Environmental Perception in a Rapidly Growing, Amenity-Rich Region: The Effects of Lakeshore Development on Perceived Water Quality in Vilas County, Wisconsin

ABSTRACT

We explore the relationship between perceived and actual water quality in a rapidly growing, high-amenity rural area (Vilas County, WI) and how this relationship is affected by shoreline development. Although the data on the relationship between shore development and aquatic environs are not conclusive, people express high levels of concern about the environmental impacts of this type of growth. We link databases that include water quality and lakeshore development variables with a mail survey of 1000 local property owners. Although the shoreline development levels are unrelated to water quality variables such as turbidity, chlorophyll levels, and color, we find that lakes with higher levels of development are perceived by respondents as having worse water quality than lightly developed lakes. These findings have important implications for high-amenity rural communities that undergoing rapid development.

Keywords:

• amenity communities
• environmental perception
• lakeshore development
• water quality

Notes

***p < .001

**p < .01

*p < .05

Note. Boldface indicated significance at the p ≤ 0.05 level.

This variable reflects the total number of structures in the shoreline buffer, rather than the number of housing units. For example, a lakeshore home that also had a detached garage and boathouse would be recorded as three structures rather than one. Thus, there is a conversion that needs to be made from structures to dwellings, but as long as the ratio is constant across lakeshore properties, there is no need to do this. This assumption is followed in the research—there is no reason to assume, for example, that lakeshore property owners on a given lake are systematically more likely to have a different “building to dwelling” ratio than on any other lake. Another factor to consider is that 1996 data are a bit dated, given the rapid pace of change in Vilas County. Also, the “within 300 feet” designation corresponds to the area covered by county shoreland zoning, and includes some property that does not actually border the shore. Again, this is assumed to be a constant rather than variable source of error.

If the respondent had lakefront property, he or she was asked to respond for the particular lake that his or her property bordered. If the respondent owned off-lake property, the person was asked to pick a lake that was close to his or her property, that he or she visited often, or that was otherwise important to the person.