Abstract
In future efforts to manage nonpoint source pollutants contributing to water quality impairments in the Great Lakes Basin, revegetating riparian zones will be a key management technique for promoting climate resiliency. Social science research on adoption of conservation management practices currently provides little insight regarding the role of intentionality in management decisions, with the result that we know little about the extent to which familiarity with historic landscape conditions on one’s property inform landowner decisions to restore or maintain riparian zones. The present study addresses this empirical gap, using data from a survey of property owners in the Pigeon River watershed of western Michigan to examine the extent to which riparian zone management decisions are informed by intentional conservation management, or by a desire to maintain a landscape consistent with the historic appearances of the property. This research identifies a substantial implementation gap between residential and agricultural landowners, with agricultural landowners in this study more likely to report using riparian buffers and describing their choices as intentional actions. Landowners who were not using riparian buffers were more likely to report a desire to maintain consistency with their memory of what has been “normal” on their property, suggesting that the ways in which riparian areas are managed over time has substantial bearing on future implementation decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2012a) Landowner willingness to implement riparian buffers in a transitioning watershed. Landsc Urban Plan 105(3):211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.011
Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2012b) Riparian landowner efficacy in an urbanizing watershed. Soc Nat Resour 25(11):1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.663066
Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2020) Thinking upstream: how do landowner attitudes affect forested riparian buffer coverage? Environ Manage 65:689–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01271-y
Armstrong A, Stedman RC, Bishop JA, Sullivan PJ (2012) What’s a stream without water? Disproportionality in headwater regions impacting water quality. Environ Manage 50(5):849–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9928-0
Bartolai AM, He L, Hurst AE, Mortsch L, Paehlke R, Scavia D (2015) Climate change as a driver of change in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Basin. J Great Lakes Res 41(1):45–58
Borin M, Passoni M, Thiene M, Tempesta T (2010) Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. Euro J Agronomy 32:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003
Carfora V, Caso D, Sparks P, Conner M (2017) Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behavior: a multi-behavior study. J Environ Psychol 53:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.001
Correll DL (1997) Buffer zones and water quality protection: general principles. In: Haycock NE, Burt TP, Goulding KWT, Pinay G (eds.) Buffer zones: their processes and potential in water projection, Proceedings of the international conference on buffer zones. Quest Environmental: Harpenden, England, pp. 7–20.
Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson J (2004) Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Soc Nat Resour 17(4):319–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490278773
Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Facts and figures about the Great Lakes. U.S. EPA, Accessed 4, May, 2020 (https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/facts-and-figures-about-great-lakes).
Fales M, Dell R, Herbert ME, Sowa SP, Asher J, O’Neil G, Doran PJ, Wickerham B (2016) Making the leap from science to implementation: strategic agricultural conservation in Michigan’s Saginaw Bay watershed. J Great Lakes Res 42:1372–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.09.010
Fizzell C (2015) Status and trends of Michigan’s wetlands: pre-European settlement to 2005. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Floress K, García de Jalón S, Church SP, Babin N, Ulrich-Schad JD, Prokopy LS (2017) Toward a theory of farmer conservation attitudes: dual interests and willingness to take action to protect water quality. J Environ Psychol 53:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.009
Genskow K, Prokopy LS (2009) Lessons learned in developing social indicators for regional water quality management. Soc Nat Resour 23(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802388961
Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol 22:959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
Ingham E, Moldenke AR, Edwards CA (2000) Soil biology primer. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA
Johnson LR, Trammell TLE, Bishop TJ, Barth J, Drzyzga S, Jantz C (2020) Squeezed from all sides: urbanization, invasive species, and climate change threaten riparian forest buffers. Sustainability 12(4):1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041448
Karnatz C, Thompson JR, Logsdon S (2019) Capture of stormwater runoff and pollutants by three types of urban best management practices. Natural Res Ecol Manag 74(5):487–499. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.487
Kenwick RA, Shammin MR, Sullivan WC (2009) Preferences for riparian buffers. Landsc Urban Plan 91:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.005
Keske CMH, Arnold P, Cross JE, Bastian CT (2021) Does conservation ethic include intergenerational bequest? A random utility model analysis of conservation easements and agricultural landowners. Rural Sociol 86(4):703–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12370
Klein LR, Hendrix WG, Lohr VI, Kaytes JB, Sayler RD, Swanson ME, Elliot WJ, Reganold JP (2015) Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscapes: lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, U.S.A. Landsc Urban Plan 134:195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.019
Lai PH, Lyons K (2011) Place-meaning and sustainable land management: motivations of Texas Hill Country landowners. Tour Geogr 13(3):360–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.570370
Lee KH, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (2003) Sediment and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian buffer. J Soil Water Conserv 58(1):1–8
Lovell ST, Sullivan WC (2006) Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United States: evidence, promise, and open questions. Agricult Ecosyst Environ 112(4):249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.002
Manstead ASR (2011) The benefits of a critical stance: a reflection on past papers on the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Br J Soc Psychol 50:366–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02043.x
Matteo M, Randhir T, Bloniarz D (2006) Watershed-scale impacts of forest buffers on water quality and runoff in urbanizing environment. J Water Resour Plann Manag 132(3):144–152. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(144)
Mullendore ND, Ulrich-Schad JD, Prokopy LS (2015) U.S. farmers’ sense of place and its relation to conservation behavior. Landsc Urban Plan 140:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.005
Nassauer JI (1997) Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In: Nassauer JI (ed) Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 67–83
Nassauer JI, Kosek SE, Corry RC (2002) Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. J Amer Water Resources Assoc 37(6):1439–1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb03650.x
Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010
Osborne LL, Kovacic DA (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29:243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.tb00761.x
Persaud A, Monaghan P, Akiwumi F, Morera MC, Ott E (2016) Landscape practices, community perceptions, and social indicators for stormwater nonpoint source pollution management. Sustain Cities Soc 27:377–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.017
PRW Advisory Committee (1997) Comprehensive nonpoint source watershed management plan. Ottawa Conservation District. Accessed 31, August, 2021 (https://ottawacd.org/pigeon-river-watershed-management-plan/).
Prokopy L, Genskow K, Asher J, Baumgart-Getz A, Bonnell JE, Broussard S, Curtis C, Floress K, McDermaid K, Power R, Wood D (2009). Designing a regional system of social indicators to evaluate nonpoint source water projects. J Extension, 47(2):1–9. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol47/iss2/1
Reimer AP, Weinkauf DK, Prokopy LS (2012) The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: an examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. J Rural Stud 28(1):118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.005
Robertson DE, Saad DA (2011) Nutrient inputs to the Laurentian Great Lakes by source and watershed estimated using SPARROW watershed models. J Am Water Resources Assoc 47(5):1011–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00574.x
Samanta A, Eanes FR, Wickerham B, Fales M, Bulla BR, Prokopy LS (2019) Communication, partnerships, and the role of social science: conservation delivery in a brave new world. Soc Nat Resour 33(7):914–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1695990
Stedman RC (2002) Toward a social psychology of place. Environ Behav 34(5):561–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001
Stein ED, Ambrose RR (2001) Landscape-scale analysis and management of cumulative impacts to riparian ecosystems: past, present, and future. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(6):1597–1614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb03663.x
Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 84(2):127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003
Sterner RW, Ostrom P, Ostrom NE, Klump JV, Steinman AD, Dreelin EA, Vander Zanden MJ, Fisk AT (2017) Grand challenges for research in the Laurentian great lakes. Limnol Oceanogr 62:2510–2523
U.S. Census Bureau (2021) Michigan state profile, population and housing. U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed 8, April, 2022 (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/michigan-population-change-between-census-decade.html).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021) Facts and figures about the Great Lakes. USEPA Accessed 31, August, 2021 (https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/facts-and-figures-about-great-lakes).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EJScreen (2018). 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-year Public Use Microdata Samples. Accessed 31, August, 2021 (https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen).
U.S. Geological Survey (2018) Agriculture – a river runs through it – the connections between agriculture and water quality. USGS Accessed 31, August, 2021 (https://www.usgs.gov/media/files/agriculture-a-river-runs-through-it-connections-between-agricultur).
Wagner MM (2008) Acceptance by knowing? The social context of urban riparian buffers as a stormwater best management practice. Soc Nat Resour 21(10):908–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802183339
Yuan Y, Bingner RL, Locke MA (2009) A review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2(3):321–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.82
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express our appreciation to GVSU undergraduate research assistants Ezra Langlois, Jacob Grimes, and Rylie Dorman for their assistance with data collection, as well as our partners at the Ottawa Conservation District and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy.
Funding
This study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through the Ottawa Conservation District (Federal Award No. C600E72719).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All co-authors contributed fully to the preparation and review of this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Ethics approval
The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of Grand Valley State University (Ethics approval number: 20-302-H).
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buday, A., Armstrong, A. Going with the flow? The role of intention in riparian zone management. Socio Ecol Pract Res 4, 71–84 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00114-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00114-w