Social/Decision Making Characteristics of

Landowners/Operators inHurricane Creek Pilot Watershed

 

IDNR C2000 Project: Embarras River 008-00

 

 

 

 

Godson C.Obia and Vincent P. Gutowski 

Department of Geology/Geography 

Eastern Illinois University

Acknowledgements 

We wish to thank:

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources for giving us the opportunity to assist landowners in east-central Illinois.

The C2000 Program provided funding and Doug Austin, Dave Day and Paula Martel gave significant guidance and support.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois C-U. Ms. Karyn McDermaid, Sergio Cristancho and Melinda Merrick conducted a thorough survey of landowner attitudes and opinions.

Members of the Hurricane Creek Planning Committee who gave valuable suggestions.

 

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify landowner conservation attitudes as part of an effort to assist the Hurricane Creek Pilot Watershed Planning Committee. The Pilot Watershed Program required a watershed management plan to be developed by each of the four Pilot Watersheds in the state. As part of the planning efforts, a mail survey conducted during the fall of 2001 was designed to:

> educate landowners about planning efforts in the watershed

> provide landowners an opportunity to participate

> establish baseline resource concerns and conservation attitudes

> determine landowner opinions about a hypothetical watershed management plan

> determine factors that might influence plan participation

The mean response to the survey indicated perceived moderate to serious problems of loss of family farms, eroding of riverbanks, soil erosion, invasive weed growth, and the lack of conservation funding.

The survey identified wildlife habitat, prairies and grasslands, forests/woodlands, floodplains, and rivers/streams as the desired land cover in the watershed.

Survey results showed a positive relationship between environmental problems and the need for comprehensive planning.

An interesting result of the survey was that the ranking of environmental concerns differed between landowners polled at an open meeting in 1998 and those that responded to a mail survey in 2001.

Introduction 

The Pilot Watershed Program is a joint effort of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The program is designed to provide integration of information and simplify delivery of watershed conservation programs to Illinois’ landowners. A significant part of the Pilot Watershed Program was planning, data gathering and production of watershed management plans for each of the four watersheds in the state that were selected to participate in the Pilot program. Hopefully, the Pilot Watershed Program will produce documented benefits and improve watershed management methodologies.

Landowner concerns from an open Pilot Watershed meeting in 1998.   1. Flooding 2. Erosion Control (structures) 3. Log jams and obstructions 4. Scour erosion 5. Streambank erosion 6. Future development 7. Increased incentives to retire marginal land 8. Channel capacity maintenance 9. Water quality10. Wildlife habitat preservation11. Sediment deposits12. Rural water supply and quality13. Loss of natural character14. Endangered species (impact on projects)15. Drainage16. Private property rights17. Wetlands18. Wildlife (destruction to private property) 

Landowner's and their Concerns

In January of 1999, scientists and conservation agency personnel met at a Pilot Watershed Retreat. One topic covered was the lack of knowledge about the opinions and attitudes of landholders and how their attitudes affect their behavior in regards to land stewardship activities. Issues identified included: methods of identifying various interest groups; identifying landowner groups who would be most (and least) interested in applying conservations practices; and, determining which practices were most acceptable to landowners in selected areas.

 In 2001 a comprehensive questionnaire survey was mailed

to landowners in the watershed. This survey of landowner's attitudes and opinions was developed and conducted under the supervision of Ms. Karyn McDermaid, a Senior Research Specialist in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois.

 

Landowner types responding to the 2001 conservation attitude/opinion survey. 

Landowner Type Percent Responding  Landowner/farm operator 37.5Absentee Landowner 27.5Tenant farm operator 3.8Landowner/farm operator/tenant farm operator 11.3Non-farm landowner 14.4Other 3.8

Two major landowner types responded to the survey, landowner/farm operators (38%) and absentee landowners (28%). Analysis of Variance results showed no statistical differences (p>0.05) among the responding groups, while the responses of absentee landowners, compared to those of non-absentee landowners, showed no significant differences (t 147=-1.24; p>.05) (McDermaid, 2002).

In the survey, an opportunity was given for landowners to provide, in an open question format, what they felt were important concerns in the watershed. The results are rank-order listed below. Once again, erosion and flooding are among the top issues, however productivity appears as a concern.

Concerns Number Responding

 1. Erosion 652. Productivity 293. Flooding/drainage issues 284. Wildlife conservation 265. Conservation in general 126. Water quality 77. Finances 68. Stream bank control 59. Government interventions 5

Landowner concerns from open questions in the 2001 conservation attitude/opinion

survey.

In addition to the opportunity to volunteer concerns in an open question format, survey participants were asked to rank 27 pre-selected concerns according to whether they were perceived as a serious, moderate, light or no problem in the watershed. Using this method, flooding was viewed as less of a problem than in the other surveys, soil erosion problems still ranked high, and loss of family farms appeared for the first time, and as the primary serious concern to landowners.

 

Concerns ranked from questionnaire selections in 2001 conservation attitude/opinion survey.

Scale (1) (2) (3) (4)Mean N

Loss of family farms 3.19 6.9 14.4 20.6 44.4 7.5 6.3 138Rivers with eroding banks 3.16 4.4 15.6 30.0 38.8 5.6 5.6 142Soil erosion 3.11 3.8 16.3 34.4 33.8 4.4 7.5 141Soil in streams 2.99 6.3 15.6 36.3 27.5 8.1 6.3 137Invasive weed growth 2.85 8.1 18.1 36.3 21.9 7.5 8.1 135Availability of conservation funding programs 2.84 10.6 15.6 25.0 25.0 17.5 6.3 122Loss of agricultural land to development 2.69 18.1 20.0 19.4 29.4 5.6 7.5 139Drinking water quality 2.67 15.0 22.5 23.8 24.4 8.1 6.3 137Loss of wildlife 2.61 16.9 22.5 25.0 22.5 6.9 6.3 139Economic cost of complying with land use regs. 2.60 11.9 24.4 26.9 16.3 14.4 6.3 127Pesticides in streams 2.60 11.9 28.8 23.8 19.4 10.6 5.6 134Nitrogen in streams 2.55 12.5 26.3 28.1 14.4 13.1 5.6 130Loss of natural land to development 2.49 21.3 21.9 20.6 21.3 8.8 6.3 136Nitrogen in groundwater 2.48 16.3 26.9 21.3 16.9 13.1 5.6 130Pesticides in groundwater 2.45 16.3 26.9 21.3 15.6 12.5 7.5 128Frequency of flooding 2.41 15.6 36.3 18.1 16.3 7.5 6.3 138Economic losses due to flooding 2.35 17.5 33.8 20.0 13.8 9.4 5.6 136Loss of wooded areas 2.23 28.1 23.1 18.8 14.4 9.4 6.3 135Property damage from wildlife 2.01 31.9 33.8 15.0 8.8 5.0 5.6 143Loss of agricultural land to natural land 1.96 35.6 25.0 15.0 8.8 8.8 6.9 135Solid waste disposal 1.96 35.6 25.0 13.8 9.4 9.4 6.9 134Loss of wetlands 1.95 35.6 18.8 18.1 6.9 14.4 6.3 127Liquid waste discharge 1.88 38.1 26.9 12.5 7.5 8.1 6.9 136Loss of natural land to agricultural production 1.84 37.5 26.3 15.6 4.4 10.0 6.3 134Septic tank seepage 1.83 34.4 36.3 8.8 5.6 8.8 6.3 136Contamination from livestock 1.73 45.0 24.4 15.0 3.1 5.0 7.5 140Contamination from business 1.63 50.6 20.6 12.5 3.1 5.6 7.5 139

Concern Don't Know

Percent RespondingNo

ProblemSlight

ProblemModerate Problem

Serious Problem

N/A

Attitudinal Responses 

Another part of the survey dealt with attitudes and opinions dealing with a variety of conservation topics in general. Overall, the landowners had a positive view of conservation and best management practices. The vast majority of respondents believed they should leave the land and water in better shape than when they acquired it. They also had positive attitudes towards floodplain land conservation and management.

Landowner attitudes and opinions on conservation topics.

scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Mean N

I believe in leaving the land and water in better shape than when I received it.

4.33 1.9 1.3 4.4 43.8 44.4 4.4 153

I would be willing to retire streambank areas from crop production in exchange for acreage payments.

3.87 5.0 2.5 18.1 41.3 26.3 6.9 149

Land can be managed simultaneously for commodity products, recreational opportunities, water quality, and wildlife habitat.

3.80 3.1 5.0 20.6 44.4 21.3 5.6 151

Floodplain land should act as a natural buffer or sponge to absorb flood waters.

3.76 3.8 4.4 23.8 38.8 21.9 7.5 148

Chemical inputs can maintain good soil and agricultural production into the next fifty years.

3.11 10.0 11.9 38.1 28.8 6.9 4.4 153

Filtering systems and treatment facilities are the best way to address water quality problems.

3.08 8.8 20.6 26.9 29.4 8.1 6.3 150

In fifty years, the soil will be just as productive as it is now.

3.01 10.6 23.1 26.9 25.6 10.0 3.8 154

A commitment to conservation puts the farmer at an economic disadvantage.

2.86 9.4 30.6 22.5 27.5 4.4 5.6 151

Regulations concerning the protection and enhancement of natural resources are too strict.

2.83 8.1 28.1 35.0 16.3 6.3 6.3 150

Laws or regulations are the only way that most landowners will consider water quality and wildlife habitat when they manage their land.

2.80 18.8 23.1 19.4 23.1 9.4 6.3 150

Local officials and the local water company are able to take care of any problems with drinking water quality in my watershed.

2.53 20.0 25.6 31.3 9.4 6.3 7.5 148

The way my neighbor manages his/her land has no impact on my land.

2.03 48.1 20.0 10.0 11.3 6.3 4.4 153

I can do very little to control soil erosion on my farm.

1.90 38.1 39.4 10.0 6.3 1.9 4.4 153

N / ALandowner attitudes/opinions

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Percent Responding

Disagree Unsure Agree

Economic and Environmental Attitudes 

Five questions were asked that provided respondents an opportunity to present their attitudes towards the relationship between economic and environmental factors. Overall, landowners felt that a healthy economy depends on a healthy environment, and that the environment should not be degraded for economic gains. However, most felt that cost is an important consideration when making conservation decisions

Economic/environmental attitudes of landowners.

N Disagree Neutral AgreeDon't Know

N / A

A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment.

150 7.5 10.6 75.7 2.5 3.8

Cost should be an important consideration in making decisions on preserving natural resources.

149 16.9 13.8 62.5 2.5 4.4

When managing public lands, the economic health of my watershed should be given the highest priority.

141 10.0 18.8 59.4 6.9 5.0

Sometimes it is OK to degrade the environment to promote economic development.

142 51.9 15.0 21.9 5.6 5.6

New residential development should be restricted to areas adjacent to existing residential development.

141 21.1 21.3 45.7 6.9 5.0

Percent RespondingEconomic/Environmental Attitudes

Land Cover Types Desired in the Watershed 

Landowners had an opportunity to indicate the types of land cover they preferred within the Hurricane Creek Watershed. Overall, they were satisfied with the current land cover, but would like to see a bit more prairies/grasslands and wildlife habitat in general. The greatest response was for less rural residential development.

Land cover types desired in the watershed.

Less Same MoreScale (1) (2) (3)Mean

Wildlife habitat 2.58 3.8 28.8 53.8 5.0 8.8Prairies or grasslands 2.45 3.8 36.9 39.4 7.5 12.5Forests or woodland 2.27 5.6 46.9 26.9 8.1 12.5Streams & floodplains restored to their natural state 2.27 8.1 36.3 27.5 14.4 13.8Streams that have been straightened or channeled 2.12 20.6 21.3 28.8 12.5 16.9Outdoor recreational areas 2.03 15.6 42.5 18.1 8.8 15.0Land in agricultural production 1.92 22.5 43.9 15.6 4.4 13.8Wetlands 1.85 22.5 36.3 11.9 13.1 16.3Rural residential development 1.35 56.9 18.1 5.0 7.5 12.5

Percent Responding

Land Cover Types Desired in the Watershed Don't Know

N/A

Factors Influencing Watershed Plan Adoption 

One part of the survey was dedicated to having respondents indicate which factors would influence them to participate in a hypothetical watershed management plan. Generally, landowners were most interested in the ability of the plan to reduce soil erosion and flooding, while at the same time improve water quality, and wildlife habitat. They were also concerned about the amount of cost share available. Overall, nearly 40% indicated they would participate in a similar plan, while approximately the same amount said more information was needed (McDermaid, 2002).

Factors influencing decisions to participate in a hypothetical watershed management plan.

Scale (1) (2) (3)

Mean N

The ability of the plan to reduce soil erosion.

1.59 39.4 45.6 3.1 3.8 8.1 141

The ability of the plan to improve water quality.

1.61 38.1 44.4 4.4 5.0 8.1 139

The economic cost not reimbursed by cost-share programs.

1.66 38.8 34.4 10.6 8.1 8.1 134

The ability of the plan to reduce flooding.

1.71 34.4 43.8 8.8 5.0 8.1 139

The ability of the plan to improve wildlife habitat.

1.75 33.8 41.3 11.9 5.6 7.5 139

My flexibility to change land uses as conditions warrant.

1.77 28.8 47.5 9.4 6.3 8.1 137

The sale value of my land. 1.85 32.5 31.3 20.0 7.5 8.8 134

My interests not being represented by the plan.

1.89 25.6 34.4 16.9 12.5 10.6 123

Participation in government programs. 1.90 23.1 44.4 15.0 10.0 7.5 132

The need for more management information and effort.

1.91 16.3 54.4 9.4 10.0 10.0 128

Working with government agencies. 1.93 21.9 43.8 16.3 9.4 8.8 131

Restrictions on the person who inherits my land.

1.96 28.8 26.3 25.6 10.6 8.8 129

Interference with cropping activities on adjacent land.

2.15 13.1 40.6 25.0 13.1 8.1 126

Percent RespondingFactors influencing decision to

participate in watershed management plan N / A

Don't Know

Strongly Influence

InfluenceNo

Influence

Perceived Impacts of a Watershed Plan

When asked about the impacts a watershed plan would have on the major identified concerns of landowners, agencies and the planning committee, the replies were generally positive. They felt it would increase the attractiveness, quality of life and pride in the watershed, improve drinking water quality and wildlife populations, while reducing problems with flooding, erosion and chemicals in the streams. Respondents felt the plan would have little effects on recreation and economic growth.

Decrease No Impact IncreaseScale (1) (2) (3)Mean N

Attractiveness of the watershed 2.75 4.4 9.4 58.8 18.8 8.8 116Overall quality of life in the watershed 2.75 5.0 7.5 57.5 21.9 8.1 112Pride in the watershed 2.72 4.4 11.3 56.9 19.4 8.1 116Uniqueness of the watershed 2.71 3.8 10.0 47.5 30.0 8.8 98Wildlife populations 2.66 8.1 10.0 58.1 16.3 7.5 122Drinking water quality 2.58 8.8 12.6 49.7 20.1 8.8 113Recreational opportunities 2.46 2.5 28.8 31.3 28.8 8.8 100Economic growth 2.18 6.9 32.5 16.9 34.4 9.4 90Flooding 1.30 54.4 14.4 3.8 20.6 6.9 116Nitrates entering streams 1.23 63.8 6.3 5.6 16.9 7.5 121Streambank erosion 1.22 66.3 5.6 5.6 14.4 8.1 124Pesticides entering streams 1.21 65.0 6.3 5.0 16.9 6.9 122Soil erosion 1.19 70.6 4.4 5.6 13.1 6.3 129Soil entering streams 1.19 70.6 5.0 5.0 12.5 6.9 129

Percent responding

Impact of hypothetical plan on:N / A

Don't Know

Perceived impacts of a hypothetical watershed plan.

Cost Share Attitudes 

A section of the plan that asked about the amount of cost share it would take to participate in conservation practices provides interesting information. The mean response indicated it would take approximately 80% cost share for participation. The 80% level received more responses than the 85%, 90%, or 95% level. Most said 100% cost share was needed for conservation implementation. Percentages most preferred were those that landowners were familiar with (50%, 75%, 80%), while other figures (85%, 95%), even with a higher cost share, had fewer responses. Although not a part of the survey, conversations with landowner/operators indicate continuous payments seem to be the best incentive for conservation implementation.

Percent of Cost-Share Desired

Number Responding

0 125 150 765 170 175 780 1285 290 995 1100 14

Percent cost-share desired by landowners.

Conclusions It appears that the survey had a good response rate of 37%. Resource concerns at the initial open Pilot Watershed meeting were, for the most part, reflected in the responses to open questions and selections provided in the survey.

Landowners seemed to have a positive attitude towards land stewardship and were willing to assist in conservation efforts outlined in a hypothetical watershed management plan.

A minimum of 80% cost share would be necessary for participation.

There is a need for dissemination of information and educational opportunities by agency personnel, and increasing knowledge about watershed issues may increase participation in conservation implementation.