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