1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Success!

5. It was easy with 12 projects …
not so much
with 500

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. Methodology: Focus Groups
4 focus groups throughout Minnesota
9 questions
7-10 participants/group
Saturation reached
Inform survey

10. 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

11. Methodology: Survey Behavioral variables – Attitude toward behavior
Incentives: approaches & economic
Assessed survey respondents current riparian land use and how that influenced responses
Demographics

12. 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)

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Changes in Messaging

18. Minimize Shoreland Impacts but Still Enjoy the Lake

19. Access to the Lake While Leaving Some for Wildlife and Water Quality

20. Financial Considerations

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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%

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. Recreational Uses of PropertyN
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

28. 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.

29. 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

30. Contact Information
John Hiebert
MNDNR Division of Fish and Wildlife
500 Lafayette Road
St Paul MN 55155