering barriers identified in this study, methods to counteract these barriers could be implemented in future iterations. For example, if a participant did not have sufficient property to extend their downspouts away from their foundation, an alternative suggestion to install extra rain barrels for their downspouts to drain into would overcome this individual barrier. These particular methods would need to be proposed on a case-by-case basis, as homeowners’ barriers vary greatly from property to property and person to person.

Following identification of the desired behaviors, barriers, and benefits, specific CBSM tools are to be incorporated into program development by Reep Green Solutions to address these variables. The tools to be implemented in future RHV programs are presented below with explanation of the barriers and benefits that each tool addresses.

CBSM Recommended Tools Used in the RAIN Home Visit Program

According to CBSM, behavior change tools could benefit from including commitment, social norms, social diffusion, prompts, communication, incentives, and convenience, if deemed effective for the target audience. Some of the recommended CBSM tools were utilized in the RHV program (e.g., commitment, social diffusion, communication, incentives), while several others were omitted (e.g., commitment, social norms). Some tools are present in both sections of the chart as there are multiple ways to include each tool in a given behavior change program. Table 2 summarizes CBSM tools incorporated in the existing program, the barriers and benefits that each tool addressed, and what additional tools would improve the program’s effectiveness based on research findings.

Table 2.

Synthesis of Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) Tools Used and Recommended for Future Programs.

CBSM Tools Used in RAIN Home Visit Program	Barriers Resolved	Benefits Gained
Commitment Participation in program	Lack of awareness of sustainable household stormwater management options	Inform homeowners and set expectation for participation in program and behavior adoption
Social diffusion Yard signs & indicators of participation	Novel behaviors difficult to adopt; lack of modeling	Attempt to increase normality of new behaviors and inform community of engagement in such behaviors; methods inappropriate for target audience as most did not engage in this step.
Communication Dense report Information provided during visit	Lack of knowledge	Informative; provide homeowners with necessary information—yet overwhelming.
Incentives Stormwater tax credit	Lack of motivation	Motivation (limited); inappropriate incentive; tax credit provides some incentive, but too minimal and application too complicated to be truly incentivizing
Recommended Additional CBSM Tools Based on Research Findings	Barriers as Identified in the Research	Potential Benefits of CBSM Tool
Commitment Public, written, ongoing	Lack of motivation to sustain changes	Public commitment helps hold homeowners accountable; increase expectation of desired behavior in place.
Social norms Community approach will aide in normalization Targeting a group helps hold others accountable	New behaviors; lifestyle change; conflicting current normative messages	The more the behaviors become normalized and expected, the more likely homeowners are to follow through and maintain changes. By increasing normality of desired behaviors, or at least appeared normality initially, behaviors become easier to adopt.
Social diffusion Community approach	Lack of community; prevents spread of social norms, modeling from successful neighbors, lacking accountability and expectations	Targeting a community provides increased pressure, reminders, and support to stick to commitments.
Prompts Phone and in-person reminders RAIN Coach check-ins	Forgetfulness; lack of follow-up	Prompt homeowners of change and provide assistance as/if needed
Communication Provide specific material for homeowners, written and verbal	Too much information; mixed messages	Clear information targeted per homeowners will be more useful; clarification and materials review will ensure consistent messages provided.
Incentives Identify alternate incentives valued by homeowners Indicate monetary savings from changes	Cost	Appropriate incentives will encourage behaviors and make change easier.
Convenience Minimize identified barriers Identify alternate methods for homeowners to conduct changes	Confusion; lack of knowledge	Clear directions and support will make changes easier for homeowners; implementation of previous tools will make behaviors easier to adopt

Some CBSM tools were not fully utilized and should be included in future iterations to create a more impactful program. For example, although a stormwater credit exists as a tax rebate in the study area, the application process was too confusing for many participants and they did not apply. The available rebate savings for many participants was too low to be considered worthwhile. While the incentive was intended to be a motivational tool, it failed because it was not an appropriate incentive for the target audience. The rebate did not relieve the financial burden of making stormwater management improvements nor did it encourage participants to change their behavior by acting as a motivational tool. For the stormwater tax rebate to be an effective incentive, it must be easier to apply for and be of greater value (European Commission, 2012).

Public recognition and knowledge exchange tools could also be strengthened. Interview data indicated financial incentives were not the only motivational drivers. Some homeowners may have valued knowing their environmental impact or receiving social recognition more than financial benefits. The RHV program attempted to use communication and social diffusion tools, but there were issues with participant follow through. First, participants had difficulty understanding the message and recommendations and were unsure of what the real benefits were. It was not clear to homeowners how much stormwater upgrades could save them financially nor the impact of such changes on their local environment. More tailored, informative communications might empower homeowners and increase implementation. This would help make the program more informative and convenient (Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012).

The RHV attempted to use social diffusion tools by using stickers and yard signs for participants’ lawns. Multiple participants noted they did not want to have these items on display; participants preferred to keep rain barrels behind their house or found the signs unappealing. This social diffusion tool should be revisited to identify more compelling opportunities to disperse the RHV message. Alternative diffusion options could include a more discrete window sticker, recognition of changes made via media outlets, or showcase events to display successful changes to the community. Improved social diffusion tools will improve socio-psychological techniques of this program, a key technique as noted by the European Commission (2012).

The RHV program could benefit from incorporating social norms supported by socio-psychological techniques (Kilduff, Tsai, & Hanke, 2006; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999).

Demonstrating a desired behavior as a social norm increases social contagion and others’ likelihood to adopt that behavior. The program needs to work to establish household stormwater management behaviors as positive neighborhood norms to help encourage other homeowners to adapt their behavior. One way to shift the norm would be for households to make their stormwater best practices visible from the front of the house. As noted, some participants did not want their rain barrel visible from the street or a sign on their yard, so identifying a signal that is appealing to homeowners would be valuable. A norm tipping point is possible when a threshold number of households participate and stormwater management becomes the established and expected behavior.

To ensure these new stormwater management norms are not in conflict, the material given to participants should be revised to remove, for example, undesired behaviors illustrated as common and normative. This has the unfortunate effect of suggesting to participants that these undesired behaviors are common. This results in behaviors that are not environmentally responsible as research shows individuals adjust their behaviors toward what is normative in their social environment (Ham, Jeger, & Ivković, 2015; Kormos, Gifford, & Brown, 2015). A specific example from the RHV Report is described below.

Assessment of the RHV Report

Communications within the report: The RHV report, provided to participants shortly following the visit, included property photos to illustrate successes and opportunities for improvement. While the areas were described within text, individual photograph captions would be more effective for communicating with participants. The report’s final page discussed common pollutants. Several images demonstrated how to properly manage these pollutants. For example, an image of an outdoor pet waste composter illustrated how to best handle pet waste. This demonstrates effective messaging by exemplifying the desired behavior. However, the following image showed a home containing common, hazardous household products that were stored improperly. This conflicting messaging informed participants that although these products are harmful, the products were shown to be common. This commonality communicated to participants that it was “normal” to have these products not only in the home but it was common to have the products improperly stored. This messaging decreases warning effectiveness. The image communicated that an undesired behavior was common. Instead, the visual should show the desired behavior for participants to replicate, for example, including an image of a home without hazardous household products or a home with such products stored safely. Proper display and image use would increase effectiveness of this socio-psychological technique (European Commission, 2012).

Participants’ experience of the report: Many participants described difficulties implementing the program’s home visit and report recommendations. The recommendations’ language was an issue identified by the participants. They requested concise information specific to their issues and clear steps to resolve those issues. For example, participants noted lacking information or resources, conflicting information from multiple sources, lack of clarity for next steps, and cost all decreased the likelihood participants would follow through with changes. This communications mismatch between what was provided and what was expected added to the participants’ perception of inconvenience and barriers to changes of their properties and behaviors. To improve communication, clear, property-specific, step-by-step guides should be provided to participants about their next steps.

Lack of post-report follow-up by the RHV program: There was minimal or no follow-up with participants after the visit—direct communication ceased after report delivery. Multiple participants noted that they simply forgot about the recommendations or other domestic issues took precedence over household stormwater management. Behavior change programs emphasize follow-up to remind participants of the actions they have (ideally) committed to (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). This also makes change easier for participants as it provides someone knowledgeable of the process to be easily accessible for answering any questions that may arise.

An important additional practice would be prompts to remind participants to act. This prompt tool would support the monitoring technique key to CBSM. Following up with participants, by phone or in person, effectively bolsters accountability, tracks participant engagement, and helps to monitor the program’s influence on participant behavior change (Blake, 1999; European Commission, 2012). In these ways, follow-ups with participants serve as both a prompt to act and a monitoring technique. In person or phone prompts increase accountability that may be lost by e-mail communications via e-mail. The prompting process could be further enhanced by having participants, either verbally or in writing, agree to implementing a certain change within a given time frame and letting the participants know that they will be contacted to assess their progress toward this goal. This gentle accountability trigger would combine commitment and prompt tools, as well as help in holding participants accountable, overcoming the responsibility barrier.

The areas of success and improvement for the RHV program have been discussed and are summarized below with specific areas for improvement. Integrating our recommendations could lead to improved residential stormwater management for the target could lead to improved residential stormwater management for the target audience, reducing the personal and financial flooding costs.

Conclusion

Our assessment of in-person interviews and the RHV reports were compared against CBSM best practices. We focused on the factors that were working well for sustained pro-environmental behavior change and those that were missing. We generated specific recommendations for how the RHV program could be improved. The implementation of our study’s recommendations could increase implementation of stormwater protection activities. We found that while preferred behaviors were explained and incentives were provided, more thorough, clear explanation was needed for homeowners as well as incentives of suitable size and value to have effectively motivated homeowners to change. Key features that should be included in future RHV programs are public commitments, follow-up, and reminders. The latter two features are already incorporated into novel versions of the program by including a RAIN “coach” who will check in on homeowners, provide additional support, and follow-up on recommendations from the initial visit. As household stormwater management becomes the norm, homeowners should better understand the risk of improper management and/or extreme weather.

Further research should consider risk perception impacts with CBSM, to determine how these can work together and, perhaps, which precedes the other. Some people may be more influenced by social norms to act and others by risk perception. The latter, as mentioned, can influence social norms, so it is debatable as to which is more important or should be emphasized initially in behavior change programs. It would seem by this research, that both should be used together to best motivate and sustain pro-environmental behavior change.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lauren Keira Marie Smith

References

Ackil

J. K.

Zaragoza

M. S.

(2011). Forced fabrication versus interviewer suggestions: Differences in false memory depend on how memory is assessed. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 933–942. doi:10.1002/acp.1785

Aquije

D. D.

(2016). Paying for stormwater management: What are the options?IMFG Perspectives, 12, 1–10.

Arnold

C. L.

Jr Gibbons

C. J.

(1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 243–258.

Baker

S. E.

Edwards

(2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough?National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved fromhttp://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf

Blake

(1999). Overcoming the ‘value–action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4, 257–278.

Botzen

W. J. W.

van den Bergh

J. C. J. M.

Bouwer

L. M.

(2010). Climate change and increased risk for the insurance sector: A global perspective and an assessment for the Netherlands. Natural Hazards, 52, 577–598.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2011). Rain gardens: Improve stormwater management in your yard. | Retrieved fromhttps://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/grho/grho_007.cfm

City of Waterloo. (2015). Stormwater. Retrieved fromhttp://www.waterloo.ca/en/living/stormwater.asp

Cohen

Java

(1995). Memory for medical history: Accuracy of recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 273–288.

10.

Conway

(1990). On bias in autobiographical recall: Retrospective adjustments following disconfirmed expectations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 183–189.

11.

Coopersmith

E. J.

Minsker

B. S.

Sivapalan

(2014). Patterns of regional hydroclimatic shifts: An analysis of changing hydrologic regimes. Water Resources Research, 50, 1960–1983.

12.

Cote

S. A.

Wolfe

(2014). Assessing the social and economic barriers to permeable surface utilization for residential driveways in Kitchener. Canada. Environmental Practice, 16, 6–18.

13.

Epley

Gilovich

(2016). The mechanics of motivated reasoning. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 133–140.

14.

European Commission. (2012, May31). Four key techniques to encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/286na3_en.pdf

15.

Evans

. (2015). RAIN program manager, personal communication, January-February, 2015.

16.

Green Communities Canada. (2017). About RAIN. Retrieved fromhttp://www.raincommunitysolutions.ca/en/about-rain-commmunity-solutions/

17.

Ham

Jeger

Ivković

A. F.

(2015). The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase green food. Economic Research/Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28, 738–748.

18.

Hossain

S. K.

Lake

(2015, May9). Field evaluation of the performance of alternative deicers for winter maintenance of transportation facilities. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 42, 437–448.

19.

Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation. (2019). Home Flood Protection Program. Retrieved from: https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/English_Three-Steps-to-Basement-Flood-Protection-Infographic_2019.06.12.pdf.

20.

Jacobson

C. R.

(2011). Identification and quantification of the hydrological impacts of imperviousness in urban catchments: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1438–1448.

21.

Kilduff

Tsai

(2003). Social networks and organizations. London, England: Sage.

22.

Kilduff

Tsai

Hanke

(2006). A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31, 1031–1048.

23.

Kollmuss

Agyeman

(2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.

24.

Kormos

Gifford

Brown

(2015). The influence of descriptive social norm information on sustainable transportation behavior: A field experiment. Environment and Behavior, 47, 479–501.

25.

Mariga

(2011). Bridge over troubles waters. Canadian Underwriter, 78, 38–40.

26.

Martin

Ruperd

Legret

(2007). Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 338–349.

27.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2011). Fostering sustainable behavior (3rd ed.). Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society.

28.

McKenzie-Mohr

Schultz

P. W.

(2014). Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20, 35–46.

29.

McKenzie-Mohr

Smith

. (1999). Fostering sustainable behaviour: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.

30.

Niu

Zhang

Cui

(2016). Stormwater infiltration and surface runoff pollution reduction performance of permeable pavement layers. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 2576–2587. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-5466-7

31.

Osbaldiston

Schott

J. P.

(2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behaviour, 44, 257–299.

32.

Pahl-Wostl

Sendzimir

Jeffrey

Aerts

Berkamp

Cross

(2007). Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecology and Society, 12, 30.

33.

RAIN. (2015). Your guide to a RAIN Smart Home, Reep Green Solutions. Retrieved April 16, 2015, fromhttps://reepgreen.ca/what_we_offer/community-action/rain/rainsmarthomes/.

34.

Reep. (2016). RAIN program. Retrieved fromhttps://reepgreen.ca/what_we_offer/community-action/rain/

35.

Region of Waterloo. (2019a). About Waterloo region. Retrieved fromhttps://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/about-waterloo-region.aspx

36.

Region of Waterloo. (2019b). Demographics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doing-business/demographics.aspx

37.

Rocha

(2015, January8). A look at the alternatives to rock salt for de-icing roads. Montreal Gazette. Retrieved fromhttp://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-look-at-the-alternatives-to-rock-salt-for-de-icing-roads

38.

Roy

Wenger

Fletcher

Walsh

Ladson

Shuster

… Brown

. (2008). Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the RAIN home guide [personal interview]. Environmental Management, 42, 344–359.

39.

Schaefer

. (2015). RAIN home guide, personal communication, March 15, 2015.

40.

Siva

(2009). Executive Summary of Draft Final Report. In Stormwater Management Program and Funding Review: Study Recommendation. City of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Retrieved June 9, 2015, fromhttp://www.waterloo.ca/en/contentresources/resources/living/report_stormwater_program_funding_review_april_2009.pdf.

41.

Statistics Canada. (2009). Age of Public Infrastructure: A Provincial Perspective. Retrieved fromhttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2008067-eng.htm#t8.

42.

Steg

(2016). Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 277–292.

43.

Stott

(2016). How climate change affects extreme weather events. Science Magazine, 352, 1517–1518. Retrieved fromhttp://science.sciencemag.org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/content/sci/352/6293/1517.full.pdf

44.

Viavattene

Ellis

J. B.

(2013). The management of urban surface water flood risks: SUDS performance in flood reduction from extreme events. Water Science & Technology, 67, 99–108.

45.

Waterloo EDC. (2019). Industries. Retrieved fromhttps://www.waterlooedc.ca/en/industries/industries.aspx

46.

Zimmer

C. A.

Heathcote

I. W.

Whiteley

H. R.

Schroeter

(2007). Low-impact-development practices for stormwater: Implications for urban hydrology. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 32, 193–212.