{"id":{"repo_id":"umn","oai_identifier":"oai:conservancy.umn.edu:11299/162528"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/umn/oai:conservancy.umn.edu:11299/162528","repository":{"repo_id":"umn","name":"University of Minnesota","base_url":"https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Losing our lakes: an assessment of the human dimensions of lakeshore landowner shoreland management","abstract":"The fragility of shorelines and the impact of residential development on habitat and water quality led to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's interest in promoting native vegetative buffers. First, I used the Integrative Model (IM) (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) to evaluate lakeshore homeowners' attitudes, norms and self-efficacy for restoring a native vegetative buffer. Five belief evaluations (decrease maintenance β = .05, increase water quality β = .058, be attractive β = .103, impede recreation β = .046, and create privacy β = -.028 one self-efficacy evaluation (ability to keep up with maintenance β = .23), and three normative influences (family β = -.097, friends β = .051 and Minnesota DNR β = .065) were significant predictors of intention (R2 = .36). Secondly, I used the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB) (Rimal and Real, 2005) as an alternate model and compared the results with the IM (Fishbein & Yzer 2003). My findings indicated that the IM (R2 = .241) had a greater explanation of variance, when compared to the TNSB, and that a greater amount of the variance was explained by the inclusion of descriptive norms, group ID and injunctive norms (R2 = .323). Finally, I sought to connect risk theory with behavioral theory and propose a framework for doing so. I used a case study of Minnesota shoreland landowners with native vegetative buffers for integrating risk and behavioral theory to segment audiences. My findings showed that 22.5% of survey respondents reported having a vegetative buffer on their shoreland and 10% of respondents had removed native vegetation in the past. I did not find a significant difference between the attitudes towards buffers of those that have removed vegetation and those that have not. However, the findings showed that having a negative attitude towards buffers increased one's odds of not having a native vegetative buffer by 2 ½ times. The analysis also showed that evaluation of buffers significantly predicted respondents' attitudes towards buffers (R 2 =.22, F[2, 11] = 8.69, p < .001). Compared to respondents without native vegetative buffers, the beliefs that buffers create an attractive shore (β = -.143, p = .019), create habitat (β = .32, p < .001), and create privacy (β = .146, p = .020) were predictive of attitude towards buffers for respondents that have buffers.","abstract_html":"The fragility of shorelines and the impact of residential development on habitat and water quality led to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's interest in promoting native vegetative buffers. First, I used the Integrative Model (IM) (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) to evaluate lakeshore homeowners' attitudes, norms and self-efficacy for restoring a native vegetative buffer. Five belief evaluations (decrease maintenance &#946; = .05, increase water quality &#946; = .058, be attractive &#946; = .103, impede recreation &#946; = .046, and create privacy &#946; = -.028 one self-efficacy evaluation (ability to keep up with maintenance &#946; = .23), and three normative influences (family &#946; = -.097, friends &#946; = .051 and Minnesota DNR &#946; = .065) were significant predictors of intention (R2 = .36). Secondly, I used the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB) (Rimal and Real, 2005) as an alternate model and compared the results with the IM (Fishbein & Yzer 2003). My findings indicated that the IM (R2 = .241) had a greater explanation of variance, when compared to the TNSB, and that a greater amount of the variance was explained by the inclusion of descriptive norms, group ID and injunctive norms (R2 = .323). Finally, I sought to connect risk theory with behavioral theory and propose a framework for doing so. I used a case study of Minnesota shoreland landowners with native vegetative buffers for integrating risk and behavioral theory to segment audiences. My findings showed that 22.5% of survey respondents reported having a vegetative buffer on their shoreland and 10% of respondents had removed native vegetation in the past. I did not find a significant difference between the attitudes towards buffers of those that have removed vegetation and those that have not. However, the findings showed that having a negative attitude towards buffers increased one's odds of not having a native vegetative buffer by 2 ½ times. The analysis also showed that evaluation of buffers significantly predicted respondents' attitudes towards buffers (R 2 =.22, F[2, 11] = 8.69, p < .001). Compared to respondents without native vegetative buffers, the beliefs that buffers create an attractive shore (&#946; = -.143, p = .019), create habitat (&#946; = .32, p < .001), and create privacy (&#946; = .146, p = .020) were predictive of attitude towards buffers for respondents that have buffers.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Rudberg, Edgar Atwood"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2012,"date_issued":"2012-01","date_published":"2012-01","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:19:44Z","subjects":["Behavior","Communications","Lakehsore","Management"],"languages":["en_US"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/11299/162528","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Rudberg, Edgar Atwood"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-02-14T19:27:05Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-02-14T19:27:05Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2012-01"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Behavior","Communications","Lakehsore","Management"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en_US"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/11299/162528"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. January 2012. Major: Natural Resources Science and Management. Advisor: David C. Fulton. 1 computer file (PDF); viii, 161 pages, appendix p. 141-161."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The fragility of shorelines and the impact of residential development on habitat and water quality led to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's interest in promoting native vegetative buffers. First, I used the Integrative Model (IM) (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) to evaluate lakeshore homeowners' attitudes, norms and self-efficacy for restoring a native vegetative buffer. Five belief evaluations (decrease maintenance β = .05, increase water quality β = .058, be attractive β = .103, impede recreation β = .046, and create privacy β = -.028 one self-efficacy evaluation (ability to keep up with maintenance β = .23), and three normative influences (family β = -.097, friends β = .051 and Minnesota DNR β = .065) were significant predictors of intention (R2 = .36). Secondly, I used the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB) (Rimal and Real, 2005) as an alternate model and compared the results with the IM (Fishbein & Yzer 2003). My findings indicated that the IM (R2 = .241) had a greater explanation of variance, when compared to the TNSB, and that a greater amount of the variance was explained by the inclusion of descriptive norms, group ID and injunctive norms (R2 = .323). Finally, I sought to connect risk theory with behavioral theory and propose a framework for doing so. I used a case study of Minnesota shoreland landowners with native vegetative buffers for integrating risk and behavioral theory to segment audiences. My findings showed that 22.5% of survey respondents reported having a vegetative buffer on their shoreland and 10% of respondents had removed native vegetation in the past. I did not find a significant difference between the attitudes towards buffers of those that have removed vegetation and those that have not. However, the findings showed that having a negative attitude towards buffers increased one's odds of not having a native vegetative buffer by 2 ½ times. The analysis also showed that evaluation of buffers significantly predicted respondents' attitudes towards buffers (R 2 =.22, F[2, 11] = 8.69, p < .001). Compared to respondents without native vegetative buffers, the beliefs that buffers create an attractive shore (β = -.143, p = .019), create habitat (β = .32, p < .001), and create privacy (β = .146, p = .020) were predictive of attitude towards buffers for respondents that have buffers."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Losing our lakes: an assessment of the human dimensions of lakeshore landowner shoreland management"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Rudberg, Edgar Atwood"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-02-14T19:27:05Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-02-14T19:27:05Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2012-01"],"dc:description":["University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. January 2012. Major: Natural Resources Science and Management. Advisor: David C. Fulton. 1 computer file (PDF); viii, 161 pages, appendix p. 141-161."],"dc:description.abstract":["The fragility of shorelines and the impact of residential development on habitat and water quality led to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's interest in promoting native vegetative buffers. First, I used the Integrative Model (IM) (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) to evaluate lakeshore homeowners' attitudes, norms and self-efficacy for restoring a native vegetative buffer. Five belief evaluations (decrease maintenance β = .05, increase water quality β = .058, be attractive β = .103, impede recreation β = .046, and create privacy β = -.028 one self-efficacy evaluation (ability to keep up with maintenance β = .23), and three normative influences (family β = -.097, friends β = .051 and Minnesota DNR β = .065) were significant predictors of intention (R2 = .36). Secondly, I used the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB) (Rimal and Real, 2005) as an alternate model and compared the results with the IM (Fishbein & Yzer 2003). My findings indicated that the IM (R2 = .241) had a greater explanation of variance, when compared to the TNSB, and that a greater amount of the variance was explained by the inclusion of descriptive norms, group ID and injunctive norms (R2 = .323). Finally, I sought to connect risk theory with behavioral theory and propose a framework for doing so. I used a case study of Minnesota shoreland landowners with native vegetative buffers for integrating risk and behavioral theory to segment audiences. My findings showed that 22.5% of survey respondents reported having a vegetative buffer on their shoreland and 10% of respondents had removed native vegetation in the past. I did not find a significant difference between the attitudes towards buffers of those that have removed vegetation and those that have not. However, the findings showed that having a negative attitude towards buffers increased one's odds of not having a native vegetative buffer by 2 ½ times. The analysis also showed that evaluation of buffers significantly predicted respondents' attitudes towards buffers (R 2 =.22, F[2, 11] = 8.69, p < .001). Compared to respondents without native vegetative buffers, the beliefs that buffers create an attractive shore (β = -.143, p = .019), create habitat (β = .32, p < .001), and create privacy (β = .146, p = .020) were predictive of attitude towards buffers for respondents that have buffers."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/11299/162528"],"dc:language.iso":["en_US"],"dc:subject":["Behavior","Communications","Lakehsore","Management"],"dc:title":["Losing our lakes: an assessment of the human dimensions of lakeshore landowner shoreland management"],"dc:type":["Thesis or Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:19:44Z"}