An Empirical Study of Streamside Landowners' Interest in Riparian Conservation

Jun 02, 04:22 AM

Current Headlines: By Shandas, Vivek

The importance of riparian vegetation for aquatic habitat is well established in the ecological conservation literature, but urban planning agencies' limited understanding of landowners' motivations for, and interest in, riparian conservation has left them unable to prevent its loss along stream corridors. For this study I surveyed streamside residents in the Puget Sound Lowland to examine their perceptions of and preferences for riparian vegetation. I found that property owners' preferences do not match conditions on their own land, and my results suggested several possible causes, including: poor information about how to limit ecological degradation and what actions are permissible along streams; fears about potentially negative impacts of making changes; and cost, time, and other constraints that prevent owners from making changes.

Riparian areas (the banks of rivers, streams and ponds) perform critical ecological functions, mitigating the impacts of land-based activities on aquatic ecosystems and water resources. Riparian areas affect physical (Hession et. al., 2000; Naiman & DeCamps, 1997), chemical (Baker, 1992; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984) and biological (Gregory, Swanson, McKee, & Cummins, 1991; Petersen, 1992; Roth, Allan, & Erickson, 1996) processes occurring in stream systems. The structure and ecological function of riparian areas have provoked wide scientific interest for several decades, as witnessed by special journal issues (e.g., Hirsch & Segelquist, 1978; Lanfear, 2006; Rassan, 1997), books (e.g., National Research Council, 1992; Warner & Hendrix, 1984), and national and international meetings involving scientists, policymakers, and natural resource managers.

Regulatory mandates at the state, regional, and local levels aim to reduce losses of riparian vegetation (National Research Council, 2002). While states generally delegate these powers to local governments, several state-level regulatory programs go beyond floodplain regulation. In urban areas where riparian land is privately owned, local governments use ordinances such as minimum riparian buffer distance, "no-touch" zones, and environmentally sensitive area designations.

Due in part to continued urban development pressure, attempts to protect riparian areas have had only limited success (Ochterski, 1996; Wilcove, Rothstein, Dubow, Fillips, & Losos, 1998). Studies estimate that from two-thirds (Swift, 1984) to 95% (Knopf, Johnson, Rich, Samson, & Szaro, 1988) of riparian vegetation across the United States has been lost since the mid 20th century. In the northwest United States, about 83% of the riparian habitat is in need of extensive restoration (Almand & Krohn, 1979; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988). In a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of local riparian protection ordinances, Ozawa & Yeakley (2004) compared three different regulatory approaches in the Portland metropolitan region only to find that no ordinance by itself prevented the loss of riparian vegetation between 1990 and 1997.

This does not suggest eliminating regulations altogether; rather it indicates that regulations are but one tool for riparian protection. Since riparian areas are often developed before other properties (Kelly & Stinchfield, 1998; Zinser, 1995), and over 71% of land in the contiguous United States in private hands (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995), this study aims to protect riparian vegetation by learning more about the views of streamside property owners. Thus I surveyed streamside property owners in the Puget Sound Lowland (hereafter referred to as the Puget Lowland) to better understand how streamside landowners' motivations for, and interest in, conserving riparian vegetation might improve the effectiveness of riparian management strategies.

Protecting Puget Sound Chinook Salmon in the Puget Lowland

Decades of urban development in the Puget Lowland have affected the Puget Sound Chinook salmon by reducing quantities and quality of instream water, limiting their available food and forms of shelter, degrading streambed conditions, and hampering their ability to move between marine and inland habitats. Impacts to the habitat reduced the total population of Puget Sound Chinook and triggered an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing in 1999.

As part of the ESA listing, all federal agencies must act to conserve and recover listed species. Thus the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service must work with state, regional, and local jurisdictions to develop and implement plans to recover the Puget Sound Chinook. One approach local jurisdictions adopt is to communicate with streamside landowners that "taking" (harming) these fish can result in penalties. Activities that are considered to harm the Puget Sound Chinook salmon include any that adversely affects their habitat (e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban development, or road construction in riparian areas; removing large woody debris or "sinker logs" from streams; reducing the riparian shade canopy; or altering stream channels or surface or groundwater flow). Other activities causing harm when they affect waters or riparian areas supporting Chinook salmon are: discharging or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline); violating discharge permits; applying pesticides; and introducing non-native species likely to prey on Chinook salmon or displace them from their habitat.

However, planning agencies know little about the landscaping behaviors of riparian landowners (Schauman, 2000), their preferences for vegetation (Nassauer, Kosek, & Corry, 2001), or their interest in conservation activities (Hairston-Stang & Adams, 1997; Schrader, 1994). Landowners' motivations for and interest in conservation are influenced, for example, by aesthetic preferences, economic considerations, information, personal values, recreational activities, whether or not they reside on the land, and social factors (Brook, Zint, & Young, 2003). With over 85% of the Puget Lowland's riparian land in private hands, and large portions of its riparian corridors developed, understanding what factors motivate landowners or hinder their increasing the amount of streamside vegetation can help planners involve them in riparian conservation.

Challenges to Promoting Conservation on Private Property

The explicit consideration of human preferences and behaviors is an important component of the science behind conservation policy (Vig & Kraft, 2003). Although empirical research specific to conservation practices by streamside property owners is sparse, studies outside urban areas suggest four challenges to promoting ecological conservation on private property:

Aesthetics: What landscapes are visually appealing to property owners? The human preference for aesthetically pleasing landscapes draws on enduring beliefs about what is socially or personally desirable and affects both perception and cognition (Golledge, 1987). Humans make aesthetic judgments based on perceptual stimuli or visual information (Esseks & Kraft, 1991; Kaplan, 2000; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982, 1989; McLean-Meyinsse, Hui, & Joseph, 1994; Nassauer et al., 2001). Preferences for views of landscapes and forests have been associated with adopting land-conservation practices (Benson, 1991; Erickson & De Young, 1993). The visual elements of the landscape may be identified, inventoried, and described in a consistent taxonomy that may then be evaluated for utility and desirability (Schauman, 1975).

Trust: What information sources do property owners use for managing their land? Trust can also affect a property owner's interest in riparian conservation. Indeed, the likelihood that landowners will follow property management suggestions is increased if the source of information is highly trusted by the property owner (Brook et al., 2003). For example, Korsching & Hoban (1990) found that information from a trusted source increased the practice of land conservation, whereas information from untrustworthy sources, or lack of information altogether, tends to discourage conservation (Grieshop, MacMullan, Brush, Pickel, & Zalom, 1990; Osterman & Hicks, 1988).

Barriers: What obstacles do property owners face when considering changes to their land? Empirical studies suggest that costs associated with property management (McCann, 1997), maintenance time and labor (Booth et al., 2005), and local government land use regulations (Napier, Thraen, & Camboni, 1988) may all be barriers to conservation.

Personal attitudes towards conservation: What do property owners value? Personal values can also affect riparian conservation. If residents value environmental protection (Ryan, 1998; Vogel, 1996), ecological and environmental stewardship (Ochterski, 1996), or "preserving a way of life," they will probably derive intrinsic satisfaction from conservation efforts, making them more likely to cooperate with efforts to manage watershed health (Brook et al., 2003; Erickson & De Young, 1993). Conversely, landowners who value property rights over the environment are more likely to act with hostility to\ward outside intervention in land-management issues (Napier et al., 1988; Reading, Clark, & Kellert, 1994). While personal values are based in historical, social, and cultural beliefs (Nassauer, 1995), understanding what residents value about owning and managing streamside property can help design alternative approaches for implementing conservation practices in privately owned riparian areas.

Research Method

I developed a survey instrument that links landowners' aesthetic preferences for riparian vegetation with aforementioned factors hypothesized as important for managing urban riparian corridors. My subjects lived in single-family housing along the riparian corridors of the seven basins shown in Figure 1, which ranged from rural to urban. I directed questionnaires to the primary caretaker of each property. By using publicly available county tax assessors' data, high-resolution satellite data, and geographic information system (GIS) software, I identified all 667 single-family streamside residential parcels in the seven basins I studied. I mailed each of these households the 12-page survey. Watershed residents not living along the riparian corridor did not receive a questionnaire.

I used a stated preference survey proposed by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) containing three sections: (1) visual preferences; (2) approach to managing urban streamside property; and (3) experience of living streamside. For the second section in the survey I provided a set of possible responses drawn from the literature, as well as allowing additional comments. Each response could be rated using a Likert scale and the question could also be answered by choosing a preferred response from the list, including "other" if the desired answer was not present.

In the first section, I presented participants with 28 photographs, each depicting different riparian vegetation, and asked them to rate the alternatives in order of preference or to pick the most preferred alternative. The photographs were taken from areas in the Puget Lowland to ensure that the river scenes would be familiar to residents. They rated each photograph on a Likert scale, with 1 being least preferred and 10 most preferred. Each photograph fit into one of five categories based on the amount of riparian vegetation in the scene:

* wild/mysterious (dense, multilayered canopy; little or no human alteration, category 5);

* moderately maintained (some light penetration, upper and mid canopy intact, limited human influence, category 4);

* maintained (considerable light penetration, limited canopy, some infrastructure, category 3);

* managed/constant maintenance required (limited vegetation, heavy infrastructure, category 2);

* and controlled (no vegetation, heavy infrastructure, water delivery system, category 1).

I asked participants to rate 14 of the photographs from 1 to 10 based on how much they liked each scene, and for the remaining 14 photographs asked open-ended questions requesting that participants specifically identify what they liked and did not like about each scene. The latter approach provided clues about landscape features that influence preference.

I calculated the total vegetated land cover on each landowner's parcel using ArcMap GIS (version 9.1) and Fragstats spatial analysis software (McGarigal, Cushman, Neel, & Ene, 2002) and compared this with their preferences for photographs with large amounts of riparian vegetation. When aesthetic preference and observed amount of riparian vegetation did not match, I used the second part of the survey to assess why not.

The second section of the survey asked a series of questions aimed at discovering respondents' approaches to managing streamside property. These asked about whether individual owners had trusted sources of information on riparian property management, which sources of information they found most useful, what barriers they saw to making changes on their properties, and what was important in managing their land. This added insight into any dissonance between residents' stated preferences for riparian conservation and their actual practices.

In the final section of the survey, property owners were asked to describe their experience living streamside. Since this section asked open-ended questions, I used standard qualitative analysis methods to develop themes in the respondents' comments (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I developed themes using both a priori and inductive coding techniques (Strauss & Corbin 1990), developing some categories of responses in advance based on the conservation literature, and some based on individual responses.

I evaluated sampling bias in the survey responses by comparing respondents and nonrespondents on two dimensions: how long they had resided at their homes and the values of their homes. I selected these factors based on a rich body of literature suggesting that the duration of stay and socioeconomic status are instrumental in people's perceptions of conservation issues (Armstrong & Luske, 1987; Lessler & Kalsbeek, 1992). Nonrespondents included all streamside residents that received surveys but chose not to respond, as well as single-family residence (SFR) parcels not receiving surveys and not living streamside. I took assessed values from county tax assessor's records, and calculated residence time by using the most recent sale date of homes. I found only insignificant differences between the length of residence and home value of respondents and nonrespondents, suggesting little sample selection bias.

Survey Results

Of the 667 streamside households that received the survey, a total of 272 responded, for a response rate of 41%. However, of the 272 responses, I only used surveys from respondents who owned their properties, assuming that renters have a lesser stake in where they live and a lower likelihood of participating in riparian management programs. While removing these responses reduced the response rate to 32%, ensuring that respondents were homeowners refined the subset of respondents, further reducing sampling bias.

Of the responses I used, 61% were women and 39% men, with an average respondent age of 50 to 59 years. Half of the respondents have lived in Washington State for almost 43 years (this was the response median). On average they had lived in the same location for 19.8 years. While the overall response rate was 32%, response rates in the individual watersheds varied; those living in the most urban watershed (Thornton) had the highest response rate (39%), and others ranged from 13% to 32%.

Visual Preferences

A majority of survey respondents preferred scenes containing large amounts of riparian vegetation (category 5). The scores for photos in this category ranged from 7.86 to 8.81, with a mean of 8.40. Respondents commented that the scene "looks natural" or "looks beautiful with so much vegetation" or noted that it possessed other desirable amenities (e.g., habitat, protection from erosion, potential for salmon). Responses to streams with no riparian canopy, which were channelized, or had extensive human modification (category 1) were rated from 1.66 to 3.82, with an overall mean of 2.20. These photographs evoked comments such as "looks polluted," or "no trees," or "looks dangerous."

The biggest range in preferences occurred on photos with moderate human influence, with a mean of 2.32 for category 2 (minimum 1.2 and maximum 5.9) , and 3.59 for category 3 (minimum 1.9 and maximum 6.6). In these two categories, qualitative responses also varied. For example, in photographs with identical landscape features, many respondents had favorable responses (e.g., "looks like a picnic area," "well kept"), while others had less favorable responses (e.g., "not enough trees," "lawns mean nitrogen loading into the stream"). However, Figure 2 shows the strong positive correlation between respondents' mean preference ratings for individual photographs and the amount of canopy shown in these photographs.

On average, the respondents' own land parcels were 29.5% covered in vegetation. However, Figure 3 shows that landowners' preferences for scenes with large amounts of riparian vegetation (categories 4 and 5) and the riparian vegetation on their own parcels are not correlated. This suggests a considerable disconnect between stated and actual preferences, and matches other findings that suggest inconsistencies between statements supporting extensive riparian vegetation and observed behavior along riparian corridors (Booth et al., 2005).

Approach to Managing Streamside Property

Table 1 shows the questions and possible responses for the second section of the survey.1 Responses related to trust of information sources indicated that 17% of the respondents trusted local nongovernmental associations (such as the Adopt-a-Stream Foundation) most, and 20% trusted university scientists most. University extension services and watershed groups were given as most trusted by 14% and 13% of the respondents, respectively. Only 5% of the respondents cited county government as their most trusted resource, with even fewer trusting federal (3%) and state (2%) agencies. Only about 1% each trusted the internet or newspapers most.

Most people said newsletters were the best method for communicating information regarding care for Streamside property (39%). The second most cited method was word-of-mouth from friends, family, and neighbors (19%), followed by demonstration tours (9%), workshops (8%), and professional presentations (6%). Other respondents cited community projects (5%), watershed associations and displays at local fairs (4% each), and presentations at fairs (2%). The remaining 5% cited websites, television programs, and newspapers.

Respondents also reported a variety of barriers or constraints that affect their ability to make changes in streamside property management. The largest proportion of respondents commented that they didn't know enough about caring for t\he stream (22%), followed by concerns that changing their property would affect property value (20%) and cause financial burdens (17%). Other respondents considered fines or land use restrictions imposed by government (12%), lack of labor (10%), or lack of time (8%) as barriers to implementing desired changes. Still others stated that changes to their property would have the undesirable requirement of participation in a government program (5%) or involvement in a local community group (3%). The least cited barriers to making changes in property management were lack of interest (2%), and landowners' satisfaction with their property (1%).

People preferred changes to their properties that would improve wildlife and fish habitat (34%), protect stream conditions for future generations (14%), improve scenic beauty (14%) improve water quality (10%), increase property value (8%), or provide income or profit (2%). Finally, many respondents stated that their preference would be to undertake a change that would achieve a combination of these results (17%).

Experiences Living Streamside

The third section of the survey asked about the experience of living along a stream. Using open-ended questions, respondents were asked to describe what they liked most and least of living streamside. I received a total of 128 open-ended responses, with all watersheds represented in the sample. Ten themes emerged from the analysis of comments made by streamside residents, and are shown in Table 2.1 grouped responses by the issues they addressed, with many comments touching on more than one theme. The most commonly cited themes concerned attitudes towards government (32%), rules and regulations (20%), and vegetation (21%).

Comments concerning attitude towards government included several responses suggesting a general distrust of government, such as:

A few years ago we were cleaning things out of the creek (i.e., tires, garbage, etc.) and rearranging fallen trees so the salmon could come up; a government person "happened" by and said we would be fined if we were "caught.". . . Consequently, I haven't appreciated or trusted government agencies.

Another commented:

The only way Snohomish County would work with me is if I signed a conservation easement, but couldn't tell me any impact on my property value-a very scary proposition to undertake with no info.

Comments regarding rules and regulations suggested considerable frustration and confusion about recent changes to riparian land use law and activities allowed along the stream channel: "What I fear most are the increased restrictions just because my property is on a stream." Another said: "I am not in favor of some of the government rules and regs on my property that I pay the taxes on and purchased prior to those regulations and rules [being] put into effect."

Several other comments were positive about vegetation, but noted that its location must also be considered, as for example: "I have many trees, but not on the stream bank, because it would block my view of the stream ..." and "Snohomish County does not have a tree- retention ordinance. Consequently, our creek [Little Bear] is losing trees faster than can be imagined...."

Taken together, the responses from streamside residents regarding their experiences suggest four meta-themes: confusion about rules and regulations affecting residents living streamside, disapproval of how government works with citizens to manage streams, a desire for improved stream quality, and an astute understanding among streamside residents of changes to their immediate natural environment.

Discussion and Recommendations

The results of this research confirmed the findings of previous studies, that people highly prefer heavily vegetated river scenes over those with limited vegetation or channelized riparian corridors. My findings go further, however, and identify specific barriers and constraints that may limit the effectiveness of strategies local governments use to conserve riparian areas on private lands.

My results suggest that the inconsistency I discovered between the riparian vegetation people prefer and what they have on their own land may be due to three factors: difficulties accessing information about how to limit ecological degradation and what actions are permissible along streams; fears about potentially negative impacts of making changes to their properties (e.g., economic, aesthetic, etc.); and cost, time, and other constraints that prevent them from making changes. I elaborate on these below, and then provide recommendations for improving riparian conservation strategies on privately held streamside parcels.

While information about ecological care of streamside parcels may be available at planning offices, property owners don't trust information from government agencies a great deal, meaning they may not consider such information when making changes to streamside property. Landowners trust their friends, family, conservation organizations, and university scientists for accurate information on property management. In the short term, coordinating efforts between government agencies, watershed conservation groups, university scientists, and neighborhood councils may be a more effective means for bringing information to streamside property owners. Such an approach would be consistent with research on diffusion of innovations, which supports disseminating information through existing social networks and involving trusted peers and organizations (Rogers, 2003; West, Fly, Blahna, & Carpenter, 1988). The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has successfully prompted the adoption of agricultural innovations by using peer network groups, for example.

In the longer run, planning agencies could begin a two-pronged approach to building the trust of streamside property owners. First, they could establish clear interpretations of local riparian land use ordinances. Local governments might provide lists of activities that benefit stream systems and encourage these. They could conduct media campaigns to reduce landowners' fears of fines or penalties, or work with local watershed councils and nongovernmental organizations to clarify local riparian regulations and land use laws. Indeed, many recent changes to the ESA, including "safe harbor," "no surprises," and "candidate conservation agreements" use such approaches (Bean & Wilcove, 1997; Fisher, 1996). Although these have their critics (Honnold, Jackson, & Lowry, 1997), this study suggests that reducing landowners' fears of government regulation may be necessary to encourage desirable behaviors.

A second approach could address property owners' frustration about how others (including government agencies) are negatively impacting the stream system. These concerns imply both a feeling of isolation from the other streamside residents, and a perceived inability to do anything about continuing degradation. Because over half the residents in this study have lived on their streamside properties for almost 20 years, it is understandable that they have knowledge about changes occurring to local stream conditions. Planning agencies can benefit from this unique local environmental knowledge. By listening to landowners, planners can reinforce the message that streamside landowners are respected partners in riparian conservation, and reduce their feelings of isolation. Such listening could occur through nontraditional public participatory approaches like study circles, citizens' juries, round tables, focus groups, and collaborative watershed management efforts (Innes & Booher, 2000; Kreuger, 2000; Morgan, 1997). These approaches emphasize communication across a wide variety of stakeholder groups in a deliberative manner (Konisky & Beierle, 2001). Unlike notice and comment procedures and many public hearings, these innovative efforts provide a forum for exchanging information. Over the long term, continued interaction with landowners could potentially increase trust of and receptiveness to local government agencies.

Streamside property owners confront obstacles that include cost and expected effects on property value and aesthetics when considering property management changes. Some of these constraints may be overcome by offering compensation for costs associated with property care. There is a long history of programs providing financial incentives (e.g., tax breaks, cost-sharing, public/ private partnerships) for conservation on agricultural land. Similar programs could be developed for urban watersheds (McLaughlin, 2004). In addition, providing information about the positive correlation between vegetation and property values in riparian areas could dispel concerns about the impact of revegetation on property values (Lutzenhiser & Netusil, 2001; Mooney & Eisgruber, 2001; Theriault, Kestens, & Rosiers, 2002; Tyrvainen & Miettinen, 2000).

Study Limitations

While these data reveal motivations for and interest in riparian conservation in urban areas, the study does have several limitations. First, this is a case study of one region, and though these results are consistent with previous literature, they may not be widely generalizable. Second, some survey respondents may have responded positively to photographs more because they looked familiar than because they preferred them. One respondent said, "I like this photograph because it looks a lot like my backyard." The majority of respondents did not explicitly state whether their preferences for particular photographs reflected their landscape preferences for their own properties or for riparian corridors in general.

Another limitation of the study was my inability to control for the location of vegetation relative to the home on each parcel. Since a number of respondents indicated that their water views were important to them, a successful strategy would allo\w a satisfactory view without compromising riparian vegetation. I do not have a recommendation for how to ensure such a result.

Although my data suggest a disconnect between streamside property owners' preferences for riparian vegetation and the vegetation on their own properties, this study did not determine whether parcels had lost riparian vegetation over time. Thus I cannot conclude whether or not these property owners are changing their properties to match their views over time, or ascertain long-term riparian conservation trends for these properties.

Conclusions

Increasing riparian vegetation in urban watersheds will require seeing humans as an integral part of the study of ecosystems. Recent reports by the National Science Foundation (2002) and numerous scholars in the social and natural sciences (Alberti et al., 2003; Redman, Grove, & Kuby, 2004) call for including human behavior and activities in conservation research, recognizing the interconnectedness of humans and the environment (e.g., Marsh, 1864; Thomas, 1956; Turner et al., 1990), and understanding how human preferences and activities degrade the ecological systems upon which we depend (Cronon, 1991).

Environmental and natural resource planners motivated to improve the effectiveness of urban riparian conservation strategies can use this study to better understand how streamside property owners approach riparian conservation. It demonstrates that planners need alternative methods to match scientific recommendations for maintaining the ecological function of riparian areas and human preferences for property management.

Acknowledgements

Many people and organizations made this study possible. The author would especially like to thank Marina Alberti, Gordon Bradley, and the members of the Urban Ecology Research Lab at the University of Washington. The author would also like to thank Jim Karr, Derek Booth and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful editorial comments. Funding for this study was provided by the National Science Foundation's IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship) program.

Notes

1. I interpreted respondents' choices of most preferred or most challenging responses and average Likert scale responses, which were consistent for the same questions, as describing their approaches to managing streamside property. For example, streamside property owners reported that they most trusted friends, family, and neighbors as providers of information on how to manage their properties, and the Likert scale results were also highest (4.7 out of 5) for this response.

References

Alberti, M., Marzluff, J., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., & Zumbrunnen, C. (2003). Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for urban ecology. BioSdence, 53(12), 1169-1179.

Almand, J., & Krohn, W. (1979). The position of the Bureau of Land Management on the protection and management of riparian ecosystems. In R. Johnson & F. McCormick (Eds.), Strategies for protection and management offloodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report WO-12 (pp. 259-361). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Armstrong, J. S., & Luske, E. J. (1987). Return postage in mail survey: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51 (11), 233- 248.

Baker, L. A. (1992). Introduction to nonpoint source pollution in the United States and prospects for wetland use. Ecological Engineering, 1(1/2), 1-26.

Bean M. J., & Wilcove, D. S. (1997). The private-land problem. Conservation Biology, 11(3), 1-2.

Benson, J. S. (1991). The effect of 200 years of European settlement on the vegetation and flora of New South Wales. Cunninghamia, 2(1), 343-370.

Booth, D. B., Karr, J. R., Schauman, S., Konrad, C. P., Morley, S. A., Larson, M. G., et al. (2005). Reviving urban streams: Land use, hydrology, biology, and human behavior. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40(5), 1351-1364.

Brook, A., Zint, M., & Young, R. D. (2003). Landowners' response to an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1638-1649.

Cronon, W. (1991). Nature's metropolis: Chicago and the great West. New York: Norton.

Erickson, D., & De Young, R. (1993). Management of farm woodlots: Some psychological and landscape patterns. Journal of Environmental Systems, 22(3), 233-247.

Esseks, J. D., & Kraft, S. E. (1991). Land user attitudes toward implementation of conservation compliance farm plans. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(5), 365-370.

Fisher, E. (1996). Habitat conservation planning under the ESA: No surprises and the quest for certainty. University of Colorado Law Review, 67(1), 371-405.

Golledge, R. G., (1987). Environmental cognition. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 131- 174). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gregory, S. V., Swanson, F. J., McKee, W. A., & Cummins, K. W. (1991). An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience, 41 (8), 540-551.

Grieshop J. L, MacMullan, E., Brush, S., Pickel, C., & Zalom, F. G. (1990). Extending integrated pest management by public mandate: A case study from California. Society and Natural Resources, 3(2), 33- 51.

Hairston-Strang, A. B., & Adams, P. W. (1997). Oregon's streamside rules: Achieving public goals on private land. Journal of Forestry, 95 (7), 14-18.

Hession, W. C., Johnson, T. E., Charles, D. F., Hart, D. D., Horwitz, R. J., Kreeger, D. A., et al. (2000). Ecological benefits of riparian reforestation in urban watersheds: Study design and preliminary results. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 63(1), 211-222.

Hirsch, A., & Segelquist, C. A. (1978). Protection and management of riparian ecosystems: Activities and views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In R. R. Johnson & J. McCormack (Eds.), Strategies for protection and management offloodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report WO- 12, (pp. 344-352). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Honnold, D., Jackson, J. A., & Lowry, S. (1997). Habitat conservation plans and the protection of habitat: Reply to Bean and Wilcove. Conservation Biology, 11(2), 297-299.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Public participation in planning: New strategies for the 21st century. IURD Working Paper Series, WP2000-2007. Berkeley: University of California.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 491-508.

Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger Scientific.

Kelly, T., & Stinchfield, J. (1998). Lakeshore development patterns in northeast Minnesota: Status and trends. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Office of Management and Budget Services.

Knopf, F. L., Johnson R. R., Rich T., Samson F. B., & Szaro, R. C. (1988). Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin, 100(2), 272-284.

Konisky, D. M., & Beierle, T. C. (2001). Innovations in public participation and environmental decision-making: Examples from the Great Lakes region. Society and Natural Resources, 14(9), 815-826.

Korsching, P. F., & Hoban, J. H. (1990). Relationships between information sources and farmers' conservation perceptions and behavior. Society and Natural Resources, 3(1), 1-10.

Kreuger, R. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lanfear, K. J. (Ed.). (2006). Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42(1).

Lessler, J., & Kalsbeek, K. (1992). Nonsampling error in surveys. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

Lutzenhiser, M., & Netusil, N. R. (2001). The effect of open spaces on a home's sale price. Contemporary Economic Policy, 19(3), 291- 298.

Marsh, G. P. (1864). Man and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McCann, A. (1997). Site assessment: Protecting water quality around your home. In E. R. Andrews, R. Bosnians, R. Castelnuovo, C. DuPoldt, K. Filchak, & C. Johnson (Eds.), Home-A-Syst, an environmental risk-assessment for the home (pp. 7-14). Ithaca, NY: Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service.

McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C., & Ene, E. (2002). FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

McLaughlin, N. A. (2004). Increasing the tax incentives for conservation easement donations: A responsible approach. Ecology Law Quarterly, 31 (1), 459-461.

McLean-Meyinsse, P. E., Hui, J., & Joseph, R., (1994). An empirical analysis of Louisiana small farmers' involvement in the conservation reserve program. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 26(2), 379-385.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expandedsourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mooney, S., & Eisgruber, L. M. (2001). The influence of riparian protection measures on residential property values: The case of the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22(2/3), 273-286.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Naiman, R. J., & Decamps, H. (1997). The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 28(1), 621- 658.

Napier, T. L., Thraen C. S., & Camboni, S. M. (1988). Willingness of land operators to participate in government sponsored soil erosion control programs. Journal of Rural Studies, 4(4), 339-347.

Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 10(4), 229-237.

Nassauer, J. L, Kosek, S., & Corry, R. C. (2001). Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources \Association, 37(6), 1-5.

National Research Council. (1992). Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2002). Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (2002). Long-term ecological research twenty-year review. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http:// intranet.lternet .edu/archives/documents/reports/20_yr_review

Ochterski, J. A. (1996). Why land is protected: Motivations underlying real estate donations to land conservancies. Unpublished master's thesis, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Osterman, D. A., & Hicks, T. J. (1988). Highly erodible land: Farmer perceptions versus actual measurements. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(2), 177-182.

Ozawa, C. P., & Yeakley, J. A. (2004). Keeping the green edge: Stream corridor protection in the Portland metropolitan region. In C. P. Ozawa (Ed.), The Portland edge: Challenges in growing communities (pp. 257279). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Petersen, R. C. (1992). The RCE: A riparian, channel, and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology, 27(2), 295-306.

Rassam G. N. (Ed.). (1997). Fisheries Magazine, 22(5).

Reading, R. P., Clark, T. W., & Kellert, S. (1994). Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Society Natural Resources, 7(4), 349-365.

Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M., & Kuby, L. H. (2004). Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems, 7(1), 161-171.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Roth, N. E., Allan, J. D., & Erickson, D. L. (1996). Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 11(3), 141-156.

Ryan, R. L. (1998). Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2), 225-237.

Schrader, C. C. (1994). Streamlandprotection in agricultural landscapes: Landowner perceptions of conservation approaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Schauman, S. (1975). Landscape visual resource. Monticello, IL: Council of Planning Librarians, Vance Bibliographies.

Schauman, S. (2000). Human behavior in urban riparian corridors. In P. J. Wigington, Jr. & R. L. Beschta (Eds.), American Water Resources Association proceedings: International conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds (TPS- 00-2, pp. 335-340). Strauss, A., &c Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.

Swift, B. L. (1984). Status of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Water Resources Bulletin, 20(2), 223-228.

Theriault, M., Kestens, Y., & Rosiers, F. D. (2002). The impact of mature trees on house values and on residential location choices in Quebec City. In A. E. Rizzoli & A. J. Jakeman (Eds.), Integrated Assessment and Decision Support: Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modeling and Software Society (pp. 472-483).

Thomas, W. L. (1956). Man's role in changing the face of the earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Turner, B. L. IL, Clark, W. C., Kates, R. W., Richards, J. F., Mathews, J. T., & Meyer, W. B. (1990). The earth as transformed by human action: Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tyrvainen, L., & Miettinen, A. (2000). Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(2), 205-223.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). State by state government land ownership. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/compendia/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984). Water quality standards handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1988). Public rangelands: Some riparian areas restored but widespread improvement will be slow. Washington, DC: Author.

Vig, N. J., & Kraft, M. E. (2003). Environmental policy: New directions for the 21st century. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Vogel, S. (1996). Against nature: The concept of nature in critical theory. New York: State University of New York Press.

Warner R. E. & Hendrix, K. M. (Eds.). (1984). California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Berkeley: University of California Press.

West, P. C., Fly, M., Blahna D. J., & Carpenter, E. M. (1988). The communication and diffusion of NIPF Management strategies. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 5(4), 265-270.

Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos, E. (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience, 48(8), 607-615.

Zinser, C. I. (1995). Outdoor recreation: United States national parks, forests, and public lands. New York: John Wiley.

Vivek Shandas (vshandas@pdx.edu) is an assistant professor in the Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University. His research examines the linkages among human activities, ecological conditions, and institutional response.

Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 73, No. 2, Spring 2007

American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Copyright American Planning Association Spring 2007

(c) 2007 American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.