John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program
description
Transcript of John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program
![Page 1: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Success!
![Page 5: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
It was easy with 12 projects …
not so muchwith 500
![Page 6: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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.
![Page 8: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Methodology: Focus Groups• 4 focus groups throughout Minnesota• 9 questions• 7-10 participants/group• Saturation reached• Inform survey
![Page 10: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Methodology: Survey
• Behavioral variables – Attitude toward behavior
• Incentives: approaches & economic• Assessed survey respondents current
riparian land use and how that influenced responses
• Demographics
![Page 12: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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)
![Page 13: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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)
![Page 14: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Results: IBMAudience
Going 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
![Page 16: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Changes in Messaging
![Page 18: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Minimize Shoreland Impacts but Still
Enjoy the Lake
![Page 19: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Access to the LakeWhile Leaving Some for Wildlife and Water Quality
![Page 20: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Financial Considerations
![Page 21: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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 10.5Would not restore
544 21.4 26.5
Total 2049 80.6 100.0
Missing System 821 19.4
Total 2870 100.0
![Page 22: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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 14.2Would not restore 548 19.1 27.3Total 2010 70.0 100.0
Missing System 860 30.0Total 2870 100.0
![Page 23: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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%
![Page 24: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Attitude Towards Buffers and Beliefs
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta(Constant) .063 .126 .495 .621Decreasing maintenance .025 .015 .099 1.676 .095Buffers being expensive .025 .018 .096 1.344 .180Buffers being difficult to establish
.005 .018 .021 .290 .772
Decreasing geese in the yard .014 .011 .064 1.246 .214Increasing water quality -.003 .024 -.010 -.136 .892Creating habitat .088 .020 .320 4.366 .000Making it difficult to do other recreation
.022 .016 .082 1.375 .170
Improving fishing on the lake -.009 .018 -.030 -.476 .634Creating privacy .037 .016 .146 2.345 .020Harming view of the lake .008 .013 .033 .587 .557*R2=.22, F(2,11) = 8.69, p < .001
![Page 27: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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 1.23Swimming 476 3.43 1.34Boating 471 3.49 1.30Jet skiing 474 1.48 1.00Water skiing 477 2.08 1.27Citizens science 478 2.74 1.25Nature study 481 2.95 1.22
![Page 28: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.
![Page 29: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: John Hiebert MN DNR Shoreland Habitat Program](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051317/568164d2550346895dd70012/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Contact Information• John Hiebert• MNDNR Division of Fish and Wildlife• 500 Lafayette Road• St Paul MN 55155• 651-259-5212• [email protected]