Property owner beliefs and goals related to shoreline maintenance behaviors

Amato, Michael S.; Shaw, Bret R.; Haack, John; Moore, Colleen F.

doi:10.1080/10402381.2014.998397

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Developed lakes have less CWH due to direct removal and loss of riparian forests, with potential impacts lasting decades due to slow natural replacement (Amato et al, 2015; Elias & Meyer, 2003; Francis & Schindler, 2006; Marburg et al, 2006, 2009). We documented a significant negative lake‐level effect of LRD on CWH (see Marburg et al, 2006 for a more detailed treatment of this CWH data set).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have found that developed lakes have decreased macrophyte abundances (Radomski, 2006; Radomski & Goeman, 2001). Developed lakes also tend to have less CWH, largely due to removal by shoreline property owners (Amato et al, 2015; Jorgensen et al, 2006). This loss of CWH as predation refugia in the littoral zone can destabilize predator–prey dynamics and lead to reductions in prey fish abundance (Gaeta et al, 2014; Helmus & Sass, 2008; Sass, Kitchell, et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LRD may also decrease the productive capacity of fisheries, as suggested by reduced growth rates in bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) and largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) in developed lakes (Christensen et al, 1996). Similarly, macrophyte communities and overall abundance can be affected by boat traffic, dock shading, and shoreline maintenance practices (Amato et al, 2015; Asplund & Cook, 1997; Radomski et al, 2010). These changes in habitat quantity and quality may affect species interactions (predation and competition) and, thus, influence community composition at higher trophic levels (Gaeta et al, 2014; Werner et al, 1983; Werner & Hall, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lakeshore residential development as a driver of aquatic habitat and littoral fish communities: A cross‐system study

Perales

Zanden

2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lakeshore riparian habitats have undergone intensive residential development in many parts of the world. Lakeshore residential development (LRD) is associated with aquatic habitat loss/alteration, including altered macrophyte communities and reduced coarse woody habitat. Yet habitat‐mediated and other generalized effects of LRD on lake biotic communities are not well understood. We used two approaches to examine the relationships among LRD, habitat, and fish community in a set of 57 northern Wisconsin lakes. First, we examined how LRD affected aquatic habitat using mixed linear effects models. Second, we evaluated how LRD affected fish abundance and community structure at both whole‐lake and site‐level spatial scales using generalized linear mixed‐effects models. We found that LRD did not have a significant relationship with the total abundance (all species combined) of fish at either scale. However, there were significant species‐specific responses to LRD at the whole‐lake scale. Species abundances varied across the LRD gradient, with bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and mimic shiners (Notropis volucellus) responding positively along the gradient and walleye (Sander vitreus) having the most negative response. We also quantified site‐level habitat associations for each fish species. We found that habitat associations did not inform a species' overall response to LRD, as illustrated by species with similar responses to LRD having vastly different habitat associations. Finally, even with the inclusion of littoral habitat information in models, LRD still had significant effects on species abundances, reflecting a role of LRD in shaping littoral fish communities independent of our measure of littoral habitat alteration. Our results indicated that LRD altered littoral fish communities at the whole‐lake scale through both habitat and non‐habitat‐mediated drivers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lakeshore residential development as a driver of aquatic habitat and littoral fish communities: A cross‐system study

Perales

Zanden

2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The social indicators framework used in this paper (Genskow and Prokopy ) reflects substantial literature on factors influencing the adoption of conservation practices in agricultural settings (e.g., Nowak ; Lambert et al ; Prokopy et al ), riparian/lakeshore settings (e.g., Amato et al ; Shaw et al ), and urban areas (Brehm et al ). The context in which NPS outreach activities are conducted is critical for interpreting and acting upon evaluative information (Stough‐Hunter et al ; Thurston et al ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Social Indicators to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Outreach in Two Indiana Watersheds

Busse

Ulrich‐Schad

Crighton³

et al. 2015

Contemporary Water Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonpoint source pollution is recognized as one of the greatest threats to water quality in the United States. Outreach is one tool that can be used to help increase public awareness and motivate action towards addressing water issues. In order to create effective outreach, we must understand public perceptions of water quality, perceived barriers to implementing environmental solutions, and what types of outreach best connect with target audiences. In 2010, social indicator surveys were distributed in two watersheds in Indiana to gather baseline data on urban and agricultural residents' attitudes towards and usage of water quality conservation practices. Local watershed organizations then used various outreach methods to encourage residents to implement specific practices. In 2014, post‐project surveys were conducted in both watersheds to assess whether the outreach efforts had been effective. Even with outreach efforts, many residents still were unaware that specific water pollutants were problems in their watershed. There were, however, positive changes in overall water quality attitudes. Changes in awareness and adoption of conservation practices varied by watershed and resident type, yet generally moved in a positive direction or were unchanged. The primary barrier to practice adoption for all respondents was cost. Outreach events were generally not well attended and did little to change attendee behavior. Some outreach activities seem to be more useful than others in terms of self‐reported effectiveness while others are clearly visible to the community and may be a helpful way to raise awareness.

show abstract

“…For instance, some property owners feel that native vegetation and woody habitat impede recreation, raise safety concerns, and block views of the lake (Jorgensen et al, 2005). Lakefront property owner beliefs about the ability of lakes to withstand shoreline modification, benefit from conservation actions, and the consequences of shoreline development have been reported to be important predictors of conservation actions (Amato et al, 2015;Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006;Shaw et al, 2011). However, the same relationship was not found for formal education (Welle & Hodgson, 2011), potentially because formal education does not necessarily include lessons in ecology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lakefront Property Owners' Willingness to Accept Easements for Conservation of Water Quality and Habitat

Nohner

Lupi

Taylor

2018

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lakes provide valuable ecosystem services such as food, drinking water, and recreation, but shoreline development can degrade riparian habitats and lake ecosystems. Easement contracts for specific property rights can encourage conservation practices for enhanced water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat, yet little is known about the easement market. We surveyed inland lake shoreline property owners in Michigan to assess supply of two conservation easements (in riparian and in littoral zones) and identified property and property owner characteristics influencing potential enrollment. Respondents were significantly less likely to enroll in littoral easements if they indicated there was social pressure for manicured lawns and more likely to enroll if they had more formal education, shoreline frontage, naturally occurring riparian plants, ecological knowledge, or if the lake shoreline was more developed. Enrollment in easements in the riparian zone was significantly less likely if property owners indicated social pressure for manicured lawns, but more likely if they had more formal education, naturally occurring riparian plants, or shoreline frontage. When payments were low (<$1,000 yr−1), marginal gains in enrollment were relatively high. Some respondents may enroll in littoral (29.8% ± 2.2; mean ± SE) and riparian (24.4% ± 2.1) easements even without payment. Estimated mean willingness to accept values were $1,365 yr−1 (littoral) and $7,298 yr−1 (riparian). Targeting high‐probability property owners with large shoreline frontages, more formal education, and high riparian plant coverages and conducting education to increase ecological knowledge and change social norms could increase conservation outcomes for water quality and habitat.

show abstract

Property owner beliefs and goals related to shoreline maintenance behaviors

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Lakeshore residential development as a driver of aquatic habitat and littoral fish communities: A cross‐system study

Lakeshore residential development as a driver of aquatic habitat and littoral fish communities: A cross‐system study

Using Social Indicators to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Outreach in Two Indiana Watersheds

Lakefront Property Owners' Willingness to Accept Easements for Conservation of Water Quality and Habitat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About