The document discusses a study on the interactions between the community of Eagle River, Alaska and the Eagle River watershed. It administered a survey to understand how the community uses and values the watershed's resources and how this impacts management decisions. The survey found that residents highly value the personal, social, economic, and historical significance of the watershed. Respondents engaged in activities like hiking, camping, and fishing in the watershed and over 90% visited at least once a year. Residents preferred increasing public access and conservation over development. Current management was viewed as sufficient for development but more could be done for natural resource management. Therefore, the community of Eagle River has a strong socio-ecological relationship with the watershed

1. Eagle River,Alaska: A Socio-Ecological Perspective on an Urbanizing Watershed
The Changing Landscape
• The characteristics of a watershed help shape a community’s development, and vice versa.
• Humans depend on nature; this is fact is especially prevalent in Alaska, where a large part of
the state’s economy and culture rely heavily on its natural resources.
• A holistic management approach better serves these systems, not only from an ecological
standpoint, but also a social perspective (Poe, et.al. 2013, Robbins et. Al. 2014).
• Interactions between people and their environment are rarely static or simple; however, the
needs of both are not mutually exclusive.
• Similarly to other areas in Southcentral AK, the Eagle River watershed can impact the
community’s culture, economy, history, and character
Methods
• I distributed a survey throughout the month of March; I spent a week in Eagle River distributing
physical copies through the Eagle River Nature Center, the Chugiak/Eagle River Library, and
local businesses such as the Eagle River Alaska Club and the Eagle River Walmart.
• The survey consisted of ten questions, categorized as follows:
Current activities actively utilized by the respondent
Socio-cultural significance of the watershed
Ecological services of the watershed
Prospective management goals for the watershed
Relevance of potential socio-ecological changes on the watershed
Frequency of respondent visitation
Residency and age of the respondent
Additional commentary offered by the respondent
• Questions generally consisted of a variety of statements which respondents rated on a 4-5
point rating scale.
Survey Results
Discussion and Conclusions
• Natural resources and recreation are an important component to this watershed, as seen through management history for this area and
the results above (Municipality of Anchorage, 1993).
• A socio-ecological attitude best fits the current paradigm. Benefits derived from the watershed can be seen at a personal and communal
level. The ecological resources of this system function with the community’s development and can fit a multitde of uses, from urban housing to
wastewater services to wildlife conservation. These resources may be used differently, but they are still valued by the residents.
• This watershed is likely to remain an active part of the community. Current projects interact with the watershed directly, including the
reconstruction of the Glenn Highway bridge and the Joint-Base-Elmendorf-Richardson DiDSON sonar salmon project. Future project could include
trail maintenance near the campground and expanded hydroelectric generation in the channel with improved technology.
Nicole Warner
THE QUESTION AT HAND:
How does the community interact with the Eagle River watershed,
and how does this relationship impact management decisions?
Study Site
• 15 miles north of Anchorage on the Glenn Highway
• Watershed extends from Eagle Glacier to Knik Arm
• Community originally home to WII military families
• Development slow in 1950’s due to geologic
resources, low density of fish
• Population growth along with Anchorage; extends
into Eagle River Valley
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
personal
social
economical
historical
managed
for
community
agree
neither
agree
nor
disagree
disagree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
urban
development
land-­‐use
planning
growing
populaCon
public
access
natural
resource
conservaCon
recreaCon
area
availability
public
awareness
of
river
services
decrease
current
management
efforts
sufficient
increase
Role of watershed. The value of the watershed was presented in
four different approaches: personal value, social value, economical
value, and historical value. The number of respondents who agreed
with all statements was significantly greater than the number who
disagreed with these statements (p<0.05) and the number who
were neutral on these statements (p<0.05). Idealized management directions. Respondents answered whether the
current paradigm should increase, slightly increase, slightly decrease,
decrease, or if current management efforts were sufficient. Management
topics were divided into “developmental” (urban development, land-use
planning, and growing population) and “natural” (public access, recreation
area availability, and public awareness of river services). The number of
respondents who wanted an increase of “natural” management topics was
significantly greater than the number of respondents who wanted an
increase in “development” management actions (p<0.05). The number of
respondents who found current management efforts sufficient for
“development” management actions was significantly higher than those who
rated current management actions to be sufficient for “natural”
management actions (p<0.05).
kayaking/
raHing
13%
camping
27%
hiking
38%
fishing
13%
none
4%
other
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Important
Not
Important
0
4%
1
to
2
14%
3
to
5
29%
6
to
12
19%
13
plus
34%
Importance of services provided by the watershed. Over 90% of
residents found each service to be important for the watershed to
provide; of all services, providing hunting grounds and facilitating
urban development both displayed the largest proportion of
respondents (10%) who rated them as unimportant for the watershed
to offer.
Watershed activities reported by respondents .
The
“other”
secCon
included
winter
acCviCes
such
as
biking
and
cross-­‐country
skiing.
96%
of
respondents
acCvely
uClized
the
watershed
for
recreaCon
in
some
way.
Respondent visitation to the watershed. 96% of respondents visited the
watershed at least once; this correlates with reported activities, where 4% of
respondents did not recreationally utilize the watershed at all. A third of respondents
visited the watershed thirteen or more times a year.
A special thanks goes to Dr. Peter Fix, Dr. Chris Maio, the Friends of Eagle River Nature Center, the Eagle River Alaska Club, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This
project would not possible without their valued contributions.