You Want to Do What to Our Shoreline 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 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)

Applying the Integrative Model of Behavior Behavioral beliefs: Cost Maintenance Restriction of recreation Increase water quality Behavioral Belief Attitude towards the behavior Barriers Normative evaluations: Friends Family Neighbors Normative Belief and intention to comply Subjective norm I’m going to restore a buffer Having a buffer Efficacy Evaluation Plant ID Obtain info Buy plants Maintenance Efficacy beliefs Efficacy evaluation (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003)

Behavior Intention Matrix How to segment the audience Going to restore in the future? Have a buffer or have restored a buffer? No Yes Norms, efficacy, outcome beliefs Help reduce or overcome barriers Champions Fishbein, Yzer (2003) Using Theory to Design Health Behavior Interventions. Communication Theory 13(2) p 164-183

Have a buffer or have restored a buffer? Results: IBM Audience Going to restore in the future? Have a buffer or have restored a buffer? No Yes 1300 (51%) Norms, efficacy, outcome beliefs 540 (21%) 489 (19%) Help reduce or overcome barriers 211 (8%) Have restored and intend to restore more

Final Model Belief, Efficacy and Normative components Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T B Std. Error Beta (Constant) -1.60*** .101   -15.91 Decrease maintenance .050*** .013 .087 3.76 Increase water quality .058*** .012 .130 4.96 Be attractive .103*** .011 .243 9.03 Create habitat -.001 .015 -.041 Difficult to recreate .046*** .084 3.82 Create privacy -.028* .014 -.045 -2.00 Family -.097*** .017 -.170 -5.89 Friends .051** .016 .088 3.14 Neighbors .003 .005 .200 DNR .065*** .131 5.64 People that use the lake -.022 -.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 Lake While 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 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 2870

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 2870

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 Attitude Towards Buffers Management χ2   Not buffered Buffered P Negative attitude 282 37 30.20 < .001 Positive attitude 1101 386 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 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 .018 .096 1.344 .180 Buffers being difficult to establish .005 .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 -.030 -.476 .634 Creating privacy .037 .146 2.345 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