An Empirical Study of Streamside Landowners' Interest in Riparian

173

An Empirical Study ofStreamside Landowners'Interest in RiparianConservation

Vivek Shandas

The importance of riparian vegetationfor aquatic habitat is well established inthe ecological conservation literature, buturban planning agencies' limited under-standing of landowners' motivations for,and interest in, riparian conservation hasleft them unable to prevent its loss alongstream corridors. For ihis study I surveyedstreamside residents in the Puget SoundLxjwland to examine their perceptions ofand ptefetences for riparian vegetation.I found that property owners' preferencesdo not match conditions on their ownland, and my results suggested several pos-sible causes, including: poor informationabout how to limit ecological degradationand what actions arc permissible alongstreams; fears about potentially negativeimpacts of making changes; and cost,time, and other constraints that preventowners from making changes.

Vivek Shandas ([email protected]) isan assistant professor in the Nohad A.Foulan School of Urban Studies andPlanning at Portland State University.His research examines the linkagesamong human activities, ecologicalconditions, and institutional response.

Journal of [he American Planning Association,

Vol. 73, No. 2. Spring 2007© American Planning A. sociaiion. Chicago, IL.

R iparian areas (the banks of rivers, streams and ponds) perform criticalecological functions, mitigating the impacts of land-based activities onaquatic ecosystems and water resources. Riparian areas affect physical

(Hession ct. al., 2000; Naiman & DeCamps. 1997), chemical (Baker, 1992; U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1984) and biological (Gregory, Swanson,McKee, & Cummins, 1991; Petersen, 1992; Roth, Allan, & Erickson, 1996)processes occurring in stream systems. The structure and ecological function ofriparian areas have provoked wide scientific interest for several decades, as wit-nessed by special journal issues (e.g., Hirsch & Segelquist, 1978; Lanfear, 2006;Rassan, 1997), books (e.g.. National Research Council, 1992; Warner & Hendrix,1984), and national and international meetings involving scientists, policymakers,and natural resource managers.

Regulatory mandates at the state, regional, and local levels aim to reducelosses of riparian vegetation (National Research Council, 2002). While statesgenerally delegate these powers to local governments, several state-level regula-tory programs go beyond floodplain regulation. In urban areas where riparianland is privately owned, local governments use ordinances such as minimumriparian buffer distance, "no-touch" zones, and environmentally sensitive areadesignations.

Due in part to continued urban development pressure, attempts to protectriparian areas have had only limited success (Ochterski, 1996; Wilcove, Rothstein,Dubow, Pillips, & Losos, 1998). Studies estimate that from two-thirds (Swift,1984) to 95% (Knopf, Johnson, Rich, Samson, & Szaro, 1988) of riparianvegetation across the United States has been lost since the mid 20th century.In the northwest United States, about 83% of the riparian habitat is in need ofextensive restoration (Almand & Krohn, 1979; U.S. General Accounting Office,1988). In a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of local riparian protection ordi-nances, Ozawa & Yeakley (2004) compared three different regulatory approachesin the Portland metropolitan region only to find that no ordinance by itselfprevented the loss of tiparian vegetation between 1990 and 1997.

This does not suggest eliminating regulations altogether; rather it indicatesthat regulations are but one tool for riparian protection. Since riparian areas areoften developed before other properties (Kelly & Stinchfield, 1998; Zinser, 1995),and over 7 1 % of land in the contiguous United States in private hands (U.S.

174 Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2007, Vol. 73, No. 2

Bureau of the Census, 1995), this study aims to protectriparian vegetation by learning more about tbe views ofstreamside property owners. Thus I surveyed streamsideproperty owners in tbe Puget Sound Lowland (bereafiierreferred to as the Puget Lowland) co better understand bowstreamside landowners' motivations for, and interest in, con-serving riparian vegetation migbt improve tbe effectivenessof riparian management strategies.

Protecting Puget Sound ChinookSalmon in the Puget Lowland

Decades of urban development in tbe Puget Lowlandhave affected the Puget Sound Cbinook salmon by reduc-ing quantities and quality of instream water, limiting tbeiravailable food and forms of shelter, degrading streambedconditions, and hampering their ability to move betweenmarine and inland habitats. Impacts to tbe babitat reducedthe total population of Puget Sound Cbinook and triggeredan Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing in 1999.

As part of the ESA listing, all federal agencies must actto conserve and recover listed species. Tbus tbe Fisb andWildlife Service and tbe National Marine Fisheries Servicemust work with state, regional, and local jurisdictions todevelop and implement plans to recover tbe Puget SoundChinook. One approach local jurisdictions adopt is tocommunicate with streamside landowners tbat "taking"(harming) tbese fisb can result in penalties. Activities tbatare considered to harm tbe Puget Sound Cbinook salmoninclude any tbat adversely affects tbeir habitat (e.g., logging,grazing, farming, urban development, or road constructionin riparian areas; removing large woody debris or "sinkerlogs" from streams; reducing tbe riparian shade canopy; oraltering stream channels or surface or groundwater flow).Otber activities causing harm wben they afFect waters orriparian areas supporting Cbinook salmon are: discbargingor dumping of toxic cbemicals or other pollutants (e.g.,sewage, oil, gasoline); violating discbarge permits; applyingpesticides; and introducing non-native species likely to preyon Chinook salmon or displace tbem from tbeir habitat.

However, planning agencies know little about tbelandscaping behaviors of riparian landowners (Scbauman,2000), their preferences for vegetation (Nassauer, Kosek,&: Corry, 2001), or tbeir interest in conservation activities(Hairston-Stang & Adams, 1997; Scbrader, 1994). Land-owners' motivations for and interest in conservation areinfluenced, for example, by aesthetic preferences, economicconsiderations, information, personal values, recreationalactivities, whether or not tbey reside on the land, andsocial factors (Brook, Zint, & Young, 2003). With over

85% of tbe Puget Lowland's riparian land in private bands,and large portions of its riparian corridors developed,understanding wbat factors motivate landowners or hindertbeir increasing the amount of streamside vegetation canbelp planners involve tbem in riparian conservation.

Challenges to Promoting Conservationon Private Property

Tbe explicit consideration of buman preferences andbehaviors is an important component of tbe science behindconservation policy (Vig & Kraft, 2003). Altbougb empiri-cal researcb specific to conservation practices by streamsideproperty owners is sparse, studies outside urban areas suggestfour challenges to promoting ecological conservation onprivate property:

Aesthetics: What landscapes are viHually appealingto property owners? The buman preference for aestheti-cally pleasing landscapes draws on enduring beliefs aboutwbat is socially or personally desirable and affects botbperception and cognition (Golledge, 1987). Humans makeaestbetic judgments based on perceptual stimuli or visualinformation (Esseks & Kraft, 1991; Kaplan, 2000; Kaplan& Kaplan, 1982, 1989; McLean-Meyinsse, Hui, &Josepb,1994; Nassauer et al., 2001). Preferences for views oflandscapes and forests bave been associated witb adoptingiand-conservation practices (Benson, 1991; Erickson &CDe Young, 1993). Tbe visual elements of tbe landscapemay be identified, inventoried, and described in a consis-tent taxonomy that may tben be evaluated for utility anddesirability (Scbauman, 1975).

Trust: What information sources do property ownersuse for managing their land? Trust can also affect a prop-erty owner's interest in riparian conservation. Indeed, tbelikelihood tbat landowners will follow property managementsuggestions is increased if the source of information is bighlytrusted by the property owner (Brook et al., 2003). Forexample, Korscbing &C Hoban (1990) found tbat infor-mation from a trusted source increased tbe practice of landconservation, whereas information from untrustworthysources, or lack of information altogether, tends to dis-courage conservation (Griesbop, MacMulIan, Brush,Pickel, & Zalom, 1990; Osterman & Hicks, 1988).

Barriers: What obstaoles do property owners facewhen considering chanjês lo Iheir land? Empirical studiessuggest that costs associated witb property management(McCann, 1997), maintenance time and labor (Bootb etal., 2005), and local government land use regulations(Napier, Tbraen, & Camboni, 1988) may all be barriers toconservation.

Shandas: An Empirical Study of Streamside Landowners' Interest in Riparian Conservation 175

iilliliides towarcis (MHiservaUon: Whai doproperty owners value? Personal values can also affectriparian conservation. If residents value environmentalprotection (Ryan, 1998; Vogel, 1996), ecological and envi-ronmental stewardship (Ochterski, 1996), or "preserving away of life," they will probably derive intrinsic satisfactionfrom conservation efforts, making them more likely tocooperate with efforts to manage watershed health (Brooket al., 2003; Erickson & De Young. 1993). Conversely,landowners who value property rights over the environmentare more likely to act with hostility toward outside inter-vention in land-management issues (Napier et al., 1988;Reading, Clark, &c Kellert, 1994). While personal valuesare based in historical, social, and cultural beliefs (Nassauer,1995), understanding what residents value about owningand managing streamside property can help design alterna-tive approaches for implementing conservation practices inprivately owned riparian areas.

Research Method

I developed a survey instrument that links landowners'aesthetic preferences for riparian vegetation with afore-mentioned factors hypothesized as important for managingurban riparian corridors. My subjects lived in single-familyhousing along the riparian corridors ofthe seven basinsshown in Figure 1, which ranged from rural to urban.I directed questionnaires to the primary caretaker of eachproperty. By using publicly available county tax assessors'data, high-resolution satellite data, and geographic informa-tion system (GIS) software, I identified all 667 single-familystreamside residential parcels in the seven basins I studied.I mailed each of these households the 12-page survey.Watershed residents not living along the riparian corridordid not receive a questionnaire.

I used a stated preference survey proposed by Kaplanand Kaplan (1989) containing three sections: (1) visualpreferences; (2) approach to managing urban streamsideproperty; and (3) experience of living streamside. For thesecond section in the survey I provided a set of possibleresponses drawn from the literature, as well as allowingadditional comments. Each response could be rated usinga Likert scale and the question could also be answered bychoosing a preferred response from the list, including"other" if the desired answer was not present.

In the first section, I presented participants with 28photographs, each depicting different riparian vegetation,and asked them to rate the alternatives in order of preferenceor to pick the most preferred alternative. The photographswere taken from areas in the Puget Lowland to ensure that

the river scenes would be familiar to residents. They ratedeach photograph on a Likert scale, with 1 being least pre-ferred and 10 most preferred. Each photograph fit into oneof five categories based on the amount of riparian vegetationin the scene:

•wild/mysterious (dense, multilayered canopy; little orno human alteration, category 5);

•moderately maintained (some light penetration, upper

and mid canopy intact, limited human influence,category 4);

•maintained (considerable light penetration, limited

canopy, some infrastructure, category 3);

• managed/constant maintenance required (limitedvegetation, heavy infrastructure, category 2);

• and controlled (no vegetation, heavy infrastructure,water delivery system, category 1).

I asked participants to rate 14 ofthe photographs from1 to 10 based on how much they liked each scene, and forthe remaining 14 photographs asked open-ended questionsrequesting that panicipants specifically identify what theyliked and did not like about each scene. The latter approachprovided clues about landscape features that influencepreference.

I calculated the total vegetated land cover on eachlandowner's parcel using ArcMap CIS (version 9.1) andFragstats spatial analysis software (McGarigal, Cushman,Neel, & Ene, 2002) and compared this with their pref-erences for photographs with large amounts of riparianvegetation. When aesthetic preference and observedamount of riparian vegetation did not match, I used thesecond pan ofthe survey to assess why not.

The second section ofthe survey asked a series ofquestions aimed at discovering respondents' approacbes tomanaging streamside property. These asked about whetherindividual owners had trusted sources of information onriparian property management, which sources of infor-mation they found most useful, what barriers they saw tomaking changes on their properties, and what was importantin managing their land. This added insight into any disso-nance between residents' stated preferences for riparianconservation and tbeir actual practices.

In the final section ofthe survey, property owners wereasked to describe their experience living streamside. Since thissection asked open-ended questions, I used standard qualita-tive analysis methods to develop themes in the respondents'comments (Miles & Huberman. 1994). I developedthemes using both a priori and inductive coding techniques(Strauss & Corbin 1990), developing some categories ofresponses in advance based on the conservation literature,and some based on individual responses.


Big Bear Creek

Little Bear Creek

Rock Creek

Figure 1, Puget Lowland with selected study basin locations.

Shandas: An Empirical Srudy of Streamsidc Landowners' Interest in Riparian Conservation 177

I evaluated sampling bias iti tbe survey responses bycomparing respondents and non respondents on two di-mensions: how long they bad resided at their homes andtbe values of their homes. I selected these factors based ona rich body of literature suggesting that the duration ofstay and socioeconomic status are instrumental in people'sperceptions of consetâtion issues (Armstrong & Luske,1987; Lessler & Kalsbeek, 1992). Non respondents includedall streatnside residents that received surveys but chose notto respond, as well as single-family residence (SFR) parcelsnot receiving surveys and not living streamside. I tookassessed values from county tax assessor's records, andcalculated residence titne by using the most recent sale dateof homes. I found only insignificant differences betweenthe length of residence and home value of respondents andnonrespondents, suggesting little sample selection bias.

Survey Results

Of tbe 667 streamside households that received thesurvey, a total of 272 responded, for a response rate of41%. However, of the 272 responses, I only used surveysfrom respondents who owned their properties, assumingthat renters bave a lesser stake in wbere they live and alower likelibood of participating in riparian managementprograms. While removing these responses reduced tberesponse rate to 32%, ensuring that respondents werehomeowners refined the subset of respondents, fitrtberreducing sampling bias.

Of the responses I used, 6 1 % were women and 39%men, with an average respondent age of 50 to 59 years.Half of tbe respondents bave lived in Washington State foralmost 43 years (this was the response median). On averagethey bad lived in the same location for 19.8 years. Whilethe overall response rate was 32%, response rates in theindividual watersheds varied; tbose living in the most urbanwatershed (Thornton) had the highest response rate (39%),and others ranged from 13% to 32%.

Visual PrereA majority of survey respondents preferred scenes

containing large amounts of riparian vegetation (category 5).The scores for photos in this category ranged from 7.86 to8.81, with a mean of 8.40. Respondents commented thattbe scene "looks natural" or "looks beautifiil witb so muchvegetation" or noted that it possessed other desirableamenities (e.g., habitat, protection from erosion, potentialfor salmon). Responses to streams with no riparian canopy,which were channelized, or had extensive human modifi-cation (category 1) were rated from 1.66 to 3.82, with an

overall mean of 2.20. These photographs evoked commentssuch as "looks polluted," or "no trees," or "looks dangerous."

The biggest range in preferences occurred on photoswith moderate human influence, with a mean of 2.32 forcategory 2 (minimum 1.2 and maximum 5.9) , and 3.59for category 3 (minimum 1.9 and maximum 6.6). In thesetwo categories, qualitative responses also varied. For exam-ple, in photographs with identical landscape features, manyrespondents had favorable responses (e.g., "looks like apicnic area," "well kept"), while others had less favorableresponses (e.g., "not enough trees," "lawns mean nitrogenloading into the stream"). However, Figure 2 shows thestrong positive correlation between respondents' meanpreference ratings for individual photographs and theamount of canopy shown in tbese photographs.

On average, the respondents' own land parcels were29.5% covered in vegetation. However, Figure 3 showsthat landowners' preferences for scenes with large amountsof riparian vegetation (categories 4 and 5) and the riparianvegetation on their own parcels are not correlated. Thissuggests a considerable disconnect between stated andactual preferences, and matches other findings that suggestinconsistencies between statements supporting extensiveriparian vegetation and observed behavior along ripariancorridors (Booth et al., 2005).

Approach to Managing Streamside PropertyTable 1 shows the questions and possible responses for

the second section of the survey.' Responses related to trustof information sources indicated that 17% of the respon-dents trusted local nongovernmental associations (such asthe Adopt-a-Stream Foundation) most, and 20% trusteduniversity scientists most. University extension services andwatershed groups were given as most trusted by 14% and13% of the respondents, respectively. Only 5% of therespondents cited county government as their most trustedresource, witb even fewer trusting federal (3%) and state(2%) agencies. Only about 1% each trusted the internet ornewspapers most.

Most people said newsletters were the best method forcommunicating information regarding care for streamsideproperty (39%). The second most cited method was word-of-mouth from friends, family, and neighbors (19%),followed by demonstration tours (9%), workshops (8%),and professional presentations (6%). Other respondentscited community projects (5%), watershed associations anddisplays at local fairs (4% each), and presentations at fairs(2%). The remaining 5% cited websites, television programs,and newspapers.

Respondents also reported a variety of barriets orconstraints that affect their ability to make changes in


Meanpreference

10 1-

Canupy eovera{{e

Figure 2. Respondents' mean preference ratings of photographs of riparian scenes by the canopy coverage they show.

Notes;Preferences are measured on a Likert scale, with 1 being least preferred, and 10 most preferred.The categories of canopy coverage are as follows:1. Controlled: no vegetation, heavy infrastructure, water delivery system2. Managed/constant maintenance required: limited vegetation, heavy infrastructure3. Maintained: considerable light penetration, limited canopy, some infrastructure4. Moderately maintained: some light penetration, upper and mid canopy intact, limited buman influence5. Wild/mysterious: dense, muitilayered canopy; little or no human alteration

Streamside property management. The largest proportionof respondents commented that they didn't know enoughabout caring for the stream (22%), followed by concernsthat changing their property would affect property value(20%) and cause financial burdens (17%). Other respon-dents considered fines or land use restrictions imposed bygovernment (12%), lack of labor (10%), or lack of time(8%) as barriers to implementing desired changes. Stillothers stated that changes to their property would have theundesirable requirement of participation in a governmentprogram (5%) or involvement in a local community group(3%). The least cited barriers to making changes in propertymanagement were lack of interest (2%), and landowners'satisfaction with their property (1%).

People preferred changes to their properties that wouldimprove wildlife and fish habitat (34%), protect stream

conditions for future generations (14%), improve scenicbeauty (14%) improve water quality (10%), increase prop-erty value (8%), or provide income or profit (2%). Finally,many respondents stated that their preference would be toundertake a change that would achieve a combination ofthese results (17%).

Experiences Living StreamsideThe third section of the survey asked about the experi-

ence of living along a stream. Using open-ended questions,respondents were asked to describe what they liked mostand least of living streamside. I received a total of 128open-ended responses, with all watersheds represented inthe sample. Ten themes emerged from the analysis ofcomments made by streamside residents, and are shown inTable 2.1 grouped responses by the issues they addressed,


Parrel owner'sl lor

vogetalion in photos

10

• •

-*—^-*-

"W• •

•

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% of parcel covered with vegetation

Figure 3. Parcel owners' preferences for heavy riparian vegetation {categories 4 and 5) in photos, versus actual vegetation on cheir properties.

Note:

Preferences are measured on a Likert scale, with 1 being least preferred, and 10 most preferred.

with tnany comments touching on more than one theme.The most commonly cited themes concemed attitudestowards government (32%), rules and regulations (20%),and vegetation (21%).

Comments concerning attitude towards governmentincluded several responses suggesting a general distrust ofgovernment, such as:

A few years ago we were cleaning things out of the creek(i.e., tires, garbage, etc.) and rearranging Fallen treesso the salmon could come up; a government person"happened" by and said we would be fined if we were"caught.". . . Consequently, I haven't appreciated ortrusted government agencies.

Another commented:

The only way Snohomish County would work withme is if I signed a conservation easement, but couldn't

tell me any impact on my property valueproposition to undertake with no info.

-a very scary

Comments regarding rules and regulations suggestedconsiderable frustration and confusion about recent changesto riparian land use law and activities allowed along thestream channel: "What I fear most are the increased re-strictions just because my property is on a stream." Anothersaid: "I am not in fevor of some of the government rtUesand regs on my property that I pay the taxes on and pur-chased prior to those regulations and rules [being] put intoeffect."

Several other comments were positive about vegetation,but noted that its location must also be considered, as forexample: "1 have many trees, but not on the stream bank,because it would block my view of the stream . . ." and"Snohomish County does not have a tree-retention ordi-nance. Consequently, our creek [Little Bear] is losing treesfaster than can be imagined...."


Table 1. Survey questions and responses.

Questions Possihie responses

TriiHl: Which one of rhe following sources do you trustwhen considering a property management decision?

• Nongovernmenral associations {Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, Washington Trout, etc.)

• Friends, family and/or neighbors• University of Washington extension services• University scientists or scientific journals• State government agencies• Federal government agencies• County government agencies• Industry representatives• Other

Access: Which one of the following are helpful outreach

methods in getting information to you about taking care

of your property?

• Workshop• Presentation at a conservation group meeting• Presentation at a community festival or event

• Display at a local fair/festival• Newsletter• Watershed association meeting" Demonstration tour

• Friends, family and/or neighbors• Community restoration project• Other

Barriers: What barriers or obstacles do you encounterwhen considering a change to your property?

• Don't know enough about stream care• Financial constraints• Too busy or lack of time• L.ack of labor to implement changes• Requirement of participation with a local community group

• Concerns about the effects on property value• Not interested in implementing changes• Government agency may impose fines or land use restrictions• Other

Importance: How important are each of the followingitems when you consider a change to your property?

Increase value of propertyImprove wildlife and/or fish habitatImprove water qualityImprove scenic beautyProtect property for future generationsProvide income or profitOther

Taken together, the responses from streamside residents

regarding their experiences suggest four meta-themes: con-

fusion about rules and regulations affecting residents living

streamside, disapproval of how govertiment works with

citizens to manage streams, a desire for improved stream

quality, and an astute understanding among streamside

residents of changes to their immediate natural environment.

Discussion and Recommendations

The results of this research confirmed the findings of

previous studies, that people highly prefer heavily vegetated

river scenes over those with limited vegetation or channel-

ized riparian corridors. My findings go further, however,

and identify specific barriers and constraints that may limit

the effectiveness of strategies local governments use to

conserve riparian areas on private lands.


My results suggest that the inconsistency I discoveredbetween the riparian vegetation people prefer and whatthey have on their own land may be due to three factors;difficulties accessing information about how to limit eco-logical degradation and what actions are permissible alongstreams; fears about potentially negative impacts of makingchanges to their properties (e.g., economic, aesthetic, etc.);and cost, time, and other constraints that prevent themfrom making changes. I elaborate on these below, andthen provide recommendations for improving riparianconservation strategies on privately held streamside parcels.

While information about ecological care of streamsideparcels may be available at planning offices, property ownersdon't trust information from government agencies a greatdeal, meanitig they may not consider such informationwhen making changes to streamside property. Landownerstrust their friends, family, conservation organizations, anduniversity scientists for accurate information on propertymanagement. In the short term, coordinating effortsbetween government agencies, watershed conservationgroups, university scientists, and neighborhood councilsmay be a more effective means for bringing information tostreamside property owners. Such an approach would beconsistent with research on diffusion of innovations, whichsupports disseminating information through existing socialnetworks and involving trusted peers and organizations(Rogers, 2003; West, Fly, Blahna, & Carpenter, 1988).The Cooperative State Research, Education, and ExtensionService (CSREES), an agency within the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, has successfully prompted the adoption ofagricultural innovations by using peer network groups, forexample.

In the longer run, planning agencies could begin atwo-pronged approach to building the trust of streamsideproperty owners. First, they could establish clear interpre-tations of local riparian land use ordinances. Local govern-ments might provide lists of activities that benefit streamsystems and encourage these. They could conduct mediacampaigns to reduce landowners' fears of fines or penalties,or work with local watershed councils and nongovernmen-tal organizations to clarify local riparian regulations andland use laws. Indeed, many recent changes to the ESA,including "safe harbor," "no surprises," and "candidateconservation agreements" use such approaches (Bean &Wilcove, 1997; Fisher, 1996). Although these have theircritics (Honnold, Jackson, & Lowry, 1997), this studysuggests that reducing landowners' fears of governmentregtiiatlon may be necessary to encourage desirable behaviors.

A second approach could address property owners'frustration about how others (including governmentagencies) are negatively impacting the stream system. These

Table 2. Themes mentioned by survey respondents in open-endedquestions.

Role of government:Descriptions of ot expectations about the operations of governmentagencies

s und regulations:Specific laws as they apply to streams

of nongovernmental organizations:Local nongovernmental organizations involved in activities related tostreams

Ecological knowledge:Descriptions of specific ecological phenomena

Attitude towani government:Values related to governing bodies

Informution source:Mention of the need for information

Local environmental liintory:Descriptions of specific historical events related to streams

Salmon:Mention of salmon

Vegetatiiin:Mention of plants, trees, or grass in or around streams

Stewardship:Activities related to the preservation of streams

concerns imply both a feeling of isolation from the otherstreamside residents, and a perceived inability to do any-thing about continuing degradation. Because over half theresidents in this study have lived on their streamside prop-erties for almost 20 years, it is understandable that theyhave knowledge about changes occurring to local streamconditions. Planning agencies can benefit from this uniquelocal environmental knowledge. By listening to landowners,planners can reinforce the message that streamside land-owners are respected partners in riparian conservation, andreduce their feelings of isolation. Such listening could occurthrough nontraditional public parricipatory approacheslike study circles, citizens' juries, round tables, focus groups,and collaborative watershed management efforts (Innes &Booher, 2000; Kreuger, 2000; Morgan, 1997). Theseapproaches emphasize communication across a wide varietyof stakeholder groups in a deliberative manner (Konisky &Beicrle, 2001). Unlike notice and comment proceduresand many public hearings, these innovative efforts providea forum for exchanging information. Over the long term,continued interaction with landowners could potentially

• W "


increase trust of and receptiveness to local governmentagencies.

Streamside property owners confront obstacles thatinclude cost and expected effects on property value andaesthetics when considering property management changes.Some of these constraints may be overcome by offeringcompensation for costs associated with property care. Thereis a long history of programs providing financial incentives(e.g., tax breaks, cost-sharing, public/private partnerships)for conservation on agricultural land. Similar programscould be developed for urban watersheds (McLaughlin,2004). In addition, providing information about thepositive correlation between vegetation and property valuesin riparian areas could dispel concerns about the impact ofrevegetation on property values (Lutzenhiser & Netusil,2001; Mooney & Eisgruber, 2001; Theriault, Kestens, &Rosiers, 2002; Tyrvainen & Miettinen, 2000).

Study LimitationsWhile these data reveal motivations for and interest in

tiparian conservation in urban areas, the study does haveseveral limitations. First, this is a case study of one region,and though these results are consistent with previousliterature, they tnay not be widely generalizable. Second,some survey respondents may have responded positivelyto photographs more because they looked familiar thanbecause they preferred them. One respondent said, "I likethis photograph because it looks a lot like my backyard."The majority of respondents did not explicitly state whethertheir preferences for particular photographs reflected theirlandscape preferences for their own properties or for ripariancorridors in general.

Another limitation of the study was my inability tocontrol for the location of vegetation relative to the homeon each parcel. Since a number of respondents indicatedthat their water views were important to them, a successfulstrategy would allow a satisfactory view without compromis-ing riparian vegetation. I do not have a recommendation forhow to ensure such a result.

Although my data suggest a disconnect betweenstreamside property owners' preferences for riparian vege-tation and the vegetation on their own properties, thisstudy did not determine whether parcels had lost riparianvegetation over time. Thus I cannot conclude whether ornot tbese property owners are changing their properties tomatch their views over time, or ascertain long-term riparianconservation trends for these properties.

ConclusionsIncreasing riparian vegetation in urban watersheds will

require seeing humans as an integral part of the study of eco-systems. Recent reports by the National Science Foundation(2002) and numerous scholars in the social and naturalsciences (Alberti et al., 2003; Redman, Grove, & Kuby,2004) call for including human behavior and activities inconservation research, tecognizing the interconnectednessof humans and the environment (e.g.. Marsh, 1864;Thomas, 1956; Turner et al., 1990), and understanding howhuman preferences and activities degrade the ecologicalsystems upon which we depend (Cronon, 1991).

Environmental and natural resource planners motivatedto improve the effectiveness of urban riparian conservationstrategies can use this study to better understand howstreamside property owners approach riparian conservation.It demonstrates that planners need alternative methods tomatch scientific recommendations for maintaining theecological function of riparian areas and human preferencesfor property management.

AckiiowledgciiieiitsMany people and organizations made this study possible. The authorwould especially like EO thank Marina Albcrti, Gordon Bradley, and themembers of the Urban Ecology Research Lab at the University ofWashington. The author would also like to thank Jim Karr, DerekBooth and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful editorial comments.Funding for this study was provided by the National Science Foundation'sIGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Re.search Traineeshlp)program.

Notes1. I Interpreted respondents' choices of most preferred or most challeng-ing responses and average Likert scale responses, which were consistentfor the same questions, as describing their approaches to managingstreamside property. For example, streamside property owners reportedthat they most trusted friends, family, and neighbors as providers ofinformation on how to manage their propenies, and the Likert scaleresults were also highest (4.7 out of 5) for this response.

KefercncesAlberti, M., Marzluff, J., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C , &Zumbmnnen, C. (2003). Integrating humans into ecology: Opportuni-ties and challenges for urban ecology. BioScience, 53(12), 1169-1179.Altnand, J., & Krohn, W. (1979). The position of the Bureau of LandManagement on the protection and management of riparian ecosystems.In R. Johnson & F. McCormick (Eds.). Strategies for protection andmanagement offloodpkin wetlands andother riparian ecosystems, U.S. Forest

Service General Technical Report W0-/2(pp. 259-361). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Armstrong, J. S., & Luske, E. J. (1987). Return postage in mail survey:A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51{\ 1), 233-248.


Baker, L. A. (1992). Introduction to nonpoint source pollution in theUnited States and prospects for wetland use. Ecological Engineering,1(112), 1-26.

Bean M. J., & Wilcove, D. S. (1997). The private-land problem.Conservation Biology, 110), 1-2.Benson, J. S. (1991). The effect of 200 years of European settlement onthe vegetation and Hora of New South Wales. Cunninghamia, 2(1),343-370.Booth, D. B., Karr. J. R., Schauman, S.. Konrad. C. P., Morley, S. A.,Larson. M. G., et al. (2005). Reviving urban streams: Land use, hydrol-ogy, biology, and human behavior. Journal of the American WaterResources Association, 40 {5), 1351-1364.Brook, A., Zint, M.. & Young, R. D. (2003). Landowners' responseto an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouragingconservation. Conservation Biology, I7{(j), 1638-1649.Cronon, W. (1991). Nature's metropolis: Chicago and the great West.New York: Norton.Erickson, D., & De Young, R. (1993). Management of farm woodlots:Some psychological and landscape patterns, foumal of EnvironmentalSystems, 22(3), 233-247.Esseks, J. D., & Kraft, S. E. (1991). Land user attitudes toward imple-mentation of conservation compliance farm plans. Journal of Soil andWater Conservation, 46iS\, 365-370.Fisher, E. (1996). Habitat conservation planning under the ESA: Nosurprises and the quest for certainty. University of Colorado Law Review,<J7(1). 371-405.Golledge, R. G., (1987). Environmental cognition. In D. Stokols &\. AJtman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology {^^. 131-174).New York: John Wiley & Sons.Gregory, S. V., Swanson, F. J., McKee, W. A., & Cummins, K. W.(1991). An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioSdence, 41(8),540-551.Grieshop J. I.. MacMullan, E., Brush, S., Pickel, C , & Zalom, F. G.(1990). Extending integrated pest management by public mandate: Acase study from California. Society an/il Natural Resources, 3(2), 33—51.Hairston-Strang, A. B., & Adams, P. W. (1997). Oregon's streamsiderules: Achieving public goals on private land. Journal of Forestry, 95(7),14-18.Hession, W. C, Johnson, T. E., Charles, D. F., Hart, D. D., Horwitz,R. J., Kreeger, D. A., et al. (2000). Ecological benefits of riparianreforestation in urban watersheds: Study design and preliminary results.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 63(1), 211-222.Hirsch, A., & Segelquist, C. A. (1978). Protection and management ofriparian ecosystems: Activities and views of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. In R. R.Johnson &J. McCormack (Eds.). Strategies for protec-tion and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosysterns,U.S. Eorest Service General Technical Report W0'12, (pp. 344-352).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Honnold, D., Jackson, J. A., & Lowry, S. (1997). Habitat conservationplans and the protection of habitat: Reply to Bean and Wilcove.Conservation Biology, 11(2). 297-299.Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Public participation in planning:New strategies for the 21st century. IURD Working Paper Series,WP2000-2007. Berkeley: University of California.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychologicalperspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsiblebehavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56^(3), 491-508.Kaplan, S., &c Kaplan. R. (1982). Cognition and environment: functioningin an uncertain world New York: Praeger Scientific.

Kelly, T., & Stinchfield, J. (1998). Lakeshore development patterns innortheast Minnesota: Status and trends. St. Paul, MN: MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources, Office of Management and BudgetServices.

Knopf, F. L., Johnson R. R., Rich T., Samson F. B., & Szaro, R. C.(1988). Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States.Wilson Bulletin, 100(2), 272-284.Konisky, D. M., & Beierle, T. C. (2001). Innovations in publicparticipation and environmental decision-making: Examples from theGreat Lakes region. Society and Natural Resources. 14(9), 815-826.Korsching, P. F., & Hoban, J. H. (1990). Relationships betweeninformation sources and farmers' conservation perceptions and behavior.Society and Natural Resources, 3{1), 1-10.Kreuger, R. A. (2000). Eocus groups: A practical guide fir applied research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lanfear, K. J. (Ed.). (2006). Journal of the American Water ResourcesAssociation, 42(]).Lessler, J., & Kalsbeek, K. (1992). Nonsampling error in surveys. India-napolis. IN: John Wiley & Sons.Lutzenhiser, M., & Netiisil, N. R. (2001). The effect of open spaces ona home's sale price. Contemporary Economic Policy, /i'{3), 291-298.Marsh, G. P. (1864). Man and nature. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.McCann, A. (1997). Site assessment: Protecting water quality aroundyour home. In E. R. Andrews, R. Bosmans, R. Castelnuovo, C. DuPoldt,K. Filchak, & C. Johnson (Eds.), Home-A-Syst. an environmental risk-assessment fir the home (pp. 7-14). Ithaca, NY: Northeast RegionalAgricultural Engineering Service.McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel. M. C , & Ene, E. (2002).FRAGSTA TS: Spatial pattem analysis program for categorical maps.Amherst, MA: University of Ma.ssachusetts, Amherst.McLaughlin, N. A. (2004). Increasing the tax incentives for conservationeasement donations: A responsible approach. Ecology Law Quarterly,3/(0.459-461.McLean-Meyinsse, P. E., Hui, J., & Joseph. R., (1994). An empiricalanalysis of Louisiana small farmers' involvement in the conservationreserve program, foumal ofAêultural and Applied Economies, 26(2),379-385.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:An expandedsourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mooney, S., & Eisgruber, L. M, (2001). The influence of riparianprotection measures on residential property values: The case of theOregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Journal of Real Estate Financeand Economics, 22(11?,), 273-286.Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Naiman, R. J., & Decamps, H. (1997). The ecology of interfaces;Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 25(1), 621-658.Napier, T. L.. Thraen C. S., & Camboni, S. M. (1988). Willingnessof land operators to participate in government sponsored soil erosioncontrol programs, foumal of Rural Studies, 4(4), 339-347.Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure.Landscape Ecology, 10(4), 229-237.Nassauer, J. I.. Kosek, S., & Corry. R. C. (2001). Meeting publicexpectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journalof the American Water Resources Association. 37 ((>), 1-5.National Research Council. (1992). Restoration of aquatic ecosystems.Washington, DC: National Academy Press,National Research CounciL (2002). Riparian areas: Funrtiom andstrategies for management. Washington, DC; National Academy Press.


National Science Foundation. (2002). Long-term ecological researchtwenty-year review. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://intranet.ltetnet.edu/archives/documents/repons/20_yr_reviewOchterski, J. A. (1996). Why land is protected: Motivations underlyingreal estate donations to land conservancies. Unpublished master's thesis.School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.

Osterman, D. A., & Hicks, T. J. (1988). Highly erodible land: Farmerperceptions versus actual mtzsMtcmenis. Journal of Soil and WaterConservation, -0(2), 177-182.Ozawa, C. P., & Yeakley, J. A. (2004). Keeping the gteen edge: Streamcorridor protection in the Portland metropolitan region. In C. P. Ozawa(Ed.), The Portland edge: Challenges in grotving communities {^J^. 257-279). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Petersen, R. C. (1992). The RCE: A riparian, channel, and environmen-tal inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. FreshwaterBiology, 27(2), 295-306.

Rassam G. N. (Ed.). (1997). Fisheries Magazine, 22(5).Reading, R. P., Clark, T. W., & Kdlert, S. (1994). Attitudes andknowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. SocietyNatural Resources, 7(4), 349-365.Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M., & Kuby, L. H. (2004). Integrating socialscience into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: Socialdimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of socialchange. Ecosystems, 7(1), 161-171.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion ofinnovations (5th ed.). New York:Free Press.Roth, N. E., Allan, J. D.. & Ericbon, D. L. (1996). Landscape influenceson stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. LandscapeEcology, ;;(3), 141-156.Ryan, R. L. (1998). Local perceptions and values fora Midwestern rivercorridor. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42[2), 225-237.Schrader, C. C. (1994). StreamUndprotection in agricultural landscapes:Landowner perceptions of conservation approaches. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Schauman, S. (1975). Landscape visual resource. Monticello, IL: Councilof Planning Librarians, Vance Bibliographies.Schauman, S. (2000). Human bebavior in urban riparian corridors. InP. J. Wigington, Jr. & R. L. Beschta (Eds.), American Water ResourcesAssociation proceedings: Intemational conference on riparian ecology andmanagement in multi-land use watersheds (TPS-00-2, pp. 335—340).Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. London,UK: Sage.

Swift, B. L. (1984). Status of riparian ecosystems in the United States,Water Resources Bulletin, 20(2), 223-228.Theriault, M., Kestens, Y., & Rosiers, F. D. (2002). The impaa ofmature trees on house values atid on residential location choices inQuebec City. In A. E. Rizzoli & A. J. Jakeman (Eds.), IntegratedAssessment and Decision Support: Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Meetingof the International Environmental Modeling and Software Society(pp. 472^83).Thomas, W. L. (1956). Man's role in chan^ngthe face of the earth.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Turner, B. L. II., Clark, W. C , Kates, R. W., Richards, J. F., Mathews,J, T., & Meyer, W. B. (1990). The earth as transformed by human action:Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. NewYotk: Cambridge University Press.

Tyrvainen, L., & Miettinen, A. (2000). Property prices and urbanforest amenities. Jotimal of Environmental Economics and Management,390), 205-223.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). State by state government landownership, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Retrieved August 12,2005, from http://www.census.gov/compendia/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984). Water quality standardshandbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Water Regulations and Standards.U.S. General Accounting Office. (1988). Public rangelands: Some ripar-ian areas restored but widespread improvement will be slow. Washington,DC: Author.Vig, N. J., & Kraft, M. E. (2003). Environmental policy: New directionsfor the 21st century. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.Vogel, S. (1996). Against nature: The concept of nature in criticaltheory. New York: State University of New York Press.Warner R. E. & Hendrix, K. M. (Eds.). (1984). California ripariansystems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley:University of California Press.West. P. C , Fly, M., Blahna D. J., & Carpenter, E. M. (1988). Thecommunication and diffusion of NIPF Management strategies. NorthernJournal of Applied Eorestry, 5(4), 265-270.Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Pbillips, A., & Losos, E.(1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States.BioScience, 48{8), 607-615.Zinser, C. I. (1995). Outdoor recreation: United States national parks,forests, and public lands. New York: John Wiley.

Documents

An Empirical Study of Streamside Landowners' Interest in Riparian