Mowers versus growers: Riparian buffer management in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, USA.

Despite long‐standing knowledge of the benefits of riparian buffers for mitigating nonpoint source pollution, many streams are unprotected by buffers. Even landowners who understand ecological values of buffers mow riparian vegetation to the streambank. Do trends in rural riparian conditions reflect the development of riparian forest science? What motivates residential riparian management actions? Using high‐resolution orthoimagery, we quantified riparian conditions and trends between 1998 and 2015 in the rural upper Little Tennessee River basin in Macon County, North Carolina and explored how landowners view riparian zone management and riparian restoration programs. Buffer composition in 2015 was as follows: no buffer (32.5%), narrow (19.3%), forested (26.7%), shrub (7.2%), and intermediate (7.0%). Relative to 1998, the greatest decrease occurred in the no buffer class (−17.7%, 46 km) and the largest increases occurred in the shrub (+72.5%, 20 km) and narrow (12.6%, 14 km) classes. Forested buffer marginally increased. Semi‐structured interview data suggest that landowners prioritize recreational and scenic aspects of riparian buffers over ecological functions such as filtration and bank stabilization. Riparian restoration programs might be made more enticing to non‐adopters if outreach language appealed to landowner priorities, design elements demonstrated intentional management, and program managers highlighted areas where ecological goals and landowner values align. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]