Landowner perceptions of ecosystem health in upper great lakes states riparian landscapes

Principal Investigators:
Dorothy H. Anderson, Department of Forest Resources and CPSP, 612-624-2721
Pamela J. Jakes, USDA Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, 651-649-5163

Project Personnel:
Thomas Fish, Research Assistant, Forest Resources

Project Duration:
October 1996 - ongoing

Funding:
USDA Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station

Summary:
R iparian landscapes in the Upper Great Lakes states play a prominent role in defining the biophysical and sociocultural character of the region. People value riparian areas for their natural aesthetic appeal, as places for reflection and solitude, as destinations for recreation and tourism, and as source areas for extractive resource use. As transition zones between aquatic and terrestrial systems riparian areas perform important ecological and physical functions including pollutant interception and capture, storage and delivery of organic material to aquatic systems, microclimate regulation, and provision of habitat for resident and transient species. As more people choose to live and recreate in riparian areas, the potential increases for human activities to degrade riparian health and diminish performance.

Of the approximately six percent of the total land area in the continental United States that could potentially be considered riparian ecosystems, more than 70 percent of it ahs been altered for human use and estimates are that less than two percent of the original riparian land area remains in its natural condition.

In the upper great lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the US Forest Service manages seven national forests. Those seven forests represent four percent of the total landmass the Forest Service manages and they represent 41 percent of the total riparian land area under Forest Service management. In these states, nearly have of the population live in or within 5 miles of water. Regional and demographic data suggest that people will continue to choose riparian areas as locations for seasonal and permanent residences for vacation and recreation destinations. Forest Service managers for the Nicolet and Chequemegan national forests in Wisconsin are particularly concerned about the impact of humans on riparian areas in and near these forests.

Comparisons across landowner and expert groups indicate that public perceptions of human impacts differ from science-based expert opinion. We suspect that ecological literacy or the lack of it may influence landowner perceptions about the kinds of activities that significantly impact riparian areas. Two of the most damaging human activities to riparian areas are shoreline alterations and altering riparian area structure. Yet landowners rate these activities as low impacts.

The findings suggest that landowners do not always understand the relationship between what they do on the land and how that can impact the benefits they seek to derive from riparian areas. Landowners strongly support protecting fish and wildlife habitat as a means of maintaining riparian ecosystem health. Experts indicate that if landowners want to maintain habitat, they need to refrain from altering the riparian area structure. Yet landowners believe that altering riparian area structure does not have as great an impact on riparian area health as several other actions. It appears that many landowners do not understand the connection between altering riparian area structure and protecting fish and wildlife habitat. They also may not recognize some of their actions such as removing leaves from lawns or dead branches from trees as altering riparian area structure. Policymakers cannot assume that the people whose actions they are trying to influence with new policies, guidelines, or regulations understand the science behind their decisions. If they can link guidelines to the benefits that landowners value (such as, linking alterations in riparian area structure to fish and wildlife habitat), they will increase the probability that those guidelines will be adopted. Making these kinds of linkages is especially critical for voluntary guidelines.

We also suspect that landowner self-interest plays a role in landowner perception of impacts to riparian areas as a result of human activities. We found that when landowners were asked if certain activities they had engaged in on their property were problems, they said no or that the activities were slight, but not significant, problems. However, when they were asked if these same activities were problems in general in riparian areas, they said they were problems and often times they were significant problems. Landowners are not likely to alter activities they engage in if they believe the benefits they get from engaging in the activity are greater than the benefits they would get if they did not engage in the activity. Existing tools may not be as successful in altering activities on private lands engaged in for the landowners benefit at the expense of the resource as would new tools and approaches that have far reaching benefits to the landowner and others and that are designed to bring the landowner and land managing agency together as partners and cooperators in land management.

The findings are important for people developing policy and/or regulations based on the best available sciences. If the best available science says that an activity such altering riparian area structure has a significant impact on ecosystem health, then land managing agencies may want to develop voluntary management guidelines to reduce this activity. However, landowners may not follow these guidelines if they do not perceive the severity of impact of this activity at the same high level as scientific experts, or if they have a self-interest that overrides their belief about the severity of a particular activity. Knowing how landowners perceive the severity of the impacts of different activities enables those responsible for protecting, managing, and restoring riparian areas to develop policies, regulations, programs, and/or educational materials that address activities of concern to landowners while also informing them of the impacts of other activities to the functions and, ultimately, the health of these areas.

By understanding the types of human activities that most influence the different ecological functions of riparian ecosystems, landowners, resource managers, and policy makers can target their efforts toward improving specific areas of concern or reducing impacts by changing land use practices and behaviors. For example, if pollution interception and capture is of utmost concern in a watershed, the data from our regional scientific experts suggest evaluating the commercial and industrial activities that occur in the watershed, because that is where they see the greatest potential for negative impacts to this ecosystem function. If primary productivity and food-chain support is of utmost concern, then the expert study data recommend looking at measures to address impacts from agricultural practices first. For example, landowners showed the strongest support for educational programs as a way of maintaining or improving the health of riparian areas. However, regional scientific experts did not consider educational programs as effective as providing financial incentives for landowners to maintain or improve riparian ecosystem health. This finding suggests that landowners might be more willing to enlist measures to maintain or improve the riparian areas (e.g., restoring shoreline vegetation) on their own land if the financial burden to take such actions could be reduced. The finding also suggests that perhaps landowners are more likely to “see” the personal benefit of compliance, in terms of reduced economic stress, rather than the (environmental, and perhaps social) benefit of “healthy” stewardship actions in terms of reducing ecosystem stress.

Understanding how to address the differences in expert and lay people’s perceptual differences is compounded by disagreement among experts about ecosystems and ecosystem processes. In our study, experts agreed with one another when it came to identifying the activities that had the least impact on ecological functions. They also agreed in general on the three activity categories—commercial and industrial activities, agricultural activities, and altering riparian area structure—that have the most severe impact on the five ecological functions noted. But agreement was not found on other activity categories. We suspect that the reason for disagreement among experts is somewhat related to the fields of expertise our experts represented. Experts representing a broad range of disciplines were selected and the particular approach toward or understanding of riparian areas an expert brings to the table is shaped by the discipline. Ecosystems by their definition require interdisciplinary approaches if they are to be managed in a sustainable way. Experts would benefit from more interaction with one another in understanding ecological functions and processes in riparian areas. Policies, regulations, programs, and/or educational materials designed to help manage these areas should reflect the interdisciplinary nature of riparian areas.

By better understanding riparian ecosystems, resource management agencies can provide valuable information to landowners, land managers, and decision makers that can enable them to manage riparian areas in a sustainable fashion. By assessing the level of knowledge related to riparian ecosystems and the disparities in ecological literacy that exist between the lay public and experts, resource managers and applied scientists can be more prepared to make informed decisions and recommendations to sustain riparian landscapes. Transferring information about the value of riparian areas to people in the Upper Great Lakes states seems counterintuitive, given the fact that one can scarcely throw a stone and not have it land in water. The Upper Great Lakes states are all but one large riparian landscape. Yet information, even if seemingly obvious, provided often enough, and in the proper context, can be invaluable. Local projects (e.g., demonstration projects, restoration projects, interpretive programs, and public education) are needed that involve and inform the public about the diverse values of riparian ecosystems and the associated benefits that they afford people, society, the economy, and the environment. Local, state, and federal natural resource management agencies are charged with managing, protecting, and restoring riparian areas, but they are not in it alone. They have and need the support and partnership of the public and the scientific community to be successful. Knowing the level of awareness and understanding of their partners and target audience will aid them in their efforts.