Agricultural and residential stakeholder input for watershed management in a mid-Michigan watershed

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 20-27

  Kaplowitz, Michael D ^a   Witter, Scott G ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Public participation; Survey questionnaire; Water quality

Indexed keywords

CULTIVATION; PRESSURE; SURVEYS; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY;

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE; WATERSHED PLANNING;

WATERSHEDS;

LAND USE CHANGE; LANDOWNER; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; STAKEHOLDER; WATER PLANNING; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHED;

MICHIGAN; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 37149043039     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. AAPOR, 2005. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (On-line Edition 3.1). The American Association for Public Opinion Research 2004 [cited March 1, 2005]. Available from: http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/standarddefs_3.1.pdf.
2. Brody S.D., Highfield W., and Carrasco V. Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 1 (2004) 33-50
3. Brody S.D., Highfield W., and Peck M.B. Exploring the mosaic of perceptions for water quality across watersheds in San Antonio, Texas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 73 2/3 (2005) 200-214
4. Dillman D. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2000), Wiley, New York
5. Duram L.A., and Brown K.G. Assessing public participation in US watershed planning initiatives. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12 5 (1999) 455-467
6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NPDES regulations for revisions of the water pollution control program addressing storm water discharges; final rule. 40 C.F.R. §§ 9, 122,123, and 124. Federal Register 64 235 (1999) 68722-68854
7. EPA U.S., 2007. Total Maximum daily loads-Red Cedar river. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007 [cited February 25, 2007]. Available from: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro.control?p_list_id=MI082818H.
8. Erickson D.L., Ryan R.L., and De Young R. Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 58 2-4 (2002) 101-112
9. Esseks J.D., and Kraft S.E. Midwestern farmers' perceptions of monitoring for conservation compliance. J. Soil Water Conserv. 48 5 (1993) 458
10. Greater Lansing Red Cedar Committee on Phase II (GLRC). Red Cedar River Watershed Management Plan (2006), Tetra Tech., Lansing, MI
11. Habron G.B. Adoption of conservation practices by agricultural landowners in three Oregon watersheds. J. Soil Water Conserv. 59 3 (2004) 109-115
12. Hanna K.S. Integrated resource management in the Fraser River estuary: stakeholders' perceptions of the state of the river and program influence. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54 2 (1999) 490-498
13. Ingham Conservation District, 2005. Watershed Projects 2005 [cited October 17, 2005]. Available from: http://www.inghamconservation.com/Main%20Pages/Watershed%20Project.htm#Red%20Cedar%20River.
14. Ingham County Health Department, 2005. Red Cedar River Sampling-1999 Results, September 21, 2005 [cited October 17, 2005]. Available from: http://www.ingham.org/hd/ENVHLTH/Water/redcedardia.html.
15. Kaplowitz M.D., Lupi F., and Hoehn J.P. Multiple-methods for developing and evaluating a stated choice survey to value wetlands. In: Presser S., Rothgeb J.M., Couper M.P., Lessler J.T., Martin E., Martin J., and Singer E. (Eds). Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires (2004), John Wiley, New York
16. Koontz T.M. The farmer, the planner, and the local citizen in the dell: how collaborative groups plan for farmland preservation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66 1 (2003) 19-34
17. Leach W.D., and Pelkey N.W. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 127 6 (2001) 378-385
18. Lichtenberg E., and Lessley B.V. Water quality, cost-sharing, and technical assistance: perceptions of Maryland farmers. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47 3 (1992) 260-264
19. Lomnicky G.A., Barker J.R., and Bryce S.A. A mail survey approach to watershed condition assessment. J. Soil Water Conserv. 57 1 (2002) 1-7
20. McElmurry S.P., Aslam I., Syed A.U., Voice T.C., Long D.T., Phanikumar M.S., Lusch D.P., and Northcott W.J. Determining the effects of various land uses within Michigan State University's watershed on water quality in the Red Cedar river. Paper read at 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology. Lemnos Island, Greece, September 8-10 (2003)
21. McSherry L., Steiner F., Ozkeresteci I., and Panickera S. From knowledge to action: lessons and planning strategies from studies of the upper San Pedro basin. Landsc. Urban Plan. 74 2 (2006) 81-101
22. MDEQ, 2007. Appendix O-Schedule for TMDL Development 2007 [cited February 25, 2007]. Available from: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wb-intreport-appendixo.pdf.
23. Municipal Research & Service Center of Washington (MRSC), 2005. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Storm and Surface Water Management, 7/05 2005 [cited September 29, 2005]. Available from: http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/water/SW-BMP.aspx?r=1.
24. Peterson, Amy, Reznick R., Hedin S., Hendges M., and Dunlap D. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds (1998), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division
25. Petit J., and van der Werf H.M.G. Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. J. Environ. Manage. 68 4 (2003) 377-386
26. Presser, Stanley, Jennifer M. Rothgeb, Mick P. Couper, Judith T. Lessler, Elizabeth Martin, Jean Martin, Eleanor Singer (Eds.), 2004. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. In: Groves, R.M., Kalton, G., Rao, J.N.K., Schwarz, N., Skinner, C. (Eds.), Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
27. Ryan R.L. Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75 1-2 (2006) 5-22
28. Ryan R.L., Juliet T., and Walker H. Protecting and managing private farmland and public greenways in the urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68 2/3 (2004) 183-198
29. Tucker M., and Napier T.L. Preferred sources and channels of soil and water conservation information among farmers in three midwestern US watersheds. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 92 2-3 (2002) 297-313
30. Van Tassell L.W., Ferrell M.A., Yang B., Legg D.E., and Lloyd J.E. Pesticide practices and perceptions of Wyoming farmers and ranchers. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54 1 (1999) 410-414
31. Witter, Scott, et al. Ingham County's Surface and Groundwater Resources (2000), Ingham County Health Department, Lansing, Michigan