vincent lake working model evaluation reporthealthyshorelines.com/media/vlwg evaluation...

VINCENT LAKE WORKING MODEL

EVALUATION REPORT

Submitted to:

Vincent Lake Working Group c/o Room 417, Provincial Building 5025 – 49 Avenue St. Paul, Alberta T0A 3A4 Attention: Gerry Ehlert

Submitted by:

Nancy G. Bateman, MA NGB Evaluation Solutions Inc. 2102 – 10th Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 0C1 (403) 394-0494 - [email protected]

Date:

March 24, 2003

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere appreciation is due to the many individuals and organizations, numbering close to 200,

who contributed their time, knowledge and funds to complete this evaluation.

The residents of Vincent Lake, including the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay

and representatives of

• the Alberta Conservation Association • Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture

• Alberta Sustainable Resource Development – Fish and Wildlife Division • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development – Public Lands Division

• the Bonnie Lake Riparian Project • the County of St. Paul

• Cows and Fish and

• the Town of St. Paul.

Special thanks are due to Gerry Ehlert

for his commitment to the evaluation and to sustainable management and

Dr. Leslie Gardner who so expertly assisted in the design of the evaluation and communication of its results.

The following organizations generously provided funding for the evaluation.

• Alberta Sustainable Resource Development – Fish and Wildlife Division • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development – Public Lands Division

and • Cows and Fish.

Vincent Lake Working Model March 24, 2003

Evaluation Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary

1

Overview

4

Sections I. Background to the Vincent Lake Working Model

11

II. Evaluation Description and Methodology

14

III. Partner Interview Results and Decision Tree Questions (by Model Element)

17

IV. Decision Tree Answers

39

V. Community Survey Results

46

VI. Summary

60

Appendices A. Interview Guide

67

B. Community Survey

69

C. Survey Result Charts

77

D. Related Literature

103

Citation:

Bateman, Nancy G. 2003. Vincent Lake Working Model Evaluation Report. Lethbridge, Alberta: NGB Evaluation Solutions Inc.


Evaluation Report

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lake Riparian Areas in Northern Alberta Riparian areas are the green zones of water-loving vegetation that border waterbodies like lakes, streams and wetlands. They are a crucial part of the environment in northern Alberta, located along the shorelines of the many hundreds of lakes in the region. Riparian areas play important roles in lake health and ecological function as well as in recreation living and enjoyment. Healthy riparian areas also contribute to local community economies in several ways. Healthy riparian areas help filter pollutants (improving water quality); store and release water

into the watershed (facilitating water quantity); buffer the erosive forces of water and wind (protecting the land base and water clarity); and provide fish and wildlife habitat (enhancing biodiversity and opportunities to enjoy it).

Riparian areas are used and managed by many different people and organizations, and may

be a combination of Crown, municipal and homeowner property. Riparian areas contribute to Alberta’s economy by:

• offering desirable areas for permanent and seasonal homes and businesses; • providing tourism destination points for consumptive and non-consumptive recreation

uses such as fishing, bird-watching, swimming, picnicking and other forms of outdoor enjoyment; and

• contributing to the provincial tax base used to pay for infrastructure such as roads, education and health.

Concern in Action In September of 1999, a group of concerned government agencies (e.g. Public Lands Division, Fish and Wildlife Division, and the County of St. Paul) and conservation agencies (e.g. Alberta Conservation Association, Cows and Fish, and Ducks Unlimited Canada) met to discuss mutual concerns about riparian areas. The discussion was based on concerns that recreation practices, such as converting natural lake shorelines to sand beaches and mowed lawns, had not only become more prevalent but were not conducive to healthy and functional riparian areas. Indeed, these types of practices were believed to negatively impact the sustainability of the natural resources and the overall health of the watershed. Since watershed health and economic well-being are inextricably linked, long-term forecasts based on declining natural resources included a reduction in the economic benefits associated with healthy riparian areas and healthy lakes, as well as increased damage control costs to fix problems arising from any damage caused by inappropriate practices. This led to asking the question: “What methods and tools can be used to encourage practice change in riparian areas, so that recreation living and use is carried out in a sustainable manner, to ensure that riparian areas and watersheds continue to provide local, regional and provincial benefits such as good water quality, water supply, biodiversity and opportunities for enjoyment?”


Evaluation Report

2

Vincent Lake Working Group and Model To answer this question, the Vincent Lake Working Group (“VLWG”), a partnership of core and consultative members, was formed. See www.healthyshorelines.com for a complete membership list. The VLWG developed the Vincent Lake Working Model (“VLWM”) as a working experiment, using Vincent Lake, located 16 km north of St. Paul, Alberta, as a testing ground. The VLWG members cooperated and learned together, working until 2002 with the Vincent Lake community to develop and implement awareness and education tools designed to encourage practice change at the lake. It was intended that the results of the experimental working model would, in future, be available for transfer to other interested lake communities. In this way, they too could build upon and develop their own community-specific plan, using the VLWM as a template to promote learning and practice change pertaining to lakeshore management. Evaluating the VLWM To determine the impact of the VLWM as well as those characteristics of the model which may be suitable for transfer to other lake communities, the VLWM was evaluated independently in 2002-2003 by Nancy G. Bateman, MA, at the request of the VLWG. The evaluation was designed in two parts. Part 1 of the evaluation used a nominal group decision approach, whereby key stakeholders were interviewed in-person to identify issues and common themes. Observations were condensed into central questions and desirable characteristics of the model and future template, which were subsequently fined-tuned and voted on in a stakeholder focus group session. Part 2 of the evaluation assessed knowledge levels and opinions of permanent and seasonal residents, using a survey mailed to 402 registered landholders at Vincent Lake and the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay. Survey response rate was 46%. Using these two methods meant that the agreed-upon characteristics of the model and template arrived at in the evaluation reflected local views and requirements. Key Findings of the VLWM Evaluation Survey respondents and key stakeholders responded positively to the five-element process

used by the VLWM, borrowed from the Cows and Fish Program (awareness; team-building; tool-building; community-based action; and monitoring). • 95% of survey respondents overall rated awareness activities as important. • Of those who reported practice change, 74% indicated they had stopped mowing their

riparian area or had found other ways to encourage natural vegetation at the lakeshore. The VLWM was regarded as an appropriate template for interested communities to

empower them to achieve a more sustainable future, but suffered from the practicalities of limited local leadership in an area populated by high numbers of seasonal residents.


Evaluation Report

http://www.healthyshorelines.com/

3

In addition to the five elements of the model designed to provide the opportunity for voluntary action, active enforcement of regulation was strongly supported as an additional element to achieve a sense of fairness within the community and overall improvement in lake health. • 95% of survey respondents indicated that regulations should be enforced (either in every

case or in very serious cases of damage), if and when awareness has not led to voluntary action.

Evaluation participants stressed the importance of monitoring both riparian health and

impact of awareness activities. Survey respondents requested additional awareness and practice change information on several topics (particularly weeds; sewage treatment; and lake management regulations).

Recommendations for the Future Lake communities should be made aware of the successes and lessons learned at Vincent

Lake, and that a flexible guide based on the VLWM experience is available to help them build an awareness and action plan matched to local needs and issues. The template: • should include the five-element Cows and Fish process, plus a sixth element of active

enforcement for use when passive encouragement through awareness has not succeeded;

• can adopt whatever mix of tools, roles and responsibilities meets the community’s requirements;

• may be community-based (entirely led by community members) or community-driven (built on input from community-members at key decision points), but in every case must provide the opportunity for community members to participate at least at key decision points, regardless of who takes the primary lead in the process; and

• should consistently focus on awareness as the primary mechanism by which individuals can make voluntary informed decisions; and involve partners who can contribute clear and consistent technical support and/or facilitation of the process and/or activities.

To move ahead, locally and regionally, leadership will require the provision of some type of

coordination function similar to the watershed coordinator role adopted for use in Alberta’s agricultural communities.

The evaluation report and/or summary results should be communicated to the public in

several ways, including a mailing to evaluation participants; providing local newspaper articles; making presentations to the community, local authorities and interested communities; and updating the VLWM website at www.healthyshorelines.com.


Evaluation Report


4

OVERVIEW The Vincent Lake Working Group (“VLWG”) consists of several partners working in northern Alberta, including community members, conservation organizations and provincial government agencies. They drew together in 1999 out of concern about riparian areas, especially lakeshores, to determine a process by which to bring environmentally-sound management practices to lake communities. The result of their collaboration was the Vincent Lake Working Model (“VLWM”), essentially an experiment to determine an effective way to achieve that objective, using Vincent Lake as a testing ground. The VLWM uses the five essential elements of the Cows and Fish Process as the fundamental basis of its design and philosophy. The five elements are awareness; team-building; tool-building; community-based action; and monitoring. Evaluation Background The VLWG anticipated that, at the conclusion of its three year lifespan in late 2002, the VLWM would be reviewed to determine whether it could be formalized and promoted as a blueprint (referred to hereinafter as the “Future Template”) for use by other Alberta lake communities to help them deal with their riparian and lakeshore management issues. This evaluation was intended to address whether the Working Model could or should continue at Vincent Lake, as well as whether it could or should be shared with other lake communities (and in what form). The VLWM evaluation was a two-part process. Part I reviewed and clarified those characteristics of the Working Model which may be appropriate to include in a Future Template. Part I employed a nominal group decision approach that collected illustrative verbal (qualitative) information in interviews with 12 key informants; summarized that information into thematic observations and questions related to potential components of the Working Model and Future Template; and provided an opportunity for those informants to collectively identify responses to the questions. This latter step permitted consensus to be reached about the most desirable answers to the questions, which were then voted on. Answers that received the most votes were henceforth considered as formalized characteristics of the Working Model and the Future Template. The decision tree acted as a mechanism to focus and streamline discussion and decisions about the structure and operation of both the current Working Model and a potential Future Template. The nominal group approach made the content and structure of the Working Model and the Future Template the partnership’s own product, reflecting the community-based philosophy of the VLWG. The decision tree was structured in five parts, following the pattern of the five essential elements of the Cows and Fish Process. The decision tree was further refined by three components: Process (how the VLWG has carried out its activites/goals/objectives); Output (what it produced or intended to produce); and Outcome (what was achieved or intended to be achieved). Part II of the evaluation assessed the knowledge levels of Vincent Lake permanent and seasonal community members on items such as riparian areas, and ownership and management of the Environmental Reserve. Part II also examined community preferences on such things as the role and nature of awareness activities, community involvement, agency staff and the need (if any) for enforcement techniques. Part II employed a survey mailed to 402 registered landholders at Vincent Lake including the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay (situated on Vincent Lake). Survey response rate was 46% (n=178). Vincent Lake Working Model March 24, 2003

Evaluation Report

5

General Observations about the Five Process Elements, as Identified in Interviews about the Experiment The following general observations were made with respect to the five process elements, as discussed by the partners when interviewed about their experience with the Working Model and how it could evolve into a Future Template. Overall, awareness is seen as an essential, indeed fundamental, aspect of the Working

Model and any Future Template. Overall, team-building is viewed as an essential element to strengthening the Working

Model and any Future Template. It is necessary to engender broad commitment and access to the technical and financial support required to efficiently and effectively deliver awareness activities and tools in a consistent manner.

Overall, awareness tools used to date have been well received, with some anecdotal

evidence suggesting different views about the acceptance of the Environmental Reserve signage employed at Vincent Lake. The flexibility and adaptability of the type and content of most awareness tools is likely to promote high acceptance by other communities dealing both with their unique problems and issues common to all lakes. • The role of enforcement as a tool for practice change is viewed as both appropriate and

necessary, but only in the context of a philosophy of voluntary compliance in which awareness first provides an opportunity for individuals to voluntarily make informed practice change decisions.

• Clear and consistent enforcement by all relevant jurisdictions should be seen, and seen to be seen, as a fair way to treat infractions and to deal with all members of the public, not least those who have voluntarily complied.

Overall, the community-based approach is fundamentally appropriate due to its

inclusiveness and flexibility. However, agencies should not necessarily take the primary lead role in implementing all steps of the process (as occurred at Vincent Lake), but rather would typically work in conjunction with community members and community groups by assisting with technical and facilitation support. The precise mix of partner roles and contributions can be uniquely determined within each community. • There is a strong preference by community members to be active participants in any

process; leadership is required by the provision of some type of coordination function to assist at the local level and to maximize efficiency of delivery across a broader regional scale for communities dealing with similar issues. This may be particularly important in recreational communities where there is less likelihood of seasonal residents taking a hands-on role in managing a practice change process.

Overall, monitoring is acknowledged as central to understanding the impact of the Working

Model but has not yet been strongly employed. As the fifth of the five process elements, it should be formally planned for and acted upon both at Vincent Lake and in any community developing a new initiative. • Benchmark and ongoing monitoring are required to effectively plan the content and

direction of Future Template.


Evaluation Report

6

Characteristics of the Working Model and the Future Template Summary of Characteristics Applicable to Vincent Lake and the Future Template All five elements of the Cows and Fish Process adopted and used within the VLWM are appropriate and should be continued, with the following elucidations. In terms of community-based action, flexibility based on unique requirements and characteristics of a community is fundamental. Nonetheless, the overall process within any community should be a joint effort, where community input is required to identify relevant problems and information needs, both at start-up and on an ongoing basis. This will ensure that the process remains community-driven. Ultimately, governance within any initiative may vary, and again flexibility based on local characteristics is the key. A particular community member or community group may decide to take a direct leadership role in some or all of the elements of their process. However, organizations such as conservation groups and government agencies may typically initiate awareness activities and partnership-building to kick-start the process, and continue to provide technical support thereafter, both locally and regionally. Another option may be to utilize a structure similar to that of the new Alberta Environmental Farm Plan, once its implementation success is known. However, because lake communities tend to have a high proportion of non-resident landholders (who for all practical purposes are less able to take on the permanent responsibility of leading a local lake program), and due to the changing and multi-faceted demands placed on many agencies, a coordination/liaison role will be required in many instances. Such a coordination function, in terms of lake communities, will garner the numerous benefits already being realized in agricultural communities across Alberta through the introduction of paid-position watershed coordinators who provide support and guidance to farmers and ranchers interested in sustainable management practices. The lake community coordinator role will similarly provide liaison between community members and the partners (such as agencies or non-government organizations) involved. Benefits of implementing a coordinator function for lake communities include a central contact for information access and dissemination; capitalizing on access to (and maximizing effectiveness of) a variety of financial and technical resources available regionally or provincially; maximizing efficiency in design and production of program tools intended to encourage practice change; ensuring a consistent awareness message through those tools; reducing duplication of effort on the part of all partners; reducing demand on volunteers who are subject to burnout; and increasing the ability to profile success stories occurring in other communities so as to encourage practice change on a wider scale. In terms of team-building, it is important to clarify and communicate the commitment of (in particular) those agencies and organizations whose mandates include various aspects of lake management, whether they are local, regional, provincial or national in scope. The benefits of a transparent articulation of what any group is responsible for will fundamentally empower a community that wants to take on a process leading to lake management practice change. All parties will have a clear understanding of what each organization’s mandate is, what resources are to be provided to meet that mandate, and what resources can be counted on. A useful technique to ensure consistent participation and resources from each organization is a Memorandum of Understanding. Vincent Lake Working Model March 24, 2003

Evaluation Report

7

In terms of developing awareness in a community, it is essential to first identify whether there are any lake management problems in an area, before attempting to develop content for any awareness tools. A focus group is a good technique for determining initial community awareness needs, and the types of activities suitable for a community to address those needs. Access to monitoring data available from agencies and organizations involved in lake management (including biophysical as well as social factors) should be accessed to help prioritize any problems to be targeted by awareness. Of course, ongoing monitoring of these factors will also be required to revise awareness activities and their content over time. Communities interested in promoting sustainable lake management will profit from taking advantage of the suite of awareness tools already used both by the VLWM and other communities throughout the province to promote sustainable management. These include (but are not restricted to) community meetings; outdoor events; site tours; equipment sharing; print materials such as brochures and newsletters; websites; and media. The suite of tools provides a menu of options that any community may choose from, depending on its unique priorities, issues and values. In terms of monitoring, communities should understand the importance of committing to benchmark and ongoing monitoring activities, and to sharing results, so that efforts and impact can be improved continuously. Monitoring relates to all aspects of a community initiative, including effect on knowledge and action, as well as biophysical factors such as water quality and riparian function. For example, capturing shoreline health data (by completing professional riparian health assessments or lake health checklists distributed to lake residents for completion by them), will provide a valuable benchmark of lakeshore health. Repeating these monitoring activities at a future point will provide an indication of impact of awareness on practice change and lakeshore health. Both benchmark and future monitoring results should always be acted upon to modify awareness activities and their content to achieve maximum impact, as part of a process of continually modifying and improving whatever form the Future Template takes on in a community. Regulation of certain aspects of lake management is one tool available to lake communities that was not specifically incorporated into the five-element process used by the VLWM to promote practice change. However, it is considered both appropriate and necessary, when utilized within the context of the philosophy of voluntary compliance in which awareness (element one in the VLWM process) provides an opportunity for individuals to voluntarily make informed practice change decisions. The requirement for regulation and its enforcement reinforces the need for community awareness initiatives in general, and (as part of a community’s set of awareness tools) for awareness activities that address regulation and enforcement messages specifically. The benefit of regulation is that its clear and consistent enforcement by all relevant jurisdictions will be seen, and seen to be seen, as a fair way to deal with all members of the public, including people who voluntarily comply and those who do not. Locally specific regulations, for example municipal by-laws dealing with an Environmental Reserve, will be typically determined within each municipality, based on its lake issues as identified by community members. Accordingly, the role of regulation and its enforcement adds a sixth process element to the Future Template and the model as tested at Vincent Lake, in addition to (but operating within the philosophy of) the five existing elements, namely: awareness; team-building; tool-building; community-based action and monitoring. Vincent Lake Working Model March 24, 2003

Evaluation Report

8

Media, and linkages to known stakeholders and partners, should be utilized to communicate the status, activities, lessons learned and successes of a community initiative to the public. Communications tools such as newspapers, newsletters and fact sheets are useful in this regard. Items Applicable to Vincent Lake Only In addition to the above points, some actions specific to the VLWG were identified. For example, as indicated above, monitoring relates to all aspects of a community initiative, including effect on knowledge and action, as well as biophysical factors such as water quality and riparian function. At Vincent Lake, for example, a survey of knowledge and attitudes relating to the Environmental Reserve signage is merited, to determine whether any practice change has occurred, whether VLWM awareness activities motivated change, and whether lake residents have left the signs in place. In addition, capturing shoreline health data (by completing professional riparian health assessments or having lake residents complete lake health checklists distributed to them), will provide a valuable benchmark of lakeshore health. Repeating these monitoring activities at a future point will provide an indication of impact of awareness on practice change and lakeshore health. As an experiment, the VLWM has ceased. However, its core partners (e.g. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Alberta Conservation Association) continue their work. They will take a less proactive role in coordinating and managing awareness activities at Vincent Lake in the absence of proactive leadership from that community, but will adopt into their operating process the newly identified sixth process element of enforcement. The core partners intend to continue providing technical advice to the Vincent Lake community, as well as to groups and agencies throughout the province who are involved in developing or managing community initiatives to address lake management issues. The nature of this role reflects the available resources and current mandate of these partners. Summary of the Future Template The Future Template evolving from the experiment known as the VLWM should: incorporate the five elements of the Cows and Fish process, namely awareness; team-

building; tool-building; community-based action; and monitoring; add a sixth element of enforcement, utilized within the context of voluntary compliance

assumed to grow out of awareness; acknowledge that awareness is the primary mechanism by which individuals can make

informed decisions about their lake management; never exclude community input to defining management issues or appropriate awareness

activities to address them; permit the selection and use of awareness activities (and specific issue or topical content)

from a menu of tools used successfully by others, with technical support provided by a wide range of informed partners;

benefit from involvement of partners able to provide clear and consistent contributions;


Evaluation Report

9

be most effective when implemented using a paid-position coordination function designed along the lines of Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture watershed coordinators;

be free to flexibly adopt whatever mix of roles and responsibilities within their initiative that

most effectively addresses the community’s unique needs and characteristics; it may be community-based (entirely led by community members) or community-driven (built on input from community-members at key decision points); and

ensure that monitoring occurs, and that results are shared and acted upon in order to

maximize effectiveness and impact on practice change and lakeshore health. Community Survey Results A detailed description of the community survey results is set out in Section V. In brief: 79% were seasonal residents and 21% were permanent residents;

overall, 73% of respondents were familiar with the VLWM;

of those who had an opinion about the group’s effectiveness (approximately two-thirds of

respondents), 41% rated it as effective; overall, 95% rated awareness activities as very or moderately important to help people in

lake communities to increase their understanding of how and why to manage sustainably; • permanent residents (21%) and seasonal residents (79%) felt equally that awareness

was important; 31% indicated that they had changed their lakeshore management practices following

involvement with the VLWM; 26% responded with N/A (typically because they felt they were already managing properly, or their residence was not on the lakeshore proper); • of those reporting change, 98% were very or moderately familiar with VLWM activities;

overall, 69% were able to correctly define the term riparian;

• among those who felt awareness was very or moderately important, 96% were able to correctly define the term;

• among those who were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM, 84% were able to correctly define the term;

overall, only 19% were able to correctly define the Environmental Reserve;

overall, 76% correctly identified that the Crown and the County own the lakeshore area;

overall, 46% requested that awareness activities continue (38% were not familiar enough to

have an opinion about future activities); community meetings were cited as the most popular type of awareness activity overall

(56%);


Evaluation Report

10

56% requested additional information on each of septic and well systems; laws pertaining to lake activities and management; and algae, aquatic plants and/or weeds;

climate change was rated as the greatest threat to the health of Vincent Lake by 53% of

respondents; 88% of respondents cited fluctuating/lower water levels in the lake as the factor they are

most worried about in terms of lake health; 18% of respondents believed their lakeshore was healthy, 54% believed it was healthy but

with problems; and 28% indicated it was unhealthy; • this result mirrors, approximately, results of lotic riparian health assessments conducted

independently in other parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as in Idaho and Montana;

only 8% of respondents overall had completed a lakeshore riparian health checklist;

only 5% indicated that there was no role for regulations or by-laws to deal with lake

management issues; 61% indicated regulations are required and should be enforced consistently, while 34% indicated regulations are required but should be enforced only in serious cases; • this result is similar to an earlier study asking Vincent Lake residents about regulation, in

which 88% of Vincent Lake residents indicated that regulations were necessary and helpful to deal with lake and lakeshore use; and

• permanent and seasonal residents felt equally that regulation was required; at least three-quarters of respondents called for consistent enforcement of regulations

pertaining to five of nine potential lakeshore activities or uses, including: • bulldozing at the shore (84%); dumping pollutants/waste at the shore (93%); using

weedkiller/herbicide at the shore (85%); disturbing fish/bird/wildlife habitat (76%); and agriculture activites at the shore (74%);

about half of respondents called for consistent enforcement of regulations pertaining to four

of nine potential activites, including: • removing native vegetation at the shore by moving/reshaping soil, sand and/or rocks

(60%); off-trail ATV use in the Environmental Reserve (49%); mowing at the shore (47%); and high boat speed (47%); and

in terms of a preferred approach to address lakeshore management issues:

• 34% of respondents indicated it is a joint responsibility of government agencies working directly with individuals; and 25% indicated it should be a joint responsibility between a local group or association and government agencies; • together, these two options total 57% who prefer a joint working arrangement

between government agencies and community members; • 24% indicated it is solely the responsibility of each individual; 5% indicated it was solely

the responsibility of a local group working with community members; and 2% indicated it is solely the responsibility of government agencies; and

• 64% of permanent residents indicated a greater emphasis on the individual than on local group responsibility, with 57% of seasonal residents feeling that way.


Evaluation Report

11

I. BACKGROUND TO THE VINCENT LAKE WORKING MODEL The VLWG is a group of partners including conservation organizations and government agencies. They drew together in 1999 out of concern about riparian areas, especially lakeshores, in northeastern Alberta, to determine a process by which to bring environmentally-sound management practices to lake communities. The result of their collaboration was the VLWM, essentially an experiment to determine an effective way to achieve that objective. The Working Model focused on Vincent Lake in the County of St. Paul, selected as the subject of the experiment based on proximity to the Town of St. Paul, where a number of core partners were based. Vincent Lake is approx. 5,460 ha in size, with about 13.5 km of shoreline (Vincent Lake Working Group, 2002). The VLWM mission statement is:

“Healthy and Functioning Riparian Areas and Watersheds in Northern Alberta that Provide Communities with Sustainable Recreation and Agriculture Benefits”.

The partners in the VLWM are listed below. • Individual cottagers and farmers • Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development • Alberta Conservation Association • Alberta Environment • Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture • Alberta Lake Management Society • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development - Fish and Wildlife Division - Public Lands Division • Canada Alberta Beef Industry Development Fund • County of St. Paul • Cows and Fish • Ducks Unlimited Canada • FEESA • Fisheries and Oceans Canada • Riparian and Wetland Research Program • Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration • Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay


Evaluation Report

12

The VLWG adopted the five elements of the Cows and Fish Process (as cited in Bateman, 2001; Cows and Fish, 2002) as the fundamental basis of the design and philosophy of the Working Model (Vincent Lake Working Group, 2002). This evaluation was structured on those five elements. The elements, described in Table 1, are awareness; team-building; tool-building; community-based action; and monitoring.

Table 1 Cows and Fish Process Elements

1. Awareness A multi-component voluntary education process using a variety of

awareness tools such as presentations, field trips, print materials, media, community meetings and so on. Their purpose is to build knowledge on riparian ecology (function, evolution, biodiversity and interconnectivity of watersheds), disturbance, velocity, vegetation and its structure, water quality and water quantity, and human dependence and impact on riparian areas. Awareness-building is considered to be the foundation necessary to enable individuals to make informed voluntary decisions about using sustainable riparian practices.

2. Team-Building Bringing together community members, scientists, agency staff and others to share their particular knowledge, skill and wisdom in order to resolve landscape and riparian issues, and working co-operatively in a relatively informal structure to share resources and to design and deliver awareness tools, without a particular focus on the mandate of any particular group or individual.

3. Tool-Building Recognizing that action is required to achieve positive landscape and riparian management, tool-building involves the creation of (a) awareness tools (see 1 above); and (b) management tools, a series of specific actions that individuals can take to improve land and water health. These include techniques relating to protecting natural vegetation and controlling invasive species, reducing stress on riparian areas by controlling e.g. vehicular or livestock access, and monitoring water quality and riparian function by a variety of assessment tests.

4. Community-Based Action

Reflecting the assumption that everyday land and water management is undertaken by individual community members, it is a process in which management and awareness needs are identified, shared and acted upon in deliberate and ongoing interaction between team members. Fundamental to community-based action is that community involvement and leadership drives the priorities and direction of the other four process elements, either by key individuals and/or some form of community group or association.

5. Monitoring An essential element in which the management of any community initiative, as well as its land and water management outcomes, are continually evaluated for the purpose of ongoing improvement of effectiveness.


Evaluation Report

13

The VLWG anticipated that its efforts at promoting healthy shoreline management, the pathway it refers to the Working Model, would be an experiment spanning three years, ending in late 2002. At the conclusion of that timeframe, decisions were to be made about whether the Working Model could be formalized and promoted as a Future Template for use by other Alberta lake communities to help them deal with their riparian and lakeshore management issues. This evaluation was the result of the partners’ requirement to address those matters.


Evaluation Report

14

II. EVALUATION DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY The VLWM evaluation was requested in 2002 by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Alberta Conservation Association, two core partners of the VLWG, as the Working Model neared the completion of its anticipated lifespan. The VLWM evaluation had a number of discrete goals which merited two separate methodologies. The goals and methods are described below. In carrying out both parts of this evaluation, a utilization-focused approach was employed, following the standards and principles of program evaluation (Joint Committee on Educational Evaluation, 1994; Rossi et al., 1999). The objective of utilization-focused evaluation is to proactively work with evaluation participants and users to ensure that results are useable and practical (Patton, 1997). For example, the detailed content of the data collection instruments, as well as the specific presentation of the tabulated quantitative evaluation results, were negotiated with selected VLWG partners, in their role as evaluation users. Part I – Partner Interviews The goal of Part I of the VLWM evaluation was to review and clarify those characteristics of the Working Model (as it has been carried out at Vincent Lake in the past three years) which may be appropriate to include in a Future Template for other lake communities in Alberta to use to address their lake and lakeshore management. Some of the general questions that needed to be considered as part of that review are set out below. • Should awareness be delivered to individual community members or to a community group? • Should the VLWG partners be educators and/or enforcers? • Should core partners or community members steer the process? • What is the role of community members in promoting/achieving healthy shorelines? • Can the Working Model translate into use in other communities? • How can efforts be delivered most efficiently to large geographic areas? • How can efforts be successfully delivered in terms of dollar and time resources? Several factors determined the approach used for Part I of the evaluation. These factors included (a) the collaborative nature of the VLWM; (b) the specific expertise brought to it by key community members and agency staff involved, that both informed the design of the Working Model and that is essential to defining the Future Template; and (c) the desire to make the evaluation results as practical as possible for users. As Part I was essentially an exploratory process, but one which would benefit from the collaboration and expertise of those most closely involved, this part of the evaluation adopted, in principle, a nominal group decision approach (Delbecq et al., 1975), modified to the needs of the VLWG. This approach involved: • collecting illustrative verbal (qualitative) information from key informants; • summarizing that information into thematic observations and questions related to potential

components of the Working Model and Future Template; and


Evaluation Report

15

• providing an opportunity for those informants to collectively identify responses to those questions and then to reach consensus on the most desirable option by voting on all options so identified -- as a way of themselves making the content and structure of the Working Model and the Future Template their own product.

The qualitative data required for the decision tree were drawn from key individuals involved in the VLWG and from community members. Twelve individuals were interviewed in person at Lethbridge and at St. Paul in November, 2002, using a structured interview guide (Appendix A). Interviewees included lake residents from the St. Paul area; representatives of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development; the Alberta Conservation Association; the County of St. Paul; Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture; and Cows and Fish. The same individuals later participated in defining the options required to answer the questions on the decision tree. In order to provide some structure to the interview data, the interview guide was framed around key components of the VLWM’s program logic (Framst, 1995; Rush and Ogborne, 1991), namely: • its Process (how the VLWG has carried out its activites/goals/objectives); • its Output (what it produced or intended to produce); and • its Outcome (what was achieved or intended to be achieved). Structuring the interview data in this way allowed the results to be presented in a manner logically linked to the fundamental design of the Working Model, as well as any potential Future Template, i.e. using the five elements of the Cows and Fish Process (awareness and education; team-building; tool-building; community-based action; and monitoring). The characteristics in question relate to such things as the role of awareness, community involvement, agency staff and various awareness and management tools such as community meetings, Environmental Reserve signage and enforcement techniques. Part II – Community Survey The goals of Part II of the evaluation were to (a) assess the knowledge levels of permanent and seasonal Vincent Lake community members on items such as riparian areas, and ownership and management of the Environmental Reserve; and (b) examine community preferences on such things as the role and nature of awareness activities, community involvement, agency staff and the need (if any) for enforcement techniques. This information was collected by a survey (Appendix B) mailed to landholders around Vincent Lake, including the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay. Survey design followed the tenets of Dillman’s Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978) to maximize response rate. Survey content was pre-tested with four people familiar, but not directly associated, with the VLWM. Survey results were tabulated as cross tabulations and frequencies using SPSS statistical software.


Evaluation Report

16

Survey results are provided n Section V under the following headings. Awareness • Definition of Terms • Familiarity with the VLWM and its Impact on Awareness and Practice Change • Importance of Awareness Compared to Knowledge and Practice Change • Additional Context for Developing and Targeting Awareness Team-Building N/A. Tool-Building • Amount and Nature of Awareness Activities • Lakeshore Health Checklist and Health Categories • Regulation as a Potential Tool Community-Based Action • Responsibility for Lake Health Monitoring N/A.


Evaluation Report

17

III. PARTNER INTERVIEW RESULTS AND DECISION TREE QUESTIONS (BY MODEL ELEMENT) This section of the report summarizes the results of the partner interviews. To enable the VLWG partners to ultimately focus on the integral desirable components of both the Working Model and the Future Template, the evaluator first drew together illustrative quotations and themes from the interviews, setting them out in a decision tree format (described below). The evaluator then defined key questions arising from the decision tree, and presented them for discussion at a Partner Working Session held in St. Paul on January 13, 2003. The discussion at that session was supplemented with partial survey statistical results (Part II of the evaluation was still in process at that date) to shed further light on the decision-making process related to topics relevant to the decision tree questions. The answers to the decision tree questions, defined collaboratively by the participants in the Partner Working Session, were voted on by participants and are reported in Section IV of this report. The result of this nominal approach to defining the key components of the Working Model and the Future Template was that the design and delivery of future programming are, in essence, the result of partner values and experience. Subsequent to the Partner Working Session, the remaining survey results were tabulated as Part II of the evaluation was completed. In the interests of clarity, all survey results, whether or not used in relation to the decision tree process described below, are reported in Section V of this report. The decision tree was structured into five parts, following the five elements of the Cows and Fish Process (adopted as the design and philosophy of the Working Model during its development phase). The decision tree was further refined by three components reflecting the activites and goals of the VLWM: • its Process (how the VLWG has carried out its activites/goals/objectives); • its Output (what it produced or intended to produce); and • its Outcome (what was achieved or intended to be achieved). The decision tree was simply a mechanism to focus and streamline discussion and decisions about the structure and operation of both the current Working Model and the Future Template. It was designed to enable the VLWG partners to address the primary goal of Part I of the evaluation, namely to make strategic decisions on key Process components (such as structure and governance) of both the Working Model and the Future Template to be made available for other lake communities to use in achieving healthy lakes and healthy shorelines. To a lesser extent, decision-making relating to some Output components (such as effectiveness of awareness tools) was also addressed in the decision tree. Note that illustrative commentary and discussion on Process, Output or Outcome topics is provided only to the extent that interviewees provided feedback on them. The decision tree format used throughout the remainder of this document is illustrated in Figure 1.


Evaluation Report

18

DETERMINED BY PARTNERS ON JANUARY 13, 2003

Output Topic

Selected Survey Data

Decisions for Future Template

Decisions for Working Model

Summary Discussion Point(s)for Decision by Partners

Illustrative Quotations

Process Topic

5 Process Elements (e.g. Awareness)

Outcome Topic

Figure 1

Decision Tree Format Element 1: Awareness Topics Raised by Interviewees A. Process 1. The importance of raising awareness was reported consistently as being a high priority,

with an emphasis on using a variety of tools.

Awareness is number 1, the first step. The model was to take a bite out of that (lack of buy-in). Trying to provide information to the community, education to the community, as to why those areas were important, but also inform…agencies, county and all our partners, about the health as well. It’s not a cookbook, it's awareness of opportunities, a library of potential to-do’s. If somebody doesn’t really explain to you, you can easily get your back up. Clean that up, here’s the order. You dislike the enforcement people, if they had told you why the law was in place, and spent a bit of time explaining why that really is damaging the lake for the last 20 years, what you’re doing, OK I’ll pay and fix it and I understand it.


Evaluation Report

19

2. Raising awareness was acknowledged to be a long-term and possibly an open-ended process.

Remember you expect these people to know it, but how would they know it? They should be aware but obviously they aren’t…they’re not purposely unaware; they [just] don’t link the things together. The biggest goal was awareness, also to let the people know what a riparian area was. What some of the problems were, such as cleaning the beach right down, disturbing the vegetation. The awareness of the Environmental Reserve. Some were aware, some didn’t have a clue, some knew where the property line was. People tend to abuse the area that’s not theirs, especially if not enforced. There is a feeling, now we’ve done awareness, now we can move on to enforcement… there’s no excuse anymore, they’ve been bombarded with info...[there’s a perception that] now…we can move on…patience and the length of time required were different in different people’s minds, so when should everybody be aware? There’s a natural tendency [that] we need to move forward because we’ve done all the awareness. We want to see this big light bulb go off in people's heads, but change takes time. It took 40 years to get where we are at the lake, you can’t expect to change values overnight. The Working Model provides a logical series of steps for individuals, groups, agencies, etc. to take the lead to a desirable conclusion. More of those meetings would be positive…just a matter of reaffirming in their mind. Maybe have some feedback from them. If you do it once every five years, they’ve forgotten, you want to reinforce it. Look to the long-term, none of this is going to be resolved in the short-term. It’s not a two year project.

3. Identifying priorities and maintaining the pace of awareness activities was noted to be

important.

Maintaining the health of lake, it has got to be health of lake, the number one priority, if we don’t have a lake, we don’t need to worry about the lake! Wanting to maintain the water level. It’s not the edge of the lake [people are worried about, that] doesn’t bother us half as much as level of water, and water quality. Well, personally, I know what they’re doing, it’s a slow, slow process, not fast enough for me…they’re not doing very much. I think the [community] is frustrated. I think we should have meetings more often, where we gather together…particularly through the summer months. In two months time, we should do it again. Keep them in the know. Sending a paper doesn’t do it…People are unsure where things are standing…real important…keep us in touch.

B. Output 1. The delivery of awareness activities was seen as flexible and adaptable; part of its value

lying in being relevant and useful for a variety of communities.

What we delivered wasn’t what we had as we started to evolve, it wasn’t what we thought necessarily, it was what was asked of us, they’d like to see this and this, so we retooled, came back to give them that. I think we’re expecting Cows and Fish to be too diverse, their approach is best, but it’s too broad, with the number of communities and difference in ecosystems. Needs to be relevant to


Evaluation Report

20

a local situation…they‘re stereotyped, Cows and Fish is perceived to be southern, although that’s not a problem for them if they continue to do what they’re doing. Their approach is doing well and they are continually reevaluating their approach. The lake day, and the meeting at the senior centre was good, because they did different presentations and explained by displays and handouts, and [you could] ask questions, it was more interactive, casual and informal but very informative. Especially, don’t be a stuffed shirt, this is lake stuff, have a wiener roast. We set up the Healthy Vincent Lake Day, and I think we had 135 participants that day, and I thought it was fairly successful…we got a little bold in what we could do, too much information, maybe it was too long.

C. Outcome 1. There is a general view that the activities have made an impact on awareness levels,

with anecdotal evidence that practices are beginning to change (but somewhat difficult to know precisely the impact on actual health).

Without any hard numbers to back this, we have to be intuitive and, talking to people in community, the level of education and awareness re riparian issues is definitely higher, particularly around the targeted lakes. We bumped into the people, they read the book, but they now had a sense of what the message we were giving was. That’s a positive. It definitely raised awareness, sensitized people to think about it, improve their knowledge level. Definitely they did change behaviour or actions, we got some emails and verbal info…that people had actually made changes, to see what we did on our place, and certainly…people have talked to them, we’ve started to look at things differently, and people I’ve talked to have been very positive, this was really good info, they felt it was useful, and motivated by it, too. I think we did a good job of targeting actions and activites that would meet [the Model’s] objectives, I don’t think we’ve changed the health of the lake or what everybody is doing, but there have been changes, but activities were well placed and well laid out and built on one another. I think that the number one is we do know people are making changes, but also the County has made some decisions, so we know there’s action out there, there’s a sort of attitude or ethic change, not only do they know more they also feel differently about what they do, link what they do to what they know. I think it made [that community member] aware, [he was] unaware… he didn’t feel there was a problem. Just the understanding of people knowing about areas and sensitivity of lakes, and weeds and algae, nutrients going in, so it’s a learning thing for people. The cottagers have got to learn more about riparian, they didn’t know what it was. Some were open, some were not. It’s been like this for so long, why change it? Old school. They’ve been living there 20, 30 years. I think because of the awareness, some people stopped working up the beach, or disturbing the beach. They left the natural vegetation, so I think in some areas there, that was a positive. Because of the meetings we’ve had, people have a lot more respect for the lake. On the other hand, there are some people doing the same thing. They don’t care, but overall it was a positive step. What did work, was the awareness and education, getting the ah-hah. It was incredible, they knew it wasn’t about finger-pointing, that was quite powerful. We were hoping for that. That was all positive. What did happen was for the benefit. Not what I wanted personally, but at least it let people know that there was problems, things you can do and not do.


Evaluation Report

21

Yes, people are changing their behaviours. More people are more observant, there’s no dumping. That is a result of the activities, it has raised the level of awareness, they’re not going to do that at “our” lake. They looked at attendance numbers, it was good attendance. Over 50 at lots of things. Lots of verbal communication from individual people…saying come out and see what I’ve done at the lakeshore. A couple of people approached me after [the meeting], one indicated that he was totally unaware of some of the negative things he’d done, he had taken a frontend loader so he could access the lake better, if he’d known, he’d not have done it.

Discussion Points Used in Partner Working Session • Awareness activities appear to be a fundamentally important basis for proactive change and

are, therefore, a highly desirable aspect of the Working Model. They are seen as practical and proactive in increasing knowledge, giving people the basis to understand why sustainable lakeshore practices are necessary and achievable.

• Based on anecdotal evidence, activities appear to be raising general awareness about lakeshore management practices, but the type and nature of practice change is not yet fully understood.

• Awareness activities appear to be generally well received, and are viewed as reasonably effective for a recent and relatively small-scale initiative such as the VLWM.

• However, it is a challenge to assess how much awareness is required to reach everyone over time, to manage the pace and timing of awareness activities, and to achieve a consistently reliable level of knowledge on which people can base management decisions.

• Key participants in, and content of, awareness activities are considered flexible, and therefore well suited for inclusion in principle in any Future Template.

Overall, awareness is seen as an essential, indeed fundamental, aspect of the Working

Model and any Future Template. Element 2: Team-Building Topics Raised by Interviewees A. Process 1. Willingness by team members to be open and flexible about their roles, priorities and

mandates is fundamental to finding a common ground.

I think the challenge is always to get consensus among a diverse group of partners that sort of have a similar end goal in the long run. We did sit down and decide, we did come to an agreement, in general if I recall, we wanted to increase awareness, so, a better understanding of what made the lake healthy or not healthy including the riparian areas, and that what they do at the lake influences lake and riparian health. People had to be open to trying that approach. That’s a big thing, if you’re not open to it, it can’t happen.


Evaluation Report

22

I think the challenge is always to get consensus among a diverse group of partners that sort of have a similar end goal in the long run but to come to a consensus on how to do that will continue to be a challenge.

2. The Cows and Fish process adopted and used by the VLWG, as its framework, is

viewed as a sound approach, but identifying and utilizing the right mix of technical/staff resources is a challenge.

What quickly came out of [planning discussions] were two primary goals, the essence of Cows and Fish, it is essentially a communications model, a way of people interacting. Used the same philosophies to build our group. Although there was a good mix of personalities you can’t always provide that…the biggest success was being able [to] bend, we knew we had to bend…we realized that through this process…If you’ve done all the steps, then it’s manageable, to address the scope of the problem. Working in partnership is a challenge, getting the right people, lots of agencies that do work on riparian, but finding the right people within that agency. Team-building idea. That was quite important…other people will have trouble finding something comparable to that. The right people, was a freak of circumstance. Others will have to build their team in a different fashion…their core membership is going to have to have the knowledge and skills.

3. It is important to get all the required partners involved to ensure that interests and needs

can be addressed.

We need to have a little higher profile in getting our municipal governments involved. I think it has to be community-based, and you have to include everybody, different kinds of stakeholders, agriculture, producers, the cottage people, the villages, golf courses, you need to make sure to include everybody to represent all those differences. A little bit of targeting everybody separately but also together, e.g. water quality is common to everybody, then some of those activities you can address with everybody, and to show them to have a common goal, although how they work towards it may be different based on their needs. DFO is absolutely a new potential partner. No interaction with DFO, probably should be involved. I don’t perceive the federal involvement as a problem [to get involved], I hear people complaining about the big guns through DFO, if that’s who has to do it, that’s who should do it. [It’s an] absurd title [but] I don’t care.

4. It is important that team members take steps to understand. and reflect in their activities.

the unique character, history and interests of the lake community.

Never would have believed that the number one activity was yard work...need a sense of the history of the lake, can’t go forward to that unless we know where we’ve been, a community group or agency, got to have a sense of what people value, what have they done in the past, what are the problems. I think one of the real strengths was really recognizing that we had to know the audience, that we really had to not go on assumptions of what they needed, but really find out what was needed, and tailor what we did to meet those needs, that was very positive.


Evaluation Report

23

B. Output 1. The contribution of agency partners has been and continues to be available, but on a

somewhat limited basis that is influenced by finite resources that must be utilized over large areas -- meaning that in future agency roles may be increasingly limited to supporting, rather than leading, program efforts which, instead, will need to be led by others.

I provide advice on things that I know about. [We’ll] still try to promote healthy riparian awareness and working with landowners, but need to add on. [Agencies] would act as a resource for other groups; they’ve got a lot of info written on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it; I think they would act as a good resource as a template. We’re resource people to help [those who might be interested]. In the St. Paul office we’re sort of hoping that other lakes will contact us but not ask for too much help. We can’t do another Working Model, but we would gladly be resource people to them, we would gladly help. We have to look for opportunities for ongoing work within the agency environment, to perhaps populate that suite of tools…to empower municipal government…us coming in and saying, excuse me, what you think is important is not right, you’re dead. All we can try to do is point out options…open a dialogue. Perhaps [we as agencies] would be invited to contribute to a cottage association…I think [we] will act as outside consultants, we will not run it. We would encourage you as part of the process to work at getting your group together, and work on passive enforcement, education, eventually tell them about what type of enforcement is there, after a year or so your group may want to get involved in active enforcement…In the formative stages you shouldn’t do that because you’re going to loose support, you’re just lake cops, and your more important role is for your cottage association to be an education and awareness group to get as many people at the lake aware of how the lake functions and why the shorelines are important, rather than a manicured beach.

C. Outcome 1. One of the benefits of working together is providing a consistent awareness message to

the public.

Different agencies agreed on the approach and activites and the general goal that we were trying to work toward, very positive to work together. From the landowner side of it, public side of it, that was very positive because they were getting more consistent information.

Discussion Points Used in Partner Working Session • A variety of types of team resources seems essential for any awareness process to be

effective; this is key to the Cows and Fish process and has worked well for the VWLM. • A team must have a solid understanding of local issues and needs before proceeding. • Team members must be characterized by a willingness to work flexibly (and, if agency

people, both inside and outside of their established mandates). • Individual core team members are eager to provide support, but are increasingly limited in

their ability to proactively lead initiatives such as the VLWM. The provision of technical support is acknowledged and appreciated, but cannot be assumed, given the many


Evaluation Report

24

jurisdictions and changing mandates that staff must deal with. This again suggests the need for other partners or individuals to take on more proactive leadership.

• It is a challenge to keep team members proactively involved once on board. • All relevant partners, representing the multiple jurisdictions responsible for management of

riparian areas, need to be included. Relevance should be defined as making a practical contribution.

• The model must have a mechanism to continually seek skills and resources to strengthen its work, including being able to provide consistent delivery within communities.

Overall, team-building is viewed as an essential element to strengthening the Working

Model and any Future Template. It is necessary to engender broad commitment and access to the technical and financial support required to efficiently and effectively deliver awareness activities and tools in a consistent manner.

Element 3: Tool-Building Topics Raised by Interviewees A. Process Note: In terms of awareness and management tools, interviewees spoke primarily about their Output and Outcome aspects – see the appropriate sections below. In terms of Process, most of the discussion was framed around the enforcement issue, as noted in the illustrative quotations that follow. 1. Overlapping jurisdictions, lack of clarity on jurisdictions, and hesitation (partially based

on lack of awareness) has resulted in a confusing – and ineffective – enforcement setting.


Evaluation Report

Some…good people who are really quite concerned that they have such a poor enforcement culture in such an extremely important area as water. The biggest challenge is having some type of by-law and enforcement. Nobody knows where the boundaries are, you’ve got to figure out where the high-water mark is. There are different definitions for high-water mark…there has to be something, right now, we don’t have anything. We can’t do anything, our hands are tied. At least a by-law gives you guidelines, and whether you enforce it or not is another issue, it’s a guideline. A bit of due diligence on the part of the County. Part of it is that it comes from some of the Council…some are afraid even though the Environmental Reserve…that it’s a kind of regulation, there isn’t necessary any enforcement. There may be a misinterpretation that somebody may be knocking on their door. Maybe a scary thing. Hard to get Council on board if you’re using a by-law that somebody has to enforce, not that they don’t agree with the by-law, but all the repercussions afterwards. We’re going to have to look at some type of enforcement, who does it is another question. You can book somebody for murder easier than to fine somebody for shoreline damage…if through education and awareness we can greatly reduce the number of people with infractions on the shoreline, we will have a much smaller number of bad people who need to be brought into compliance with the law, it will finally become manageable. Instead of 200 at Vincent Lake, we’ll have 20, we can deal with 20. But we can’t deal with 200 people, most of whom are doing it quite naively.

25

2. Defining and communicating the nature of compliance is a big challenge for partnerships.

We had real whopper discussions, especially enforcement, what role does it have. We wrestled it to the ground, it was the single biggest potential contentious issue. [By] continuing the communication [awareness]…The Model delivers passive enforcement, by that we will provide all the info for people to understand their obligations legally, and the requirements of agencies. They know how it affects them. If they understand the message, they’ll understand the conclusion. At the same time, we needed to provide a linkage to direct enforcement. The first five steps make the last one a no-brainer. Enforcement agencies, maybe a group that has enforcement responsibility, you guys don’t have to go to step 6, all those negative things, the model has 1-5 steps, do this, all of a sudden when you do step 6, you’re not the bad guy, you got a team supporting you. That would be sweet. End result is healthy shorelines. The goal. From my perspective, once we’ve made them aware, then you go straight to enforcement. Passive versus active enforcement. Awareness is passive enforcement, they make their changes without someone else coming in to fine them, the big stick approach.

3. Whether individuals choose to comply voluntarily tends to vary widely within the general

public.

Because I think that a lot of people, once they realize what the issues are and some of the simple things they can do to change it, they will change - there will be a lot of voluntary compliance. I see three groups of people. There are people aware of problems and continue to learn more and will do things at their own level to stop them. And maybe get others to be involved. The innovative group, or leader of that idea. Then there are the people, if they are simply made aware and are willing to learn, they will get involved, and then there’s the third group who are not only ignorant of problems but they have no motivation to go out and learn of problems. They’re only affected by monetary things. They find the other two groups are the thorn of their sides, their livelihood. I think the middle group is the largest group. The first group is the smallest. Group 3 are the ones who [feel], if I didn’t look and listen, I won’t have to make any changes. Those people are a very effective. Neither group 1 or 2 can function at their optimum as long as group 3 is suppressing them. There are some who will find out the right thing and do it, and some will change when they have the right info and do a 180 turn, they realize and don’t do it any more, and there are other people who are take the right thing and start doing the right thing after there’s a bit of a threat behind it all. And some of those folks will say to us, when are you gonna start on those bad guys? I’ve been doing the right thing, and you’re still allowing those guys to cultivate their beach? That guy is going to drag us down. The approach of being proactive vs. reactive, which seems to be the best approach, is not easily promoted…they only react to loss of freedom or revenue. If there were just a hint of enforcement. Even a hint of enforcement of rules and regulations, they might start to take notice.


Evaluation Report

26

4. The point at which enforcement is viewed as appropriate in the model is when opportunities for awareness have already occurred.

The other option is enforcement, a by-law, then it’s black and white, a trespass on the Environmental Reserve and then you have to put it back to condition. Tough one to know where it fits in. More a last resort that you use it, but they have to be aware of it up front. The enforcement is the last stepping stone in the process. Gives people the chance to do the right thing on their own. What do we do if after we do [awareness etc.], after how many years, how do we respond if it hasn’t changed? Then what do you do? I’d give it three to five years, then you have to look at something else. I don’t think people want a by-law controlling the Environmental Reserve, I think people are caring enough…other lakes haven’t had a project…they could use a project, might create an awareness. Give them fair warning, only in extreme cases, you’ll create a lot of animosity toward the project if you don't do that, be gentle. Awareness is the only way to go, use enforcement as a last resort.

5. Finding a comfort zone for municipal governments in relation to regulation and its

enforcement is a challenge, but it is essential to deal with it.

[It] requires municipal governments to buy-in, they are trying to deny responsibility to manage the Environmental Reserve even though there is a legislative mandate to do that. Unauthorized activities have been allowed for so long, it’s almost a folk crime, everybody does it. They realize what they have to do, but it’s not within their comfort zone. Municipal governments are far more agricultural-based, but we’re dealing with rural residential people who are populated around wetlands, so it’s outside their comfort zone. They’re looking to ignore it or to get a quick-fix. These things are too big for counties…the councilors don’t have the resources, it’s out of their realm to deal with these things. On one side we have Public Lands, it’s very clear, except public lands is unable and unwilling because it’s not clear where the line is. [The County] has become a partner with us with the signage…so they become card-carrying members by taking part in the signage, but they still didn’t have a by-law to enforce anything. At the field level, they’ve been very helpful and supportive…but at Council level, it’s not happening. The county used fire hazard as an excuse, because they would have to enforce it. That’s a bad guy thing. They need to be encouraged to have a by-law officer.

B. Output 1. Overall, the suite of the VLWM tools was viewed as comprehensive, transferable,

flexible and beneficial, and can be useful within many individual communities.


Evaluation Report

It’s integrated. Pulls a whole pile of different things together. It’s believable. It’s easy to tell people things, how riparian habitat works, but what we’ve tried to do is connect erosion, property values, enjoyment of lakeside setting, prevention of enforcement guys from coming, and a bunch of other things, integrate all of these values together. Rather than saying one or another Property values are increased if you look after the lake long term a better fishery

27

you will have cleaner water, the best this lake can do, and all of that integrates and is believable because there are many facets all talking together. Adaptability -- the fact that it would be used by anybody anywhere, as a model. Quite transferable to other communities, that would be my whole goal for this, because through the alterations you make it such that anyone can use it anywhere. It’s quite transferable…I think a lot of the activities are appropriate, even the in-depth study, they did cost money like the videography, but some things were very simple and inexpensive, like the Lake Day and the Environmental Reserve signage, it was fairly simple and low cost. Easily transferable things. I think some of the basic elements like community meetings, workshops, conceptual things have to stay. What actually populates those things has to evolve. As we learn more collectively we will be forced to make those changes, the community will demand us to make those changes. Education and awareness is education and awareness, it’s how you package it. The Working Model is one iteration. The activities have all been good and I wouldn’t recommend removing any of them. I think some of the tools could be used universally, outside Alberta, then some specific regional things, you could adapt for other points. Who your resources are is going to change, but I think in general, the dynamics of the community is going to be a key component, and some of those things are universal, even if it’s different stakeholders, but that community-based is the same. I don’t think the model is directly transferable to any community, but bits and pieces of it are. I don’t think it’s exportable how we did the Model, the internal process. But I think the results of the Model are directly transferable.

2. Partners can readily identify the tools used by VLWM.

The tools are the website, the videos, the newspaper articles, the healthy lake day, we have a little info about how a community can do something similar, a fact sheet on enforcement models. Did an assessment, flew the lakeshore, twice. They’ve done at least community meetings for sure, with various speakers doing education and awareness to let them know their intentions, get them involved from the community, and educate them on riparian areas and lake health issues, water quality, then at another [meeting] they talked about the legislation and enforcement issues, the regulations that exist. They did an initial evaluation that they sent out to the cottagers. The lake day also. A whole list; they did the cottager attitude survey; they’ve done quite a few awareness meetings; a healthy lake day outside; they’ve done some signage in the Reserve; a little bit of riparian health assessment, videography; the other stuff I’m aware of they’ve done some awareness materials for handout; newspaper articles locally; some of the research on the lentic form. The attitude survey was an excellent thing to do. The tools are the website, the videos, the newspaper articles, the healthy lake day, we have a little info about how a community can do something similar, a fact sheet on enforcement models, active or passive.


Evaluation Report

28

3. Continuity and guidance would be the benefits of a municipal Environmental Reserve by-law.

I think there should be an Environmental Reserve by-law, a good idea…it’s a way of, not an enforcement, more of a way of recognizing what’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and activities. If the [cottager] wants to do something in there, mow, move rocks [the by-law would give] a transparent process where they get written permission, it would be transparent to everyone at the lakes. Once you have a by-law in place, then the legacy continues, but it’s getting the first bite. But it has to be on paper, the by-law, it’s got to be steeped in law, because it’s too easy to change with next administration.

C. Outcome 1. Some improvement to landscape health has been noted.

Just since last summer when they started the Environmental Reserve signage, it’s already starting to grow back, people are respecting that boundary. The signs aren’t really obtrusive. [The] aerial videography…footage…You see that line where’s mowed grass and taller on the other? That’s the ER signage line! The Environmental Reserve signage, definitely the awareness part has been achieved, it’s hard to miss something new on your property. That aspect of it’s achieved.

2. Relevant information presented at events such as community-meetings can act as a

catalyst to taking action in other communities.

I was very impressed by attendance… it was a full room, I know a lot of people had traveled from Edmonton to be there, outside normal season to be there. I took that as an indication that probably…the people at [another] lake should be as interested and as concerned. [There were no drawbacks, nothing that wasn’t productive. All of the presenters had pertinent topics, [I assumed] from the questions that followed, that’s what I use as a guide. It was pertinent. It was after that we got together and [took action to start our project]. This, as far as confirming and building interest were concerned, our meetings were successful.

3. The acceptance of the Environmental Reserve signage by the community may vary.

That was a big thing. I’m a firm believer that it is probably the single biggest best thing we ever did. It’s the front line of the war…That’s the biggest export to the community. The signage and the weeds are the big problems…they hated the signs, probably pulled them out. They hate not being able to trim in front.


Evaluation Report

29

Discussion Points Used in Partner Working Session • The suite of awareness tools available (e.g. community meetings, print materials, outdoor

events) is considered both effective and appropriate for the most part, and their value in any Future Template lies in the ability to be flexible in selecting specific content and issues, depending on a community’s needs.

• However, the ability to deliver the messages contained in awareness tools, and achieving practice change as a result, is complicated by diverse agendas, long-standing practices, confusing mandates and lack of commitment for resources and tools to fulfill enforcement mandates. There is confusion even among agency staff as to the boundaries between jurisdictions at the lake. It is, therefore, not difficult to understand that community members may be unsure of the boundaries as well as the location of the Environmental Reserve.

• Benefits of program tools include increasing awareness about management practices; anticipated and actual practice change, and providing a link between communities seeking an information-sharing process.

• Achieving a by-law for the Environmental Reserve is subject to the same issues. There is sensitivity to the municipal government’s concerns about taking on the responsibility for the Environmental Reserve, given the assumption that it may be poorly received by ratepayers.

• A potential tool that can present stumbling blocks for communities is regulation and its enforcement, both in terms of coming to agreement on its use, and moving ahead with relevant awareness efforts. However, there is a high level of support for the concept of voluntary compliance, meaning that the first and primary approach to practice change is through awareness, but when that fails, enforcement (as a central element in program design) is the appropriate response.

• There is no one-fits-all solution, given how different individuals respond to the concept of behaviour change and the ethos of enforcement. This suggests the need for flexibility in ensuring a variety of tools to comprehensively address awareness, voluntary practice change and any infractions (depending on the nature, extent and timing of problems).

• Mechanisms to encourage commitment from the municipal government to ensure appropriate management of the Environmental Reserve are required. Communicating evidence of the community’s views on a potential by-law may be an essential aspect of this.

Overall, awareness tools used to date have been well received, with some anecdotal

evidence suggesting different views about the acceptance of the Environmental Reserve signage employed at Vincent Lake. The flexibility and adaptability of the type and content of most awareness tools is likely to promote high acceptance by other communities dealing both with their unique problems and issues common to all lakes. • The role of enforcement as a tool for practice change is viewed as both appropriate and

necessary, but only in the context of a philosophy of voluntary compliance in which awareness first provides an opportunity for individuals to voluntarily make informed practice change decisions.

• Clear and consistent enforcement by all relevant jurisdictions should be seen, and seen to be seen, as a fair way to treat infractions and to deal with all members of the public, not least those who have voluntarily complied.


Evaluation Report

30

Element 4: Community-Based Action Topics Raised by Interviewees A. Process 1. Anyone wanting to initiate change will face the common challenge of the tendency of

people to resist change and to have other priorities, and will need to show the benefits and rewards of proposed change.

[The challenge is] getting started. Because there’s so many variables and the fear of getting started. At the end of the day you have to start some place. Be proactive or face the consequences. Media coverage…at least alluding to that message, would work. It is not a concentrated effort. The biggest challenge is the public perception that change is always negative. They have to promote that this change is positive in the long run, to show economic benefit to this, it’s not hard to find. The communities have to be rewarded, either indirectly through revenue coming to see their accomplishments, or some very obvious pats on the backs. At Sylvan Lake and Pine Lake there are people who are flipping mad…you have to lose it before you know what you had. Would have liked to see more interest by local people, but everybody’s busy, they come to the lake, they don’t want to have a meeting.

2. Input from community and peers is central to success.

The group needs to commit, if it starts as an agency organization group…to getting local involvement, find the key people in the MD…who showed the right characteristics, they’re willing to take on the responsibility, have a vision, willing to put their face out there…they’re key because they can bring on others from the community. I think it’s important for them to keep getting input from that community so whether it be an annual meeting to get input and/or some sort of evaluation from them, they need to keep that contact. If you can get somebody that’s perceived as a peer, then it’s more influential than a government position, little different credibility, that’s a good aspect.

3. A series of practical barriers impact the governance and implementation of the Working

Model, including availability of funds, practical limitations placed on agency staff roles, duplicated resources/lack of clarity on who is responsible for awareness, and limited tools or structure to promote a profile for activities/goals on a broad scale.

I’ve approached several non-profit organizations, but also industry people, like ALPAC, and some people aren’t willing to get involved until they know you have an established group, they want something concrete and recognizable, that’s tough. We’re interested, you’re still in the beginning stages, so come back when you’re organized, a group or some sort. Definitely a catalyst to have [project] money…. Need to direct money appropriately. At [another] lake, the first question was, where do they get funding, they’d heard about this and that, and what are the programs? But if you had [something like] an AESA person in every


Evaluation Report

31

county dedicated to this kind of thing, that could be a co-coordinator, if you make them responsible for writing funding proposals, the joy disappears. That’s a problem I have with a lot of funding programs, they’re all over the place. If you don’t know that it’s available, then how do you ever get the benefits of using it? There may be a lake group, but it’s not marketing or advertising, how do you make people aware that it’s out there? It depends on who you expect to be driving it, if it’s from government or the ACA or [municipal government] then this information can be distributed… but if it’s somebody sitting on the side of the lake and they’re concerned, how are they ever going to know? It has to be coordinated, who do they expect to be delivering all the elements of this Model, how do you get the model to them [so they can] deliver it?

4. The need for informed, locally-focused, centralized co-ordination of the process was

reported consistently.

This is big enough there could be a person dedicated to it. To be consistent with the framework, the preferred outcome is that communities take the model and use it at their lake. However, having said that, if agencies choose to be proactive at a lake, they could use the template. The desirable one is the community group. What does it take to deliver that? One person. Need to have somebody who knows the possibilities, and matching that to an appropriate activity or event to get it across. Doesn’t matter who it is…a coordinator. What is needed is some consistent people. Someone who has been involved either successfully or unsuccessfully in the full range, in a lake group, you’ve got to find some individuals who will travel around and tell people what to expect. It has to be more community involvement, you need a leader or two to help out. It’s not hard to find the people who are driven in the community but whether they want to have that role as a leader, especially on something that’s environmental and it’s controversial, in that there’s lots of people that need improvement, so you get into that situation where people start finger-pointing, and people are hesitant and there are those social aspects, someone more removed from situation who doesn’t have to deal with those right in their back yard. It needs to be some sort of coordinator, somebody to access for resources, to set up, it’s almost impossible for them to send out mailings, do meetings, you need some help for an organization. If someone is paid to do something…people can understand why you’re doing it. Got have someone who’s keen…to focus, to initiate it. These guys…have been a tremendous group of people, this would never have got off the ground without them. You have to have them. There… has to be an interest to identify those people. Has to be a concern, an issue, or maybe some of it has to go political…to see a provincial co-coordinator. Somebody who’s with the province, that could be used to work with the departmental people in their area, co-ordinate it and work from there. Get the word out. It has to be a priority set by certain aspects of government, people involved with water, biologists, environmental, conservation groups. I think maybe to add to that, it’s also important for them to have a keen interest in it. It goes back to the community thing where there has to be a community person, we’ve got one through AESA, for farmers, and riparian areas, why not have somebody involved with lake communities? Why just harp on the farmers about riparian health, it should happen with cottage owners as well.


Evaluation Report

32

5. Greater impact would be achieved by having regional and/or umbrella co-ordination.

If the Stephanie Edges and Delaney Andersons [AESA/Municipal Watershed Coordinators] could dedicate their time to this type of thing, but they’ve got other things to do. In the last number of years, the words partnership and stakeholder get overused…[other programs] include so many partners. Who were partners? Who were stakeholders? We lost track…there’s so many agencies…on and on and on. Somewhere [there’s a need] to form an umbrella organization, there’s too many people, they will want to help and they all have plans and ideas, [but] there needs to be somebody to pull it all together. A larger association would be the way to go, like [all these lakes] should have a common association…just more and more groups, more and more meetings, [right now] everybody’s doing their own thing, money could be spent much better, or using the media…the Lakeland Region Save Our Lakes Group. It has to be community-based but not community-led [as individual communities acting alone]. Has to be intercommunity. Each community have their own accomplishments and they should be made big and obvious, but they are in fact part of a regional movement or program. All together, the entire program or association would have huge accomplishments but if each is recognized, e.g. a bigger lake with more people, change will happen…not being community-led alleviates taxing of individual’s time…as far as being intercommunity, structured, obviously the sharing of costs and resources is the biggest thing, for instance if Bonnie Lake had been operating at the same time as Vincent lake, we would be much further ahead, because we’re using the same resource people...better sharing of ideas, too. More universal media approach.There’s a bunch of different organizations working together to pool resources, one of the hardest things about developing some of these lake groups or helping them develop…is getting together all the right people if nobody is talking to each other, then you don’t know what they’re doing and its repetition, it’s nice to have an opinion of who’s doing something similar, there’s a good part of the Model that there is different groups working together they know who’s got the best info. The tough part is to ensure how it can be duplicated.

6. Responsibilities and leadership roles are subject to overlap and change, suggesting that

it is important to have clarification on these matters as groups/activities develop/evolve.

We had already backed up, because what we needed was that community support to take it the next step…we had done everything we could do with our resources. This group is unusual in the fact that most of the activities were carried out by several of these government people, that doesn’t exist anywhere else, they’re not going to take on the role for these groups, so it’s going to be somebody like…a technician [as] the resource people. There’s a gap there in terms of who’s going to do awareness, there's a little bit in everybody’s mandate, and AESA, there’s a little bit of responsibility on everybody’s part. Considering the scope of our jobs to focus on something like that, it deserves a lot of attention, if you start it, you need to be prepared to follow it up. It’s a huge job. Awareness should be a big portion of it. Just to get info out to people so they know what’s happening…would be better to be community-driven for sure, if you can find the people. That’s where the meetings come in, they are the ones who are interested in. Talk to them to head something. Agencies are responsible for things getting started, if anyone can be of assistance. The agency is basically the instrument of starting, getting the issue driven, we can’t be driving it all the time...Maybe an individual, people who have a keen interest may have to be approached...that individual could come to us for assistance, and give ideas back to us, and we can assist them in some areas, or on special days, we do have funding through AESA, and municipality. A continuous involvement from all parties. Maybe these people have to be hand-picked.


Evaluation Report

33

I would like to see a cross-section of all working together, both residents and partners operating the process. people can’t do it without outside guidance… where do [they] start, tell [them] what you want to do. Don’t tell them to leave weeds, [they’re] going to control them, willing to leave them but control them. I think we need leadership…somebody who is a paid person to do it, but we need…everybody’s given an opportunity for involvement, farmer or cabin owner, equally represented. A good working committee.

B. Output

N/A

C. Outcome 1. Community leadership has not arisen at Vincent Lake to drive the riparian awareness

and management process, as anticipated in the Working Model, but does not preclude the appropriateness of this essential component in other lake settings.

Unfortunately one of the biggest, it’s not a failure but I’m not happy, but community buy-in was not there, no group. We’re [agencies] driving the boat, we delivered the model… we did it all, we even targeted individuals to see if they could stimulate a working group…hasn’t happened, a disappointment. If somebody’s here doing all the riparian stuff, you’ve done all the awareness, meetings, what’s the use of having a group? The comfort we had was, the next time it would be used…taking the Model, it would be a community group that was asking the question...the fact that we didn’t get buy in here but did not distract us from knowing it will work elsewhere. Biggest snag doodle, we weren’t able to do that, it will occur in other areas because it was designed that way. The volume [of activites] was agency-driven basically…although there was checking in with the local people…to get this feedback, that was kind of it, not really like we had local members at the [planning] meeting or running it. Even though I think it was very successful, the…goal wasn’t determined by the community or the individuals living there, but if a group of individuals or landowners took part, they may choose a different goal even if the lake is similar. The agencies are there for technical assistance, to guide them, but that’s not to say that the individuals running the lake group might make it the same. The group shouldn't be made up of strictly agency people... as soon as you pull out, there was no one to take over, although we made an impact, the impetus was driven by us, now there is no community leader to continue it, to learn how to make changes, that’s really not there…the resources and time and energy can’t continue at the same level as in prior years, and we have many lakes to work on, if there was more local individual involvement, they could be taking over those roles and continuing to move it forward. As it’s sold to other lakes and MDs that’s the key element to bring it, but if agencies run it and then pull out when resources run out, it could just fail and not maintain the impetus. People aren’t going to go backwards, but they’re not going to continue…to expand on what they do, as much as if there is ongoing support and peer involvement. In a new group, where this Model could go, if you build that early in the game, you can build in a greater chance of long-term success. We have failed to get a Vincent Lake cottage association where people have steadfastly refused to get involved. Because the government guys are doing it. They don’t have to…and we can’t make them.


Evaluation Report

34

Discussion Points Used in Partner Working Session • There will be fundamental resistance to making change, to communities becoming

proactive, and to people understanding the benefits of change. This may be particularly the case in areas where residents are seasonal, where people are vacationing and less inclined to take on the task of coordinating a practice change process. The high proportion of seasonal residents in lake communities may preclude proactive community group formation because people’s time on-site is limited and devoted instead to recreational pursuits.

• Further, practice change does not happen in a vacuum; some issue or process is required to kick-start action, in order to provide a framework for community members to participate. That process is seen, to a large extent, to need to include multiple partners sharing resources and responsibility, including community members (providing further support for the team-building element).

• Benefits of practice change must be communicated as part of awareness delivery that promotes such change.

• The ethos of sharing responsibility and direction for a practice change process, as well as multiple practical barriers arising from the variety of agency limitations and mandates involved, is strong. This suggests that the process needs a centralized leader and/or coordinator working at the local level. This role is needed to ensure interaction and integration between community members and the agencies. Formalization of such a role may assist in increasing perceptions of the need for awareness and practice change as a legitimate process. It may also increase the pace and impact of activities leading to sustainable lake management practices, addressing the practical limitations of the agency staff now leading it (at least insofar as Vincent Lake).

• It is clear that the Working Model, primarily driven by agency staff, has not achieved strong initiative taken by the community to lead or actively participate in the model. This is further evidence that a non-government or arms-length coordination function could be helpful. Such a function, in terms of lake communities, should be considered as merited, given that (a) in Alberta there is a general trend away from government-led directives on personal actions and a trend toward voluntary action with reduced government intervention; and (b) agricultural communities across the province have been moving consistently toward using a community-based coordination function supported by multiple agencies and organizations (e.g. the Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture watershed coordination positions). A similar mechanism may, therefore, be merited for lake communities. • A formalized coordination role would provide a mechanism to target, attract and

maximize financial resources. • The practicalities of delivering a practice change process, and commonalities of

management issues at northern Alberta lakes, suggests that effectiveness of the Working Model and any Future Template may be enhanced by pooling resources and activities across larger geographic areas, by some mechanism such as a regional umbrella group.

• Clarification of who (i.e. what organizations or individuals or combination thereof) should steer a practice change process is essential to that process moving ahead. This is particularly the case when residents do not reside permanently on site.

Overall, the community-based approach is fundamentally appropriate due to its

inclusiveness and flexibility. However, agencies should not necessarily take the primary lead role in implementing all steps of the process (as essentially occurred at Vincent Lake), but rather would typically work in conjunction with community members and community


Evaluation Report

35

groups by assisting with technical and facilitation support. The precise mix of partner roles and contributions can be uniquely determined within each community. • There is a strong preference by community members to be active participants in any

process; leadership is required by the provision of some type of coordination function to assist at the local level and to maximize efficiency of delivery across a broader regional scale for communities dealing with similar issues. This may be particularly important in recreational communities where there is less likelihood of seasonal residents taking a hands-on role in managing a practice change process.

Element 5: Monitoring Topics Raised by Interviewees A. Process 1. It is important to identify and assess problems up-front as a practical starting point.

Well, first of all, to determine the problems, if there are problems, determine the factors that are contributing to the problems, and from there on it’s education and awareness, and then to seek out people who are willing to make changes to reduce the problems, or reclamation or repair When we first started, we can still do this, it would have been nice to know what the overall health and function of the lake was. We subjectively said that we thought a lot of it was healthy, some was with problems, some were unhealthy. But statistically saying, I don’t know. There have to be issues out there, there has to be a problem or issue that’s got to be brought to everybody’s attention, that has to be identified first, fairly serious, too. If it’s happening around the lake, like water quality, if that’s depleted, that has to be addressed as an awareness thing to people, then you get the interest. That’s the starting point, and then get interest going. On the other hand, before you go to an area that has an issue, maybe it’s nice to start on a lake beforehand. Now on some lakes it’s too late.

B. Output 1. There is a gap in monitoring at Vincent Lake.

I would like to see us refly [the lake] or to examine aerial photography from a few years ago...across the lake as a whole there are quite a few places where there are changes. Could fly it in less than a morning, digitize it, very coarse…could visually compare them, would be very interesting to find out. From a long-term perspective, you can go back in the future to see if practice change has occurred. We haven’t gone back and done that follow-up, we need to see if the signs are still there, there may be a gap there to what extent have people obeyed. For me that [success] is hard to determine, the landscape change, but we have a benchmark from the video so we could go back and see the change. Maybe an evaluation. If you see somebody implementing or letting their grass grow, or leaving vegetation, you’ve got to get out there and look. You’d have to do some type of survey. The proper time to do that is in the spring or summer, probably something has to be done. After three years, maybe an assessment could be done, I don’t think [awareness] should be completed and let go, there should be a review process….Signage and landscape change needs to be followed up, even


Evaluation Report

36

have the cottagers involved, as part of the review. In terms of signage, the follow-up [is needed to measure success] to see if things are moved or not or still remained there. You could even do a kind of fence line contrast, one side of the sign etc.

2. The website is a good tool but needs upgrade.

In terms of the Working Model, it’s supposed to be able to be used by several other groups, I think they do have a place on their website that you can ask questions or you can tell them about your community or lake groups and to keep up to date with the tool part of their website, its really good because its very extensive, but it’s always too hard to go through all those tools. It’s just an organization type thing, just [put] the title of the tool, then check off who may use it, so that part is not really helpful because anyone can use them, and the title is always descriptive enough of what it is, too time consuming to go through it. A better way of describing each of the tools, then organize them into categories. Yes, I haven’t gone through the whole website for a while...would be useful to go back in and look at it from more of a naïve first-time perspective, and say what as an outsider, have we led them through, is that still [apparent]? Need help with your lake? What’s that about? Maybe need to structure it a little more enticingly, an abstract, a short version, leave the rest there. More useable

C. Outcome 1. Success of awareness tools has been measured primarily by informal techniques.

Turnout suggested that what we had to offer was of value to people. Obviously verbal confirmation from people themselves, come up and tell you or express their appreciation for their information. Feedback from [team members], things they’ve seen and heard directly and indirectly at the lake, so primarily that’s what it is. Don’t have any hard measures at this point. Primarily verbal feedback, and there may be actual health changes but we don’t’ know that yet. Our meetings were successful in that we always had good attendance…as far as confirming and building interest were concerned, our meetings were successful...where we failed, we never came out of them with any new direction, didn’t seem to act on any if there was one. Somebody to pull it all together. Our single accomplishment was the signage.

Discussion Points Used in Partner Working Session • Given the importance of understanding landscape issues and community needs before

designing and delivering any practice change process, benchmark monitoring of landscape issues is an appropriate and necessary part of the development phase for any new initiative in a lake community.

• In order to measure impact of the Working Model and/or Future Template, ongoing monitoring of both landscape/riparian factors as well as programming impact is required. • Ongoing monitoring has not been a consistently strong feature of the Working Model. • Future monitoring should be formalized and results shared with participants in the

Working Model or Future Template as a way of informing future decisions about activities and direction. Consideration should be given to developing and implementing


Evaluation Report

37

formal plans for monitoring activities, reducing a possible tendency to focus on the initial awareness element without consistent follow-through to evaluate its impact.

• The major activity of the Working Model (the Environmental Reserve signage) has not been comprehensively assessed, either in terms of landscape/riparian area impact or acceptance/understanding by community members. Anecdotal evidence suggests that its acceptance may vary widely. The active role of community members in this monitoring activity should be considered (e.g. through a survey or use of riparian health assessments).

• The website is a strong mechanism to assist other lake communities in a practice change process. However, its current emphasis is on experimental learning at Vincent Lake (the Working Model), rather than targeting and summarizing key aspects and issues of any Future Template. It should be upgraded accordingly.

Overall, monitoring is acknowledged as central to understanding the impact of the Working

Model but has not yet been strongly employed. As the fifth of the five process elements, it should be formally planned for and acted upon both at Vincent Lake and in any community developing a new initiative. • Benchmark and ongoing monitoring are essential to effectively plan the content and

direction of a Future Template used in other lake communities. The Decision Tree Questions Table 2 sets out key questions included in the decision tree used at the Partner Working Session. In that session, a number of answers were generated by participants through discussion about each question. Each answer was then voted on to identify the option that would henceforth be formalized as characteristics in the Working Model and the Future Template. Results of the Partner Working Session voting are provided in Section IV. Partial survey results from Part II of the evaluation (now reported in full in Section V) were available at the time of the Partner Working Session and were used as supplemental information in the decision-making process at that session. Examples of survey data used included those relating to familiarity with the VLWM; the effectiveness of the VLWM; the importance of awareness; and views on the role of regulation and responsibility for lake health and management.

Table 2 Key Questions by Process Element for Voting by Partners

#

Question Applies to Working

Model

Applies to Future

Template COMMUNITY-BASED ACTION 1. Who is primarily responsible for identifying and driving an

awareness/practice change process aimed at healthy lake management (e.g. no-one, agencies, and joint collaboration among team members)?

X X

2. Who is best suited for the responsibility of hands-on delivery of the five process elements? If a local coordination role is

X X


Evaluation Report

38

#

Question

Applies to Working

Model

Applies to Future

Template necessary, how will it be structured and funded?

3. What, if any, links will it have to neighbouring lake communities or to the region/province and how will those be achieved?

X X

4. What mechanisms will be used to communicate the benefits of, and support for, a Future Template and how will their content be determined (e.g. the website, site visits, coordinator function)?

X X

TEAM-BUILDING 5. How can partner roles and contributions be identified and

maximized? Who are the necessary/appropriate partners? X X

TOOL-BUILDING 6. What is the role of enforcement (e.g. voluntary vs. active)? Is

one or more party responsible for enforcement? • How can current and future regulations be effectively

communicated to the community (e.g. what awareness tools are required)?

X X

7. What steps will be taken to encourage the municipal government to enforce the community’s recommendations for enforcement? • Who will be responsible for these steps?

X X

AWARENESS 8. What steps/parties are responsible for identifying the community-

specific awareness needs? X X

9. What steps/parties are required to identify the appropriate awareness activities to meet the needs identified for/by the community?

X X

MONITORING 10. What kinds of monitoring activities are necessary to determine

the impact of the Environmental Reserve signage (e.g. in terms of community member acceptance/awareness; practice change; and landscape health)? • Who should do this and how can the community be involved?

X N/A

11. How can a consistent role for monitoring be ensured? X X GENERAL 12. Will the VLWG continue? X N/A 13. How essential is it to include all five elements of the Cows and

Fish process in the Future Template? X X


Evaluation Report

39

IV. DECISION TREE ANSWERS Table 3 sets out the answers to the decision tree questions, as compiled and voted on by nine participants in the nominal group decision process completed at the Partner Working Session. Total votes are listed for each answer so identified. The answer that received the highest number of votes within each question is highlighted under the table heading of Group Option Identified and Accepted. These options can now be considered as formalized characteristics of the Working Model and the Future Template.

Table 3 Decisions Determined by Nominal Group Approach

# Votes for

Working Model

# Votes for Future

Template COMMUNITY-BASED ACTION Question #1 Who is primarily responsible for identifying and driving an awareness/practice change process aimed at healthy lake management (e.g. no-one, agencies, and joint collaboration among team members)?

Group Option Identified and Accepted A joint initiative, collaboratively done; key is some input from the community, featuring: • agencies (non-landowners, government and NGOs) taking initial

step of providing information on awareness through partnership;

• agencies providing leadership and awareness, and looking for opportunities to be more than just proactive; and

• community identifying problems and asking agencies to help them.

8

9

Group Options Rejected Someone identifies problems, probably agency partners; someone drives the process for the solutions, with preference for agencies to be the support network for local people.

0

0

Question #2 Who is best suited for the responsibility of hands-on delivery of the five process elements? If a local coordination role is necessary, how will it be structured and funded?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • Co-ordination/facilitator/liaison function may be implemented in

a variety of flexible ways, depending on characteristics of the community (e.g. volunteer, agency or paid NGO staff).

• Community-based action is not the only answer; rather a structure and approach should be funded so that it can be community-driven, agency-driven, or both.

8

8


Evaluation Report

40

# Votes for Working

Model

# Votes for Future

Template Group Options Rejected • Local watershed volunteer. • Coordinator/facilitator with agency involvement, with expertise and

support from other partners.

0 0

0 0

Question #3 What, if any, links will it have to neighbouring lake communities or to the region/province and how will those be achieved?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • Start with a watershed coordinator type of position, with

support from agency partners working with conservation technologists and regional resources.

• Model based on the Alberta Environmental Farm Plan, with a facilitator, guidelines, and manual.

7

3

3

Group Options Rejected Individuals with a link to an identifiable agency staff member who has the expertise they need to access.

0

2

Question #4 What mechanisms will be used to communicate the benefits of, and support for, a Future Template and how will their content be determined (e.g. the website, site visits, coordinator function)?

Group Option Identified and Accepted A package to include not only the information with the agency contact, but additional activity through a local coordinator, including the profile and story of the program, as well as a summary of what has been learned in the community process. To be published/shared through e.g. fact sheets, media and presentations to County Council.

8

8

Group Options Rejected None.

--

--

TEAM-BUILDING Question #5 How can partner roles and contributions be identified and maximized? Who are the necessary/appropriate partners?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • A charter or Memorandum of Understanding showing an entire

agency’s long-term commitment, whether provincial or municipal government, or conservation group; need to know who in agency is available, what they can do and their ongoing commitment.

• Strength is gained in not making governments totally responsible because priorities in work plans are subject to change, e.g. support from Rural Municipalities Association through a MofU empowers the community to ensure agencies step up and meet their mandate.

7

7


Evaluation Report

41

# Votes for Working

Model

# Votes for Future

Template • Need local liaison/coordinator for organizational logistics. Group Options Rejected • Contact through local conservation person. • Organizations contact information on website.

0 0

0 0

TOOL-BUILDING Question #6 What is the role of enforcement (e.g. voluntary vs. active)? Is one or more party responsible for enforcement? • How can current and future regulations be effectively communicated

to the community (e.g. what awareness tools are required)?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • Enforcement is a combined provincial and municipal

responsibility, necessary to reinforce to volunteers and community that government is walking its talk.

• A community awareness process is required as a first step prior to enforcement, i.e. build regulatory awareness as well as ecological awareness by employing a process of providing the same information from multiple sources.

• Enforcement adds a 6th active element in the existing 5-element process

9

9

Group Options Rejected Passive enforcement with no regulatory component.

0

0

Question #7 What steps will be taken to encourage the municipal government to enforce the community’s recommendations for enforcement? • Who will be responsible for these steps?

Group Option Identified and Accepted Work with local field staff and partners for a presentation to County Council, to suggest potential options (e.g. Environmental Reserve by-law), including the awareness process that includes public information meeting on regulation.

9

9


--

--

AWARENESS Question #8 What steps/parties are responsible for identifying the community-specific awareness needs?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • First, identify whether there is a problem, using either or both

agency and community people, taking a proactive approach without waiting for a problem to occur.

• Second, use e.g. focus groups to determine what people know or don’t know to define how the problem should be targeted.

9

8


Evaluation Report

42

# Votes for Working

Model

# Votes for Future

Template Group Options Rejected Partners need to develop a database on a number of lakes for comparison, so as to target action and to motivate individuals and to facilitate a sense of community working together on shoreline health.

2

2

Question #9 What steps/parties are required to identify the appropriate awareness activities to meet the needs identified for/by the community?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • Get information out by a variety of media, once needs are

known. Focus on gaps in community’s knowledge, on an ongoing basis.

• Include all the watershed stakeholders in the process at the initial awareness stage, then move to developing specific information for specific groups.

8

8


--

--

MONITORING Question #10 What kinds of monitoring activities are necessary to determine the impact of the Environmental Reserve signage (e.g. in terms of community member acceptance/awareness; practice change; and landscape health)? • Who should do this and how can the community be involved?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • A baseline survey of knowledge and attitudes relating to the

Environmental Reserve is required, and repeat in future. Ask about practice change, what motivated any change e.g. awareness activities.

• Capture aerial or on-ground data on shoreline health. • Identify number of Environmental Reserve signs still in place. • Use partnership with County for assistance with mailing

surveys.

9

N/A


--

--

Question #11 How can a consistent role for monitoring be ensured?

Group Option Identified and Accepted • Make a consistent commitment to include monitoring in all

aspects of the process, including reporting on whether improved lake health was achieved (i.e. share the results).

• Tie monitoring to what the community has identified as the problem, keeping shoreline health as a key focus.

7

8


--

--


Evaluation Report

43

# Votes for Working

Model

# Votes for Future

Template GENERAL Question #12 Will the VLWG continue?

Group Option Identified and Accepted Will continue using the Future Template; the Working Model itself will cease. Process will continue e.g. through presentations to spin-off groups; mentoring and supporting local front-line work; and keeping a consistent message in respective agencies as the Model evolves into its new form.

9

N/A


--

N/A

Question #13 How essential is it to include all five elements of the Cows and Fish process in the Future Template?

Group Option Identified and Accepted Fundamental to have all five elements; they provide both a communication model and a structure to deliver it.

9

9


0

0

Summary of Characteristics of the Working Model and the Future Template All five elements of the Cows and Fish Process adopted and used within the VLWM are appropriate and should be continued, with the following elucidations. In terms of community-based action, flexibility based on unique requirements and characteristics of a community is fundamental. Nonetheless, the overall process within any community should be a joint effort, where community input is required to identify relevant problems and information needs, both at start-up and on an ongoing basis. This will ensure that the process remains community-driven. Ultimately, governance within any initiative may vary, and again flexibility based on local characteristics is the key. A particular community member or community group may decide to take a direct leadership role in some or all of the elements of their process. However, organizations such as conservation groups and government agencies may typically initiate awareness activities and partnership-building to kick-start the process, and continue to provide technical support thereafter, both locally and regionally. Another option may be to utilize a structure similar to that of the new Alberta Environmental Farm Plan, once its implementation success is known. However, because lake communities tend to have a high proportion of non-resident landholders (who for all practical purposes are less able to take on the permanent responsibility of leading a local lake program), and due to the changing and multi-faceted demands placed on many agencies, a coordination/liaison role will be required in many instances. Such a coordination function, in terms of lake communities, will garner the numerous benefits already being realized Vincent Lake Working Model March 24, 2003

Evaluation Report

44

in agricultural communities across Alberta through the introduction of paid-position watershed coordinators who provide support and guidance to farmers and ranchers interested in sustainable management practices. The lake community coordinator role will provide liaison between community members and the partners (such as agencies or non-government organizations) involved. Benefits of implementing a coordinator function for lake communities include a central contact for information access and dissemination; capitalizing on access to (and maximizing effectiveness of) a variety of financial and technical resources available regionally or provincially; maximizing efficiency in design and production of program tools intended to encourage practice change; ensuring a consistent awareness message through those tools; reducing duplication of effort on the part of all partners; reducing demand on volunteers who are subject to burnout; and increasing the ability to profile success stories occurring in other communities so as to encourage practice change on a wider scale. In terms of team-building, it is important to clarify and communicate the commitment of (in particular) those agencies and organizations whose mandates include various aspects of lake management, whether they are local, regional, provincial or national in scope. The benefits of a transparent articulation of what any group is responsible for will fundamentally empower a community that wants to take on a process of lake management practice change. All parties will have a clear understanding of what each organization’s mandate is, what resources are to be provided to meet that mandate, and what resources can be counted on. A useful technique to ensure consistent participation and resources from each organization is a Memorandum of Understanding. In terms of developing awareness in a community, it is essential to first identify whether there are any lake management problems in an area, before attempting to develop content for any awareness tools. A focus group is a good technique for determining initial community awareness needs, and the types of activities suitable for a community to address its awareness needs. Access to monitoring data available from agencies and organizations involved in lake management (including biophysical as well as social factors) should be accessed to help prioritize any problems to be targeted by awareness. Of course, ongoing monitoring of these factors will also be required to revise awareness activities and their content over time. Communities interested in promoting sustainable lake management will profit from taking advantage of the suite of awareness tools already used both by the VLWM and other communities throughout the province to promote sustainable management. These include (but are not restricted to) community meetings; outdoor events; site tours; equipment sharing; print materials such as brochures and newsletters; websites; and media. The suite of tools provides a menu of options that any community may choose from, depending on its priorities, issues and values. In terms of monitoring, communities should understand the importance of committing to benchmark and ongoing monitoring activities, and to sharing results, so that efforts and impact can be improved continuously. Monitoring relates to all aspects of a community initiative, including effect on knowledge and action, as well as biophysical factors such as water quality and riparian function. For example, capturing shoreline health data (by completing professional riparian health assessments or lake health checklists distributed to lake residents for completion by them), will provide a valuable benchmark of lakeshore health. Repeating these monitoring activities at a future point will provide an indication of impact of awareness on practice change and lakeshore health. Both benchmark and future monitoring results should always be acted upon to modify awareness activities and their content to achieve maximum impact. Vincent Lake Working Model March 24, 2003

Evaluation Report

45

Regulation of certain aspects of lake management is one tool available to lake communities that was not specifically incorporated into the five-element process used by the VLWM to promote practice change. However, it is considered both appropriate and necessary, when utilized within the context of the philosophy of voluntary compliance, in which awareness (element one in the VLWM process) provides an opportunity for individuals to make informed practice change decisions voluntarily. The requirement for regulation and its enforcement reinforces the need for community awareness initiatives in general, and (as part of a community’s set of awareness tools) for awareness activities that address regulation and enforcement messages specifically. The benefit of regulation is that its clear and consistent enforcement by all relevant jurisdictions will be seen, and seen to be seen, as a fair way to deal with all members of the public, including people who voluntarily comply and those who do not. Locally specific regulations, for example municipal by-laws dealing with an Environmental Reserve zone will be typically determined within each municipality, based on its lake issues as identified by community members. Accordingly, the role of regulation and its enforcement adds a sixth process element to the model as tested at Vincent Lake, in addition to (but operating within the philosophy of) the five existing elements, namely: awareness; team-building; tool-building; community-based action and monitoring. Media, and linkages to known stakeholders and partners, should be utilized to communicate the status, activities, lessons learned and successes of a community initiative to the public. Communications tools such as newspapers, newsletters and fact sheets are useful in this regard. Summary of Characteristics Relating to the Working Model Only As indicated above, monitoring relates to all aspects of a community initiative, including effect on knowledge and action, as well as biophysical factors such as water quality and riparian function. At Vincent Lake, for example, a survey of knowledge and attitudes relating to the Environmental Reserve signage is merited, to determine whether any practice change has occurred, whether VLWM awareness activities motivated change, and whether lake residents have left the signs in place. In addition, capturing shoreline health data (by completing professional riparian health assessments or lake health checklists distributed to lake residents for completion by them), will provide a valuable benchmark of lakeshore health. Repeating these monitoring activities at a future point will provide an indication of impact of awareness on practice change and lakeshore health. As an experiment, the VLWM has ceased. However, its core partners (e.g. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Alberta Conservation Association) continue their work. They will take a less proactive role in coordinating and managing awareness activities at Vincent Lake in the absence of proactive leadership from that community, but will adopt into their operating process the newly identified sixth process element of enforcement. The core partners intend to continue providing technical advice to the Vincent Lake community, as well as to groups and agencies throughout the province who are involved in developing or managing community initiatives to address lake management issues. The nature of this role reflects the available resources and current mandate of the partners.


Evaluation Report

46

V. COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Survey Distribution and Quality Control – Limitation Implications The survey used in Part II of the evaluation was targeted at Vincent Lake landholders, including general lake residents and residents situated in the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay. Survey packages for municipally registered landholders at Vincent Lake were prepared and mailed by the staff of Alberta Sustainable Resources Development in St. Paul, using mailing labels provided by the County of St. Paul. The County provided 252 mailing labels, of which 185 (73%) related to lakeside residences. Survey packages for landholders in the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay were prepared, but labeled and mailed, by representatives of the Summer Village, at their request. The mailing labels provided by the Summer Village were estimated to total 150, of which an estimated 80 (53%) related to lakeside residences. The total residences assumed to be lakeside was 66%. Due to the number of parties involved in the survey production and distribution process, no one person oversaw the label production, package preparation and mailing. Accordingly, a degree of quality control was lost in terms of reaching the intended survey targets. Further, while it was intended that surveys be mailed only to lakeside residents because the survey questions focused to a large extent on lakeshore management, it was not possible to control for that factor entirely. The mailed surveys (and, hence, the data set) were, therefore, associated with both on-lake and off-lakeside residences, and except where noted in this section, the reported evaluation results reflect lake residents in general, not lakeside residences in particular. To allay this limitation, an effort was made to categorize each respondent as on-lake or off-lake, based on whether they answered the survey questions relating to the 11 items on the lakeshore health checklist: if they did, it was inferred that the respondent lived on-lake. However, as this was an assumption made by the evaluator about the data set, rather than a specific item reported by respondents, the variable distinguishing respondents as on-lake or off-lake has been used to a very limited extent in this report, most notably with respect to deriving a lakeshore riparian health category. Where it has been used, it is recommended that caution be exercised in interpreting any results associated with it. Nor was there any means to relate those respondents who were assumed in the data set to be on-lake (82%, n=145) to the labels (for the population overall as provided by the County and the Summer Village) as being on-lake (66%, n=235). However, the difference between these percentages may simply reflect, as one might expect, a higher degree of interest and experience with lakeshore management on the part of those whose residences directly front the lakeshore, and so chose to respond to the survey. See Chart 1.


Evaluation Report

47

Response Rate In response to the estimated 402 surveys mailed, eight respondents declined participation or their returned surveys were unusable, eight surveys were returned for wrong address, and one was received too late for processing, leaving a valid potential number of surveys of 385. Useable surveys totaling 178 were received (sent direct to the evaluator rather than the VLWG partners for the purpose of maintaining respondent anonymity). This equated to a 46% response rate, as summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Survey Response Rate

County of St. Paul

Labels Summer Village of

Horseshoe Bay Labels (est)

Total Surveys Mailed

Surveys Mailed 252 150 402 Less: declined or unusable -17 385 n = Useable Surveys Received 178 Response Rate (178/385) 46%

As a general rule, mail survey response rates of over 30% are rare (Alreck and Settle, 1985) unless numerous specific techniques are incorporated into survey design and implementation to maximize response rate by several percentage points (Dillman, 1978; Fox et al., 1988). The relatively high response rate for this project’s mailed survey is likely attributable to two factors. First, the respondents were targeted based on their association with Vincent Lake and, accordingly, were likely to have a greater than average commitment to, and interest in, issues relating to lake health. Second, a number of techniques known to increase response rate (Dillman, 1978) were used in the design and delivery of the survey instrument. For example, this project’s budget permitted the use of the following techniques designed to maximize response: • using a cover letter indicating the transparency of the project, specifically explaining the

social benefit of both the VLWM and the survey to the respondent and their community; welcoming access to project staff in case of questions; providing contact information for project staff; explaining how results will be used; and providing an assurance of respondent anonymity;

• providing a return stamped envelope; • including in the survey instructions and estimated time to complete, i.e. 10-15 minutes; • mailing a brief reminder notice approximately one week after the surveys themselves were

mailed; • promising to provide summary survey results and/or a token gift to respondents, upon their

request; and • utilizing several design features in the content and presentation of the survey instrument to

maximize ease of use.


Evaluation Report

48

Survey Results The total number of survey respondents was 178. Of the 177 respondents who identified their residency type, 79% (n=140) indicated they were seasonal residents, and 21% (n=37) indicated they were permanent residents. Seasonal residents were based primarily in the Edmonton area (49%), 21% lived elsewhere in the County of St. Paul, 11% were based in the Calgary area, 10% came from a variety of locales ranging from as far away as Ontario; and 9% lived in a neighbouring county such as Smoky Lake, Lamont or Athabasca. See Charts 2 and 3. Awareness Several survey questions explored respondents’ ability to correctly define key terms and plants associated with lake health, their views on the importance of awareness, and their views on the effectiveness of the VLWM’s awareness efforts, including the preferred nature of those efforts. Definition of Terms In order to obtain some benchmark data about knowledge levels in the community, respondents were asked to indicate their opinion on who owns the lakeshore area; and to define the Environmental Reserve and the term riparian. • Overall, 76% of respondents correctly identified that the Crown and the County of St. Paul

jointly own the lakeshore area. 13% were not sure, 6% indicated they believed the Summer Village of Horseshoe Bay owns it, and 5% indicated that they personally own the lakeshore area. See Chart 4.

• Less success was reported in terms of respondents defining the Environmental Reserve.

Only 19% correctly defined it as an area at least 6 meters wide between the property line and the Crown land. About one-third (32%) indicated that it lies between the low and high water marks. Fifteen percent defined it as an area at least 3 meters wide between the property line and the low water mark. One-quarter (24%) were not sure, and a full 10% indicated that they did not know there was an Environmental Reserve, even though large signs have been placed at the entry roads into the residential areas explaining the Reserve as well as the small marker posts that delineate its location. These two latter groups (totaling 35% of respondents) suggest that additional awareness about the Reserve may be required. However, all responses to this survey question should be viewed with caution because of the inherent difficulty of the question, which asked respondents to select only one of several options that, to a member of the public, may have seemed very similar. See Chart 5.

• Overall, 69% of respondents correctly defined riparian as an area of water-loving vegetation

bordering a waterbody, suggesting that the community is reasonably familiar with this key term. Only 10% defined the term riparian incorrectly. However, 21% were unsure, suggesting that additional awareness is merited. See Chart 6. • Respondents living on-lake had greater accuracy defining riparian (72%) compared to

those living off-lake (58%). This seems reasonable because those directly on the shore will typically have more experience with, and interest in, the lakeshore area. See Chart 7.


Evaluation Report

49

Familiarity with the VLWM and its Impact on Awareness and Practice Change To examine the question of whether the VLWM has had any impact on awareness and/or practice change, respondents were first asked to rate their familiarity with the VLWM. Note that direct correlations between familiarity and all the answers given by respondents pertaining to the impact of the group cannot be assumed, because, for example, those who chose to participate in awareness activities provided by the VLWM may already have had a higher than average interest in, and knowledge of, topics such as plant identification. Those factors could not be controlled for in this data set and, accordingly, caution should be exercised in drawing any conclusions about a causal relationship between familiarity (i.e. involvement) with the group, and factors such as knowledge and practice change. Notwithstanding, the following details the survey statistical results. • Overall, 11% of respondents were very familiar with the VLWM, 62% were moderately

familiar with it, and 27% had never heard of it. See Chart 8. • Some differences were apparent when familiarity was considered by resident type. For

example, 22% of permanent residents were very familiar with the VLWM compared to 8% of seasonal residents. On the other hand, 64% of permanent and 62% of seasonal residents were moderately familiar with it. As might be expected, 30% of seasonal residents had never heard of the VLWM, whereas this was true for only 14% of permanent residents. See Chart 9.

• The awareness activities held by the VLWM played a large role in introducing the group to

the community. Forty-eight percent reported that they heard about the VLWM from either the Healthy Lake Day event or a community awareness meeting. However, 25% had first heard about the group by receiving the survey, suggesting that some work remains to be done in raising the profile of the group’s efforts. Other sources for hearing about the VLWM included 12% from a neighbour, friend or family member, and 10% from newspapers and newsletters. Three percent were not sure how they heard about it, and 2% cited other sources. See Chart 10.

Respondents were asked to identify whether they have changed their lake management practices as a result of awareness activities provided by the VLWM. See Chart 11. • Overall, approximately one-third of all respondents (31%) indicated that they had changed

their practices, while 43% indicated they had not. The remaining 26% responded as N/A (this category of response may include those who had never heard of the VLWM and those familiar with the group but who felt that no change was required because they are already managing properly). See Chart 12. • Of the respondents who indicated that they had changed their practices, 98% were very

or moderately familiar with the VLWM, suggesting a strong influence of the group in encouraging practice change by those exposed to awareness activities. Within the group of respondents who had not changed their practices, 65% were very or moderately familiar with the group, while 35% had never heard of the group (as opposed to 2% within those who had made practice change). See Chart 13.

• Respondents who reported making practice change were asked to provide examples of the

changes made. The most common response (44%) was that residents no longer mow along the lakeshore. Since the issue of mowing the shore was addressed repeatedly in


Evaluation Report

50

VLWM awareness activities, the high rate of changed practice here suggests that the message has been successfully communicated. • Thirty percent of respondents reported a combination of similar practices, all associated

with protecting vegetation at the shoreline, such as encouraging wild plants, native plants and trees, and encouraging habitat along the shoreline. Eleven percent of respondents reported that their changes involved no longer using lawn fertilizer, no longer picking rocks from the shore, or refraining from mechanical weeding in the lake itself. Other changes included reducing the size of privately used recreation areas on beaches/using the public beach instead (4%); encouraging and educating neighbours and family about appropriate practices (6%); reducing the amount of gardening or power boating (6%); protecting water quality by using holding tanks and removing garbage to the city for proper disposal (6%); and clearing brush and/or old structures from the beach area (2%).

• Ability to correctly define the Environmental Reserve was then compared to familiarity with

the VLWM. Of those who correctly defined it as an area at least 6 meters wide between the property line and the Crown land (19%), 81% were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM. Among those who were not sure what the Environmental Reserve was, 67% were very or moderately familiar with it. Of those who incorrectly identified it as the area between the high and low water marks, 87% were very or moderately familiar with it. See Chart 14. • Keeping in mind the difficulty of this question (due to similarity among the available

answers), it is difficult to comment on whether the awareness information provided on this topic has been effective.

• Regardless, it does seem to be an information topic requiring attention in general, because for those who indicated they didn’t know there was an Environmental Reserve, a full 71% had never heard of the VLWM (compared to less than one-third for all other response categories among those who had never heard of the VLWM). Further, for those who indicated they were not sure of the definition, 33% had never heard of the VLWM.

• Ability to correctly define the term riparian was also compared to familiarity with the group.

Of those indicating the correct answer, 84% were very or moderately familiar with it, compared to 64% and 50% for two incorrect answers, and 47% for those who were not sure. This suggests that exposure to the VLWM has increased awareness among respondents on this key term. • Conversely, those who were not sure how to define a riparian area reported the highest

incidence of having never heard of the VLWM (53%). See Chart 15. • Ability to distinguish seven plants as weeds or non-weeds, compared to familiarity with the

VLWM, was examined.

• Respondents were asked to classify two weed species. See Charts 16 and 17. • Purple Loosestrife was correctly identified as a weed by only 47% of respondents.

Among those responding correctly, 74% were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM. Eleven percent incorrectly identified this plant as a non-weed, of which 83% were very or moderately familiar with the group. Interesting, 42% of respondents were not sure whether this plant was a weed. Of those, 69% were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM and 31% had never heard of the group. The visual appeal of this plant


Evaluation Report

51

may partially explain why 42% of respondents were unsure whether or not it was a weed.

• Sow Thistle was correctly identified as a weed by 55% of respondents, a slightly better result than for Purple Loosestrife. The use of the word thistle in this plant’s name may have provided a hint to some respondents that this plant is classified as a weed. The proportion of incorrect responses (14%) is similar to that reported for Purple Loosestrife.

• Overall, these results, particularly the high rate of not sure responses, suggest that plant and weed identification in general are awareness topics requiring attention.

• Respondents were asked to classify seven non-weed species. See Charts 18-22. • Fireweed was correctly identified as a non-weed by 45% of respondents, of whom 82%

were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM. Of the 21% who incorrectly identified it as a weed (perhaps because the word weed appears in its name), 64% were very or moderately familiar. Of the 34% who were not sure, 67% were very or moderately familiar with the group. About one-third of those who answered incorrectly or not sure had never heard of the group, while this was true for only 18% of those who answered correctly. This suggests that there may be only a moderate increase in rate of accuracy based on familiarity with the group.

• Sedges and Tall Grasses were correctly identified as non-weeds by 69% of respondents, of whom 88% were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM. Only 6% answered incorrectly, of whom 80% were familiar. Of the 25% who were not sure, 60% were very or moderately familiar with the group. Twenty percent of those who answered incorrectly and 40% of those who were not sure had never heard of the group, while this was true for only 22% of those who answered correctly, again suggesting a moderate impact on increasing accuracy based on familiarity with the group.

• Stinging Nettle was correctly identified as a non-weed by only 20% of respondents, of whom 80% were very or moderately familiar. Traditional views about nettles being nuisance plants (as opposed to weeds) likely played a role in responses on this item. It appears that familiarity with VLWM may not be playing a significant role in ability to correctly identify this plant specifically since, of the 48% of respondents who incorrectly answered, familiarity with VLWM was similar to those who answered correctly (86%). Again, about one-third of respondents (31%) were not sure.

• Willow was correctly identified as a non-weed by 75% of respondents, the second highest rate of accuracy across all plants. Of respondents answering correctly, 79% were very or moderately familiar with the group. Only 7% answered incorrectly, with 82% being familiar with the group. As this plant was likely the most familiar to many people, the high accuracy rate seems reasonable, and may be only partially attributable to familiarity with the VLWM. Of those not sure (18%, the second lowest value across all plants), just 52% were very or moderately familiar with the group. Among those who had never heard of the group, 48% were not sure, 18% answered incorrectly, and 21% answered correctly.

• Bullrushes and Cattails were correctly identified as non-weeds by 76% of respondents, of whom 80% were very or moderately familiar with the group. Only 8% answered incorrectly, of whom only 64% were very or moderately familiar. Again, these types of plants are likely to be fairly familiar to lake residents in general. Sixteen percent, however, were not sure if they were weeds or non-weeds. Among those who had never heard of the group, 50% were not sure, 36% answered incorrectly, and 20% answered correctly.


Evaluation Report

52

• In terms of a general trend on weed/non-weed classification, those who had never heard of the VLWM responded most often to the not sure category and least often with the correct answer. This suggests that the greater the familiarity with the group, the greater the likelihood of correctly classifying plants as weeds or non-weeds. Further, the high proportion of not sure answers, ranging from 16% to 42%, suggests that awareness activities are required to address plant identification as a means to help lake residents manage the lakeshore plant community in a sustainable manner.

Respondents were asked to themselves rate the effectiveness of the VLWM in helping community members increase awareness of how and why to manage sustainably for a healthy lake. • Overall, 41% rated the VLWM as very or moderately effective. Nine percent felt it had been

ineffective, and 14% were not sure. More than one-third (36%) were not familiar enough to have an opinion about effectiveness. See Chart 23. • When effectiveness was compared to resident type, a fairly consistent pattern of opinion

about effectiveness among permanent and seasonal residents was seen across all categories of response, suggesting that there is no significant difference within the community as a whole in terms of how the two types of resident have responded to the VLWM. For example, 46% of permanent residents believed the group had been very or moderately effective, while 40% of seasonal residents believed it had been very or moderately effective. Similarly, 11% of permanent residents felt it was not effective, while 8% of seasonal residents felt it was not effective. See Chart 24.

• In terms of whether respondents reported practice change, compared to how they

themselves rated the effectiveness of the VLWM, among those who felt the group had been very or moderately effective, 76% reported practice change and 40% reported no practice change (it is not possible to distinguish whether these respondents are among those already managing sustainably or whether the group’s awareness efforts have not yet had any impact). Among those who felt the group had not been effective, 6% reported practice change and 8% reported no practice change. This suggests a strong relationship between group effectiveness, as viewed by community members themselves, and practice change on their part. See Chart 25.

Importance of Awareness Compared to Knowledge and Practice Change As a way of understanding whether there is indeed a requirement for awareness activities at Vincent Lake, respondents were asked to provide their views on the importance of awareness activities in helping people in lake communities to increase their understanding of how and why to manage sustainably for a healthy lake. Respondents were also asked to identify the appropriateness of the amount of awareness activities already provided by the VLWM; to identify types of awareness activities of interest; and to identify information topics of interest. • Overall, 66% of respondents rated awareness as very important and 29% indicated it was

moderately important, while only 5% indicated it was not important. Ninety-five percent of the respondents, therefore, have reinforced the central role of awareness in dealing with lake management issues, as it relates to the Working Model. See Chart 26.


Evaluation Report

• Once again, a similar pattern of opinion on this question was seen across resident type. For example, 64% of permanent and 67% of seasonal residents rated awareness as very important, 31% and 29% respectively rated it as moderately important, and 5% and

53

4% respectively rated it as not important. This means that there is little variation between resident types within the Vincent Lake community in terms of their beliefs about the importance of awareness, suggesting that awareness activities will be equally welcomed by both types of resident. See Chart 27.

• Looking at how respondents rated the importance of awareness compared to their ability to

correctly define the Environmental Reserve (keeping in mind that this was a difficult question due to the similarity among potential answers), 72% of those who selected the correct answer felt that awareness was very important. Among those who selected the three incorrect answers, those rating awareness as very important ranged from 58% to 76%. See Chart 28. • Conversely, of those not sure of the correct answer, 71% rated awareness as very

important, suggesting that they would appreciate being able to learn more. Of all possible answers to this question, the highest proportion of those who felt that awareness was not important were those who did not know there was an Environmental Reserve (12%, compared to 2%-4% for all other answers). This represents the flipside of an equation that suggests those who are uninterested in awareness may also be those who are least informed.

• In terms of comparing respondents’ rating of the importance of awareness and their ability to

define the term riparian, 96% of those who correctly defined it as an area of water-loving vegetation bordering a waterbody felt that awareness was very or moderately important. . • Encouragingly, 100% of those who were not sure of the definition felt awareness was

very or moderately important, suggesting that there is both a need and opportunity for awareness-building. Among those who incorrectly defined a riparian area as a waterbody, 100% rated awareness as very or moderately important. This similarly suggests that respondents are eager for a mechanism to learn more. See Chart 29.

Additional Context for Developing and Targeting Awareness To identify issues of particular concern to the Vincent Lake community, in order to develop a greater understanding of their needs so as to prioritize awareness requirements, respondents were asked to identify the type of activity posing the greatest threat to the health of Vincent Lake, and to select three factors that they were most worried about at Vincent Lake. • Overall, the greatest threat to the health of Vincent Lake was climate change (53%),

followed (by a margin of almost 40%) by agricultural activities (14%), and residential development (10%). Only 6% and 3% respectively identified recreational activities and industrial development as the greatest threat. These latter responses seem reasonable because the prevalence of recreational homes at the lake suggests that those residents are themselves actively involved in recreational pursuits at the lake (i.e. it is their reason for being there); and because industrial development close to the lake is minimal. This result is similar to that found in a previous study (Equus Consulting Group, 2000) that reported Vincent Lake residents were not concerned about industrial development at their lake. See Chart 30. • The high degree of concern reported about climate change is similar to that reported in

the Equus study. At that time, 92% of Vincent Lake residents identified climate change as contributing to the changes experienced by residents at the lake in recent times. See Chart 31.


Evaluation Report

54

• Comparing views about the greatest threat to resident type, the pattern is generally consistent across the community, with some moderate exceptions. For example, as might be expected, 20% of permanent residents compared to only 12% of seasonal residents cited agriculture as the greatest threat, perhaps because those living in the area year-round have more frequent opportunity for exposure to the implications of agriculture on land and water health at the lake. Similarly, 14% of permanent residents compared to only 4% of seasonal residents cited recreation as the greatest threat.

• When greatest threat to lake health was compared to familiarity with the VLWM, climate change fell from the most to the fourth most frequently cited threat (71%) among those very and moderately familiar. The most frequently cited threat based on familiarity was agriculture (83%). Recreational activities and residential development followed closely as the second and third most frequently cited threats (80% and 77% respectively). This suggests that familiarity may have exposed residents to the multiple types of impacts on lake health. See Chart 32.

• In terms of factors that respondents were most worried about at Vincent Lake,

fluctuating/lower water levels was the most prevalent response overall (88%). This response is in line with climate change being reported as the greatest threat, as discussed above, since the common view would be that lack of moisture is associated with changes in the global climate. In addition, at the time this survey was undertaken, much debate about the ratification by Canada of the Kyoto Accord was taking place, so the profile about climate change was high, perhaps encouraging respondents to select this option. Further, the changing water level at the lake (which has been significant in recent years) is an easily identifiable factor by any individual spending time at the lake. See Chart 33. • The second most frequently cited factor that respondents were worried about overall

was loss of fish, bird and/or wildlife habitat or species (49%), suggesting that this has been both a readily noticeable factor and that habitat is something valued by the respondents – this presents an awareness opportunity.

• The third most frequently cited factor overall was water quality (38%), followed by a related factor, presence of algae blooms (35%).

• Presence of weeds; water clarity; loss of property value; loss of visual appeal; loss of opportunity to enjoy/explore undisturbed natural areas; and loss of natural aquatic plants each were cited by between 7% and 16% of respondents overall.

• By combining those respondents who selected recreational activities and residential

development into a new category, and combining those respondents who selected agriculture and industrial development into a second new category, activities generally associated with residents/individuals, and by business, could be compared to the factors they were most worried about at the lake. More than half of those who felt most threatened by recreational activites and residential development (49% within the combined category) were most worried about loss of the opportunity to enjoy/explore undisturbed areas, loss of natural aquatic plants, water clarity and loss of habitat or species. More than half of those who felt most threatened by agriculture and industrial development (51%) were most worried about the presence of algae blooms, presence of weeds, loss of visual appeal, water quality and fluctuating/lower lake levels. See Chart 34.

Team-Building The survey did not include questions pertaining to this element of the process.


Evaluation Report

55

Tool-Building Amount and Nature of Awareness Activities Respondents were asked to reflect on the amount and nature of awareness activities in which they were interested. • Together with the high value placed on importance noted above, there was also a high rate

of interest overall in continued awareness activities at Vincent Lake. Almost half (46%) of respondents indicated that awareness activities need to continue, while only 10% were not sure. Six percent indicated that they felt sufficient awareness had already been delivered. Thirty-eight percent were not familiar enough with the VLWM to form an opinion about the amount of awareness already provided. See Chart 35. • Among those reporting that awareness needs to continue, 29% sought information on

topics similar to those already covered by the VLWM, while 17% asked that awareness continue with new topics. This speaks to the challenge of pacing awareness activities and information over time and across a wide spectrum of awareness levels within a given community. See Chart 36.

• Community meetings were identified as the most popular forum overall for awareness delivery (56%). Other popular activity types included outdoor events, such as the Healthy Lake Day (41%) and site tours (17%). Only 10% of respondents overall were not interested in any activities. See Chart 37. • The awareness topics of most interest to respondents were septic and well systems;

laws pertaining to lake activities and management; and algae, aquatic plants and/or weeds (each requested by 56% of respondents). This suggests that issues surrounding protection of water quality are very important. Forty-nine percent of respondents were interested in information about managing for lakeshore habitat and species, while 42% were interested in information on environmentally-friendly recreational activities. This suggests that respondents are seeking new ways to interact with, and enjoy, the lakeshore environment. Accordingly, awareness activities incorporating these topics would be well received in the community. Only 11% were interested in information pertaining to forming a community group, a not unexpected result given the challenges the VLWM has experienced in attempting to encourage active leadership at the lake by means of a community group. Only 5% of respondents were not interested in any additional information topics.

Lakeshore Health Checklist and Health Categories One of the tools used by the VLWM to help residents understand the health of the lakeshore at Vincent Lake is the Cows and Fish Fact Sheet containing the lakeshore riparian health checklist. The one-page checklist can be filled out voluntarily by any individual to provide a quick snapshot of lakeshore ecological function, based on 11 yes/no items. A score of 8 or more out of 11 suggests that the lakeshore is performing all its key riparian functions (healthy); a score of 4 to 7 out of 11 suggests that the lakeshore is performing some but not all of riparian functions (healthy with problems); and a score of 3 or less out of 11 suggests that most or all of riparian function has failed (unhealthy). By targeting management action to any of the 11 checklist items, the health category can be improved.


Evaluation Report

56

To determine if and how this tool has been used by respondents, they were asked at the beginning of the survey to indicate whether they had completed the fact sheet checklist, and then (presumably without yet seeing the list of 11 items provided later in the survey), were asked to select the health category of their lakeshore area. From the answers provided to the 11 items listed later in the survey, it was possible subsequently to derive a health index based on the specific riparian functions queried in those items. Note that in developing the index, a value of 1 was given to each yes response and a value of 0 was given to both N/A and no responses, on each of the 11 items; the calculation included only those respondents who reported that they completed, or who were assumed to have completed, the fact sheet version of the checklist. • Overall, 8% of respondents indicated they had completed a lakeshore riparian health

checklist; 63% had not; while 10% were not sure. Thirty-four percent responded N/A (respondents in this category were likely those who did not live immediately on-lake). See Chart 38. • Looking at all response categories, 14% of respondents self-reported their lakeshore

health category as healthy; 44% indicated they felt it was healthy with problems, and 23% indicated it was unhealthy. Two percent were not sure; 17% responded N/A. See Chart 39.

• Removing the N/A and not sure responses and using just the three categories of healthy, healthy with problems, and unhealthy, the self-reported health rating distribution was 18% as healthy, 54% as healthy with problems, and 28% as unhealthy. See Chart 40. These figures equate approximately to the distribution of health ratings (11%, 49% and 40% respectively) obtained by independent lotic riparian health assessments conducted on rivers and streams in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Idaho, and Montana (Fitch and Ambrose, 2003).

• Among those who had completed a checklist, 36% thought their lakeshore area was

healthy, while this was true for only 12% of those who had not. Similarly, of those who had completed a checklist, 14% rated their lakeshore area as unhealthy, compared to 31% of those who had not completed a checklist. See Chart 41.

• In comparing whether practice change had occurred against three categories of self-

reported health, there was little difference between those who reported they had changed and those who had not. For example, 18% of those rating their lakeshore area as healthy had changed practices; 16% had not. Fifty-five percent of those rating their lakeshore area as healthy with problems had changed practices, while 58% had not. Twenty-seven percent of those who rated their lakeshore area as unhealthy had changed practices, while 26% had not. This suggests that the checklist itself (introduced recently) had not directly affected practice change at this point in time. Note that 19% of respondents gave an answer of N/A. Since the respondents providing a self-reported health rating were assumed to be those living directly on-lake, it can be further assumed, primarily from written comments provided on the returned surveys, that these 19% are already managing appropriately and do not need to make major changes to their lakeshore management practices. See Chart 42.


Evaluation Report

• The health index derived from the 11 individual items dealing with riparian function resulted overall in 63% healthy; 33% healthy with problems; and 4% unhealthy. These results vary from the self-reported health categories noted above. It is difficult to draw conclusions about this variation. However, due to the small number of respondents who were familiar with the content of the fact sheet overall (8%), it could be suggested cautiously that respondents

57

encountered some difficulty in interpreting the specific content of the 11 items as shown in the survey, skewing the index calculation somewhat. In other words, awareness exposure to help frame accurate responses to the items may, if this item was tested again in future, provide a different result. See Chart 43.

• In comparing the derived health index to whether practice change had occurred, there was

more variation within the categories than on the self-reported health rating. For example, 35% of those assigned as healthy had changed practices, while 51% had not. Thirty-six percent of those assigned as healthy with problems had changed practices, while 31% had not. However, within the unhealthy category, 33% indicated they had changed practices, while 50% indicated they had not. See Chart 44.

• In comparing the derived health index to familiarity with the VLWM, 80% of those very or

moderately familiar with the VLWM were assigned as healthy, 67% very or moderately familiar were assigned as healthy with problems, and 57% very or moderately familiar were assigned as unhealthy. This may suggest two things: that those who have maintained their lakeshore in a sustainable manner have an interest in the matter and so took advantage of the awareness activities provided by the VLWM, and/or that familiarity with VLWM has had some impact on the ability of respondents to understand and correctly answer the 11 checklist items. See Chart 45.

• In comparing the derived health index to importance of awareness activities, similar views

were expressed by respondents in all health categories. For example, 95% of those assigned to the healthy category felt awareness activities were very important, while 96% in the healthy but with problems category felt that way. All of the respondents assigned the unhealthy category felt awareness activities were very important. See Chart 46.

Regulation as a Potential Tool To obtain greater clarity about the appropriateness of lakeshore regulation and its enforcement as a potential tool for use at Vincent Lake and other lakes, respondents were asked their views on the role of regulation. With respect to the lakeshore area of Vincent Lake in particular, respondents were also asked to identify those activities they believed should be subject to consistent enforcement by all relevant agencies/jurisdictions. • Overall, 61% of respondents indicated that regulations are required and should be

consistently enforced to achieve sustainable lakeshore management in lake communities. In addition, 34% overall indicated that regulations are required but should be enforced only in very serious cases. Together, those indicating a key role for regulation totaled 95%. Only 5% indicated that there is no role for regulations or by-laws to control lake management practices. This suggests that respondents desire regulation as a mechanism of fair play for community members in violation (i.e. consistent enforcement), and secondarily as an educational opportunity (i.e. sending a message to the public in general, and giving people the opportunity to change practices if they first receive relevant information). See Chart 47. • These results are very similar to those reported in a previous study of five northeastern

Alberta lake communities (Equus Consulting Group, 2000), in which 88% of respondents indicated that regulations were necessary and helpful to deal with lake and lakeshore development. At Vincent Lake (one of the lake communities participating in that study), support for regulations affecting development was 90%.


Evaluation Report

58

• The pattern of answers to this question was very similar between permanent and seasonal residents. For example, very few saw no role for regulation or by-law (6% of permanent and 4% of seasonal residents), whereas 58% of permanent and 62% of seasonal residents want regulation that is enforced consistently. Similarly, 36% of permanent and 34% of seasonal residents felt regulation was required but should be enforced only in very serious cases. See Chart 48.

• The call for regulation and its enforcement was reinforced by a supplementary survey

question in which respondents could select those activities they felt should or should not be subject to consistent enforcement. • More than 75% of respondents called for consistent enforcement on five of nine potential

activities, including: • bulldozing at the shore (84%); • dumping pollutants/waste at the shore (93%); • using weedkiller/herbicide at the shore (85%); • disturbing fish/bird/wildlife habitat (76%); and • agriculture activites at the shore (74%). See Chart 49.

• About half of respondents called for consistent enforcement on four of nine potential activites, including: • removing native vegetation at the shore by moving/reshaping soil, sand and/or rocks

(60%); • off-trail ATV use in the Environmental Reserve (49%); • mowing at the shore (47%); and • high boat speed (47%). See Chart 50.

Community-Based Action Responsibility for Lake Health One of the central questions of the evaluation was to determine who should be responsible for ensuring a healthy lake. In particular, it was hoped that light would be shed on who should lead the awareness/practice change process, and clarify whether the community-based action element that formed part of the five-element process used by the VLWM was indeed this community’s preferred approach (especially given that the community group formation and leadership hoped for by the core partners had not occurred). See Chart 51. • Overall:

• 34% of respondents indicated it is a joint responsibility of government agencies working directly with individuals;

• 25% indicated it is a joint responsibility between a local group or association and government agencies (together, these two options total 57% who prefer a joint working arrangement between government agencies and community members);

• 24% indicated it is solely the responsibility of each individual; • 5% indicated it was solely the responsibility of a local group working with community

members; • 2% indicated it is solely the responsibility of government agencies; • 4% were not sure; and • 6% selected the Other option (usually a combination of some of the above).


Evaluation Report

59

• Again, there was a very similar pattern of response from permanent and seasonal residents about who is responsible for ensuring a healthy lake. See Chart 52. • 28% of permanent and 24% of seasonal residents felt that it is solely the responsibility of

the individual. Similarly, 36% of permanent and 33% of seasonal residents felt that responsibility lies with government agencies working directly with individuals. Therefore, about 64% of permanent residents indicated a greater emphasis on the individual than on local group responsibility, with 57% of seasonal residents feeling that way.

• 25% of both permanent and seasonal residents indicated that lake health should be a joint responsibility between local groups and government agencies. Therefore, preference for local group involvement was indicated by 28% of permanent and 31% of seasonal residents working with the community and/or government agencies.

• There was little support for a local group and community members working on their own (3% of permanent residents and 6% of seasonal residents respectively).

• Essentially no-one (0% of permanent and 2% of seasonal residents) indicated that lake health was the responsibility solely of government agencies.

• The preference for joint government/community partnership, together with the lower support

for individuals, groups or agencies working on their own, reinforces the value placed on partnership within the community-based action element.

Monitoring The survey did not include questions pertaining to this element of the process.


Evaluation Report

60

VI. SUMMARY Evaluation Part I The Future Template evolving from the experiment known as the VLWM: • incorporates the five elements of the Cows and Fish process, namely awareness; team-

building; tool-building; community-based action; and monitoring; • adds a sixth element of enforcement, utilized within the context of voluntary compliance

assumed to grow out of awareness; • acknowledges that awareness is the primary mechanism by which individuals can make

informed decisions about their lake management; • never excludes community input to defining management issues or appropriate awareness

activities to address them; • permits the selection and use of awareness activities (and specific issue and topic content)

from a menu of tools used successfully by others, with technical support provided by a wide range of informed partners;

• benefits from involvement of partners able to provide clear and consistent contributions; • may be most effective when implemented using a paid-position coordination function

designed along the lines of Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture watershed coordinators;

• is free to flexibly adopt whatever mix of roles and responsibilities within their initiative that most effectively addresses the community’s unique needs and characteristics; it may be community-based (entirely led by community members) or community-driven (built on input from community-members at key decision points); and

• ensures that monitoring occurs, and that results are shared and acted upon in order to maximize effectiveness and impact on practice change and lakeshore health.

The Working Model has ceased as an experiment, with many lessons learned by partners and community members over the past three years. Some core partners (e.g. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Alberta Conservation Association) will continue as a newly evolving initiative following selected aspects of the Future Template, in particular taking a less direct role in leading awareness activities at Vincent Lake. Instead, they intend to continue providing technical support to the Vincent Lake community, as well as to groups and agencies throughout the province who are involved in developing or managing community initiatives to address lake management issues.


Evaluation Report

61

Evaluation Part II The total number of survey respondents was 178, representing a high response rate of 46%. Of the 177 respondents who identified their residency type, 79% were seasonal residents and 21% were permanent residents. The community survey results are summarized below. Awareness On defining key terminology: • Overall, 76% of respondents correctly identified that the Crown and the County of St. Paul

jointly own the lakeshore area. • Only 19% correctly defined the Environmental Reserve as an area at least 6 meters wide

between the property line and the Crown land. • Overall, 69% of respondents correctly defined riparian as an area of water-loving vegetation

bordering a waterbody, suggesting that the community is reasonably familiar with this key term. Only 10% defined the term riparian incorrectly. However, 21% were unsure, suggesting that additional awareness is merited. • Respondents living on-lake had greater accuracy defining riparian (72%) compared to

those living off-lake (58%). This seems reasonable because those directly on the shore will typically have more experience with, and interest in, the lakeshore area.

With respect to familiarity with the VLWM: • Overall, 11% of respondents were very familiar with the VLWM, 62% were moderately

familiar with it, and 27% had never heard of it. • The awareness activities held by the VLWM played a large role in introducing the group to

the community. Forty-eight percent reported that they heard about the VLWM from either the Healthy Lake Day event or a community awareness meeting. However, 25% had first heard about the group by receiving the survey, suggesting that some work remains to be done in raising the profile of the group’s efforts.

• Approximately one-third of all respondents (31%) indicated that they had changed their practices, while 43% indicated they had not. The remaining 26% responded as N/A (this category of response may include those who had never heard of the VLWM and those familiar with the group but who felt that no change was required because they are already managing properly). • Of the respondents who indicated that they had changed their practices, 98% were very

or moderately familiar with the VLWM, suggesting a strong influence of the group in encouraging practice change by those exposed to awareness activities.

• Among respondents who reported making practice change, the most common response (44%) was that residents no longer mow along the lakeshore. Since the issue of mowing the shore was addressed repeatedly in VLWM awareness activities, the high rate of changed practice here suggests that the message has been successfully communicated.

• Ability to correctly define the Environmental Reserve was then compared to familiarity with the VLWM. Of those who correctly defined it as an area at least 6 meters wide between the property line and the Crown land (19%), 81% were very or moderately familiar with the VLWM. Among those who were not sure what the Environmental Reserve was, 67% were very or moderately familiar with it. Of those who incorrectly


Evaluation Report

62

identified it as the area between the high and low water marks, 87% were very or moderately familiar with it.

• Keeping in mind the difficulty of this question (due to similarity among the available answers), it is difficult to comment on whether the awareness information provided on this topic has been effective.

• Regardless, it does seem to be an information topic requiring attention in general, because for those who indicated they didn’t know there was an Environmental Reserve, a full 71% had never heard of the VLWM (compared to less than one-third for all other response categories among those who had never heard of the VLWM). Further, for those who indicated they were not sure of the definition, 33% had never heard of the VLWM.

• Ability to correctly define the term riparian was also compared to familiarity with the group. Of those indicating the correct answer, 84% were very or moderately familiar with it, compared to 64% and 50% for two incorrect answers, and 47% for those who were not sure. This suggests that exposure to the VLWM has increased awareness among respondents on this key term. • Conversely, those who were not sure how to define a riparian area reported the highest

incidence of having never heard of the VLWM (53%). • In terms of ability to correctly classify selected plants as weeds or non-weeds, a general

trend was observed. Those who had never heard of the VLWM responded most often to the not sure category and least often with the correct answer. This suggests that the greater the familiarity with the group, the greater the likelihood may be of correctly classifying plants as weeds or non-weeds. Further, the high proportion of not sure answers, ranging from 16% to 42%, suggests that awareness activities are required to address plant identification as a means to help lake residents manage the lakeshore plant community in a sustainable manner.

With respect to perceived effectiveness of the VLWM: • Overall, 41% rated the VLWM as very or moderately effective. Nine percent felt it had been

ineffective, and 14% were not sure. More than one-third (36%) were not familiar enough to have an opinion about effectiveness.

• When effectiveness was compared to resident type, a fairly consistent pattern of opinion about effectiveness among permanent and seasonal residents was seen across all categories of response, suggesting that there is no significant difference within the community as a whole in terms of how the two types of resident have responded to the VLWM. For example, 46% of permanent residents believed the group had been very or moderately effective, while 40% of seasonal residents believe it had been very or moderately effective. Similarly, 11% of permanent residents felt it was not effective, while 8% of seasonal residents felt it was not effective.

• In terms of whether respondents reported practice change, compared to how they themselves rated the effectiveness of the VLWM, among those who felt the group had been very or moderately effective, 76% reported practice change and 40% reported no practice change (it is not possible to distinguish whether these respondents are among those already managing sustainably or whether the group’s awareness efforts have not yet had any impact). Among those who felt the group had not been effective, only 6% reported practice change and 8% reported no practice change. This suggests a strong relationship between group effectiveness, as viewed by community members themselves, and practice change on their part.


Evaluation Report

63

On importance of awareness compared to knowledge and practice change: • Overall, 66% of respondents rated awareness as very important, 29% indicated it was

moderately important, while only 5% indicated it was not important. Ninety-five percent of the respondents, therefore, have reinforced the central role of awareness in dealing with lake management issues, as it relates to the Working Model.

• Once again, a similar pattern of opinion was seen across resident type. For example, 64% of permanent and 67% of seasonal residents rated awareness as very important, 31% and 29% respectively rated it as moderately important, and 5% and 4% respectively rated it as not important. This means that there is little variation between resident types within the Vincent Lake community in terms of their beliefs about the importance of awareness, suggesting that awareness activities will be equally welcomed by both types of resident.

• Comparing how respondents rated the importance of awareness to their ability to correctly define the Environmental Reserve (keeping in mind that this was a difficult question due to the similarity among potential answers), 72% of those who selected the correct answer felt that awareness was very important. Among those who selected the three incorrect answers, those rating awareness as very important ranged from 58% to 76%. • Conversely, of those not sure of the correct answer, 71% rated awareness as very

important, suggesting that they would appreciate being able to learn more. Of all possible answers to this question, the highest proportion of those who felt that awareness was not important were those who did not know there was an Environmental Reserve (12%, compared to 2%-4% for all other answers). This represents the flipside of an equation that suggests those who are uninterested in awareness may also be those who are least informed.

• Comparing respondents’ rating of the importance of awareness and their ability to define the term riparian, 96% of those who correctly defined it as an area of water-loving vegetation bordering a waterbody felt that awareness was very or moderately important. • Encouragingly, 100% of those who were not sure of the definition felt awareness was

very or moderately important, suggesting that there is both a need and opportunity for awareness-building. Among those who incorrectly defined a riparian area as a waterbody, 100% rated awareness as very or moderately important. This similarly suggests that respondents are eager for a mechanism to learn more.

Additional context for developing and targeting awareness: • Overall, the greatest threat to the health of Vincent Lake was climate change (53%),

followed (by a margin of almost 40%) by agricultural activities (14%), and residential development (10%). Only 6% and 3% respectively identified recreational activities and industrial development as the greatest threat. The high degree of concern reported about climate change is similar to that reported in the Equus Consulting Group study conducted in 2000 in which 92% of Vincent Lake residents identified climate change as contributing to the changes experienced by residents at the lake in recent times.

• The factor most worried about by respondents overall was fluctuating/lower water levels (88%). This response is in line with climate change being reported as the greatest threat, as discussed above, since the common view would be that lack of moisture is associated with changes in the global climate. • The second most frequently cited factor that respondents were worried about overall

was loss of fish, bird and/or wildlife habitat or species (49%), suggesting that this has been both a readily noticeable factor and that habitat is something valued by the


Evaluation Report

64

respondents – this presents an awareness opportunity. The third most frequently cited factor overall was water quality (38%), followed by a related factor, presence of algae blooms (35%).

Tool-Building On amount and nature of awareness activities: • Together with the high value placed on importance of awareness activities noted above,

there was also a high rate of interest overall in continued awareness activities at Vincent Lake. Almost half (46%) of respondents indicated that awareness activities need to continue, while only 10% were not sure. Six percent indicated that they felt sufficient awareness had already been delivered. Thirty-eight percent were not familiar enough with the VLWM to form an opinion about the amount of awareness already provided. • Among those reporting that awareness needs to continue, 29% sought information on

topics similar to those already covered by the VLWM, while 17% asked that awareness continue with new topics. This speaks to the challenge of pacing awareness activities and information over time and across a wide spectrum of awareness levels within a given community.

• Community meetings were identified as the most popular forum overall for awareness delivery (56%). Other popular activity types included outdoor events, such as the Healthy Lake Day (41%) and site tours (17%). Only 10% of respondents overall were not interested in any activities.

• The awareness topics of most interest to respondents were septic and well systems; laws pertaining to lake activities and management; and algae, aquatic plants and/or weeds (each at 56%). This suggests that issues surrounding protection of water quality are very important. Forty-nine percent of respondents were interested in information about managing for lakeshore habitat and species, while 42% were interested in information on environmentally-friendly recreational activities. This suggests that respondents are seeking new ways to interact with, and enjoy, the lakeshore environment. Accordingly, awareness activities incorporating these topics would be well received in the community. Only 11% were interested in information pertaining to forming a community group, a not unexpected result given the challenges the VLWM has experienced in attempting to encourage active leadership at the lake by means of a community group. Only 5% of respondents were not interested in any additional information topics.

On lakeshore health checklist and categories: • Overall, 8% of respondents indicated they had completed a lakeshore riparian health

checklist; 63% had not; while 10% were not sure. Thirty-four percent responded N/A (respondents in this category were likely those who did not live immediately on-lake).

• Excluding those who responded N/A or not sure, 18% of respondents self-reported their lakeshore health category as healthy, 54% indicated they felt it was healthy with problems, and 28% indicated it was unhealthy. These figures equate approximately to the distribution of health ratings obtained by independent lotic riparian health assessments conducted on rivers and streams in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Idaho, and Montana.


Evaluation Report

• Among those who had completed a checklist, 36% thought their lakeshore area was healthy, while this was true for only 13% of those who had not. Similarly, of those who had completed a checklist, 14% rated their lakeshore area as unhealthy, compared to 31% of those who had not completed a checklist.

65

• In comparing whether practice change had occurred with self-reported health rating, there was little difference between those who reported they had changed and those who had not. This suggests that the checklist itself (introduced recently) had not affected practice change at this point in time.

• In comparing the derived health index to familiarity with the VLWM, 80% of those very or moderately familiar with the VLWM were assigned as healthy, 67% very or moderately familiar were assigned as healthy with problems, and 57% very or moderately familiar were assigned as unhealthy. This may suggest two things: that those who have maintained their lakeshore in a sustainable manner have an interest in the matter and so took advantage of the awareness activities provided by the VLWM, and/or that familiarity with VLWM has had some impact on the ability of respondents to understand and correctly answer the 11 checklist items.

• In comparing the derived health index to importance of awareness activities, similar views were expressed by respondents in all health categories. For example, 95% of those assigned to the healthy category felt awareness activities were very important, while 96% in the healthy but with problems category felt that way. All of the respondents assigned the unhealthy category felt awareness activities were very important.

On regulation as a potential tool: • Overall, 61% of respondents indicated that regulations are required and should be

consistently enforced to achieve sustainable lakeshore management in lake communities. A further 34% overall indicated that regulations are required but should be enforced only in very serious cases. Together, those indicating a key role for regulation totaled 95%. Only 5% indicated that there is no role for regulations or by-laws to control lake management practices. This suggests that respondents desire regulation as a mechanism of fair play for community members in violation (i.e. consistent enforcement), and secondarily as an educational opportunity (i.e. sending a message to the public in general, and giving people the opportunity to change practices if they first receive relevant information). • These results are very similar to those reported in the Equus Consulting Group study

conducted in 2000 involving five northeastern Alberta lake communities, in which 88% of respondents indicated that regulations were necessary and helpful to deal with lake and lakeshore development. At Vincent Lake (one of the lake communities participating in that study), support for regulations affecting development was 90%.

• The pattern of responses was very similar between permanent and seasonal residents. Very few saw no role for regulation or by-law (6% of permanent and 4% of seasonal residents), whereas 58% of permanent and 62% of seasonal residents want regulation that is enforced consistently. Similarly, 36% of permanent and 34% of seasonal residents felt regulation was required but should be enforced only in very serious cases.

With respect to the type of activities identified for consistent enforcement by all relevant jurisdictions: • More than 75% of respondents called for consistent enforcement on five of nine potential

activities, including: • bulldozing at the shore (84%); • dumping pollutants/waste at the shore (93%); • using weedkiller/herbicide at the shore (85%); • disturbing fish/bird/wildlife habitat (76%); and


Evaluation Report

66

• agriculture activites at the shore (74%). • About half of respondents called for consistent enforcement on four of nine potential

activites, including: • removing native vegetation at the shore by moving/reshaping soil, sand and/or rocks

(60%); • off-trail ATV use in the Environmental Reserve (49%); • mowing at the shore (47%); and • high boat speed (47%).

Community-Based Action On responsibility for lake health: • Overall:

• 34% of respondents indicated it is a joint responsibility of government agencies working directly with individuals;

• 25% indicated it is a joint responsibility between a local group or association and government agencies (together, these two options total 57% who prefer a joint working arrangement between government agencies and community members);

• 24% indicated it is solely the responsibility of each individual; • 5% indicated it was solely the responsibility of a local group working with community

members; • 2% indicated it is solely the responsibility of government agencies; • 4% were not sure; and • 6% selected the Other option (usually a combination of some of the above).

• Again, there was a very similar pattern of response from permanent and seasonal residents about who is responsible for ensuring a healthy lake: • 28% of permanent and 24% of seasonal residents felt that it is solely the responsibility of

the individual. Similarly, 36% of permanent and 33% of seasonal residents felt that responsibility lies with government agencies working directly with individuals. Therefore, about 64% of permanent residents indicated a greater emphasis on the individual than on local group responsibility, with 57% of seasonal residents feeling that way; and

• 25% of both permanent and seasonal residents indicated that lake health should be a joint responsibility between local groups and government agencies. Therefore, preference for local group involvement was indicated by 28% of permanent and 31% of seasonal residents working with the community and/or government agencies.


Evaluation Report

67

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW GUIDE

VINCENT LAKE WORKING MODEL GUIDE FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Background on Program Logic Let’s talk a little about the structure or design of the Model to get a sense of what I might refer to as its “logic”. By logic I just mean the process or steps that you feel have been the essential parts of the model, including implementation goals (i.e. what the group’s efforts were meant to provide or give); outputs (i.e. some tangible indicators of what has been, or what was intended to have been, delivered -- and their characteristics); and both short- and long-term outcomes. 1. Please tell me when and how you came to be involved or familiar with the Vincent Lake Working Model group, and describe what your role has been. 2. Could you please describe what you feel the goals of the working group were when it started? 2a. Were you involved in the development of the goals? 3. And can you briefly describe to me the outputs, i.e. any activities you’re aware of that have been undertaken by the group, to meet those goals? 3a. We’ll talk about some of the achievements, or outcomes, of those activities in a moment but, first, what would you say were the positive features of those activities and why? 3b. We’ll come back to this point again, but just briefly what would you say were the features of those activities that you felt were less than positive, and why? 3c. How would you describe the match, up to this point in time, between the group’s goals and the activities we’ve talked about -- in other words have the activities so far, in your view, been appropriate for meeting the group’s initial goals? 4. Let’s talk briefly about some of the achievements or outcomes of the activities you mentioned. What do you see as some of the outcomes (if any) achieved by the group to date, both short- and long-term, as a result of the activities? Please think about outcomes that you anticipated but also whether there were any unexpected outcomes. 4a. How did you know (i.e. criteria) that these activities were successful/not successful? 5. Just briefly before going on to talk about how the model might work in the future, what would you describe as the best features of the model as a whole so far, features that you would like to see continue? Why? Future Changes and Design 6. Going back to the goals of the group, with some experience under your belt now, what do you think the goals of the working group should be in the future, thinking both about the Vincent Lake watershed but also neighbouring lake communities who may be looking for a process to work toward sustainable practices? (i.e. may be same as original or different) Why?


Evaluation Report

68

7. What do you see as being the desired short- and long-term outcomes, or desired achievements, of the group that would be applicable for this community and other lake communities? 8. To achieve these goals, what types of activities or responsibilities do you think the model should include in the future? 8a. What specific outcomes would you look for out of those activities to know whether they were successes (i.e. criteria)? 9. How would you characterize who should be involved in working towards these goals and activities, and what would their responsibilities be, individually but also collectively for a group of partners using the model in this or any other lake community? Why? 10. Are there any other specific examples that you can give about what has not worked for you personally, for your organization, or for the community, based on your experience so far, that you want to see modified in any future model so as to better meet the needs of Vincent Lake and neighbouring watersheds? Key Characteristics 11. I want to ask you to get quite detailed about potential key characteristics of a potentially modified working model (which you may or may not have touched on already), in terms of the (i) process, (ii) structure and (iii) responsibilities of the group. Again, think about the model on the broad scale, in terms of how it can be useful in the Vincent Lake watershed but also how it might be a reliable template for use in other lake watersheds in the region. Talk to me about/expand on what you think the necessary components are to achieve sustainable land and lake management practices in this and neighbouring watersheds. For example: • do awareness activities fit in somewhere and who should be leading or coordinating them – why; • how does the voluntary compliance aspect fit in - why; • where does by-law enforcement come in, if at all - why; • who should be driving decision-making on these things and who should be carrying out the decisions

- why? • what, if any, of activities should be penalized by strict by-law enforcement? 12. What kinds of specific challenges would a group’s partners face if the model was modified in the ways you’ve described, whether in this community or others? 13. In just a few words to summarize, what in your view are the key characteristics of your new and improved working model? 14. If you had to convince other members of the current working group, some of whom are also being interviewed, that this is how the model should operate, what main benefit would you provide to convince them to adopt your recommendations? 15. Realistically, to what extent can whatever type of model the current group defines for the future be transferable to, and workable in, communities other than Vincent Lake? Why or why not? 16. Any other comments, concerns or ideas that you’d like to add?


Evaluation Report

69

APPENDIX B

COMMUNITY SURVEY

VINCENT LAKE RESIDENTS EVALUATION SURVEY

What are Your Preferences for the Best Ways to Deal with the

Management and Health of Your Lake? The purpose of this survey is to determine what you, as a Vincent Lake community member, feel are the important aspects of lake health and lake management, as well as to identify the best ways of dealing with any lake concerns and issues. The partners of the Vincent Lake Working Model (“VLWM”) group are asking for this evaluation information so they can increase their effectiveness when working with Vincent Lake residents, and other lake communities in the region, to bring about sustainable lake management practices – and healthy lakes. Remember: by taking 10-15 minutes to complete this survey, you are making a very important

contribution; please return your completed survey within five days using the enclosed stamped

envelope; to receive a copy of the summarized survey results and to receive a token gift of

appreciation, complete the enclosed address card and mail it in the same envelope as your completed survey;

all the information you provide is treated strictly confidentially; and

if you have any questions about this survey or the use of its results, please do not

hesitate to contact Nancy Bateman at (403) 394-0494.

HOW TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY

This survey contains 22 questions in 3 parts. Part 1 asks you a little about yourself.

Part 2 asks you about lake environments and some lake management issues. Part 3 asks about the ways you feel they could be addressed.

Please answer each question by checking the box(es) for the answer(s) you feel

are most appropriate to your situation.

Thank you!

PART 1 – A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF

#1. How would you describe how you use your Vincent Lake property? (please check one box) IT IS CURRENTLY YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IT IS CURRENTLY YOUR SEASONAL RESIDENCE #2. Please answer this question only if you are A SEASONAL RESIDENT of Vincent Lake. Where is your home when you are not living at Vincent Lake? (please check one box) ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTY OF ST. PAUL

IN A NEIGHBOURING COUNTY or MD (e.g. Smoky Lake, Lamont, Athabasca) THE EDMONTON AREA OTHER (please specify) _____________________________________________

#3. Who owns THE LAKESHORE AREA between your property and the water’s edge at

Vincent Lake? (please check one box)

YOU OWN IT THE CROWN AND THE COUNTY OF ST. PAUL OWN IT THE SUMMER VILLAGE OF HORSESHOE BAY OWNS IT NOT SURE

#4. Which one of the following categories best illustrates how you would describe the

condition of THE LAKESHORE AREA at your Vincent Lake property? (please check one box)

HEALTHY HEALTHY BUT WITH SOME PROBLEMS UNHEALTHY NOT SURE NOT APPLICABLE (you don’t have property with direct lakeshore access)

Please list the two main factors that you used to decide your answer. i)

ii)

#5. Have you ever completed a LAKESHORE HEALTH

CHECKLIST for your Vincent Lake property?

YES

NO

NOT SURE

If you answered YES, please indicate where you heard about the Checklist.

PART 2 – LAKE ENVIRONMENTS AND MANAGEMENT

#6. Which one of the following descriptions do you feel is the best definition of a RIPARIAN AREA? (please check one box)

A WATERBODY SUCH AS A LAKE, WETLAND, STREAM OR RIVER

AN AREA WITH WATER-LOVING VEGETATION THAT BORDERS A LAKE, WETLAND, STREAM OR RIVER

AN UPLAND AREA LOCATED AWAY FROM THE WATER

NOT SURE

#7. Which one of the following types of activity, if any, do you feel poses the GREATEST

THREAT to the health of Vincent Lake at this time? (please check one box)

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CLIMATE CHANGE NONE OF THE ABOVE OTHER (please specify) _______________________________________________

#8. Which THREE of the following factors are you MOST WORRIED ABOUT at Vincent Lake,

if any? (please check three boxes)

PRESENCE OF ALGAE BLOOMS PRESENCE OF WEEDS LOSS OF NATURAL AQUATIC PLANTS (plants that grow in or under the water

and/or that float on the surface) FLUCTUATING OR LOWER LAKE LEVEL WATER CLARITY WATER QUALITY (presence of chemical or nutrient contaminants) LOSS OF FISH, BIRD AND/OR WILDLIFE HABITAT OR SPECIES LOSS OF VISUAL APPEAL LESS OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY/EXPLORE UNDISTURBED NATURAL AREAS REDUCTION IN PROPERTY VALUE NONE OF THE ABOVE OTHER (please specify) ______________________________________________

#9. Which of the following best describes your understanding of the Vincent Lake

ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE? (please check one box)

YOU DIDN’T KNOW THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE IT’S THE AREA BETWEEN THE HIGH-WATER MARK AND THE LOW-WATER MARK IT’S AN AREA AT LEAST 3 METRES WIDE BETWEEN THE LAKESIDE PROPERTY

LINE AND THE LOWWATER MARK IT’S AN AREA AT LEAST 6 METRES WIDE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND

THE CROWN LAND LINE NOT SURE

#10. Please describe some of the characteristics of YOUR

LAKESHORE AREA. (please answer for each characteristic listed)

YES

NO

NOT

SURE

IS 85% OR MORE OF YOUR LAKESHORE AREA COVERED WITH VEGETATION?

ARE MORE THAN HALF OF THE LAKESHORE PLANTS AS TALL AS YOUR KNEES?

ARE CATTAILS OR BULLRUSHES GROWING IN YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

ARE THERE WILLOWS AND/OR OTHER SHRUBS OR TREES, INCLUDING YOUNG ONES, GROWING IN YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

DO PLANTS SUCH AS LAWN GRASS (e.g. Kentucky bluegrass, clover, creeping red fescue and dandelion) MAKE UP LESS THAN 15% OF ALL THE PLANTS IN YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

DO NOXIOUS WEEDS (e.g. Canada thistle or scentless chamomile) MAKE UP LESS THAN 15% OF ALL THE PLANTS IN YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

HAS YOUR LAKESHORE AREA BEEN DISCED, HAD ROCKS OR SOIL MOVED OR REMOVED, OR BEEN PHYSICALLY RESHAPED BY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES OR LIVESTOCK?

HAS YOUR LAKESHORE AREA BEEN REPEATEDLY MOWED OR HEAVILY GRAZED OR HAD FERTILIZER AND/OR HERBICIDES APPLIED?

HAVE SAND, GRAVEL OR ROCKS BEEN IMPORTED INTO YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

DO YOU OFTEN SEE WILDLIFE IN YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

DO YOU PRESENTLY SPEND LESS THAN 10% OF YOUR TOTAL YARD WORK TIME IN YOUR LAKESHORE AREA?

#11. To your knowledge, are any of the following plants

classified as a NOXIOUS WEED? (please answer for each plant listed)

YES

NO

NOT SURE

FIREWEED TALL SEDGES AND GRASSES PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE STINGING NETTLE SOW THISTLE WILLOW BULLRUSH/CATTAIL

PART 3 – A MODEL FOR DEALING WITH LAKE MANAGEMENT CONCERNS The VLWM group has carried out a number of education/awareness activities in your area

over the past two years, such as holding community meetings, developing a website, and hosting the Healthy Lake Day, to share information about managing for a healthy lake.

#12. In general, HOW IMPORTANT are awareness activities (such as community meetings or

events) in helping people in lake communities increase their understanding of how and why to manage sustainably for a healthy lake?

(please check one box)

VERY IMPORTANT MODERATELY IMPORTANT AWARENESS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IMPORTANT

#13. How FAMILIAR ARE YOU with the VLWM group and/or its awareness activities? (please check one box)

YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE GROUP BEFORE RECEIVING THIS SURVEY YOU ARE MODERATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE GROUP AND/OR ITS ACTIVITIES YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE GROUP AND/OR ITS ACTIVITIES

#14. How did you first HEAR ABOUT the VLWM group and/or its awareness activities? (please check one box)

FROM RECEIVING THIS SURVEY FROM A NEIGHBOUR, FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER FROM BEING INVITED TO OR ATTENDING GROUP COMMUNITY MEETINGS OR

THE VINCENT LAKE HEALTHY LAKE DAY FROM A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OR NEWSLETTER FROM THE GROUP’S WEBSITE NOT SURE OTHER (please specify) ____________________________________________

#15. HOW EFFECTIVE do you feel the VLWM group has been in helping Vincent Lake

community members increase their awareness of how and why to manage sustainably for a healthy lake? (please check one box)

THE GROUP HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE THE GROUP HAS BEEN MODERATLEY EFFECTIVE THE GROUP HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE NOT SURE YOU ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE GROUP TO HAVE AN OPINION

#16. How do you feel about THE AMOUNT of awareness carried out by the VLWM group at

Vincent Lake to date? (please check one box)

THE GROUP HAS PROVIDED ALL THE AWARENESS THAT IS REQUIRED THE GROUP NEEDS TO CONTINUE DOING AWARENESS ACTIVITIES COVERING

SIMILAR TOPICS AS IN THE PAST THE GROUP NEEDS TO CONTINUE DOING AWARENESS ACTIVITIES WITH NEW

AND DIFFERENT TOPICS NOT SURE YOU ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE GROUP TO HAVE AN OPINION

#17. What INFORMATION TOPICS, if any, do you feel are important to include in future

awareness activities, whether held by the VLWM group at Vincent Lake or by similar groups working in other lake communities?

(please check all that apply)

YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY ADDITIONAL INFO INFO ON ALGAE, AQUATIC PLANTS AND/OR WEEDS INFO ON SEPTIC AND WELL SYSTEMS INFO ON MANAGING LAKESHORE HABITAT AND/OR SPECIES INFO ON ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES INFO ON FORMING A COMMUNITY GROUP INFO ON FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL, COUNTY OR VILLAGE LAWS RELATING TO

LAKE ACTIVITIES OR MANAGEMENT OTHER (please specify) ____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________ #18. What TYPES OF AWARENESS ACTIVITES should the VLWM group (or other groups like

it) provide that would be appropriate for lake communities? (please check all that apply)

YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY FUTURE AWARENESS ACTIVITIES SITE TOURS COMMUNITY INFO MEETINGS OUTDOOR EVENTS SUCH AS A HEALTHY LAKE DAY OTHER (please specify, e.g. newspaper stories, newsletters)

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

#19. HAVE YOU CHANGED any of your management practices

as a result of the awareness activities provided by the VLWM group?

YES

NO

N/A

If you answered YES, please describe briefly what you learned or changed in your management as a result of your experience with the VLWM group. Thank you.

#20. In your opinion, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE for ensuring a healthy lake? (please check one box)

IT IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL

IT IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A LOCAL GROUP OR ASSOCIATION WORKING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS

IT IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

IT IS A JOINT RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN A LOCAL GROUP OR ASSOCIATION

AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

IT IS A JOINT RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WORKING DIRECTLY WITH INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS

NOT SURE

OTHER (please describe any other ways that you think would be beneficial to

share information about sustainable lake management practices)

#21. In your opinion, what is the ROLE OF REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT, if any, in

achieving sustainable lakeshore management practices in communities such as Vincent Lake?

(please check one box)

THERE IS NO ROLE FOR REGULATIONS OR BY-LAWS TO CONTROL LAKE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

REGULATIONS ARE REQUIRED AND SHOULD BE CONSISTENTLY ENFORCED

REGULATIONS ARE REQUIRED BUT SHOULD BE ENFORCED ONLY IN VERY SERIOUS CASES

#22. Listed below are a number of LAKESHORE ACTIONS that

some have suggested could be potentially addressed by consistent enforcement at Vincent Lake (whether by local, provincial or federal agencies).

In your opinion, should any of these actions be subject to

consistent enforcement in the future? (please answer for each action listed)

YES

NO

NOT SURE

BULLDOZING ALONG THE LAKESHORE

MOWING ALONG THE LAKESHORE

DUMPING POLLUTANTS AND/OR WASTE ALONG THE LAKESHORE

USING WEED KILLERS OR HERBICIDES (chemicals that kill plants) AT OR NEAR THE LAKESHORE

REMOVING NATIVE VEGETATION ALONG THE LAKESHORE BY MOVING OR RESHAPING SOIL, SAND AND/OR ROCKS

USING ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES OFF-TRAIL IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE

HIGH BOAT SPEED

AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES ALONG THE LAKESHORE

DISTURBING FISH/BIRD/WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT

OTHER (please specify)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!

PLEASE MAIL IT IN THE ENCLOSED STAMPED ENVELOPE.

REMEMBER TO ALSO ENCLOSE YOUR ADDRESS CARD IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE SUMMARIZED RESULTS AND/OR OUR TOKEN

GIFT OF APPRECIATION FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PARTICIPATE.

YOUR SURVEY IS CONFIDENTIAL – THE ONLY WAY TO SEND THE RESULTS AND YOUR GIFT IS BY RETURNING THE ENCLOSED ADDRESS CARD.

77

APPENDIX C

SURVEY RESULT CHARTS

RESPONDENT PROXIMITY TO LAKESHORE n=178

82%

18%

On Lake n=145 (82%)Off Lake n=33 (18%)

CHART 1

HOME BASE OF RESIDENTS n=177

79%

21%

Seasonal n=140 (79%)Permanent n=37 (21%)

CHART 2


Evaluation Report

78


Evaluation Report

HOME BASE OF SEASONAL RESIDENTS n=140

49

21

11 10 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Edmonton Area County of St.Paul

Calgary Area Other NeighbouringCounty

Per

cent

CHART 3

RESPONDENT OPINION OF WHO OWNS LAKESHORE AREA n=173

76%

13%

6%5%

Crown/County n=132 (76%)Not Sure n=23 (13%)Summer Village n=10 (6%)Resident n=8 (5%)

CHART 4

79


Evaluation Report

RESPONDENT DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE n=171

32%

24%

19%

15%

10%

Between Low and High Water Marks n=55(32%)

Not Sure n=42 (24%)

At Least 6M Wide Between Property Lineand Crown Land n=32 (19%)

At Least 3M Wide Between Property Lineand Low Water Mark n=25 (15%)

Didn't Know There Was One n=17 (10%)

CHART 5

RESPONDENT DEFINITION OF RIPARIAN AREA n=170

7%

69%

3%

21%

Waterbody (Lake-Wetland-Stream-River) n=11 (7%)

Area with Water-Loving VegetationBordering a Waterbody n=117 (69%)

Upland Area Away from Water n=6(3%)

Not Sure n=36 (21%)

CHART 6

80


Evaluation Report

DEFINITION OF RIPARIAN AREA BY PROXIMITY TO LAKE n=170

73

72

58

2

10

19

29

0

25

50

75

On Lake n=139 (82%) Off Lake n=31 (18%)

Per

cen

tWaterbody (Lake-Wetland-Stream-River) n=11 (7%)Area with Water-Loving Vegetation Bordering a Waterbody n=117 (69%)Upland Area Away from Water n=6 (3%)Not Sure n=36 (21%)

CHART 7

FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=177

11%

62%

27%

Very Familiar n=19 (11%)

Moderately Familiar n=110 (62%)

Never Heard Of n=48 (27%)

CHART 8

81


Evaluation Report

FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM BY RESIDENT TYPE n=175

22

64

14

8

62

30

0

25

50

75

Very Familiar Moderately Familiar Never Heard Of

Per

cen

tPermanent n=36 (21%) Seasonal n=139 (79%)

CHART 9

HOW RESPONDENTS HEARD ABOUT VLWM n=174

48%

25%

12%

10%

3% 2%

Community Meeting/Lake Dayn=83 (48%)

This Survey n=44 (25%)

Neighbour/Friend/Family n=20(12%)

Newspaper/Newsletter n=18(10%)

Not Sure n=6 (3%)

Other n=3 (2%)

CHART 10

82


Evaluation Report

RESPONDENTS REPORTING PRACTICE CHANGE n=175

43%

31%

26%

No n=76 (43%)

Yes n=54 (31%)

N/A n=45 (26%)

CHART 11

RESPONDENTS REPORTING PRACTICE CHANGE BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=174

20

84

78

57

49

2

35

47

0

25

50

75

100

Yes n=54 (31%) No n=75 (43%) N/A n=45 (26%)

Per

cen

t

Very Familiar n=19 (11%) Moderately Familiar n=107 (61%) Never Heard Of n=48 (28%)

CHART 12

83


Evaluation Report

TYPES OF ACTION TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS REPORTING PRACTICE CHANGE n=54

44%

30%

11%

7%

6%

6%

6%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

No longer mow at lakeshore n=24

Encourage wildplant/growth/trees/habitat n=16

Don't use fertilizer/don't pickrocks/stopped mechanical

weeding n=6

Reduce size of private rec area onbeach/use public beach instead

n=4

Encourage/educate others n=3

Do lessgardening/powerboating/change

to env-friendly recreation n=3

Use holding tank for greywater/take refuse to City n=3

Clear brush/old structures n=1

CHART 13

DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=171

16

3 3

28

0

7164

78

52

29

13

33

19 20

71

0

25

50

75

100

Bet

wee

n L

owan

d H

igh

Wat

erM

arks

n=

55

(32

%)

Not

Su

re n

=4

2(2

4%

)

At

Leas

t 6

MW

ide

Bet

wee

nP

rope

rty

Lin

ean

d C

row

n L

and

n=

32

(1

9%

)

At

Leas

t 3

MW

ide

Bet

wee

nP

rope

rty

Lin

ean

d Lo

w W

ater

Mar

k n

=2

5(1

5%

)

Did

n't

Kn

owTh

ere

Was

On

en

=1

7 (

10

%)

Per

cen

t


CHART 14

84


Evaluation Report

DEFINITION OF RIPARIAN AREA BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=170

15

39

0

69

44

5550

16

53

36

50

0

25

50

75

Are

a w

ith

Wat

er-L

ovin

gV

eget

atio

n B

orde

rin

g a

Wat

erbo

dy n

=11

7 (6

9%)

Not

Su

re n

=36

(21

%)

Wat

erbo

dy(L

ake/

Wet

lan

d/St

ream

/Riv

er)

n=

11 (

7%)

Upl

and

Are

a A

way

fro

m W

ater

n=

6 (3

%)

Per

cen

tVery Familiar n=19 (11%) Moderately Familiar n=106 (62%) Never Heard Of n=45 (27%)

CHART 15

DISTUINGUISH WEEDS/NON-WEEDS BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=168

13

510

61

78

59

26

17

31

0

25

50

75

100

Correct n=80 (47%) Incorrect n=18 (11%) Not Sure n=70 (42%)

PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE (weed)

Per

cent


CHART 16

85


Evaluation Report

DISTINGUISH WEEDS/NON-WEEDS BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=170

1217

7

6661

57

22 22

36

0

25

50

75


SOW THISLTE (weed)

Per

cen

t


CHART 17

DISTINGUISH WEEDS/NON WEEDS BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=169

12 149

70

52

58

18

34 33

0

25

50

75


FIREWEED (non-weed)

Per

cen

t


CHART 18

86


Evaluation Report


12

30

5

66

5055

22 20

40

0

25

50

75


SEDGES AND TALL GRASSES (non-weed)

Per

cen


CHART 19


1512

7

65 64

56

2024

37

0

25

50

75


STINGING NETTLE (non-weed)

Per

cen

t


CHART 20

87


Evaluation Report


11

36

7

68

46 45

2118

48

0

25

50

75


WILLOW (non-weed)

Per

cen


CHART 21


12

21

4

68

4346

20

36

50

0

25

50

75


BULLRUSHES AND CATTAILS (non-weed)

Per

cent


CHART 22

88


Evaluation Report

EFFECTIVENESS OF VLWM n=173

10%

31%

9%14%

36%Very Effective n=18 (10%)

Moderately Effective n=53 (31%)

Not Effective n=15 (9%)

Not Sure n=25 (14%)

Not Familiar Enough for Opinionn=62 (36%)

CHART 23

EFFECTIVENESS OF VLWM BY RESIDENT TYPE n=171

11

35

11 11

32

10

30

8

15

37

0

10

20

30

40

50

Very Effective ModeratelyEffective

Not Effective Not Sure Not FamiliarEnough for

Opinion

Per

cent

Permanent n=35 (21%) Seasonal n=136 (79%)

CHART 24

89


Evaluation Report

EFFECTIVENESS OF VLWM BY WHETHER PRACTICE CHANGE REPORTED n=171

21

55

6 71110

30

8

15

37

0

7 9

24

60

0

25

50

75

Very Effective ModeratelyEffective

Not Effective Not Sure Not FamiliarEnough for

Opinion

Per

cen

tYes n=53 (31%) No n=73 (43%) N/A n=45 (26%)

CHART 25

IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS n=176

66%

29%

5%

Very Important n=117 (66%)

Moderately Important n=51 (29%)

Not Important n=8 (5%)

CHART 26

90


Evaluation Report

IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS BY RESIDENT TYPE n=174

64

31

5

67

29

4

0

25

50

75

Very Important Moderately Important Not Important

Per

cen


CHART 27

DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE BY IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS n=170

59 58

7672 71

29

40

2025 27

12

2 4 3 20

25

50

75

100

Didn't KnowThere Was Onen=17 (10%)

Between Lowand High Water

Marks n=55(32%)

At Least 3M WideBetween

Property Lineand Low Water

Mark n=25(15%)

At Least 6M WideBetween

Property Lineand Crown Land

n=32 (19%)

Not Sure n=41(24%)

Per

cen

t

Very Important n=113 (66%) Moderately Important n=51 (30%) Not Important n=6 (4%)

CHART 28

91


Evaluation Report

DEFINITION OF RIPARIAN AREA BY IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS n=169

82

63

40

75

18

32

40

25

05

20

00

25

50

75

100

Waterbody (Lake-Wetland-Stream-River) n=11 (7%)

Area with Water-Loving Vegetation

Bordering aWaterbody n=117

(69%)

Upland Area Awayfrom Water n=5

(3%)

Not Sure n=36(21%)

Per

cent


CHART 29

GREATEST THREAT TO VINCENT LAKE HEALTH n=164

53%

14%

10%

10%

6%3% 3%

Climate Change n=87 (53%)Agriculture n=23 (14%)Residential n=17 (10%)Other n=17 (10%)Recreation n=10 (6%)Industry n=5 (3%)None n=5 (3%)

CHART 30

92


Evaluation Report

GREATEST THREAT TO VINCENT LAKE HEALTH BY RESIDENT TYPE n=164

49

20

8 6

14

30

54

12 11 12

4 3 4

0

25

50

75

Clim

ate

Ch

ang

e

Agr

icu

ltur

e

Res

iden

tial

Oth

er

Rec

reat

ion

Ind

ustr

y

Non

e

Per

cen


CHART 31

GREATEST THREAT TO LAKE HEALTH BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=163

8

1712 13

20

0

20

6366 65

5660 60

40

29

1723

31

20

40 40

0

25

50

75

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

n=87

(53

%)

Agr

icul

ture

n=

23(1

4%)

Res

iden

tial

n=

17(1

0%)

Oth

er n

=16

(10

%)

Rec

reat

ion

n=10

(6%

)

Indu

stry

/Dev

elop

men

tn=

5 (3

%)

Non

e n=

5 (3

%)

Per

cen

t


CHART 32

93


Evaluation Report

FACTORS MOST WORRIED ABOUT

88%

49%

38%

35%

16%

15%

11%

10%

10%

7%

5%

1%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Fluctuating/Lower Water Levels n=156

Loss of Habitat/Species n=87

Water Quality n=68

Presence of Algae Blooms n=62

Presence of Weeds n=29

Water Clarity n=26

Loss of Property Value n=19

Loss of Visual Appeal n=18

Loss of Enjoy/Explore Undisturbed Areas n=18

Loss of Natural Aquatic Plants n=13

Other n=9

None n=1

CHART 33

FACTORS MOST WORRIED ABOUT BY SELECTED CATEGORIES OF THREAT n=55

48 55 4830

88

5767

4026

50

52 45 5270

12

4333

6074

50

100

0

25

50

75

100

Flu

ctu

atin

g/Lo

wer

Lak

e Le

vel n

=4

6

Loss

of

Hab

itat

/Spe

cies

n=

31

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

n=

21

Pre

sen

ce o

f W

eeds

n=

10

Loss

of

Enjo

y/Ex

plor

e U

ndi

stu

rbed

Are

as n

=8

Wat

er C

lari

ty n

=7

Loss

of

Nat

ura

l Aqu

atic

Pla

nts

n=

6

Loss

of

Vis

ual

App

eal n

=5

Pre

sen

ce o

f A

lgae

Blo

oms

n=

5

Loss

of

Pro

pert

y V

alu

e n

=4

Oth

er n

=2

PER

CEN

T

Recreation/Residential n=27 (49%) Agriculture/Industry n=28 (51%)

CHART 34

94


Evaluation Report

AMOUNT OF AWARENESS PROVIDED BY VLWM n=172

38%

29%

17%

10%

6%

Not Familiar Enough forOpinion n=66 (38%)

Need to Continue with SimilarTopics n=49 (29%)

Need to Continue with NewTopics n=30 (17%)

Not Sure n=17 (10%)

Enough has been Providedn=10 (6%)

CHART 35

AWARENESS INFORMATION TOPICS OF INTEREST

56%

56%

56%

49%

42%

11%

8%

5%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Septic-Well Systems n=100

Laws on Lake Activities/Mgmt n=99

Algae/Aquatic Plants/Weeds n=99

Managing Lakeshore Habitat/Species n=88

Env-Friendly Recreational Activities n=74

Forming Community Group n=19

Other n=15

Not Interested in More Info n=8

CHART 36

95


Evaluation Report

AWARENESS ACTIVITIES OF INTEREST

56%

41%

20%

17%

10%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Community Meetingsn=99

Outdoor Events n=73

Other n=35

Site Tours n=31

Not Interested inFuture Activities

n=18

CHART 37

WAS LAKESHORE CHECKLIST (Fact Sheet Version) COMPLETED n=176

8%

63%

10%

19%

Yes n=14 (8%)

No n=111 (63%)

Not Sure n=17 (10%)

N/A n=34 (19%)

CHART 38

96


Evaluation Report

SELF-REPORTED HEALTH RATING (all response categories) n=177

14%

44%

23%

17%

3%

Healthy n=25 (14%)

Healthy with Problems n=78 (44%)

Unhealthy n=40 (23%)

N/A n=31 (17%)

Not Sure n=3 (2%)

CHART 39

SELF-REPORTED HEALTH RATING (health categories only) n=143

18%

54%

28%

Healthy n=25 (18%)


Unhealthy n=40 (28%)

CHART 40

97


Evaluation Report

WAS LAKESHORE CHECKLIST COMPLETED COMPARED TO SELF-REPORTED HEALTH RATING n=143

36

13

35

0

5056

41

67

14

3124

33

0

25

50

75

100

Yes n=14 (10%) No n=108 (76%) Not Sure n=17(12%)

N/A n=3 (2%)

Per

cent

Healthy n=25 (18%) Healthy with Problems n=77 (54%) Unhealthy n=40 (28%)

CHART 41

RESPONDENTS REPORTING PRACTICE CHANGE COMPARED TO SELF-REPORTED HEALTH RATING n=140

18 1619

5558

44

27 26

37

0

25

50

75

Yes n= 51 (36%) No n=62 (44%) N/A n=27 (19%)

Per

cen

t

Healthy n=24 (17%) Healthy with Problems n=76 (54%) Unhealthy n=40 (28%)

CHART 42

98


Evaluation Report

DERIVED HEALTH INDEX CATEGORIES n=149

63%

33%

4%

Healthy n=94 (63%)


Unhealthy n=6 (4%)

CHART 43

PRACTICE CHANGE COMPARED TO DERIVED HEALTH INDEX n=146

35 3633

51

31

50

14

33

17

0

25

50

75

Healthy n=92 (63%) Healthy with Problemsn=48 (33%)

Unhealthy n=6 (4%)

Per

cent

Yes n=51 (35%) No n=65 (45%) N/A n=30 (20%)

CHART 44

99


Evaluation Report

DERIVED HEALTH INDEX BY FAMILIARITY WITH VLWM n=149

1410

17

66

57

50

20

33 33

0

25

50

75


Unhealthy n=6 (4%)

Per

cen


CHART 45

DERIVED HEALTH INDEX BY IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS n=149

6661

100

2935

05 4

00

25

50

75

100


Unhealthy n=6 (4%)

Per

cen

t


CHART 46

100


Evaluation Report

ROLE OF REGULATION n=173

61%

34%

5%

Regulation Required/EnforcedConsistently n=106 (61%)Regulation Required/Enforced inSerious Cases n=59 (34%)No Role for Regulation or By-Lawn=8 (5%)

CHART 47

ROLE OF REGULATION BY RESIDENT TYPE n=172

6

58

36

4

62

34

0

25

50

75

No Role for Regulation orBy-Law n=8 (5%)

RegulationRequired/Enforced

Consistently n=105 (61%)

RegulationRequired/Enforced in

Serious Cases n=59 (34%)

Per

cen

t


CHART 48

101


Evaluation Report

ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED BY MORE THAN 3/4 OF RESPONDENTS FOR CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT

9385 84

76 74

712 9

17 14

0 37 7

12

0

25

50

75

100

Du

mp

ing

Pol

luta

nts

/Was

te a

tS

hor

e n

=1

77

Usi

ng

Wee

dki

ller/

Her

bic

ide

at S

hor

e n=

176

Bul

ldoz

ing

at

Shor

en

=1

73

Dis

turb

ing

Wild

life/

Hab

itat

n=

17

1

Ag

ricu

ltu

re a

t S

hor

en

=1

72

Per

cen

tYes No Not Sure

CHART 49

ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED BY ABOUT 1/2 OF RESPONDENTS FOR CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT

60

49 47 47

28

35 3538

1216 18

15

0

25

50

75

Rem

ovin

g N

ativ

eV

eg'n

/Mov

ing

or

Res

hap

ing

Soi

l/S

and

/Roc

ksn

=1

68

Off

-Tra

il A

TV U

sein

En

v R

eser

ven=

173

Mow

ing

at

Sho

ren=

167

Hig

h B

oat

Spee

dn

=1

72

Per

cen

t

Yes No Not Sure

CHART 50

102


Evaluation Report

RESPONSIBLITY FOR LAKE HEALTH n=168

34%

25%

24%

6%

5%

4% 2%

Govt Agencies Direct withIndividuals n=57 (34%)

Joint Local Group/Govt Agenciesn=42 (25%)

Solely Each Individual n=41(24%)

Other n=10 (6%)

Solely Local Group/CommunityMembers n=9 (5%)

Not Sure n=6 (4%)

Solely Govt Agencies n=3 (2%)

CHART 51

RESPONSIBILITY BY RESIDENT TYPE n=168

36

2528

3 35

0

33

25 24

7 63 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

Gov

t A

gen

cies

Dir

ect

wit

hIn

div

idu

als

n=

57

(34

%)

Join

t Lo

cal

Gro

up/

Gov

tA

gen

cies

n=

42

(25%

)

Sol

ely

Each

Indi

vid

ual

n=

41

(24%

)

Oth

er n

=1

0 (

6%

)

Sol

ely

Loca

lG

roup

/Com

mu

nit

yM

embe

rs n

=9

(5%

)

Not

Su

re n

=6

(4%

)

Sole

ly G

ovt

Age

nci

es n

=3

(2%

)

Per

cent


CHART 52

103


Evaluation Report

APPENDIX D

RELATED LITERATURE Alreck, Pamela L. and Robert B. Settle. 1985. The Survey Research Handbook. Homewood,

Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc. Bateman, Nancy G. 2001. An Effectiveness Evaluation of the Alberta Riparian Habitat

Management Program. Master of Arts Thesis. Lethbridge, Alberta: Department of Geography, University of Lethbridge. 314 pp.

Cows and Fish. 2002. www.cowsandfish.org Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York

City, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Delbecq, Andre L., Andrew H. Van de Ven and David H. Gustafson. 1975. Group Techniques

for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Equus Consulting Group. 2000. Perceptions and Expectations of Lakeside Property Owners in

Northeastern Alberta: Summary Report. Prepared for Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, St. Paul, Alberta. 297 pp.

Fitch, Lorne and Norine Ambrose. 2003. Riparian Areas: A User’s Guide to Health.

Lethbridge, Alberta: Cows and Fish Program. 46 pp. Fox, Richard. J., Melvin R. Crask and Jonghoon Kim. 1988. Mail Survey Response Rate: A

Meta-Analysis of Selected Technologies for Inducing Response. Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 467-491.

Framst, Gordon. 1995. Application of Program Logic Model to Agricultural Technology Transfer

Programs. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 10(2): 123-132. Joint Committee on Educational Evaluation. 1994. The Program Evaluation Research

Standards: How to Assess Evaluation Research of Educational Programs, 2nd ed., The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation Research: The New Century

Text, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Rossi, Peter H., Howard F. Freeman and Mark W. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation Research: A

Systematic Approach, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Rush, B. and A. Ogborne. 1991. Program Logic Models: Expanding Their Role and Structure

for Program Planning and Evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 6(1): 95-106.

Vincent Lake Working Group. 2002. www.healthyshorelines.com


vincent lake working model evaluation reporthealthyshorelines.com/media/vlwg evaluation...

Documents