Landowner willingness to implement riparian buffers in a transitioning watershed

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 211-220

  Armstrong, Andrea ^a   Stedman, Richard C ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Land use; Landscape transition; Private property; Riparian buffer; Social norms

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; CONSERVATION; FORESTRY; HOUSING; POPULATION STATISTICS; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHEDS;

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION; AGRICULTURAL LAND USE; CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED; IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCHES; LANDSCAPE TRANSITION; PRIVATE PROPERTY; RIPARIAN BUFFERS; SOCIAL NORM;

LAND USE;

AGRICULTURAL LAND; AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDOWNER; POPULATION GROWTH; RIPARIAN VEGETATION; WATERSHED;

CHESAPEAKE BAY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84858008634     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.011     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 1991, 50:179-211.
2. Alig R.J., Kline J.D., Lichtenstein M. Urbanization on the US landscape: Looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:219-234.
3. Armstrong A., Ling E.J., Stedman R.C., Kleinman P. Adoption of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in the New York City watershed: The role of farmer attitudes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2011, 66:337-344.
4. Atwell R.C., Schulte L.A., Westphal L.M. Linking resilience theory and diffusion of innovations theory to understand the potential for perennials in the US corn belt. Ecology & Society 2009, 14.
5. Bandura A. Self efficacy-Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 1977, 84(2):191-215.
6. Bentrup, G. (2008). Conservation buffers: Design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, NC: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 110 pp.
7. Cadenasso M.L., Pickett S.T.A., Groffman P.M., Band L.E., Brush G.S., Galvin M.F., et al. Exchanges across land-water-scape boundaries in urban systems-Strategies for reducing nitrate pollution. Year in ecology and conservation biology 2008, Vol. 1134. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., pp. 213-232.
8. Carline, R. F., Dunlap, R. L., Detar, J. E., Hollender, B. A. (2011). The fishery of Spring Creek - a watershed under siege. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Technical Report Number 1, Bellefonte, PA.
9. Carlson T.N. Analysis and prediction of surface runoff in an urbanizing watershed using satellite imagery. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2004, 40(4):1087-1098.
10. Centre County. Centre County government: Planning and Community Development Office: Data and maps. Centre County Government. (2008). Accessed 13.03.10. http://www.co.centre.pa.us/planning/data.asp.
11. Chang H., Carlson T.N. Water quality during winter storm events in Spring Creek, Pennsylvania, USA. Hydrobiologia 2005, 544:321-332.
12. Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake futures: Choices for the 21st Century. Science and Technical Advisory Committee. (2003). Accessed 18.08.11. http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/issues/watersheds/chesapeake_futures/index.php.
13. Chesapeake Bay Program. Reducing pollution-Bay Barometer. (2009). Accessed 22.01.11. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_reducingpollution.aspx?menuitem=19691.
14. Chesapeake Bay Program. Forest buffer restoration. (2010a). Accessed 26.08.10. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/forestbuffers.aspx?menuitem=14780.
15. Chesapeake Bay Program. Forest buffers planted-Bay Barometer-Chesapeake Bay Program. (2010b). Accessed 21.01.11. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_forestbuffers.aspx?menuitem=19723.
16. Cunningham M.A., Menking K.M., Gillikin D.P., Smith K.C., Freimuth C., Belli S.L., et al. Influence of open space on water quality in an urban stream. Physical Geography 2010, 31:336-356.
17. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet surveys 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 2nd ed.
18. Dutcher D.D., Finley J.C., Luloff A.E., Johnson J. Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: A qualitative analysis. Society & Natural Resources 2004, 17:329-342.
19. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:959-972.
20. Irwin E.G., Bockstael N.E. The evolution of urban sprawl: Evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104:20672-20677.
21. James E., Kleinman P., Veith T., Stedman R., Sharpley A. Phosphorus contributions from pastured dairy cattle to streams of the Cannonsville Watershed, New York. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2007, 62:40-47.
22. Kang R.S., Marston R.A. Geomorphic effects of rural-to-urban land use conversion on three streams in the central Redbed Plains of Oklahoma. Geomorphology 2006, 79:488-506.
23. Kenwick R.A., Shammin R., Sullivan W.C. Preferences for riparian buffers. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 91:88-96.
24. Kirsch I. Self-efficacy and outcome expectancies. Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application 1995, Plenum Press, New York/London, pp. 331-347.
25. Lee P., Smyth C., Boutin S. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 2004, 70:165-180.
26. Lepczyk C.A., Hammer R.B., Stewart S.I., Radeloff V.C. Spatiotemporal dynamics of housing growth hotspots in the North Central US from 1940 to 2000. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:939-952.
27. Lovell S.T., Sullivan W.C. Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United States: Evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment 2006, 112:249-260.
28. Lowrance R., Altier L.S., Newbold J.D., Schnabel R.R., Groffman P.M., Denver J.M., et al. Water quality functions of Riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management 1997, 21:687-712.
29. Matteo M., Randhir T., Bloniarz D. Watershed-scale impacts of forest buffers on water quality and runoff in urbanizing environment. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management (ASCE) 2006, 132:144-152.
30. Mayer P.M., Reynolds S.K., Canfield T.J., McCutcheon M.D. Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: A review of current science and regulations 2005, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
31. Mayer P.M., Reynolds S.K., McCutchen M.D., Canfield T.J. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 2007, 36:1172-1180.
32. Mendham E., Curtis A. Taking over the reins: Trends and impacts of changes in rural property ownership. Society & Natural Resources 2010, 23:653-668.
33. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis 2005, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
34. Morton L.W. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershed management. Society & Natural Resources 2008, 21:751-766.
35. Napier T.L., McCutcheon K., Fish J. Factors affecting natural resource conservation investments of residents in the Lower Big Walnut Creek watershed, Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2008, 63:18-28.
36. Nassauer J.I., Kosek S.E., Corry R.C. Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2001, 37:1439-1443.
37. Nassauer J.I., Wang Z., Dayrell E. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 92:282-292.
38. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy. Harrisburg, PA. (2004). http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Version-45267/3900-BK-DEP1656.pdf.
39. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania's CREP. (2006). Accessed 28.09.10. http://www.creppa.org/practice.htm.
40. Prokopy L.S., Floress K., Klotthor-Weinkauf D., Baumgart-Getz A. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2008, 63:300-311.
41. Prugh L.R., Hodges K.E., Sinclair A.R.E., Brashares J.S. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105:20770-20775.
42. Radeloff V.C., Hagen A.E., Voss P.R., Field D.R., Mladenoff D.J. Exploring the spatial relationship between census and land-cover data. Society & Natural Resources 2000, 13:599-609.
43. Rickson S.T., Rickson R.E., Burch D. Women and sustainable agriculture. Rural gender relations: Issues, case studies 2006, 119-135. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. B. Beck, S. Shortall (Eds.).
44. Roberts A.D., Prince S.D. Effects of urban and non-urban land cover on nitrogen and phosphorus runoff to Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Indicators 2010, 10:459-474.
45. Ryan R.L. Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 42:225-237.
46. Ryan R.L, Erikson D.L., DeYoung R. Farmers' motivations for adopting conservation practices along a riparian zone in a Mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2003, 46:19-37.
47. Schrader C.C. Rural greenway planning-The role of streamland perception in landowner acceptance of land management strategies. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995, 33:375-390.
48. Shandas V. An empirical study of streamside landowners' interest in riparian conservation. Journal of the American Planning Association 2007, 73:173-184.
49. Stein E.D., Ambrose R.F. Landscape-scale analysis and management of cumulative impacts to riparian ecosystems: Past, present, and future. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2001, 37:1597-1614.
50. Sullivan W.C, Anderson O.M., Lovell S.T. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: An examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:299-313.
51. U.S. Census Bureau. Table 1. Urban and Rural Population: 1900 to 1990. (1995). http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt.
52. U.S. Census Bureau. Centre County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. (2010). Accessed 13.03.10. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42027.html.
53. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). GCT-P1. Urban/Rural and Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Population: 2000; Census Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data.
54. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. (2010). Accessed 28.09.10. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=cep.
55. U.S. Geologic Survey. USGS: National Hydrography Dataset-NHD Data Availability. (2010). Accessed 27.06.10. http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html.
56. Wagner M.M. Acceptance by knowing? The social context of urban riparian buffers as a stormwater best management practice. Society & Natural Resources 2008, 21:908-920.
57. Walter M.T., Archibald J.A., Buchanan B., Dahlke H., Easton Z.M., Marjerison R.D., et al. New paradigm for sizing riparian buffers to reduce risks of polluted storm water: Practical synthesis. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2009, 135:200-209.
58. White E.M., Morzillo A.T., Alig R.J. Past and projected rural land conversion in the US at state, regional, and national levels. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 89:37-48.