ABSTRACT:

This dataset contains coded information from an analysis of articles about water gathered from two newspapers in Utah. Articles from the Salt Lake Tribune were assessed from 2012 through 2015 and articles from the Logan Herald Journal were assessed from 2012 through 2016). Articles were gathered by searching on line newspaper databases for articles using the keyword "water". After being sorted for relevance, articles with primary focus on water were coded for content and journalistic parameters using an online survey template developed within Qualtrics software. Intercoder reliability was established among the coding team.

ABSTRACT:

A series of interviews were conducted during the summer of 2015 by a team led by Courtney Flint, working for Utah State University, funded by the iUTAH water project.

The purpose of the interviews was to get a general idea of public views and opinions of issues surrounding water.

The participants were asked a series of questions in a semi-structured conversational style. These conversations were recorded and then analyzed.

The interviews were conducted at various parks in Logan and Salt Lake City. They were selected via a public intercept method, where the interviewers selected park visitors at random and approached them to do interviews.

Afterwards, the interviewees filled out a short form with demographic information and consent to release. Demographic information is not being released with this dataset due to privacy issues.

ABSTRACT:

This dataset uses Census Data following published social vulnerability index literature to provide an index at the Place level.

The Corps of Engineers has chosen SoVI as the “foundational SVA (Social Vulnerability Analysis) method for characterizing social vulnerability….” (Dunning and Durden 2013) The University of South Carolina has provided extensive and historic data for this methodology. Susan Cutter and her team have published their methodology and continue to maintain their database. Thus it was chosen as the “primary tool for [Army] Corps SVA applications.” (ibid) The downside is that this method is complex and hard to communicate and understand at times. (S. Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley 2003) The Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) for this study was constructed at the U.S. Census Place level for the state of Utah. We utilized the conventions put forth by Cutter (2011) as closely as possible using the five-year American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2008 to 2012. The ACS collects a different, more expansive set of variables than the Census Long Form utilized in Cutter et al. (2003), which required some deviation in variable selection from the original method. However, Holand and Lujala (2013) demonstrated that the SoVI could be constructed using regional contextually appropriate variables rather than the specific variables presented by Cutter et al. (2003). Where possible, variables were selected which matched with the Cutter et al. (2003) work. The Principle Components Analysis was conducted using the statistical software R version 3.2.3 (R 2015) and the prcomp function. Using the Cutter (2011) conventions for component selection, we chose to use the first ten principle components which explained 76% of the variance in the data. Once the components were selected, we assessed the correlation coefficients for each component and determined the tendency (how it increases or decreases) of each component for calculating the final index values. With the component tendencies assessed, we created an arithmetic function to calculate the final index scores in ESRI’s ArcGIS software (ESRI 2014). The scores were then classified using an equal interval classification in ArcGIS to produce five classes of vulnerability, ranging from very low to very high. The SoVI constructed for our study is largely consistent with previous indices published by Susan Cutter at a macro scale, which were used as a crude validation for the analysis. The pattern of vulnerability in the state is clustered, with the lowest vulnerability in the most densely populated area of the state, centered on Salt Lake City (see Figure [UT_SoVI.png]). Most of the state falls in the moderate vulnerability class, which is to be expected.

ABSTRACT:

This dataset contains important categories (per an extensive literature review) in relation to vulnerability to water hazards within Utah at the County level. Although social and physical vulnerability to water hazards (i.e. flooding) data has been collected extensively in many coastal areas, this is a costly problem in Utah and many other non-coastal areas. The variables shown here are categorized by type and collection method. 1. General data is shown for all Counties in Utah. These are taken from the 2010 Census. 2. Literature suggests that there are various approaches which local governments take to mitigate the impacts of flood events. Indicators of these approaches are captured in the section entitled Web Survey. A web survey was conducted of each County. The data includes evaluations of content including water hazard education, land use restrictions described in the code, freeboard requirements, and emergency operations plan implementations. 3. A social vulnerability index as created by the University of South Carolina is shown here. More information can be found at their website. 4. Event data is summarized for number of events and estimated monetary damages. This NOAA dataset helps us understand the nature of past experience and physical exposure to water hazards. Utah's Hazard Mitigation Plan 2014 includes a flood vulnerability score. It is included here for reference but is not critiqued as part of this dataset. 5. Fema has modeling software known as HAZUS which can be used to estimate damages for certain hazards including flooding. A county level summary is included here with estimated of building damage and exposure. 6. Dams are a man-made structure which play a part on flood management and can also create additional exposure. 7. Much of social vulnerability and disaster management should consider those with special needs. Census and the Division of Hazard Mitigation of Utah help us understand more of this important context.

Together these data paint a picture of Utah's vulnerabilities to flood hazards and potential exposure to other natural hazard events. Place level statistics were also collected and add insight at that spatial scale. they can be found here: http://repository.iutahepscor.org/dataset/hazard-mitigation-and-capacity-in-utah-census-places. The variables are different as prescribed in the readme file there.

Further details of the data collection methods can be found in the data dictionary within the spreadsheet workbook or in the ReadMe file included as a resource here.

ABSTRACT:

This dataset contains important categories (per an extensive literature review) in relation to vulnerability to water hazards within Utah at the Census Place level (i.e. cities). Although social and physical vulnerability to water hazards (i.e. flooding) data has been collected extensively in many coastal areas, this is a costly problem in Utah and many other non-coastal regions. The variables shown here are categorized by type and collection method. 1. General data is shown for all Census Places in Utah including County, Geocode, and Total Population. These are taken from the 2010 Census. 2. Literature suggests that there are various approaches which local governments take to mitigate the impacts of flood events. Indicators of these approaches are captured in the section entitled Web Survey. A web survey was conducted of each and every census place in Utah. The data includes evaluations of content including water hazard education, land use restrictions described in the code, freeboard requirements, and emergency operations plan implementations. 3. Information about the local government including their planning and building inspector staff was collected using a phone survey along with emails and website investigations. 4. FEMA data was consolidated from FEMA's website showing census places with current insurance premium discounts achieved by demonstrating compliance with certain federal requirements. It also includes data on policies and losses. 5. A social vulnerability index was created by our team for this project and details can be found here: http://repository.iutahepscor.org/dataset/social-vulnerability-at-the-census-place-level. This dataset includes summary findings from the SoVI index. 6. As housing is recognized in the literature as a contributer to natural hazard vulnerability, important housing statistics were defined and created from Census data. These include housing age, median value, and renter occupied statistics. A standardized rating of building code effectiveness is also included from a recent Utah Hazard Mitigation Report. 7. Event data is summarized for number of events and estimated monetary damages from another of our team's datasets found here: http://repository.iutahepscor.org/dataset/noaa-storm-events. This NOAA dataset helps us understand the nature of past experience and physical exposure to water hazards. 8. As this dataset is focused on water hazard exposure, two measurements were calculated for each census place reflecting the percentage area of the city included in the defined special flood hazard area.

Together these data paint a picture of Utah's vulnerabilities to flood hazards and potential exposure to other natural hazard events. County level statistics were also collected and add insight at that spatial scale. they can be found here: http://repository.iutahepscor.org/dataset/utah-s-counties-sensitivity-to-water-hazards. The variables are different as prescribed in the readme file there.

Further details of the data collection methods can be found in the data dictionary within the spreadsheet workbook or in the ReadMe file included as a resource here.

ABSTRACT:

This dataset contains event history for floods in Utah based on the NOAA weather database. It has been dis-aggregated to census place for alignment with other compatible databases in order to analyze local history and experience. The readme file elaborates on the methods of disaggregation. It includes data from 1997-2014, but more reliable data is separated for 2010-2014 after a change in NWS procedure and event recognition.

ABSTRACT:

The Wasatch Mountain Voices Project seeks to assess perceptions of values and vulnerabilities associated with the Wasatch Mountains. The connection to iUTAH research focuses on the degree to which water is mentioned by key informants interviewed for this project. A team of undergraduate research assistants assisted with this project and conducted interviews. It should be noted that this effort was a learning experience for students and a few inherent limitations are found in the flow of the interviews as a result of students in early stages of climbing the interview learning curve. We acknowledge some leading aspects in interview questions. However, a standard set of questions was asked in all interviews.

Interviews were conducted with representatives of the following categories:

1. City Planners
2. Emergency Managers
3. Natural Resource Managers (state or federal)
4. Representatives from environmental interest groups or organizations
5. Representatives of recreational interests
6. Representatives of Real Estate, Commercial/Economic or Development Interests

We used web-based information and existing contacts in the region to identify people in the categories to sample from for interviews. Interviews were largely held in person, but sometimes by phone. Key informant interviews followed a semi-structured format and lasted from 30 to 60 minutes.

While 90 people were originally interviewed, 2 were not audio recorded and 7 were people who declined to share their anonymous transcript. Thus this dataset contains 81 complete interview transcripts. Interviews were conducted with people from five different regions: Northen Wasatch, Central Wasatch, Wasatch Front, Wasatch Back, and Southern Wasatch. Interviews were held at a location convenient to the participant.

At the outset of the interviews, participants were presented with a letter of information describing informed consent procedures. When consent was given, interviews were audio recorded. Participants were given the opportunity to choose whether or not they want to be identified in project reporting. For those choosing not to be identified, any identifying information was redacted from transcripts.

Transcripts made from audio files used an ID system for identification and were created using NVivo software. Though initially planned to be shared, audio interview files were deleted upon the request by USU IRB.

The questions guiding the interviews were as follows:

1. How do the Wasatch Mountains influence the wellbeing in this area? In other words, what are some of the values or benefits of living in the Wasatch Mountain Region?
2. Are there any disadvantages or particular vulnerabilities related to the Wasatch Mountains that compromise or decrease wellbeing in this area?
3. What do you think are the key issues regarding the future sustainability and wellbeing of the Wasatch Mountain Region?
4. Are you aware of any efforts underway to help sustain or improve the wellbeing of the Wasatch Mountain Region in the future? Are you – or is your organization - involved in these efforts? Can you talk more about these efforts?

ABSTRACT:

This dataset contains an amenity index for all Utah Census Places. Using Census data and other available datasets, an index for 'amenityness' was created. Following Ganning and Flint's previous research note, the index is calculated using physical amenities as well as socio-economic indicators (See: Ganning, Joanna Paulson, and Courtney G. Flint. “Constructing a Community-Level Amenity Index.” Society & Natural Resources 23, no. 12 (November 2, 2010): 1253–58. doi:10.1080/08941920903030132).

This index adds context to any study where an understanding of local, natural amenities is valued. It contains the following physical amenity variables: 1. Open Land 2. Open Water 3. Kapos Classification 4. Number of Recreation sites

It also includes key indicators which come from Census Data. 1. Employment Diversity 2. Median Household Income 3. Seasonal Housing 4. Population Growth 5. In-migration from out of state 6. In-migration from out of county 7. College education 8. New Housing Built 9. Housing Valued over $175,000 10. Median Rent 11. Median Housing Value 12. Employment in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services.

For more information on the calculations and variables, please read Ganning & Flint's research note and the ReadMe file linked to this dataset or the data dictionary within the excel spreadsheet as Tab 2.

ABSTRACT:

In order to assess the impacts on stakeholder decisions and actions linked to iUTAH's social and engineering science and research efforts, interviews were conducted in 2017 with 17 researchers and 13 external partners (who were identified by researchers as having been involved in collaborative efforts). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically for reporting. For 16 participants (8 researchers and 8 external partners), a revised informed consent process was conducted in which they all agreed to be identified in project reporting on 4 case studies. All other participants remain confidential per the original informed consent process. We have included the interview protocols (questions) for researchers and partners (as questions asked to the researchers and partners differed slightly) as well as a summary report of findings. An article based on these interviews is published as follows: Flint CG, KT Dean, B Yang, and D Jackson-Smith. 2019. Socio-scientific research and practice: evaluating outcomes from a transdisciplinary urban water systems project. Socio-Ecological Practice Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00007-5

ABSTRACT:

Peer reviewed articles authored by researchers and partners from the NSF funded iUTAH project were gathered and coded to assess project outcomes. Articles were coded to gather the following information: paper ID, citation, scientific discipline (social science, engineering, or integrated science), any non-academic authors, objective, methods, finding, contribution, any explicit stakeholder application, future research mentioned, geographic focus.

ABSTRACT:

In 2018, surveys were conducted with residents of Hyrum, Utah and from 2 neighborhoods in Logan, Utah regarding secondary water use and perspectives on water reuse. Surveys were conducted using a drop-off/pick-up method. 250 households were surveyed in Hyrum and 150 households were surveyed in Logan. Completed surveys were received from 169 households in Hyrum and 90 in Logan. Data here include raw data and manipulations of variables for analysis.

ABSTRACT:

River and watershed organizations play key roles in the Intermountain West. Interviews were conducted between 2020 and 2023 with representatives of these organizations that work in watersheds that fall in Intermountain West region that includes parts or all of 11 Western US states. Interview topics include organizational mission areas and efforts, knowledge integration, factors influencing success, and more. Interviews were transcribed using Otter.ai, edited for accuracy, and coded with Atlas.ti for analysis. Permission to share interview transcripts (original or partially redacted) or summaries was granted prior to sharing via Hydroshare. Organizations that did not respond to requests to share transcript(s) (71 organizations) have a brief, de-identified description shared instead of transcript(s). Uploading interview transcripts to this Hydroshare resource is in progress.