Results Environmental Knowledge

1. An Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Mirror Lake Watershed and Community Surrounding Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest Liza TetleyPlymouth State University Results Environmental Knowledge Respondents were asked if they had observed physical changes in the environment at Mirror Lake and in the surrounding community. 67% answered yes, and the remaining 33% answered no. To further break the question down, I compared it to longevity of residence. Respondents who have taken residence in the Mirror Lake area for longer, have noticed physical changes. Respondents were asked which of the variables shown in Figure 3 contribute to pollution in freshwater ecosystems. The highlighted columns are areas of interest. One major take-away from this finding is that the majority of respondents are aware that de-icing agents can contribute to pollution in freshwater ecosystems. This is a controversial issue on Mirror Lake Road and therefore very relevant to future decision making. Aubrey Tyler also found that the majority of respondents would be willing to pay for an eco-friendly de-icing alternative. I created an index to group respondents into different levels of knowledge. Figure 4 shows the distribution of knowledge levels. This index was used to compare respondent level of knowledge to other variables, such as demographic information, green behavior, and value of certain aspects of an ecosystem. Results Respondent level of knowledge, based on the index, was compared to the use of green cleaning products, the higher the level of knowledge, the more likely respondents were to already use green cleaning products. As demonstrated by Figure 5. Visitation, Usage, and Value Trends Most respondents (54%) visit the lake more than 10 times annually, while the remaining (46%) visit the lake less than 10 time annually. The lake area is most frequented for swimming, boating (non motorboats only), and wildlife viewing. Other uses include walking, fishing, socializing, and photography. In two different questions, one with a description of the value, and one with an example, respondents were asked to rank the following values from 1-10, 1 being most important, 10 being lest important. Aesthetic Value, Biological Diversity Value, Recreation Value, Economic Value, Life Sustaining Value, Future Value, Cultural Value, Education Value, Spiritual/Therapeutic Value, and Historic Value. The result: respondents were inconsistent with their valuing. The only significant trend was that respondents who fell into the High and Moderate levels of knowledge categories ranked Aesthetic Value, Biological Diversity Value, Life Sustaining Value, and Recreation Value as a higher importance than those who fell into the Low level on knowledge category. Discussion For each result, say what it means with respect to the research question. Support claims with evidence. (What is the evidence you need to support the claim you made in the introduction?) Introduction Mirror Lake is a small lake nestled in the Hubbard Brook Valley of the White Mountains Region in New Hampshire. It is one of the most studied lakes in the world (Likens, 1985), and is bordered by the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. Much is known about the regulating, supporting, and provisioning ecosystem services Mirror Lake offers. Extensive studies have been conducted regarding the biogeochemical characteristics and hydrological aspects of the Mirror Lake ecosystem. However, very little is known about the cultural services the Mirror Lake ecosystem provides for the public, and how people value these services. My research involves studying the cultural ecosystem services offered by Mirror Lake. Specifically, I’m exploring possible relationships between the cultural ecosystem services and the public perceptions of the Lake’s environmental quality. Major Research Questions: What are the public perceptions of the environmental quality of Mirror Lake, and the cultural benefits it offers to residents and visitors? Are there relationships between the environmental quality and cultural values perceived by residents and users of Mirror Lake? Essentially, I’m studying how knowledgeable people are, and if there are relationships between level of knowledge and value placed on the ecosystem services provided by the Mirror Lake Ecosystem. The data I collect and analyze will be a base study for resurveying and reanalysis in the future, comparing changes in trends and relationships. I’m working in collaboration with Aubrey Tyler from St. Olaf College. Aubrey is examining how those who benefit from the Mirror Lake ecosystem value its services economically, and residents’ and visitors’ willingness to pay for the future protection of those services. Figure 5. Of respondents who use green cleaning products, 45% have a high level of knowledge, 36% have a low level of knowledge, and 18% have a low level of knowledge. Figure 2. Of respondents who have been residents of the Mirror Lake area for 0-10 years, there was no significant difference in how they answered to observed physical change. Of respondents who have been residents of the Mirror Lake area for over 10 years, the majority have observed physical changes in their communities environment. Methods and Materials Survey I worked collaboratively with Aubrey Tyler to create a paper survey booklet. We focused on question wording and order, as well as content. Survey questions consisted of questions about basic environmental knowledge, visitation and usage patterns, cultural and economic value placed on different aspects of the Lake, and “green” behavior. Incentives Before we distributed the survey, we placed high importance on developing relationships with community members. The area being surveyed was relatively small (see Distribution below). This allowed us to go door to door to distribute flyers, and surveys, and to talk with watershed residents, as well as other community members to get a first hand account of people’s attitudes. We used incentive methods to encourage people to take the survey. Each survey packet included a coupon for Coneheads, a local ice cream shop, as well as a chance to be entered into a raffle to win a kayak, ATV, or snowmobile tour, upon completion of the survey. Distribution Surveys were distributed to each household in the Mirror Lake watershed, each household on Lady Slipper Road 9which abuts Mirror Lake Road), and 30 households both North and South of Mirror Lake Road on Route 3. A total of 92 surveys were distributed, and with a response rate of 29.3%, 27 surveys were returned. Beach Survey Mirror Lake has a small public beach. A separate survey was designed for beach-goers, and using the intercept method. Summary/Conclusions In conclusion, the majority of respondents in the Mirror Lake community are observing physical changes in their environment. The longer respondents have held residence in the area, the more likely they were to have observed changes. This finding could be due to many variables. The majority of respondents are aware that litter, fertilizer, gas/oil spills, de-icing agents, and de-vegetation of banks can contribute to pollution in freshwater ecosystems. However, the majority of respondents are unaware that improper septic system maintenance and improper disposal of domestic animal waste can contribute to pollution. Respondent knowledge and willingness to pay regarding de-icing issues is something that could be used to make future decisions, but a larger sample may have to be surveyed to understand attitudes of the whole town. Generally speaking, respondents are moderately knowledgeable about the environment, and use the lake as a place for relaxation and for recreational purposes. The data collected, the analysis provided, and the conclusions drawn establish a foundation for future research to resurvey, reanalyze, and compare changes in trends of respondent knowledge and values. Figure 3. Variables that contribute to pollution in freshwater ecosystems and percentage of respondents that answered yes or no to each variable. Acknowledgments I would like to thank my research partner, Aubrey Tyler, my mentors, Dr. Shannon Rogers, Dr. Joe Boyer, Don Buso, and Dr. Gene Likens. I thank the National Science Foundation NH EPSCoR program, grant #1101245 for funding this research. I thank everyone at the, PSU CFE and the HBRF Special thanks to Geoff Wilson and Tammy Wooster. Figure 1. Map of the Mirror Lake watershed (Likens, 1985) Figure 4. Percentage of respondents that fall into each level of knowledge in the Environmental Knowledge Index.