View
214
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
You Want to Do What to Our Shoreline?
Lessons Learned in Running the Minnesota DNR Shoreland Habitat
Restoration Grant Program
John Hiebert
MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program
Shoreline Habitat Program
• Started in 1999 with a budget of $200,000• Reimbursement grant program covering:
– 75% of project cost, remainder provided by landowner through in-kind cash and labor
– Projects on private land must restore 75% of the frontage with an average buffer width of 25 feet
– Only use local origin plants that are native to the county the project is located in
• Projects on public and private land• In 2003 raised grants to $375,000 per year
Original Program Goals
• Provide technical advice and information to landowners
• Encourage landowners to restore disturbed shorelines.
• Establish demonstration sites around the developed areas of the State of Minnesota.
Success!
It was easy with 12 projects …
not so much
with 500
Problems Encountered
• Once a project has been installed the work had just begun.
• Not enough emphasis on maintaining sites.• Little time was available for technical advice
and contact with groups outside of grant projects.
• Lack of follow-up on sites• Projects became more and more complicated.
Research
• Needed to assess how effective the program was in all aspects.
• How well are we establishing plants and are people actually doing this on there own?
• Relating effectiveness of restored shorelines at providing fish and wildlife habitat and improving water quality
• Understanding the social barriers that keep people from maintaining natural shorelines or restoring disturbed ones and developing successful strategies to address these issues.
Losing our Lakes?An Assessment of the Human Dimensions of
Lakeshore Landowner Shoreland Management
Edgar Rudberg and David Fulton University of Minnesota MN Cooperative Research Unit
December, 2011
Methodology: Focus Groups• 4 focus groups throughout Minnesota• 9 questions• 7-10 participants/group• Saturation reached• Inform survey
Focus Group Results
• Concerns: recreational use, neighbor perceptions, cost, maintenance, line of sight
• Positives: water quality, wildlife, seclusion• Cake and eat it too: Mixed use
Methodology: Survey
• Behavioral variables – Attitude toward behavior
• Incentives: approaches & economic• Assessed survey respondents current
riparian land use and how that influenced responses
• Demographics
Methodology: Sampling
• Sampling– 4 ecotypes within state
• Different vegetation= different attitudes?
– Lakes selected with 50 < lake homes < 250– Sampling size of ~1,000/ecotype
• 3 rounds of surveys (Dillman)
Behavioral Belief
Normative Belief and intention to
comply
Attitude towards the
behavior
Subjective norm
I’m going to restore a
buffer
Having a buffer
Applying the Integrative Model of Behavior
Behavioral beliefs:• Cost• Maintenance• Restriction of
recreation • Increase water
quality
Normative evaluations:• Friends• Family• Neighbors
Barriers
Efficacyevaluation
Efficacy beliefs
Efficacy EvaluationPlant IDObtain infoBuy plantsMaintenance (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003)
How to segment the audienceGoing to restore in the future?
Have a buffer or have restored a buffer?
No Yes
No Norms, efficacy, outcome beliefs
Norms, efficacy, outcome beliefs
Yes Help reduce or overcome barriers Champions
Behavior Intention Matrix
Fishbein, Yzer (2003) Using Theory to Design Health Behavior Interventions. Communication Theory 13(2) p 164-183
Results: IBM
AudienceGoing to restore in the future?
Have a buffer or have restored a buffer?
No Yes
No 1300 (51%)
Norms, efficacy, outcome beliefs
540 (21%)
Norms, efficacy, outcome beliefs
Yes 489 (19%)
Help reduce or overcome barriers
211 (8%)
Have restored and intend to restore more
Final Model Belief, Efficacy and Normative components
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients
TB Std. Error Beta(Constant) -1.60*** .101 -15.91Decrease maintenance .050*** .013 .087 3.76Increase water quality
.058*** .012 .130 4.96
Be attractive .103*** .011 .243 9.03Create habitat -.001 .015 -.001 -.041Difficult to recreate .046*** .012 .084 3.82Create privacy -.028* .014 -.045 -2.00Family -.097*** .017 -.170 -5.89Friends .051** .016 .088 3.14Neighbors .003 .016 .005 .200DNR .065*** .012 .131 5.64People that use the lake
-.022 .016 -.034 -1.37
Ability to keep up with maintenance
.225*** .024 .209 9.33
R .60 R2 .36 F 70.28 * p < .05** p < .01*** p < .001
Changes in Messaging
Minimize Shoreland Impacts but Still
Enjoy the Lake
Access to the LakeWhile Leaving Some for Wildlife and Water Quality
Financial Considerations
Onetime payment incentive necessary for shoreland restoration
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Valid No payment necessary
539 21.2 26.3
$50 67 2.6 3.3
$250 168 6.6 8.2
$500 235 9.2 11.5
$1000 208 8.2 10.2
$1500 72 2.8 3.5
$2500 216 8.5 10.5
Would not restore
544 21.4 26.5
Total 2049 80.6 100.0
Missing System 821 19.4
Total 2870 100.0
Yearly payment necessary to maintain/restore a native vegetative buffer
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Valid No payment necessary
578 20.1 28.8
$10/year 14 .5 .7
$25/year 53 1.8 2.6
$50/year 141 4.9 7.0
$75/year 42 1.5 2.1
$100/year 349 12.2 17.4
$500/year 285 9.9 14.2
Would not restore 548 19.1 27.3
Total 2010 70.0 100.0
Missing System 860 30.0
Total 2870 100.0
Conclusions from Survey• 8% need little or no intervention• 19% inclined to restore buffer
– Assess barriers• 51% potential target for communications strategy
• beauty of buffers • water quality improvement• ability to keep up with maintenance
– Most important referent group: MNDNR– Efficacy belief: keeping up with maintenance
• Incentives: – One time payment $500= additional 23%– Yearly payment of $100= additional 30%
Results From Those with Buffers
• Communication strategy?– Fight the “bad” or support the “good”?
• Understanding those at risk for removal of their existing buffer
• Information seeking of those with buffers
Chi-Square Attitudes and Buffers
• The odds that those with positive attitudes towards buffers are approximately 2 ½ times more likely to have a buffer than those with a negative attitude toward buffers.
Attitude Towards Buffers
Management
χ2
Not buffered Buffered P Negative attitude 282 37 30.20 < .001
Positive attitude 1101 386
Attitude Towards Buffers and Beliefs
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta(Constant) .063 .126 .495 .621
Decreasing maintenance .025 .015 .099 1.676 .095
Buffers being expensive .025 .018 .096 1.344 .180
Buffers being difficult to establish
.005 .018 .021 .290 .772
Decreasing geese in the yard .014 .011 .064 1.246 .214
Increasing water quality -.003 .024 -.010 -.136 .892
Creating habitat .088 .020 .320 4.366 .000
Making it difficult to do other recreation
.022 .016 .082 1.375 .170
Improving fishing on the lake -.009 .018 -.030 -.476 .634
Creating privacy .037 .016 .146 2.345 .020
Harming view of the lake .008 .013 .033 .587 .557
*R2=.22, F(2,11) = 8.69, p < .001
Recreational Uses of Property N Mean Std. Deviation
Wildlife viewing (1: not at all important, 5: very important)
485 4.27 0.91
Scenery 480 4.48 0.76
Fishing 472 3.73 1.23
Swimming 476 3.43 1.34
Boating 471 3.49 1.30
Jet skiing 474 1.48 1.00
Water skiing 477 2.08 1.27
Citizens science 478 2.74 1.25
Nature study 481 2.95 1.22
Take Away
• People with buffers believed buffers created habitat and improved privacy
• Potential to raise value of buffered shores to those who have them through communicating risk to wildlife viewing, scenery and loss of privacy
• Reward Good behavior on shorelines – Lake Friendly Development Awards.
Final Conclusions• Survey useful in understanding restoration
behavioral intention and audience segmentation
• Focus on water quality and beauty and downplay loss of recreation
• Let landowners know they can have a buffer and still enjoy the lake
• Those with buffers, focus on risk to wildlife, scenery and privacy
• Have a varied message when meeting with landowners as a variety of issues impact why a person does or doesn’t have a buffer
Contact Information
• John Hiebert• MNDNR Division of Fish and Wildlife• 500 Lafayette Road• St Paul MN 55155• 651-259-5212• john.hiebert@state.mn.us
Recommended