Rudberg, Edgar Atwood2014-02-142014-02-142012-01https://hdl.handle.net/11299/162528University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. January 2012. Major: Natural Resources Science and Management. Advisor: David C. Fulton. 1 computer file (PDF); viii, 161 pages, appendix p. 141-161.The fragility of shorelines and the impact of residential development on habitat and water quality led to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource's interest in promoting native vegetative buffers. First, I used the Integrative Model (IM) (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) to evaluate lakeshore homeowners' attitudes, norms and self-efficacy for restoring a native vegetative buffer. Five belief evaluations (decrease maintenance &#946; = .05, increase water quality &#946; = .058, be attractive &#946; = .103, impede recreation &#946; = .046, and create privacy &#946; = -.028 one self-efficacy evaluation (ability to keep up with maintenance &#946; = .23), and three normative influences (family &#946; = -.097, friends &#946; = .051 and Minnesota DNR &#946; = .065) were significant predictors of intention (R2 = .36). Secondly, I used the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB) (Rimal and Real, 2005) as an alternate model and compared the results with the IM (Fishbein & Yzer 2003). My findings indicated that the IM (R2 = .241) had a greater explanation of variance, when compared to the TNSB, and that a greater amount of the variance was explained by the inclusion of descriptive norms, group ID and injunctive norms (R2 = .323). Finally, I sought to connect risk theory with behavioral theory and propose a framework for doing so. I used a case study of Minnesota shoreland landowners with native vegetative buffers for integrating risk and behavioral theory to segment audiences. My findings showed that 22.5% of survey respondents reported having a vegetative buffer on their shoreland and 10% of respondents had removed native vegetation in the past. I did not find a significant difference between the attitudes towards buffers of those that have removed vegetation and those that have not. However, the findings showed that having a negative attitude towards buffers increased one's odds of not having a native vegetative buffer by 2 ½ times. The analysis also showed that evaluation of buffers significantly predicted respondents' attitudes towards buffers (R 2 =.22, F[2, 11] = 8.69, p < .001). Compared to respondents without native vegetative buffers, the beliefs that buffers create an attractive shore (&#946; = -.143, p = .019), create habitat (&#946; = .32, p < .001), and create privacy (&#946; = .146, p = .020) were predictive of attitude towards buffers for respondents that have buffers.en-USBehaviorCommunicationsLakehsoreManagementThesis or Dissertation