Landowner Perceptions of Protecting and Establishing ... - CiteSeerX

Society and Natural Resources, 17:329–342, 2004 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc. ISSN: 0894-1920 print/1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941920490278773

Landowner Perceptions of Protecting and Establishing Riparian Forests: A Qualitative Analysis DANIEL D. DUTCHER Vermont Water Resources Board Montpelier, Vermont, USA

JAMES C. FINLEY School of Forest Resources Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

A. E. LULOFF Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

J. JOHNSON Department of Sociology University of Delaware Newark, Delaware, USA While the ecological importance of riparian forests is widely recognized, identifying the best policies for reforesting privately owned stream lands also requires an understanding of societal perceptions. Forty semistructured interviews with riparian landowners in central Pennsylvania revealed a study population driven by competing considerations. On one hand, these landowners expressed a community obligation to consider the downstream consequences of their management styles. On the other, they often failed to appreciate their own contributions to water pollution and were reluctant to abandon the ordered landscapes to which they were accustomed. Possible implications of these findings are advanced. Keywords attitudes, behavior, landowners, riparian forests, values

Received 15 July 2002; accepted 23 July 2003. This study was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 8th International Symposium on Society and resource Management, Bellingham, WA. The authors gratefully acknowledge the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and editors. Address correspondence to James C. Finley, Pennsylvania Sate University, School of Forest Resources, 7 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail: fj4@ psu.edu

329

330

D. D. Dutcher et al.

Research Problem and Objectives As technology and enforcement have reduced point-source pollution, problems with nonpoint-source pollution have increased in relative importance. Nonpoint sources, primarily runoff, account for over half the water pollution in the United States ( Welsch 1991). Riparian forests help prevent polluted runoff from reaching waterways while restoring wildlife habitat to watercourses. These forests also reduce the energy and quantity of floodwaters and regulate stream geomorphology, profoundly affecting local stream habitat and downstream water quality (Lowrence et al. 1995). Initiatives at local, state, and national levels encourage increased use of riparian forests to maintain water quality (Flenner 1998; Kriz 1998; Wedel 1999). Government and nongovernment organizations have particular interest in creating and conserving riparian forests along the 111,000 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Chesapeake Bay Program 1996; Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 1997; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 1998a). Nearly the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed was forested before the arrival of European colonists, but today as much as 60% of its riparian forests have been removed or severely impaired (Palone and Todd 1997). More than a third of the Chesapeake Bay watershed lies in Pennsylvania, and over half of Pennsylvania drains into the bay, mostly through the Susquehanna River and its tributaries (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chesapeake Bay Program 1997). Despite advances in understanding the ecological importance of riparian forests among ecologists and natural-resource managers, an understanding of societal perceptions of the best policies for reforesting riparian lands is also needed. This is particularly true in the Chesapeake Bay watershed where large segments of the riparian lands are in private ownership. Effective riparian-zone management on these lands necessitates broad participation of private landowners (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 1997). Riparian forests can be effective on all types of land—agricultural, urban, commercial, and residential (Palone and Todd 1997). However, literature addressing landowner perceptions of riparian forests across land uses is limited. Little is known about the constellation of factors that influence landowner willingness to conserve and create riparian forests. Forty semistructured interviews were used to explore riparian-landowner opinions, knowledge, and willingness to participate in initiatives to protect and establish riparian forests in central Pennsylvania. These semistructured interviews were the first phase of a mixed-model research design intended to assist with the development of educational materials, incentives, and other policies for protecting and establishing riparian forests on private lands (Dutcher 2000). The 40 semistructured interviews were used to guide the development of a mail questionnaire in the study’s second phase by generating a direct understanding of the study population and hypotheses for testing. In addition, the semistructured interviews formed an independent, qualitative data set. Important themes that emerged from the semistructured interviews are presented here.

Conceptual Framework Opinion polls have shown a high level of environmental concern among a public primarily inactive in conservation matters (Stern 1992; Axelrod and Lehman 1993). Despite widespread expressions of concern about the environment, one of the few

Landowner Perceptions of Riparian Forests

331

conservation practices that Americans have adopted on a widespread basis is recycling (Axelrod and Lehman 1993). This inconsistency between expressed environmental concern and actual conservation behavior is of central theoretical importance in natural-resource sociology ( Kempton et al. 1995; Vanclay and Lawrence 1995). The dissonance between expressed environmental concern and actual environmental behavior can be understood in terms of a tension between environmental values on the one hand and conflicting factors on the other that impede the translation of those values into action (McKenzie-Mohr 2000). Barriers between environmental concern and environmental behavior often reflect structural, societal constraints, including government policies, economic forces, or inaccessible technology (Stern 1992; Kempton et al. 1995). The complexity and risks associated with making changes, competing values, lack of awareness of the consequences of extant behavior, and social expectations and norms also constrain environmental behavior (Stern 1992; Vanclay and Lawrence 1995). Prior studies of riparian landowners have shown stronger landowner support for the values or goals of riparian buffer systems than for the actual practice of riparianzone management (Hairston-Strang and Adams 1997; Schrader 1994). Riparian landowners tend to be conservation-minded but often lack access to understandable and reliable information (Johnson 1996). They may not believe that nonpoint-source water pollution is as serious as studies indicate. Compared with other riparian landowners, those who derive a higher percentage of their income from riparian lands perceive runoff pollution to be less of a problem and streamland protection less important (Schrader 1994). Factors affecting support for conservation measures on riparian lands include financial costs, the ability to control management, and confidence that the measures are based on good science (Hairston-Strang and Adams 1997). Such landowners have identified tax relief, compensation, cooperative agreements, and participation in program development as preferred policy options for influencing riparian-land management (Schrader 1994; Hairston 1996). Johnson (1996) argued that landowners do not want to damage lakes and streams and that policies for managing privately owned riparian lands must be flexible enough to allow for innovation and site-specific circumstances. The Technical Advisory Committee for Pennsylvania’s Riparian Buffer Initiative Implementation Plan issued a comprehensive report based on the input of more than 100 individuals and representatives of Pennsylvania groups that represented a range of interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 1998b). This report contained an extensive list of barriers to streamside reforestation, including: the need for farmers to maximize production; costs of planting and maintenance; fear of government control; failure to understand the need for or function of buffers; landowner uncertainty of where to go for help; lack of space or the use of stream lands for active recreation; concern that buffers harbor invasive plants or undesirable wildlife; a desire for access to streams; the value of tidiness; lack of time to establish or manage forests; interference with viewsheds; and the importance of traditional appearances and habits. A roundtable of over 60 experts who met to discuss riparian forests in Maryland reached similar conclusions (Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy Teams 1997). Poorly understood social phenomena are better framed in research that relies on multiple methods (Egan et al. 1995). Mixed-model studies combine qualitative and quantitative methods within different phases of the research project (Brewer and

332

D. D. Dutcher et al.

Hunter 1989; Creswell 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). These components are complementary because they do not share the same error and biases (Sechrest and Sidani 1995). For example, qualitative research routinely uses small samples subject to participant-observer bias. Quantitative research often lacks the contextual details necessary to interpret findings (Carey 1993). The qualitative phase of our study avoided hypothesis formulation and testing to facilitate the pragmatic discovery of phenomena that were not necessarily predetermined.1 Our procedure for conducting the semistructured interviews of riparian landowners incorporated anthropological techniques in an effort to minimize the projection of interviewer preconceptions onto the study population (Kempton et al. 1995; Fitchen 1990). Our focus was on the landscape and what it meant to landowners. We were also interested in learning how landowners saw landscapes on an emotional level. As a result, the field researcher, in dialogue with the landowner on their property, came to better understand the stories being used to describe their decision making process (cf. Finn 1998).2 The semistructured interviews were a first reconnaissance into the study population’s beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors with respect to riparian lands (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). They explored the interaction of biological and social systems—the interaction, that is, of riparian landowners and riparian ecology. As streams affect landowner behavior and landowner behavior affects streams, ‘‘Culture and biophysical attributes together create a distinctive community organizational form’’ (Field and Burch 1988, 21).

Study Design Study subjects owned property along first- through fourth-order streams in three central Pennsylvania watersheds: Standing Stone Creek and Shaver Creek in Huntingdon County and Bald Eagle Creek down to east of Milesburg in Centre County. Stream order in the watersheds of interest was determined using the Pennsylvania Atlas and Gazetteer (DeLorme 1990) and Horton’s system of classification (Hewlett 1982). Small streams were emphasized because they constitute the vast majority of stream channels in the United States (and Pennsylvania) and play a key ecological role in the larger waterways they feed (Sweeney 1993). Tax maps were used to obtain the names and addresses of each landowner along the steam segments of interest. This produced a sampling frame of approximately 800 riparian landowners. Courthouse records and aerial photographs from Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Forestry were used to identify dominant riparian land uses and whether or not a riparian forest was already in place at each riparian parcel. Riparian lands in the sampling frame were classified as crop farm, animal farm, private woodlot, commercial property, rural residence, or town residence. A protocol for conducting the semistructured interviews had been developed and pretested by the fall of 1997. Based on a random sample, stratified by land use and buffer status, the interviews began in February 1998. The last interview was completed in July 1998. The 40 interviews conducted were based on a response rate of 58%. All the interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. In addition, all but one of the properties was photographed to assist in our understanding of each contextual landscape. Landowners identified for participation in the semistructured interviews each received a personalized letter describing the study and advising that they would be

Landowner Perceptions of Riparian Forests

333

contacted for further information by telephone. Phone calls were placed about a week after the contact letter was mailed. Landowners who did not answer the phone or who did not return messages were called at different times of the day and evening on different days of the week until they were reached or until several attempts at reaching them proved unsuccessful. Landowners with unlisted numbers and those who could not be reached by telephone received a follow-up letter asking them to call the principal investigator toll-free to arrange a meeting. A written protocol for conducting the interviews served as a rough guide. It was used to keep the discussion on track, but the interviews were designed to facilitate exploration of more details and to follow the landowner’s leads into unexplored or unanticipated areas. The written protocol was designed to be completed within an hour. Although each interview was allowed to develop its own character, the interviews started with general, open-ended questions relating to land use and water quality. After 20 min to a half hour, the landowner was provided with some information on water quality and streamside forests. Materials shared with landowners included a color pie chart depicting major causes of stream pollution; it also showed the major role of nonpoint sources (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1989). While discussing the pie chart with the landowner, the interviewer explained the terms nonpoint-source and point source pollution. After discussing the pie chart, the landowner was provided an 11-by-17-inch color diagram of a streamside forest buffer (Welsch 1991). As the landowner looked at the diagram, the interviewer explained the scientific basis of riparian forest buffers. During the last part of the interview, the discussion focused on the landowner’s reactions to the information provided and to his or her policy preferences for reforesting riparian zones. As the semistructured interview came to a close, the interviewer asked a series of sociodemographic questions, which included age, education, occupation, and political affiliation. A content analysis of the semistructured interviews was performed by reviewing the transcripts of the interviews and the photographs of the riparian lands involved to identify and interpret important themes. Software packages and other techniques that translate words into numbers were avoided because the focus of the interviews was on the underlying perspectives of riparian landowners—their subjective relationships to streams and riparian lands—rather than the surface meaning of the transcripts. Following key informant methodology, analytical categories in the content analysis of the interviews were developed both a priori (deductively) and a posteriori (inductively) (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998).

Findings Major themes that emerged from the content analysis of the semistructured interviews, illustrated with direct quotations from participating landowners, follow. Flooding The owners of forested stream lands watched with quiet detachment as the stream changed from season to season and without much concern about how those changes affected their property. To them, the stream and their stream lands took care of themselves. Other landowners, as one of them said, kept track of dates by water events.

334

D. D. Dutcher et al.

When asked if they saw any disadvantages to living along a stream, owners of property with any kind of improvements in the riparian zone (including buildings, roads, bridges, lawns, crops, or pastures) almost universally mentioned high water. The prevailing stream management ideal among these landowners can best be described as the clear, straight shot. As they saw it, straight, clear stream channels kept the flood waters, and all the natural and man-made materials carried with them, moving past their property. Although ecologists emphasize the importance of large woody debris in streams (Bilby and Likens 1980), landowners feared the potential of logs to act as dams and to undercut banks by diverting stream flows. One farmer used stream fencing to fence his cattle into the riparian zone and reserved his upland areas for crops: We, and my dad always said that’s what they did years ago, built a fence up along the stream so as the cattle would have the water and to keep the brush and stuff from growing in the stream and shutting things off and running the water all over the place. So, when you’re putting the cattle up along there, why, it keeps the stream banks cleaned off and everything. So, we gotta get along and keeps them brush trimmed down every now and then that does come . . .. But we got behind on that for a while. And then some of it got ahead of us. Concern about flooding and bank stability was by no means limited to farmers. A couple in a residential neighborhood along Shaver Creek, for example, was considering planting some wild grasses near the stream. The husband explained their thinking on this plan: Before we do that, I want to make sure I have a good enough bank in there, or groove, so that the water can flow, down through there and find its way down the stream. The Value of Streams Despite concerns about flooding, almost every landowner interviewed regarded the stream as a great amenity. The stream had a major presence in their lives, and they enjoyed its company. Almost everyone interviewed thought clean water was extremely important. Landowners sometimes had a difficult time expressing themselves on this point, but many valued clean water beyond its utility. They saw a difference between appreciating water quality and taking advantage of it. Clean water was good, and a lot of reasons for why it was good were unnecessary. Community The landowners in the sample felt a powerful need to feel good about how they managed their land. They wanted to do right by the environment in their own small corners of the world. These landowners were tired of seeing people fighting over resources, passing along environmental problems, and causing pollution that begs the government to intervene. Landowners were typically disgusted by what they perceived as a general lack of community obligation in their localities. In theory, at least, the idea of a watershed community appealed to landowners as a sensible alternative to the prevailing practice of every landowner for himself.

Landowner Perceptions of Riparian Forests

335

They wanted to make sense of how they lived in relation to the natural environment. A rural residential landowner said it this way: Yeah, I don’t believe in this Band-Aid business. That has never worked in my opinion . . .. Live life the right way, and then you don’t have to stick Band-Aids on. Water Quality Many landowners did not appreciate the importance of small streams to downstream water quality and the aquatic ecosystem. When telephoned to schedule an interview, a number of landowners responded that there wasn’t a stream on their property. After being told that maps indicated a presence of a stream that may not run all year long on their land, they said they did not consider that a stream at all and that they did not think it was important enough to include in the study. With some notable exceptions, most landowners realistically indicated that the way they managed their land caused little or no harm to the stream. However, when the cumulative effects of many relatively small parcels of land were discussed, their opinions changed. One rural residential landowner said, ‘‘It takes a lot of pebbles to make a ton.’’ Landowners tended to blame others for poor water quality. Many farmers felt they unfairly received all the blame and suggested, instead, that others were at least as responsible: Well, the thing that’s wrong with this country, they blame it all on the farmers, but if you go up and down all the cottages and all the wooded, the uh hunting camps that’s along the creeks, they’re putting in more waste than we are by far. Farmers often insisted that they knew more about land stewardship and did more to protect the environment than other groups, including developers, who they saw as major contributors to stream pollution. As many farmers saw it, they got the blame because, unlike some of the others who were responsible for stream pollution, the farmers were not politically organized. A prevailing opinion among dairy farmers was that the occasional cow in the stream made little difference because the stream quickly purified itself; however, a cow standing in ‘‘a mud hole or something like that, that’s a different idea.’’ Dairy farmers who did not keep mud holes on their farms prided themselves on that piece of stewardship (see Table 1 for a description of landowner parcel characteristics for semistructured interviews). One dairy farmer whose cattle were seriously degrading a low-order stream (creating a mud hole) thought the state needed to clean up ‘‘tires and all kinds of rubbish’’ along the Juniata and Susquehanna before worrying about small streams like the one on his property. He also attributed water pollution to loggers and ‘‘a lot bigger farmers.’’ Other landowners blamed point sources for water pollution: [Interviewer] What kinds of things come to your mind when the subject of water pollution comes up?

336

D. D. Dutcher et al.

TABLE 1 Interviews

Characteristics of Parcels Owned by Participants in Semistructured Buffer status

Predominant land use

Buffer

No Buffer

Totals

Crop farm Animal farm Private woodlot Commercial property Rural residence Town residence Totals

2 2 5 1 5 1 16

3 3 0 3 8 7 24

5 5 5 4 13 8 40

[Landowner] I think we’ve got a lot of it. Yes, sir. And I think it’s coming fast. [Interviewer] What makes you say that? [Landowner] Well, there’s just too much of it. I don’t think it’s too much the individuals. It’s a lot of these big corporations and stuff. I think there’s a lot of things that ain’t right. That was the perspective of a town resident who mowed right up to the edge of the stream, which he channelized with a stone retaining wall constructed from materials harvested from the stream bottom. Despite some awareness of the effects of runoff on water quality, few landowners mentioned nutrients or sediment, which are the leading sources of surface-water impairment in the United States (Lowrence et al. 1995). Riparian Forest Buffer Systems Although most interviewees had never considered riparian-zone management, the idea of riparian forest buffer systems made sense to nearly all of them. They often understood many of the parts in a riparian forest buffer system, but had not yet integrated them into a unified concept. For instance, a number of landowners had prior knowledge of stream-bank fencing programs, but generally had associated these programs with keeping cattle away from streams rather than with allowing natural vegetation to perform its ecological functions. Several regarded the riparian buffer as another part of the strip-farming strategy. Others knew that fish and bugs benefited from a gravelly bottom without excess sediment and from the pools and riffles created by logs in the stream. Experts and the Necessity of Riparian Forests The semistructured interviews specifically explored the problem of whether disagreement in the scientific community about riparian forest buffer systems affected landowner opinions. One landowner recalled the days when the government encouraged draining and filling wetlands. He was disturbed by his perception of the government’s dramatic about-face regarding wetlands, along with the accompanying

Landowner Perceptions of Riparian Forests

337

in-your-face attitude of government agencies and environmentalists. Other landowners indicated an appreciation of the idea that science survives on arguments, and they knew that expecting complete consensus before taking action was unrealistic. Rather than scientific certainty with regard to every detail, landowners expressed a desire for credible evidence that riparian forest buffer systems were ‘‘necessary.’’ Landowners were interested in the condition of the streams running along their property, of downstream reaches, and of the Chesapeake Bay. They wanted to know what practical difference the impairment of these waters made to the environment and society. Landowners were also interested in what caused the impairment of streams and the bay, and many wanted to know what difference it made if streamside landowners maintained and created riparian forests. Respondents were not content to merely follow the advice of experts or the edicts of a government agency; they wanted to control decisions affecting their land. Although landowners sampled did not insist on scientific certainty before taking action, they were suspicious of scientists, academics, government bureaucrats, and urban environmental politics. Nothing made them more livid than their perception of outsiders either telling them what to do or acting like they knew better. Interestingly, they almost universally held foresters in high regard. This reflects the fact that the foresters they worked with were there at the landowner’s request, and helped landowners meet their objectives. Policy Preferences Government disillusioned almost everyone interviewed; this level of disillusionment increased with the level of government. For example, opinions of local government were unremarkable, whereas the federal government left almost everyone at least mildly turned off. Two farmers in the sample fenced off sizable riparian buffer strips in large part to stay away from government programs and the government regulations they saw looming (for a parallel experience in Texas, see Somma 1997). Other farmers were frustrated but seemed resigned to the pressures applied to them by the larger society. On the subject of riparian forest buffers, a full-time farmer said, ‘‘And it will come; I know it will come, but to me it’s not going to be that big a deal.’’ Most farmers expressed a profound stewardship ethic, but they complained about the government’s ‘‘idiot nitpicking,’’ and some deeply resented the overbearing tactics of bureaucrats and environmentalists. Farmers saw environmental groups engaged in actions that appeared not so much designed to protect the environment as to increase the power and visibility of environmental politics: It’s . . . all an ego thing to them. And that’s where we got to stop this ego thing. They’re not practical people . . . and I think that’s the reason people fight them. Lord God forbid if I ever had a spill or anything, but I would do everything in my power to get it cleaned up before them guys got around, because they’re nuts. And the government gave them that power . . .. I don’t object to what they do as long as they use a little more common sense. In another interview, one of this farmer’s friends and neighbors—a part-time farmer and full-time college professor—added, ‘‘The problem with a whole bunch of environmentalists is they’re flaming idealists . . .. they’re in an all or nothing mode.’’ Overall, people did not like the idea of the government meddling in the affairs of private landowners, but few held the mythic view of private-property rights

338

D. D. Dutcher et al.

(Jones et al. 1995). They thought the idea of being able to do whatever you wanted with your property without regard to anyone else was profane. Government interference to protect the environment was seen as a necessary evil. The landowners preferred that all means other than government coercion be tried to protect streamside areas, and only if that effort failed should mandatory regulations be applied. Educate first, then regulate, if necessary. Said one private-woodlot owner: ‘‘It’s harder to accept something when you’ve been stiff-fingered in the chest.’’ A retired schoolteacher who owned a vacation cabin along a tributary to Standing Stone Creek favored regulation with flexibility: ‘‘I used to tell my kids, I give you the framework, and you paint the picture.’’ Almost everyone interviewed liked the idea of tax breaks or financial incentives to encourage landowners to properly conserve riparian areas. More than one landowner said that is just the kind of thing our tax dollars should be used for, and many believed that tax breaks and incentives should be used to conserve riparian lands because everyone would profit from the improvements in the long run. A number of landowners, farmers and nonfarmers alike, argued that because of our nation’s cheap-food policy and associated price controls, incentives were especially appropriate for farmers. Landowners were interested in technical advice. One rural resident reasoned that if we have game wardens, we should also have stream wardens, not to ‘‘get in people’s faces,’’ as she put it, but to offer ‘‘professional expertise.’’ A number of landowners reported undertaking wetland or stream-bank fencing projects on their own property after seeing examples of similar projects on other properties nearby.

View of the Stream The landowners sampled liked views they were used to, which in many cases was what they grew up with. People on farms, for example, had a definite affinity for a pastoral landscape, including a meadow stream. One dairy farmer said that even though most dairy farmers now supply their cows with water from wells, he still liked the look of ‘‘the old fashioned way of when the cows go out there and stand and switch and all in the stream.’’ He said of streamside forests: ‘‘I can see where it’s probably a good program, but I don’t, I hope it never gets to everyone that all our streams have to be shut off.’’ As the connection between forests and water quality was discussed, and he was shown the picture of a riparian forest buffer system, he said: ‘‘I think this picture is a good picture.’’ He also thought that even though he had learned to love the view of a meadow stream, he could get used to the look of a forest stream, too, and think it was beautiful. Despite their heritage, other farmers expressed some resilience about their riparian landscapes. To some, it was as important to be good stewards of the land as to keep things as they always had been. This affinity for the familiar was also a powerful theme among nonfarmer landowners. Owners of private woodlots enjoyed walking through the woods and coming upon a stream as a partial reward for their efforts. Some residential landowners liked the look of the stream in its natural, forested state. Others clung dearly to their views of the stream. Even those well informed on water-quality issues did not show any serious interest in compromising their views. The sight of the stream from their porches was a cherished image of the sort found painted on the back of the eyelids just before a peaceful night’s sleep.

Landowner Perceptions of Riparian Forests

339

Tradition and Order While it was evident that the streamside forests encountered in the semistructured interviews were there mainly because they had always been there, in many cases cleared streamside areas were also there for no other reason than because they had always been there. Todd (1999) noted at the 1999 Keystone Coldwater Conference that people mow their stream lands because that is what they know, having never considered managing such lands any other way. Farmers and residential landowners alike kept riparian zones clear, at least in part, because that is what was always done. These landowners also mowed and cleared along streams because of a norm of neatness that dominated their perspective on landscape management. Some had adopted neatness as an ethic and believed that keeping riparian areas tidy was an important part of being a responsible citizen. Others did not seem to understand why they had to spend so much time hacking away at nature, but did it because of what the neighbors might think if they did not. One town resident was tired of spending so much time mowing and had thought about letting some of the lawn go wild, but she continued to mow a large riparian area because she did not want to offend the neighbors: ‘‘They like their neighborhood cut real nice and neat.’’ Ironically, this landowner said that the only thing she did not like about the stream was that it flooded her ‘‘mowing area,’’ making it soggy and lumpy and hence more difficult to mow. She was thinking of selling her house and worried that letting some of the floodplain return to forest would lower her property’s value. She said she would consider a riparian forest buffer system ‘‘if the trees were planted nicely.’’ The norm of neatness was deeply ingrained in some landowners. Even after the idea of a streamside ‘‘forest’’ was explained in some detail and a color diagram of a streamside forest that included debris and leaf litter on the forest floor was shared, some residential landowners wanted to equate ‘‘planting some trees’’ with a riparian forest buffer system. One town resident said: I wouldn’t mind planting more trees. I don’t want, I don’t think I’d like debris laying around like dead branches. I couldn’t stand that. Letting the yard return to the forest was a difficult concept for many residential landowners. Like residential landowners, farmers too inherited a tradition of keeping their land orderly: I’d like them banks mowed up and it just, you know, if you want to have pride in your place, you can’t have that kind of crap all over the place.

Conclusions and Recommendations The results of 40 semistructured interviews of riparian landowners in central Pennsylvania reflect the inconsistency between expressed environmental concern and actual conservation behavior identified by prior research. While these landowners expressed a community obligation to consider downstream consequences of their management styles, they often failed to appreciate their own contributions to water pollution and were reluctant to abandon the ordered landscapes to which they were accustomed.

340

D. D. Dutcher et al.

The findings from this study point to a number of general recommendations for developing policies and incentives for protecting and establishing riparian forests on private property. Efforts to protect and establish riparian forests must tap the competing sentiments of individualism and community that characterize riparian landowners. At the same time, riparian landowners believe in clean water and in community-based actions to protect the larger watershed. Conserving and creating riparian forests to protect water quality may be similar to recycling in that it is a type of behavior over which concerned citizens can take personal control. Combined with effective education and community consciousness, the ability of riparian landowners to responsibly manage their own stream lands may represent a foundation for public-minded individual action to protect stream ecology. An effective approach to conserving and maintaining riparian forests needs to emphasize the role of riparian forests, respect concerns and dignity of individual landowners, and use credible advisors who understand landowner needs. Initially, it might be more effective for planners and policy makers to encourage riparian landowners to develop and execute personal management plans that incorporate landowner interests than to expect landowners to buy into abstract, arbitrary goals for buffer widths and stream reaches. Readily available, nonthreatening information and assistance are essential for the many riparian landowners who would like to do right by their streams but who do not know how to change. To be successful, any effort to create and maintain riparian forests on private lands should address landowner concerns about flooding, the reluctance of many landowners to abandon the ordered landscapes to which they are accustomed, and the economic interests of farmers. Centrally administered, coercive regulations will not be well received, although a broad, flexible regulatory framework that accounts for the interests of individual landowners may be acceptable once more democratic approaches have been tried and landowners have learned more about the importance of streamside reforestation.3

Notes 1. This approach parallels the grounded theoretical framework of Glaser and Strauss (1967). We thank the anonymous reviewer for providing this linkage. 2. The quantitative phase of the study involved the use of the information from the semistructured interviews to frame questions for inclusion in a mail, multiwave survey with streamside landowners on the study stream segments. The survey response rate was 76% (for details see Dutcher 2000). 3. The findings from the 40 semistructured interviews reported here were used to guide the development of a mail survey sent to the remainder of the sampling frame. Descriptive statistics generated by the mail survey provided additional direct evidence of the study population’s perspectives, and inferential statistics were used to explain and predict relationships in the survey data. The results of the mail survey are reported by Dutcher (2000).

References Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1997. Wetland and riparian stewardship in Pennsylvania: A guide to voluntary options for landowners, local governments and organizations. Baltimore, MD. Axelrod, L. J., and D. R. Lehman. 1993. Responding to environmental concerns: What factors guide individual action? J. Environ. Psychol. 13:149–159.

Landowner Perceptions of Riparian Forests

341

Bilby, R. E., and G. E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61(5):1107–1113. Brewer, J., and A. Hunter. 1989. Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Carey, J. W. 1993. Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: Integrating cultural factors into public health. Qual. Health Res. 3(3):298–318. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1996. Final report of the riparian forest buffer panel presented to the Chesapeake Executive Council. CBP=TRS 158=96, EPA 903-R-96–015. Annapolis, MD. Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeLorme Mapping Company. 1990. Pennsylvania atlas & gazetteer, 3rd ed. Freeport, ME: DeLorme. Dutcher, D. D. 2000. Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests in central Pennsylvania. PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy Teams. 1997. Riparian forest buffers: Values and challenges for the Eastern Shore: A report summarizing a workshop presented by the three Eastern Shore strategy teams: Upper Eastern Shore, Choptank, and Lower Eastern Shore. http:==www.dnr.state.md.us=bay=tribstat= Egan, A. F., S. B. Jones, A. E. Luloff, and J. C. Finley. 1995. The value of using multiple methods: An illustration using survey, focus group, and delphi techniques. Society Nat. Resources 8:457–465. Field, D. R., and W. R. Burch, Jr. 1988. Rural sociology and the environment. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press. Finn, J. L. 1998. Tracing the veins: Of copper, culture, and community from Butte to Chuquicamata. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fitchen, J. M. 1990. How do you know what to ask if you haven’t listened first? Using anthropological methods to prepare for survey research. Rural Sociol. Spring: 15–22. Flenner, A. W. 1998. Comment, municipal riparian buffer regulations in Pennsylvania—Confronting the regulatory takings doctrine. Dickinson J. Environ. Law Policy 7(2):207–236. Hairston, A. B. 1996. Response to water protection rule changes in the Oregon Forest Practices Act: Landowner=operator opinions and streamside conditions. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University. Hairston-Strang, A. B., and P. W. Adams. 1997. Oregon’s streamside rules: Achieving public goals on private land. J. For. 95(7):14–18. Hewlett, J. D. 1982. Principles of forest hydrology. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Johnson, J. 1996. Riparian habitat: Applied research efforts in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In At the water’s edge: The science of riparian forestry, ed. S. P. Laursen, 73–75. BU-6637-S. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press. Jones, S. B., A. E. Luloff, and J. C. Finley. 1995. Another look at NIPFs: Facing our myths. J. For. 93(9):41–44. Kempton, W., J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kriz, M. 1998. Fish and foul. Natl. J. 28 February: 450–453. Lowrence, R., L. S. Altier, J. D. Newbold, R. S. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J. M. Denver, D. L. Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J. L. Robinson, R. B. Brinsfield, K. W. Staver, W. Lucas, and A. H. Todd. 1995. Chesapeake Bay program technology transfer report: Water quality functions of riparian forest buffer systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Nutrient Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program. U.S. EPA 903-R-95–004. Annapolis, MD. McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to communitybased social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56(3):543–554.

342

D. D. Dutcher et al.

Palone, R. S., and A. H. Todd, eds. 1997. Chesapeake Bay riparian handbook: A guide for establishing and maintaining riparian forest buffers.NA-TP-02–97. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1998a. Pennsylvania stream releaf: A plan for restoring and conserving buffers along Pennsylvania streams. DEP Pub. No. 3940BK-DEP2216. Harrisburg, PA. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1998b. ReLeaf, Pennsylvania riparian buffer initiative implementation plan, Report of the technical advisory committees, Final draft. DEP Pub. No. 3940-BK-DEP2215. Harrisburg, PA. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997. Keystone in the cleanup 1. Harrisburg, PA. Schrader, C. C. 1994. Streamland protection in agricultural landscapes: Landowner perceptions of conservation approaches. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Sechrest, L., and S. Sidani. 1995. Qualitative and quantitative methods: Is there an alternative? Eval. and Program Plan. 18(1):77–87. Somma, M. 1997. Institutions, ideology, and the tragedy of the commons: West Texas groundwater policy. Publius 27(1):1–13. Stern, P. C. 1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43:269–302. Sweeney, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 144:291–340. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie. 1998. Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage. Todd, A. 1999. Comments made in the Landscape Ecology breakout session at the Third Annual Keystone Coldwater Conference: Multiple Benefits of Streamside Buffers. Penn Stater Conference Hotel, State College, PA, 20 February. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Environmental progress and challenges: EPA’s update.Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Vanclay, F., and G. Lawrence. 1995. The environmental imperative: Eco-social concerns for Australian agriculture. Brisbane, Queensland: Watson-Ferguson. Wedel, K. L. 1999. Meeting the educational challenge of watershed professionals. Water Resources Impact 1(34):7–9. Welsch, D. J. 1991. Riparian forest buffers: Function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. NA-PR-07-91. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service.