Blickenderfer - Itasca Native Shoreland Buffer Incentives Program
Environmental Initiative St.Cloud, MN 2011 November 7 Mary Blickenderfer U of MN Extension Educator
Additional funding provided by Itasca County Environmental Trust Fund
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
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…
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.
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.
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%)
Focus Group More information/assistance on buffers Individual site visit by trained professional
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.)
Fourteen years of experience: Shoreland owner continuum Buffer installation overwhelming (on large frontages) Little recognition/options for those already with buffers
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***
The Lake Challenge On site shore evaluation tool Face-to-face site visit No cost, no obligation Simple Educational Follow-up assistance
The Lake Challenge (cont.) Something for everyone Immediate feedback/suggestions Owners choose Challenges
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.
Next steps... Web version of the Itasca Lake Challenge
Next steps (cont.) Further develop “program” Test program applicability to different regions? Different demographics? Different levels of lake development? Statewide use? Beyond?