Successfully reported this slideshow.

Blickenderfer - Itasca Native Shoreland Buffer Incentives Program

734 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Blickenderfer - Itasca Native Shoreland Buffer Incentives Program

  1. 1. Environmental Initiative St.Cloud, MN 2011 November 7 Mary Blickenderfer U of MN Extension Educator
  2. 2. Additional funding provided by Itasca County Environmental Trust Fund
  3. 3. Erika Rivers, MN DNRKarlyn Eckman, U of MN research fellow Michael Goldberg, Action Media Mark Hauck, MN DNR Steve Henry, Otter Tail SWCD Itasca County Itasca SWCD Itasca Master Gardeners Volunteers
  4. 4. Itasca NSBI Program Building:1. Marketing and behavior change strategies2. Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey3. Focus group of shoreland owners4. Boat-by “survey”5. Fourteen years experienceTAKE-HOME MESSAGES…
  5. 5. Marketing/behavior change strategies  Frame Message/Word choice  Peer-peer delivery most effective (dissemination)  Small incentives can be effective  Community norms/modeling  Remove barriers  Entry-level activity  Public commitmentKarlyn Eckman, personal communicationAction Media, personal communicationMcKenzie-Mohr, D. and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior.
  6. 6. KAP survey* 2/3 are SEASONAL owners Lake association is great link to owners 68% prefer native shorelines ALL want to be good stewards of their property Huge interest in fish & wildlife 40% enjoy lawn maintenance Little perception of lake trends 68% None could describe ordinances*results based upon 109 door-door and 116 mail-in survey responses of 340total 10K property owners on 5 lakes in Itasca Co.
  7. 7. KAP survey (cont.) Incentives: Detailed information and instruction (64%), technical support (51%), “how-to” workshop (48%), input on design (48%), financial support (42%), labor assistance (37%) Constraints: already have a natural shore (81%), like shore the way it is (19%), time (7%), don’t know where to start (6%), physical limitations (5%), like lawn (5%), cost (4%), too much work (4%), block view (2%)
  8. 8. Focus Group More information/assistance on buffers Individual site visit by trained professional
  9. 9. Boat-by survey Ground-truth KAP survey (many shores have buffer) Nearly all shorelines could be improved (for wildlife habitat, run-off, visual screen, etc.)
  10. 10. Fourteen years of experience:  Shoreland owner continuum  Buffer installation overwhelming (on large frontages)  Little recognition/options for those already with buffers
  11. 11. Itasca NSBI Program Local resource network Program Promotion (primarily via Lake Associations) Trained Master Gardeners conduct site visits Follow-up with requested resources Recognition of participants Data entry and management Evaluation***Local coordinator***
  12. 12. The Lake Challenge On site shore evaluation tool Face-to-face site visit No cost, no obligation Simple Educational Follow-up assistance
  13. 13. The Lake Challenge (cont.) Something for everyone Immediate feedback/suggestions Owners choose Challenges
  14. 14. KAP #2 Results* Little change in Knowledge and Attitude 25 % knew of the Lake Challenge 78% of these via lake association or neighbor 15% engaged in lake- and wildlife-friendly behavior due to Lake Challenge (buffer, citizen research, frog survey, fish sticks, etc.) Motivating factor to take Lake Challenge was opportunity to interact with professional (stewardship)* Eckman, K. 2011. Itasca NSBI Social Research Report.
  15. 15. Next steps... Web version of the Itasca Lake Challenge
  16. 16. Next steps (cont.) Further develop “program” Test program applicability to different regions? Different demographics? Different levels of lake development? Statewide use? Beyond?
  17. 17. Questions?

×