PowerPointForWebSite 000

Slide1: 

Lake Association and Lakeshore Owner Survey – Burnett County, WI 2006

Study Team : 

Study Team Mike Kornmann, Community Development Agent, UW-Extension Burnett County, Siren, WI Jacob Blasczyk, Evaluation Specialist; Environmental Resource Center, UW-Madison Extension Josie Biedermann, Evaluation Assistant; Environmental Resource Center, UW-Madison Extension

Advisory Team: 

Advisory Team Critical Role In Survey Development Ken Genskow, Director, Basin Educators, UW-Extension Madison, Environmental Resources Center John Haack, UW- Extension, Basin Educator-St Croix River, Spooner, WI Robert Korth, UW-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources Tiffany Lyden, UW-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources

Objectives : 

Objectives Compare property owners from lakes with associations to those without on: Use of land management practices supporting healthy lakes. Awareness of available information sources for supporting healthy lakes. Opinions on select topics. Identify methods Burnett County lake associations use to engage property owners in efforts to achieve healthy lakes. Explore how lake associations contribute to awareness of conditions impacting lakes, how owners learn about those conditions, and how associations contribute to the adoption of certain management practices.

Guiding Questions: 

Guiding Questions Do lake associations play a significant role in supporting healthy lakes in Burnett County? What methods of delivering information are most useful for lakeshore property owners? What issues face Burnet County lakeshore owners? How can UWEX help lake organizations with these issues?

Data Collection Methods : 

Data Collection Methods Mailed survey: 720 randomly selected lake residents with dwellings 499 returned ( 69% response rate) 21 randomly selected lakes stratified by size. 11 with associations/10 without: matched according to vulnerability scores and size

Data Collection Methods : 

Data Collection Methods 30-36 randomly selected residents per lake Interviews: Lake association leaders Burnett County Lake Classification study data

Four Levels of Analysis : 

Four Levels of Analysis All survey responses According to lake status: those from lakes with associations compared to those from lakes without associations According to membership status: members compared to nonmembers from lakes with associations Study of alternative explanations

Survey Topics: 

Survey Topics Knowledge Practices Member ranking of effectiveness Opinions Motivations Information Sources

Analysis Categories: 

Analysis Categories Overall Level (N=499) Lake Types Lakes with Associations (N=262) Lakes without Association (N=233) Member Statues Members (N=192) Non-Members (N=66)

Differences in Knowledge On Some Measures: 

Differences in Knowledge On Some Measures

Slide12: 

Significant Differences Between Lake Types

Slide13: 

Significant Differences Between Lake Types

Slide14: 

Significant Differences Between Member Types

Slide15: 

Non-Significant Differences Between Lake Types

Slide16: 

Members: Done More Activities to Acquire Conservation Knowledge

Minimal Differences in Property Management Behaviors: 

Minimal Differences in Property Management Behaviors

Slide18: 

Shoreland Alterations: Minimal Differences *Category A represents changes that are consistent with conservationist recommendations and Category B includes changes which go against such recommendations.

Slide19: 

35 Foot Zone Preceding Shoreline: Minimal Differences

Slide20: 

Use of Rain Water Filtering Method: No Differences

Slide21: 

Lawn Care Practices: Minimal Differences

Ranking of Lake Association Efficacy by Members: 

Ranking of Lake Association Efficacy by Members

Opinion Differences: 

Opinion Differences No differences between Lake types Differences between Member statuses Members favor both organizing and zoning for lake health purposes

Motivation Differences: 

Motivation Differences In survey 10 reasons that may affect one’s land altering decisions and 4 identified as collective motivations Members consistently ranked collective reasons as being more important

Information Sources: 

Information Sources Residents on lakes with associations and their members use more information sources Members use more formal sources while non-members use more informal sources

Slide31: 

Members: Tend to Use More Information Sources

Slide32: 

Members: Tend to Use Formal Sources

Slide33: 

Members: Tend to Use Formal Sources, cont…

Slide34: 

Nonmembers: Tend to Use Informal Sources

Observations about Lake Associations:: 

Observations about Lake Associations: Residents with associations consistently display higher conservation knowledge levels on some measures. Few practice differences on most measures. Members report more collective land change motivations and favorable opinions towards organizing. Residents on lakes with associations and their members access more information, particularly formal sources.

Major Finding: 

Major Finding Burnett County lake associations impact knowledge levels of their lake residents, however there is little to no impact on the individual conservation practices that were measured. Those measured focused on practices effecting property.

Implications: 

Implications Lake associations in Burnett County have considerable potential even though currently they may be less influential on individual lake conservation behaviors. Points to need for additional strategies based on principles of environmental responsible behavior change (focusing on direct behavior change).

Implications: 

Implications Points to the need for organizational development/support to associations to maximize education and outreach. Possibilities of associations assisting the formation of new associations.