Date
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Influence of Place Attachment and Social Capital on Civic Action:
A Study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
June 2003
© Michelle Angela Payton 2003
Acknowledgements
Fulton and Dorothy H. Anderson, for their guidance, encouragement, and patience during
my research. Without their help none of this would have been possible. Thanks also to
my committee member, Ingrid Schneider, for her input and advice on my research and
manuscript.
the University of Minnesota, for their valuable support and research advice. I would also
like to extend a special thanks to my family, especially my parents, Jackie, and Greg, for
I would like to thank the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge staff and the
Friends of Sherburne volunteers who were extremely helpful throughout the project. I
would especially like to thank Nancy Haugen, Public Use Specialist, and Jeanne Holler,
Thank you to the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for funding this project. I would also like to thank the Minnesota
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the Cooperative Park Studies Program
(CPSP) in the College of Natural Resources at the University of Minnesota for providing
technical assistance.
i
Abstract
approach to a collaborative effort involving the public and the agency. This model faces
its own unique challenges. Some research suggests that the United States is experiencing
a decrease in social capital, or the amount of relationships and level of trust between
Understanding what factors influence civic action, or the time, effort, and money
citizens put into natural resource management, is essential to the success of the new
collaborative management model. This study examines two factors that potentially have
a strong influence on civic action: place attachment, the functional and emotional ties that
connect people to places, and social capital, the relationships and trust among individuals
and groups.
better understand visitors’ levels of place attachment, social capital, and civic action.
Using the data from the visitor questionnaire, this study examines the relationships
among these three constructs. At Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, both place
attachment and social capital accounted for a significant amount of variance in civic
action. Managers can use information on visitors’ levels of place attachment and social
capital to help shape and design citizen participation programs. These constructs provide
valuable information on how managers can effectively direct civic action programs for
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................. i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................v
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Study Area ...............................................................................................................3
Background ..............................................................................................................4
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................5
Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................6
Place Attachment .....................................................................................................6
Functional place attachment........................................................................8
Emotional place attachment ........................................................................8
Social Capital: Associations and Trust ..................................................................11
Associations ...............................................................................................12
Trust ...........................................................................................................12
Civic Action ...........................................................................................................15
Influence of Place Attachment and Social Capital on Civic Action......................16
Place attachment and civic action .............................................................17
Social capital and civic action...................................................................17
Methods..............................................................................................................................18
Sampling and Data Collection ...............................................................................18
Measuring Place Attachment, Trust, and Civic Action .........................................19
Place attachment........................................................................................19
Social capital .............................................................................................20
Civic action ................................................................................................21
Analysis..................................................................................................................21
Results................................................................................................................................24
Questionnaire Response.........................................................................................24
Socio-demographic Characteristics...........................................................24
Non-response Bias Test..............................................................................24
Scale Assessment ...................................................................................................25
Mediation Analysis ................................................................................................26
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................29
Management Implications......................................................................................31
Future Research .....................................................................................................34
Limitations .............................................................................................................35
Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................36
Appendices.........................................................................................................................50
Appendix A Sampling Plan ..................................................................................50
Appendix B Visitor Onsite Questionnaire, Full-page...........................................58
Appendix C Visitor Onsite Questionnaire, Half-page:
Collection box version ......................................................................60
iii
Table of Contents
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Place attachment and trust items listed on the visitor questionnaire ..................41
Table 2. Civic action statements listed on the visitor questionnaire.................................42
Table 3. Summary of reliability analysis and corrected item-total
correlations for place attachment and trust items ...............................................43 .
Table 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic
action; including trust component of social capital ............................................44
Table 5. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic
action; including association component of social capital..................................45
List of Figures
v
Introduction
The paradigm of natural resource management is changing. For the first several
by Gifford Pinchot that emphasized maximum resource use within the constraints of
the mid 19th century. Natural resource agencies achieved the goal of maximum sustained
resource use through development and use of technical expertise. Agencies developed
their technological skills and played a mainly custodial role in overseeing public lands
during the early part of resource management history. Natural resource managers
primarily took an expert authority approach in making management decisions, which was
During the second half of the twentieth century, the management environment
began to change. In the 1960s and 1970s, an environmental awareness emerged in the
United States, and individuals started placing more value on wilderness, recreation, and
non-commodity and aesthetic resources (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Citizens also
wanted a voice in how public lands were managed. Legislation was passed, such as the
National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, requiring managers to include the public
realize the valuable input and human resources citizens could provide for natural resource
management. Beginning in the 1980s and through the 1990s, agencies embraced a new
management model that shifted decision making from the unilateral authority of the
1
agency to a collaborative effort involving the public and the agency (Cortner & Moote,
Collaborating with the public has benefits beyond satisfying the nation’s
environmental conscience and legislative mandates. Involving the public can benefit the
local community and the management agency. In fact, natural resources can be used to
build a collective identity (Flora, 2000). Flora (2000) argues that community members
can unite in mutual concern over the fate of a natural resource, such as a park, lake, or
wildlife refuge. Frentz, Voth, Burns, and Sperry (2000) argue that a strong relationship
Nickerson, Stein, & Lee, 2000). Anderson et al. (2000) state that by focusing on and
communicating the public benefits of recreation lands, managers are more likely to gain
about the resource, encouraging volunteer efforts, and encouraging joint stewardship of
suggests the U.S. has experienced a general decrease in social capital, or the number of
local clubs, religious organizations, and other groups (Cortner & Moote, 1999) and a
2
decrease in trust in individuals and institutions (Anheier & Kendall, 2002; Wondolleck &
the very factor that threatens it—declining social capital. Research suggests shared
attachment to place can serve as a unifying bond between individuals (Cortner & Moote,
1999; Flora, 2000; Williams & Stewart, 1998). Perhaps managers can use this mutual
attachment as a common ground to bring citizens together and to encourage civic action.
Of interest in this study is whether place attachment and social capital influence civic
Study Area
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages the National Wildlife
2003, this nation-wide system consists of 570 individual refuges and over 92 million
acres of protected land. The system’s mission is to achieve two major goals: 1) to
conserve and manage wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and 2) to provide educational
(Figure 1).
3
Sherburne NWR was established in 1965 to protect and restore habitat for
migratory birds and other wildlife in the St. Francis River Valley. Federal Migratory
Hunting Stamp funds were used to purchase the land. Sherburne NWR is 30,665 acres in
size and consists mostly of wetlands, oak stands, and prairies (http://midwest.fws.gov/
northwest of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, the Refuge sits in a transition
zone between two major ecosystems (deciduous hardwood forest and tall grass prairie).
hunting, hiking on trails, fishing, biking, canoeing, cross-country skiing, and participating
of wildlife, plants, and associated habitats for the benefit of current and future
Background
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA), passed in 1997,
requires that all refuges develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A CCP is a
15 year management plan that outlines a management vision for each refuge, guides
management decisions, and delineates goals, objectives, and strategies of the refuge
and public uses focusing on the following six wildlife compatible recreational uses:
4
wildlife observation, photography, education, interpretation, fishing, and hunting. The
CCP planning process is designed to include visitor needs and expectations and to guide
During the CCP planning process for Sherburne NWR, two major visitor-related
goals were identified: 1) improve visitor experiences at the refuge and 2) encourage
support of the refuge and its goals in visitors and local citizens (Sherburne National
Wildlife Refuge: Planning Workshop III). The visitor study collected information to help
address both goals (Payton, Anderson, Fulton, & Dougherty, 2003). This study addresses
the second goal by assessing visitors’ levels of place attachment, social capital, and civic
action.
Problem Statement
public participation programs and collaborative management efforts. This study assesses
the influence place attachment, the functional and emotional ties that connect people to
places, and social capital, associations and trust among individuals, have on civic action.
More specifically, it asks if increasing levels of social capital and place attachment lead
Determining the roles place attachment and social capital play in encouraging or
impeding civic action provides managers with a better idea of how to increase or
maintain civic action levels. This study examines place attachment, social capital, and
sum, the study hypotheses are: 1) increasing place attachment directly increases social
5
capital and indirectly increases civic action, and 2) increasing social capital directly
increases civic action. In other words, the study assesses if social capital mediates the
Conceptual Framework
Place Attachment
Roggenbuck, 1992) with the value of the setting depending on whether or not it met the
metaphor where the resource is a collection of attributes managed for the consumption of
users. The benefit of this approach is that settings are reduced to manageable attributes
or features that can be assessed and modified based on what optimally serves
recreationists.
Williams et al. (1992), however, argue that, contrary to the commodity metaphor,
settings are often unique and cannot be designed, recreated, or substituted easily.
Recreation settings are much more than the sum of their attributes and there is a complex
psychology concerning people and places. The people-place relationship has been
6
The general concept of place attachment, or sense of place, has a long history.
For example, throughout human history it was very common for people to identify
themselves by their name and from where they came (Relph, 1997). More recently, this
connection between people and locations has been examined in the fields of human
disciplines has led to many different definitions for place, sense of place, and place
attachment.
know it better and endow it with value” (p. 6). Russell and Ward (1982), environmental
that sense of place is “created by the setting combined with what a person brings to it. In
other words, to some degree we create our own places, they do not exist independent of
While the previous definitions describe the complex relationship between people
and places, this study focuses on the place attachment definition provided by Williams
and Stewart (1998), “the collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings
that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality” (p. 19). Many models of
place attachment have been suggested (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983), however, two main
concepts have been prevalent in the literature: functional place attachment and emotional
7
Functional place attachment. Functional place attachment, or place dependence,
refers to functionality or the ability of the resources to meet the needs or goals of
individuals (Schreyer, Jacob, & White, 1981; Stokols & Shumaker, 1981; Williams &
quality of the place is determined by how well it satisfies user needs and 2) the quality of
the place depends on how it compares to other available places (Shumaker & Taylor,
1983). People judge the quality of a place based on their previous experiences and what
they know of alternative places (Warzecha & Lime, 2001). The proximity of the place to
residential location can also strongly influence functional place attachment. If a resource
is close it can encourage frequent visitation even if it does not completely meet the needs
of the user (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). For example, an avid mountain biker might
frequently use local trails to practice skills even though the trails are not ideal in his/her
opinion.
Functional place attachment is also closely tied to the types of activities users
pursue. Some activities require specific attributes or features while others are more
general in their requirements. For example, whitewater rafting requires a specific river
setting, but hiking can be done on a variety of landscapes. The attainment of user needs
quality, and how well they fulfill the requirements of users (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981).
Proshansky (1978) states that emotional place attachment refers to “those dimensions of
8
the self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical
environment” (p. 155). Place not only provides opportunity to meet needs and achieve
goals, but it is also a part of a person’s identity, thereby creating strong emotional bonds
between a person and particular places (Williams, et al., 1992). The important role of the
psychological literature (C. Steele, 1988). Research suggests that emotional place
Emotional place attachment can be based on emotional ties to a specific place, such as a
favorite pond or park, or on more symbolic meanings, such as the way a national park or
forest symbolizes America’s heritage (Warzecha & Lime, 2001). Emotional place
attachment is often formed over time and over several encounters with a place. This
it describes and assesses the connections between individuals and the resource. Previous
literature has shown that people with strong emotional ties to resources are more likely to
be involved with and concerned about how the resources are managed and used
(Williams, et al., 1992). More recently, Vaske and Kobrin (2001) found emotional place
behaviors increased. They argued that cultivating the relationship between people and
9
Emotional place attachment can also play a vital role in how individuals act in
natural resource management and politics (Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003). People use
places to protect and enhance their self-identity (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983).
hypothetical situation, an open field is shown to a developer, a farmer, and a hunter and
each is asked to describe what they see. The answers are as follows, respectively: a site
for new houses, rows of wheat, and browsing grounds for a buck. The way individuals
The strong connections between people and place often bring people concerned
about the maintenance and future of the resource together. Examining place attachment
can reveal common concerns among groups (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995).
Sociological research shows that places can be important in creating shared meaning and
group identity (Lee, 1972). Williams and Stewart (1998) suggest, “sense of place [place
attachment] can be the shared language that eases discussions of salient issues and
problems” (p. 18). They also recommend that place attachment be used to build a level
problems (Williams & Stewart, 1998). This common bond between groups can facilitate
establishing goals, working out disputes, and general interactions between individuals
and groups. Place attachment might also serve as a way of bringing together individuals
and groups traditionally at opposite ends of ideological spectrums, such as hunters and
non-hunters. If groups and individuals are attached to certain places then, as Kemmis
(1990) notes, “they must learn to inhabit that place together, which they can only do
10
through the development of certain practices of…the old-fashion civic virtues of trust,
Putnam (1995) defines social capital as, “features of social organization such as
networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit” (p. 67). The idea of social capital evolved from other concepts of capital. The
first concept of capital relevant here was physical capital, which explained how physical
items, such as tools or machines, could aid in economic production (Paxton, 1999).
Becker (1964) introduced the idea of human capital, the concept that individuals, through
education or job training, could possess the ability to facilitate production. The more
recent notion of social capital acknowledges that certain social relations, such as
networks or norms of reciprocity, can also facilitate production (Brehm & Rahn, 1997).
Social capital has been defined in a variety of fields; however, the concept was
popularized by two sociologists, Bourdieu (1983) and Coleman (1988, 1990). Bourdieu’s
(1983) definition states that social capital consists of resources, actual and potential, that
Coleman (1988) focused more on how a social network can serve as a resource for
individuals. He emphasized that social capital exists in the relations between and among
individuals, hence, social capital is not held in individuals themselves but they can use it
to their benefit. Paxton (1999) builds off these ideas and suggests social capital has two
11
structure linking individuals, and 2) a subjective type of tie—positive, trusting, and
(Putnam, 1995), and making individuals aware of coinciding interests. Associations fall
into two major categories: 1) informal, such as friendships, and 2) formal group
(Paxton, 1999).
variety of ways. Paxton (1999) measured the number of evenings an individual spent
with a neighbor, number of evenings an individual spent with friends living outside the
organizations. Brehm and Rahn (1997) measured the number of memberships in civic
professional organizations, such as church related groups, school service groups, sports
Trust. In Paxton’s (1999) definition, the other major component of social capital
is reciprocal, trusting ties between individuals. Not only must networks between
individuals and/or groups exist, but the relationships comprising the networks must be
positive. Because trust is highly associated with reciprocity, trust is a good indicator of
12
Barber (1983) defines trust as learned expectations people have of each other, of
organizations and institutions, and of natural and moral social orders, that serve as
foundational understandings for their lives. Paxton (1999) makes a distinction between
based on knowledge of that person’s history, actions, motivations, and so on, but they
also hold opinions of more generalized others, such as the “average” person. Trust in
generalized others is important when assessing social capital on a large scale whereas
trust in specific individuals is useful on a smaller scale. Individuals also have opinions
regarding the trustworthiness of institutions and agencies (Paxton, 1999). This trust is
institution. Both types of trust, individual and institutional, are important in measuring
When social capital is present, it facilitates action and the production of goods.
Social capital can be used to serve the needs of an individual or a group as a whole.
Social capital can also be a potential resource if it has not yet been developed. The
positive networks of social capital facilitate coordination and communication and help in
the resolution of problems. In sum, life is easier in a community with high social capital
because social rules and norms facilitate interaction and exchange between individuals
13
Social capital might not always be beneficial. Paxton (1999) describes how high
social capital within a group does not necessarily contribute to social capital at the
community level. For example, a group may have high within group social capital, such
as a militia group or religious cult, but may reduce community levels of social capital by
cutting off ties to outside groups and individuals. Warner (1999) also argues that social
(Paxton, 1999). Social capital creates infrastructure that supports the processes of formal
and informal decision making and public involvement (Putnam, 1993b). A network of
trusting, positive relations among individuals and between individuals and agencies will
encourage members of the public to donate their time, effort, and money. High social
capital should create a positive environment where individuals will feel comfortable
interacting, thereby encouraging participation. Putnam (1995) notes that social capital
builds networks that foster norms of reciprocity and encourage social trust. These
cultivating a collective identity. In effect, social capital lays the groundwork that makes
Sherburne NWR has its own social network composed of refuge staff, visitors,
local community members, and others. These individuals have minor and major impacts
on how the refuge is managed and the “spirit of the community” at the refuge. Any
refuge visitor is affected, directly or indirectly, by the actions of staff and other visitors.
The social networks and associated levels of trust at the refuge can play a major role in
14
Civic Action
Civic action takes many forms. In this study civic action was defined as
individuals donating their time, efforts, resources, or money to Sherburne NWR. Civic
activities because it was hypothesized that attachment to the refuge and social capital
The benefits gained from civic action can be separated into two major types: 1)
interpersonal relationships, the community, and the nation. Tindell (1984) stated that
civic action can encourage individual benefits such as personal growth and development
and help build a positive self-image vital to mental and spiritual health. Florin and
commitment and sense of community. Benefits of civic action also occur on a more
general scale. For example, participation can result in: camaraderie and connectedness in
the community (Arai & Pedlar, 1997); increases in community empowerment through
Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990); and human resources, such as volunteer groups, agencies
predicted by variables such as accessibility and how easy it is for individuals to recycle
(Derksen & Gartrell, 1993; Katzev, Blake, & Messer, 1993). People who can easily
15
access recycling centers or services are more likely to recycle than those without nearby
centers or services. Research has shown that socio-economic variables are successful
of employment (Pierce, Steger, Steel, & Lovrich, 1992). Age and gender have also been
found to explain some behavior. Older individuals are more likely to be politically
involved than younger individuals (Chen, 1992). Some research suggests that women
hold stronger environmental protection views than men and are more likely to engage in
Creating opportunities for participation does not guarantee individuals will act.
Prestby et al. (1990) found that individual participation is facilitated by benefits, hindered
costs incurred. Prestby et al. (1990) recommended that managers make efforts to
variables, age, gender, and costs and benefits have all been empirically shown to predict
behavior (Chen, 1992; Derksen & Gartrell, 1993; Katzev, et al., 1993; Pierce, et al., 1992;
Prestby et al., 1990; Stern & Dietz, 1994). Can place attachment and social capital be
16
added to the list? Are they significant predictors of civic action? Building on previous
research, data from visitors at Sherburne NWR were examined to better understand how
Place attachment and civic action. Figure 2 illustrates the hypothesized paths of
influence among place attachment, social capital, and civic action. Place attachment is
hypothesized to indirectly affect civic action by directly affecting social capital (Figure
and groups facilitating positive interactions (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995; Williams &
Stewart, 1998). In recognizing mutual concern for Sherburne NWR, visitors see
commonalities between themselves and other visitors. This similarity serves as the
foundation for development of trust. Zucker (1986) defines this type of trust as
such as mutual attachment to Sherburne NWR, can create trust among visitors.
[Figure 2. Hypothesized interactions among place attachment, social capital, and civic
action. HERE]
influence civic action (Figure 2). Previous research indicates a significant relationship
Kendall, 2002; Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Flora, 2000). Brehm and Rahn (1997) emphasize
17
that this relationship is non-recursive. In other words, the more citizens participate in
their communities the more they trust each other and the more trust citizens have in each
other the more likely they are to participate. Putnam (1993a) called this a “virtuous
circle” in which trust encourages participation and participation encourages trust. The
situation could also turn into a “vicious circle” where low levels of trust discourage
to promote trust among visitors. This trust facilitates civic action at the refuge. As
participation continues, levels of trust increase and Putnam’s (1993a) “virtuous circle” is
Methods
site location was created to capture the diverse array of refuge visitors (Appendix A).
During the twelve month data collection period (April 2001 to April 2002), as many
Specific sampling sites within the refuge included trailheads, parking lots,
roadsides, and popular fishing spots. Visitors 18 years of age and older were asked to
complete a brief on-site questionnaire that identified the activities they engaged in while
on the refuge, the size of group they were traveling with, and their socio-demographic
characteristics (Appendix B). Visitors who completed the on-site questionnaire were also
asked whether they would be willing to complete a longer questionnaire. If they agreed,
18
The mail-back questionnaire acquired data on: visitor activities and experiences,
the refuge, perceptions of crowding at the refuge, perceptions of visitor caused problems,
Design Method (TDM) was used in the mail questionnaire to ensure a high response rate.
TDM involves designing a questionnaire that is relatively easy to complete along with
Questionnaires were sent in two-week intervals from July 2001 to July 2002.
Within two weeks of their on-site contact, visitors were sent a questionnaire, cover letter,
and postage-paid return envelope. Two weeks after the initial questionnaire was mailed,
another questionnaire and cover letter were mailed to visitors who had not yet returned
the completed the questionnaire. Four weeks after the initial mailing, a third replacement
was mailed. A fourth replacement was sent six weeks after the first mailing.
measured using items developed and tested by Williams and his colleagues (Williams,
Anderson, McDonald, & Patterson, 1995). These items have been used in previous
studies such as: Bricker & Kerstetter’s (2000) study on level of specialization and place
attachment, Vaske & Kobrin’s (2001) study on place attachment and environmentally
responsible behavior, and Warzecha & Lime’s (2001) study on visitors’ assessment of
19
setting attributes. In these studies, Cronbach’s alpha scores for emotional and functional
place attachment scales were all above the 0.7 acceptable level.
A total of seven items were used to create an emotional place attachment scale,
and six items were used to form a functional place attachment scale (Table 1).
“7”=strongly agree).
[Table 1. Place attachment and trust items listed on the visitor questionnaire.
HERE]
Social capital. Two variables were used to measure social capital: level of
association and level of trust. Items used to measure level of association were adapted
from Paxton’s (1999) study on indicators of social capital. Paxton (1999) measured total
measure of association (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Putnam, 1995). None of these studies
This study used length of volunteer status and length of membership in the
whether or not they were a volunteer and/or a member of the “Friends of Sherburne.” If
they answered “yes”, they were asked how many years they had been a volunteer and/or
member. These indicators provide valuable information on how long individuals have
20
increased, level of association was expected to increase. As individuals become more
involved at the refuge they develop relationships with Sherburne NWR staff, volunteers,
and members.
A total of eight items were used to measure the second variable of social capital:
trust. Two dimensions of trust were measured: trust in individuals and trust in
institutions. These trust items were adapted from Paxton’s (1999) study of social capital
indicators. Five items were used to measure individual trust, and three items were used
Civic action. Civic action was measured by the number of times visitors
developed from statements Barnes and Kaase (1979) used in a study of political action.
Respondents were given a list of activities and asked whether or not they participated
(Table 2). If they answered “yes”, they were asked how many times in the past year they
Analysis
increasing place attachment directly increases social capital and indirectly increases civic
action; and 2) increasing social capital directly increases civic action. In other words, this
study tested whether or not social capital plays a mediating role in the relationship
21
Prior to estimating the regression models, the following analytical steps were
taken: 1) reliability analyses were completed for place attachment and trust items, 2)
mean scores were calculated to create emotional place attachment, functional place
attachment, individual trust, and institutional trust scales, 3) level of association was
based on length of volunteer status and length of membership, and 4) civic action was
calculated on an additive index of participation rates. These steps are explained in the
following paragraphs.
Place attachment and trust are latent variables and cannot be directly observed or
measured for this reason. Each of these variables was measured following a domain
sampling approach (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to
determine how well each set of items measured the respective latent variable.
Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient of internal consistency. If the items all measure the
same construct then their inter-item correlations (and the Cronbach’s alpha) will be high.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each set of items (emotional place attachment,
functional place attachment, individual trust, and institutional trust). Cronbach’s alpha
scores of 0.7 or higher indicate the set of statements have high inter-item reliability.
After reliability analysis, scales were created for place attachment and trust. Scale
scores for emotional place attachment, functional place attachment, individual trust, and
institutional trust were calculated as the mean of the items forming each scale. The two
their efforts to donating their money. Several civic action items were listed on the
22
questionnaire to capture the range of activities in which respondents participated (Table
2). Respondents’ levels of civic action were calculated by summing each individual’s
participation rate in the seven refuge-focused civic action items. Respondents more
involved at the refuge were expected to have high levels of civic action (high number of
times they participated in activities) whereas respondents that were less involved at the
functional place attachment, individual trust, institutional trust, level of association, and
civic action) were used in the regression models. The study hypotheses were tested using
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendations for mediation assessment via regression
analysis. This method involves four steps (estimating four regression models): 1)
regressing the mediator (social capital) on the independent variable (place attachment), 2)
regressing the dependent variable (civic action) on the independent variable (place
attachment), 3) regressing the dependent variable (civic action) on the mediator (social
capital), and 4) regressing the dependent variable (civic action) on the mediator (social
capital) and the independent variable (place attachment). This process was completed
two times: 1) once with trust component of social capital as the mediator, and 2) once
conditions are met: 1) the independent variable affects the mediator, 2) the independent
variable affects the dependent variable, and 3) the mediator affects the dependent
variable. If these conditions are met, the independent variable must have a lesser effect
23
on the dependent variable in the third step than in the second. Mediation occurs if all of
Results
Questionnaire Response
Socio-demographic characteristics. Of the 617 visitors who were sent the mail-
back questionnaire, 451 were completed and returned resulting in a response rate of
74.1%. Sixty-three percent of respondents were male and thirty-seven percent were
female. The mean age of respondents was approximately forty-four years. Most
respondents (97.5%) identified themselves as white and not Hispanic or Latino (100.0%).
A majority of respondents (96.8%) had a high school degree and approximately forty
percent were college graduates or had a higher level of education. Approximately thirty-
eight percent of respondents were in the $40,000 - $64,999 income category and about
compared on three items: 1) Activity participated in while at the refuge (hiking/ snow-
education or interpretive activities), 2) group size, and 3) gender. Chi-squared tests were
used to compare the groups for items 1 and 3, and t-tests were used for item 2.
activities they participated in while at the refuge. Respondents were more likely to have
24
participated in hiking/ snow-shoeing/ cross-country skiing, photographing, and observing
hunting (43.7%) compared to respondents (36.1%). Group size and gender did not
significantly differ between the two groups. These results suggested that the differences
between respondents and non-respondents were small and therefore no adjustments were
Scale Assessment
Cronbach alpha scores for the four scales were all acceptable: emotional place
and institutional trust (α=0.94) (Table 3). Most items had a corrected item-total
correlation of 0.5 or higher (Table 3). The two items with the lowest corrected item-total
correlations were: “I would prefer to spend more time here if I could” (0.43) and “The
time I spent here could have just as easily been spent somewhere else” (0.34). These
items were included in the scales because excluding them did not significantly increase
Mean place attachment scale scores for all respondents were: emotional place
attachment = 4.92 and functional place attachment = 4.45 (seven point scale; 1 = strongly
the emotional and functional place attachment statements. These results indicate that on
25
Mean trust scale scores for all respondents were: individual trust = 5.11 and
institutional trust = 5.42 (seven point scale; 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
On average, respondents slightly agreed with the individual and institutional trust
statements. These results suggest that on average respondents trust other individuals,
membership ranged from 0 to 10 years (mean=0.46 yrs). Further examination of the data
reveals that nineteen percent of respondents were volunteers and/ or members. Of these
respondents, the majority were volunteers (80%) or members (75%) for 1 to 5 years.
[Table 3. Summary of reliability analysis and corrected item-total correlations for place
Mediation Analysis
Results of the mediation analysis are presented in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 3
and 4. As was mentioned previously, two series of analyses were conducted: 1) with the
trust component of social capital, and 2) with the association component of social capital.
This study examines R2 values and beta weights (β) to determine the relationships
between variables. R2 values express the amount of variation in the dependent variable
explained by the independent variable. Beta weights describe the effect size or the
strength of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable.
26
Effect sizes are divided into three categories small (β = 0.1), medium (β = 0.3), or large
The first series of analyses was conducted with the trust component of social
capital in the regression models (Table 4 and Figure 3). In the first step, the two place
individual trust. Emotional place attachment had a medium effect size (emotional
β=0.47, p<0.001) and functional place attachment had a small effect size (functional
β=0.15, p<0.05). Place attachment explained thirteen percent (R2=0.13) of the variance
institutional trust and had a small effect size (emotional β=0.14, p<0.05; functional
β=0.25, p<0.001).
In the second step, place attachment accounted for nine percent (R2=0.09) of
variance in civic action. Both place attachment dimensions were significant predictors of
civic action and had small effect sizes (emotional β=0.16, p<0.05; functional β=0.17;
p<0.05).
In the third step, all four variables were included. The model explained sixteen
percent (R2=0.15) of the variance in civic action. Emotional place attachment and
institutional trust were not significant predictors. Individual trust and functional place
attachment were significant predictors of civic action. Individual trust had a medium
effect size (β=0.37, p<0.001) and functional place attachment had a small effect size
(β=0.14, p<0.05).
27
[Table 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including
[Figure 3. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including
The second series of analyses were conducted with the association component of
social capital (Table 5 and Figure 4). In the first step, the model accounted for eight
a significant predictor with a small effect size (emotional β=0.26, p<0.001), and
functional place attachment was not a significant predictor. Place attachment accounted
for eight percent (R2=0.08) of the variance in years of membership. In this model,
emotional place attachment was a significant predictor with a small effect size (β=0.29,
The second step was the same one seen in previous analyses. Place attachment
accounted for nine percent (R2=0.09) of variance in civic action, and both measures of
place attachment were significant predictors of civic action. Emotional and functional
place attachment had small effect sizes (emotional β=0.16, p<0.05; functional β=0.17;
p<0.05).
In the third step, all four variables were included in the regression model. The
model explained twenty-two percent (R2=0.22) of the variance in civic action. Emotional
place attachment was not a significant predictor. Years of volunteering (β=0.22, p<0.01),
years of membership (β=0.19, p<0.01), and functional place attachment (β=0.16, p<0.05)
were significant predictors of civic action and all of the variables had a small effect size.
28
[Table 5. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including
[Figure 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including
Discussion
The major purpose of this study was to determine how place attachment and
social capital influence civic action at Sherburne NWR. Results of this research can help
managers and researchers understand what role place attachment and social capital have
in promoting or impeding civic action. Multiple regression models tested the mediation
functional place attachment and individual trust. Emotional and functional place
attachment explained thirty-five percent of the variance in individual trust. Study results
show that as emotional and functional place attachment increased, individual trust also
increased. This was the strongest relationship seen in the regression models.
characteristic-based trust (Zucker, 1986). As described earlier, this type of trust is related
NWR visitors may assume or perceive that other visitors enjoy and value the refuge.
29
Second, place attachment was a significant predictor of civic action. However,
this relationship was not as strong as expected. Place attachment explained only nine
percent of the variance in civic action, and both dimensions of place attachment had a
weak relationship, or small effect size, with civic action. There is no consensus on how
that could affect civic action, nine percent is a considerable amount of explained
variance. These findings and other research (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001) indicate that place
One possible reason for the “small” amount of explained variance is that
Individuals may not be involved at the refuge because of lack of time, family obligations,
schedule conflicts, or because they were not aware of involvement opportunities. Several
questionnaire that they were unaware of volunteer opportunities and wanted more
information. Even when place attachment is high, civic action can be low due to
constraints.
Lastly, the study hypothesis that social capital mediated the relationship between
emotional place attachment and civic action was supported. The three conditions for
mediation described by Baron and Kenny (1986) were met: 1) emotional place
attachment affected social capital, 2) emotional place attachment affected civic action,
and 3) social capital affected civic action and a previously significant relationship
between emotional place attachment and civic action dropped to non-significance. These
30
findings indicate that social capital was a complete mediator in the relationship between
While mediation conditions were met for emotional place attachment, they were
not met for functional place attachment. In step three of the regression analyses, a
previously significant relationship between functional place attachment and civic action
was reduced in magnitude but remained significant. This indicates that social capital
does not mediate the relationship between functional place attachment and civic action.
One possible explanation for this finding is that individuals with high functional place
attachment recognize the direct benefits of donating time, resources, or money. Visitors
may realize that volunteering their time or resources will directly improve their own
Management Implications
The results of this study provide insight on how place attachment, social capital,
and civic action are related. The theoretical framework and empirical results of this study
indicate that both place attachment and social capital are significantly related to civic
action. Results of this study can help managers design and implement public
involvement programs.
In this study, place attachment was significantly related to individual trust and
civic action. As place attachment increased, individual trust and civic action also
increased. This suggests that managers can increase individual trust levels and civic
31
One way to increase place attachment levels is by offering activities and
opportunities for visitors to recreate and experience the resource. Offering opportunities
for individuals to meet their recreational needs or goals promotes functional place
emotional place attachment (Moore & Graefe, 1994). Over time visitors can develop a
reasons. Managers can use place attachment as a way of uniting individuals concerned
about the resource (Cortner & Moote, 1999; Flora, 2000; Williams & Stewart, 1998).
individuals and groups (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995). Shared place attachment can
facilitate establishing goals, working out disputes, and general interactions between
individuals.
Social capital was found to influence the relationship between emotional place
attachment and civic action. Because of the vital role social capital plays in encouraging
civic action, managers should carefully monitor it and promote its development. Several
techniques can be used to encourage the development of social capital. Managers can
hold gatherings and events in neutral settings where visitors can meet and interact, such
as a visitor appreciation day, film festival, or winter festival. As visitors interact they can
develop feelings of trust with one another and networks of relationships. This is also an
opportunity for visitors with different interests to learn about the importance and benefits
of various recreational activities. For example, a non-hunting visitor may not be familiar
with the benefits of hunting and vice versa. Visitor appreciation of a variety of recreation
32
interests and values could help alleviate conflicts between visitors, thereby, improving
Managers can also increase social capital by working closely with volunteer
“Friends” groups that volunteer for a variety of refuge events. These volunteers develop
relationships with refuge staff, other volunteers, and refuge visitors. Volunteers can
encourage the development of relationships and feelings of trust among individuals and
groups.
Civic action is beneficial is other ways besides its essential role in collaborative
management. One major benefit is that civic action helps managers overcome challenges
posed by limited budgets. In the case of Sherburne NWR, the “Friends of Sherburne”
volunteer group helps refuge staff accomplish goals and tasks that otherwise would not
be possible due to limited resources. For example, volunteers play a vital role in many of
Sherburne NWR’s public events by donating time, funding, and equipment. Several
volunteers serve as roving interpreters and share their knowledge of Sherburne NWR
wildlife and landscape with visitors. Promoting civic action is also a way to develop and
help maintain positive relations with the public. As individuals interact with agency staff
The collaborative model of natural resource management calls for the active
involvement of citizens. Place attachment and social capital are influential factors in
impeding or encouraging civic action. Managers can use information on visitors’ levels
of place attachment and social capital to help shape and design citizen participation
33
programs. These constructs provide valuable information on how managers can
effectively direct civic action programs for the benefit of the natural landscape,
Future Research
Findings from this study suggest several possibilities for future research. While
ordinary regression analysis was an effective tool in determining the relationships among
place attachment, social capital, and civic action, structural equation modeling would
to assess multivariate relationships. SEM models are better able to link indicators to
causes and to assess overall fit of a model to data (Knoke, Bohrnstedt, & Mee, 2002, p.
405). A SEM model would provide more detailed information on how the three
constructs interact.
social capital, and civic action at a variety of settings. In this study, it was assumed that
place attachment was formed first, then social capital, then civic action. However, it was
not proven that this was the sequence of events. One way to test this theory would be to
compare several settings, for example: a newly established park, a park established
several years ago, and an older park. By comparing levels of place attachment, social
capital, and civic action, researchers could determine if one construct forms first, if the
constructs develop simultaneously, and if/ how the constructs influence one another.
Finally, the results of this study indicate that institutional trust was not
significantly related to civic action. This study suggests that agencies should focus more
34
on individual trust and place attachment to promote civic action. It would be interesting
to determine what role institutional trust plays in encouraging or impeding civic action.
By comparing settings with low, medium, and high institutional trust researchers could
levels. The resulting information would help agencies determine where to put their
Limitations
One of the major difficulties faced in this type of analysis is the determination of
causality. This is often the case in social research because social situations are so
complex that identifying a causal process is almost impossible (Knoke, et al., 2002). The
type of analysis used in this study requires the following conditions are met: 1)
changes in dependent variables, and 3) covariation between variables is causal and not
due to another variable (nonspuriousness) (Knoke, et al., 2002). The first condition is
met in this study. Covariation between variables did exist. This questionnaire did not
assess whether changes in place attachment and trust occur before changes in civic
situations where factors cannot be controlled. These limitations must be taken into
account when drawing conclusions from this non-experimental study. Also, other factors
such as gender, income, personal attitudes or beliefs, and age, which are not considered in
35
Literature Cited
Anderson, D.H., Nickerson, R., Stein, T.V., & Lee, M.E. (2000). Planning to provide
community and visitor benefits from public lands. In W.C. Gartner & D.W. Lime
(Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism (pp. 197-212). New York:
CAB International.
Anheier, H., & Kendall, J. (2002). Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations:
examining three approaches. British Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 343-362.
Arai, S. M., & Pedlar, A. M. (1997). Building communities through leisure: Citizen
participation in a healthy communities initiative. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(2),
167-182.
Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Barnes, S., & Kaase, M. (Eds.). (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special
reference to education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood
Press.
Brandenburg, A.M., & Carroll, M.S. (1995). Your place, or mine: The effect of place
creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural
Resources, 8, 381-398.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences
of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 99-1023.
Bricker, K.S, & Kerstetter, D.L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An
Exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22, 233-257.
Chen, K. (1992). Political alienation and voter turnout in the United States, 1960-1988.
San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press.
36
Cheng, A.S., Kruger, L.E., & Daniels, S.E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in
natural resources politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society
and Natural Resources, 16, 87-104.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Cortner, H.J., & Moote, M.A. (1999). The politics of ecosystem management.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Decker, D.J., Krueger, C.C., Baer, R.A., Knuth, B.A., & Richmond, M.E. (1996). From
clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(1), 70-82.
Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological
Review, 58, 434-442.
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York:
J. Wiley and Sons.
Flora, C.B. (2000). Measuring the social dimensions of managing natural resources. In
Human dimensions of natural resource management: Emerging issues and practical
applications, eds. Fulton, D.C., K.C. Nelson, D.H. Anderson, and D.W. Lime. St.Paul,
MN: Cooperative Park Studies Program, University of Minnesota, Department of
Forest Resources.
Frentz, I.C., Voth, D.E., Burns, S., & Sperry, C.W. (2000). Forest Service—Community
relationship building: Recommendations. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 549-
566.
Gliner, J. A., Vaske, J. J., & Morgan, G. A. Null hypothesis significance testing: Effect
size matters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 291-301.
Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and
the environment. Rural Sociology, 59, 1-24.
37
Katzev, R., Blake, G., & Messer, B. (1993). Determinants of participation in multi-family
recycling programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 374-385.
Knoke, D., Bohrnstedt, G.W., & Mee, A.P. (2002). Statistics for social data analysis.
Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Lee, R.G. (1972). The social definition of recreation places. In W. Burch, Jr., N. Cheek,
Jr., & L. Taylor (Eds.), Social behavior, natural resources and the environment (pp.
68-84). New York: Harper & Row.
Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of
rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16(1), 17-31.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, Inc.
Payton, M.A., Anderson, D.H., Fulton, D.C., & Dougherty, E.M. (2003). Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge: A study of visitor experiences and preferences in support of
comprehensive conservation planning. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,
Department of Forest Resources and Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit. 164pp.
Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator
assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127.
Pierce, J., Steger, M.A., Steel, B., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Citizens, political
communication and interest groups: A study of environmental organizations in
Canada and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Prestby, J., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R., & Chavis, D. (1990). Benefits, costs,
incentive management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to
understanding and promoting empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18(1), 117-149.
Proshansky, H.M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-
169.
Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.F., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world
socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.
Putnam, R.D. (1993a). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38
Putnam, R.D. (1993b). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 13, 35-42.
Relph, E. (1997). Sense of place. In S. Hanson (Ed.), Ten geographic ideas that changed
the world (pp. 205-226). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Russell, J.A., & Ward, L.M. (1982). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33, 651-688.
Schreyer, R., Jacob, G., & White, R. (1981). Environmental meaning as a determinant of
spatial behavior in recreation. In Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conferences,
4, 294-300.
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge: Planning Workshop III. Briefing Book. March
12-15, 2002. Otsego, Minnesota.
Steele, C. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 262-302).
New York: Academic Press.
Stern, R., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65-84.
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S.A. (1981). People and places: A transactional view of
settings. In J.Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior and the environment (pp. 441-
448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tuan, Y.F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
39
Tuan, Y.F. (1980). Rootedness verses sense of place. Landscape, 24 (1), 3-8.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Division of Planning Northeast Region. [Online]. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. <http://northeast.fws.gov/planning/index.htm> [2002, July
25].
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. [Online]. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. <http://midwest.fws.gov/sherburne/INDEX.HTM> [2002, July
25].
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16-21.
Warner, M. (1999). Social capital construction and the role of the local state. Rural
Sociology, 64 (3), 373-393.
Warzecha, C.A., & Lime, D.W. (2001). Place attachment in canyonlands national park:
Visitors’ assessment of setting attributes on the Colorado and Green rivers. Journal
of Park and Recreation Administration, 19 (1), 59-78.
Wellman, J.D. (1987). Wildland recreation policy. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Williams, D.R., Anderson, S.B., McDonald, C.D., & Patterson, M.E. (1995). Measuring
place attachment: More preliminary results. Unpublished paper presented at the
Outdoor Recreation Planning and Management Research Session, 1995 NRPA
Leisure Research Symposium, San Antonio, TX.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Beyond the commodity
metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences,
14, 29-46.
Williams, D.R., & Roggenbuck, J.W. (October, 1989). Measuring place attachment:
Some preliminary results. Paper presented at the Symposium on Outdoor Recreation
Planning and Management, NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio,
TX.
Williams, D.R., & Stewart, S. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a
home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96(5),18-23.
Wondolleck, J.M., & Yaffee, S.L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
40
Table 1. Place attachment and trust items listed on the visitor questionnaire.1
Place Attachment
Emotional items
I would prefer to spend more time here if I could
I am very attached to the refuge
I identify strongly with the refuge
I feel like the refuge is part of me
I use this place to help define and express who I am
Visiting this place helps me attain the life I strive for
When I am here, others see me the way I want them to see me
Functional items
No other place can compare to this area
The time I spent here could have just as easily been spent somewhere else2
I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting any other
This area is the best place for what I like to do
I wouldn’t substitute any other place for doing the types of things I do here
Doing what I do here is more important to me than doing it at any other place
Trust
Individual items
I feel welcome at the refuge
I feel a sense of belonging with other people at the refuge
People will work together to get things done for the refuge
I feel part of the community at the refuge
Generally speaking, I trust other people I see at the refuge
Institutional items
In general, I have confidence in the decisions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service makes
I have confidence in decisions made by local staff at the refuge
I trust that refuge staff will do what is right for the refuge
1
Responses based on a seven-point scale: “1” strongly disagree, “2” moderately disagree, “3” slightly
disagree, “4” neutral, “5” slightly agree, “6” moderately agree, and “7” strongly agree.
2
This item was reverse coded to make scale meanings consistent with other statements.
41
Table 2. Civic action statements listed on the visitor questionnaire.1
1
Respondents answered if they participated in each activity. If they did participate, they were asked how
many times in the past year they participated in the activity.
42
Table 3. Summary of reliability analysis and corrected item-total correlations for place attachment and
trust items.
α Corrected
Variable item-total
correlation
Place Attachment
Emotional items (N=412) 0.87
I would prefer to spend more time here if I could 0.43
I am very attached to the refuge 0.64
I identify strongly with the refuge 0.61
I feel like the refuge is part of me 0.76
I use this place to help define and express who I am 0.77
Visiting this place helps me attain the life I strive for 0.74
When I am here, others see me the way I want them to see me 0.60
Trust
Individual items (N=422) 0.85
I feel welcome at the refuge 0.54
I feel a sense of belonging with other people at the refuge 0.73
People will work together to get things done for the refuge 0.73
I feel part of the community at the refuge 0.77
Generally speaking, I trust other people I see at the refuge 0.53
43
Table 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including trust
component
of social capital (N=377).
B SE β p1 R2
Variable
(B)
Step 1: Regressing trust on place attachment
Step 1a: Regressing individual trust on place attachment 0.35
Emotional Place Attachment 0.44 0.05 0.47 p<0.001
Functional Place Attachment 0.13 0.05 0.15 p<0.05
Step 1b: Regression institutional trust on place 0.13
attachment
Emotional Place Attachment 0.17 0.08 0.14 p<0.05
Functional Place Attachment 0.27 0.07 0.25 p<0.001
1
NS indicates not significant.
44
Table 5. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including association
component of social capital (N=377).
B SE β p1 R2
Variable
(B)
Step 1: Regressing association on place attachment
Step 1a: Regressing years of volunteering on place 0.08
attachment
Emotional Place Attachment 0.52 0.14 0.26 p<0.001
Functional Place Attachment 0.08 0.12 0.04 NS
Step 1b: Regression years of membership on place 0.08
attachment
Emotional Place Attachment 0.47 0.11 0.29 p<0.001
Functional Place Attachment -0.02 0.10 -0.02 NS
1
NS indicates not significant.
45
N
Refuge
Sherburne Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge and other USFWS National Wildlife refuges in
Minnesota, U.S.
46
Social Capital
Figure 2. Hypothesized interactions among place attachment, social capital, and civic action.
47
0.16C / -0.002N
Emotional
Place Attachment
0.47A
0.43A / 0.37A
0.14C Individual Trust
0.69A
Civic Action
0.57A
0.15C
Institutional Trust 0.09N / -0.11N
Functional 0.25A
Place Attachment
0.17C / 0.14C
A
p<0.001
B
p<0.01
C
p<0.05
N
Not significant
Figure 3: Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including trust
component of social capital (N=377).1
1
R2 values for steps in mediation analysis are as follows: Step 1a R2 = 0.35, Step 1b R2 = 0.13,
Step 2 R2 = 0.09, and Step 3 R2 = 0.15.
NOTE: Bolded values are results of multiple regression model including emotional place
attachment, functional place attachment, individual trust, and institutional trust as independent
48
0.16C / 0.05N
Emotional
Place Attachment
0.26A
0.389A / 0.22B
0.29A Years of
Volunteering
0.69A Civic Action
0.68A
0.17C / 0.16C
A
p<0.001
B
p<0.01
C
p<0.05
N
Not significant
Figure 4: Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including
association component of social capital (N=377).1
1
R2 values for steps in mediation analysis are as follows: Step 1a R2 = 0.35, Step 1b R2 =
0.13, Step 2 R2 = 0.09, and Step 3 R2 = 0.15.
NOTE: Bolded values are results of multiple regression model including emotional place
attachment, functional place attachment, years of volunteering, and years of membership
as independent variables.
49
APPENDIX A. Sampling Plan
50
Sampling location codes:
BH Blue Hill Trail
MT Mahnomen Trail
WD Wildlife Drive
C9 County Road 9 access
C1 County Road 1 access
OS Old Schoolhouse
HQ Headquarters
April 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
11 am–7 pm
OS, BH,
MT, WD
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3–7 pm 3–7 pm; C9,
MT, WD, C1, WD,
BH BH, MT
29 30
3-7 pm; BH,
MT, WD,
C9, C1
51
May 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
6-8 pm 8 am–12
MT, WD, pm; C9, C1,
BH WD, BH,
MT
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6-8 pm 10 am-12
BH, MT, pm; OS, C9,
WD C1, WD,
MT, BH
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
6-8 pm 8 am-2 pm
MT, BH, BH, WD,
WD MT
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
3-8 pm 6-9 pm 11 am-3 pm
WD, MT, MT, BH, OS
BH WD
27 28 29 30 31
June 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6-9 pm 6-9 pm 6 am-12 pm
WD, BH, BH, MT, MT, WD,
MT WD BH
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6-9 pm 6-9 pm
WD, BH, BH, MT,
MT WD
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3-9 pm 6-9 pm
MT, WD, WD, BH,
BH MT
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6 am-12 pm 6-9 pm
WD, BH, BH, MT,
MT WD
52
July 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3-9 pm 6-9 pm 3-9 pm
MT, WD, WD, BH, BH, MT,
BH MT WD
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6-9 pm 6-9 pm 8 am-12 pm
BH, MT, MT, WD, WD, BH,
WD BH MT
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
6-9 pm 6-9 pm
BH, MT, MT, WD,
WD BH
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3-9 pm 6-9 pm 6-9 pm
WD, BH, BH, MT, MT, WD,
MT WD BH
29 30 31
6 am-12 pm
WD, BH,
MT
August 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3-9 pm
WD, BH,
MT
26 27 28 29 30 31
3-9 pm 3-8 pm
BH, MT, MT, WD,
WD BH
53
September 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2-8 pm 5-8 pm
WD, BH, MT, BH,
MT WD
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
6-9 pm 9 am-3 pm
BH, WD, WD, MT,
MT BH
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
9 am-3 pm
LP
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
5-8 pm 11 am-5 pm
MT, BH, LP
WD
30
8 am-2 pm
LP
October 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6
12-5 pm
LP, MT,
BH, WD
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
4-6 pm 11 am-3 pm
MT, BH, OS
WD
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
8 am-2 pm 12-6 pm
BH, MT, MT, BH
WD
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
12-6 pm 6-8 pm 8 am-2 pm
MT, BH BH, WD, BH, MT
MT
28 29 30 31
10 am-2 pm
MT, BH
54
November 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 Deer Gun
Hunting
Season
opener
8 am-5 pm*
4 Deer Gun 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hunting
Season
opener
8 am-5 pm*
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
12-5 pm 11 am-5 pm
BH, MT BH, MT
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
*Visitors were contacted at the Old Schoolhouse, along refuge roads, or in refuge parking lots.
December 2001
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
11 am-4 pm
BH, MT
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
9 am-2pm
MT, BH
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
55
January 2002
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 am-4 pm 5-7 pm 9 am-2 pm
MT, BH OS MT, BH
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
5-7 pm 12 pm-4 pm
OS BH, MT
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
11 am-4 pm 5-7 pm
BH, MT OS
27 28 29 30 31
February 2002
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
11 am-3 pm
OS
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
9 am-2 pm
BH, MT
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
9 am-2 pm
BH, MT
24 25 26 27 28
56
March 2002
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 am-4 pm
MT, BH
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
12-5 pm
MT, BH
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
8 am-2 pm
BH, MT
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
12-5 pm
MT, BH
31
April 2002
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6
8 am-2 pm
BH, MT
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
5-7 pm 11 am-5 pm
MT, BH BH, MT
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
3-7 pm
WD, BH,
MT
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
57
APPENDIX B: Visitor Onsite Questionnaire, Full-page
58
Questionnaire
#_________
Date __/__/__
Opinions on
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
VISITOR USE STUDY
A. Minnesota 2001- 2002
Thank you for agreeing to answer the following questions for us. Please look at the following list of
activities and indicate which activities you have participated in or plan to participate in during your visit to
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge today. (Check all that apply.)
On your visit today, approximately how many people are you with?
____ By myself
____ With family, number of people ______
____ With friends, number of people ______
____ With family and friends, number of people ______
Knowing what people think about Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is crucial to making best decisions
about management.
Would you be willing to complete a longer survey about your opinions of Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge which would be mailed to your home within the next two weeks?
____ Yes ____ No
If yes, please leave your name, address, and phone number below
Name _________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
59
APPENDIX C: Visitor Onsite Questionnaire, Half-page: Collection box version
60
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
VISITOR USE STUDY
Minnesota, 2001
Hello! The Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a study to learn more about visitor use at Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge. The University of Minnesota is working with us on this study.
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is currently revising their comprehensive conservation plan. Refuge
managers are interested in the Refuge’s visitors, the activities they pursue, the facilities they use, and their
satisfaction with their experience at the refuge. This is an opportunity for you to provide valuable
input. Participation in this study is completely voluntary, but your input is very important to us.
Please take a minute of your time to answer a few questions about your visit. They are listed on the back
of this sheet. If you would like to participate in a more extensive study please include your address. We
will mail you a questionnaire in the next two weeks that focuses in more detail on your experiences. The
questionnaire can be completed at home in about 25 minutes and returned in an enclosed self-addressed
stamped envelope.
When you have completed this survey, please put it into the blaze orange box labeled “Return Surveys
Here.”
Questionnaire
#_________
Date __/__/__
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
Visitor Use Study Minnesota, 2001
Please look at the following list of activities and indicate which activities you have participated in or plan
to participate in during your visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge today. (Check all that apply.)
____ Hiking, snow-shoeing, or cross country skiing _____ Photography
____ Hunting _____ Observing wildlife
____ Fishing _____ Education or interpretive activities
Counting yourself, approximately how many people are in your group? ____ Number of people
What is your gender? _______ Female _______ Male
Would you be willing to complete a longer survey about your opinions of Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge which would be mailed to your home within the next two weeks?
____ Yes ____ No
If yes, please leave your name, address, and phone number below
Name ______________________________________________ Phone ( )________________
Address ______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Thank you for your help!
61
APPENDIX D: Visitor Onsite Questionnaire, Half-page: Mail-back version
62
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
VISITOR USE STUDY
Minnesota, 2001
Hello! The Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a study to learn more about visitor use at Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge. The University of Minnesota is working with us on this study.
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is currently revising their comprehensive conservation plan. Refuge
managers are interested in the Refuge’s visitors, the activities they pursue, the facilities they use, and their
satisfaction with their experience at the refuge. This is an opportunity for you to provide valuable
input. Participation in this study is completely voluntary, but your input is very important to us.
Please take a minute of your time to answer a few questions about your visit. If you would like to
participate in a more extensive study please include your address. We will mail you a questionnaire in the
next two weeks that focuses in more detail on your experiences. The questionnaire can be completed at
home in about 25 minutes and returned in an enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
When you have completed this survey, please put it into any US mailbox. Postage is paid.
Questionnaire
#_________
Date __/__/__
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
Visitor Use Study Minnesota, 2001
Please look at the following list of activities and indicate which activities you have participated in or plan
to participate in during your visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge today. (Check all that apply.)
____ Hiking, snow-shoeing, or cross country skiing _____ Photography
____ Hunting _____ Observing wildlife
____ Fishing _____ Education or interpretive activities
Counting yourself, approximately how many people are in your group? ____ Number of people
What is your gender? _______ Female _______ Male
Would you be willing to complete a longer survey about your opinions of Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge which would be mailed to your home within the next two weeks?
____ Yes ____ No
If yes, please leave your name, address, and phone number below
Name ______________________________________________ Phone ( )________________
Address ______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Thank you for your help!
63
APPENDIX E. Visitor Mail-back Questionnaire
64
Questionnaire
#_________
Date __/__/__
Opinions on
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages National Wildlife Refuges on behalf of the
American people. The primary mission of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is to represent a
diverse biological community characteristic of the transition zone between tallgrass prairie and
forest. The Refuge provides habitat for waterfowl, migratory bird populations, and other resident
wildlife and protects biodiversity and endangered/ threatened species through restoration and
maintenance of native vegetation. The Refuge also provides wildlife-oriented opportunities
including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and
environmental education.
65
On your last visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, approximately how many people did
you visit the Refuge with?
____ By myself
_____ With family, number of people _____
____ With friends, number of people _____
____ With family and friends, number of people______
____ Other, please describe: ______________________
How far did you travel to visit Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge? _________ miles
ACTIVITIES
Please look at the list of activities below and indicate how many times during the past year you
participated in that activity at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. (Circle the number that best
indicates how many times you participated in each activity.)
31 Times/Year
Times/Year
Times/Year
Times/Year
participate
Did not
or more
Activities 11-30
6-10
1-5
66
31 Times/Year
Times/Year
Times/Year
Times/Year
participate
Did not
or more
Activities
11-30
6-10
1-5
Hunting from accessible blinds reserved for hunters with 1 2 3 4 9
disabilities
Did you attend any of the following special events at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge? (check
all that you attended in the past year)
_____ Wildlife Festival (October) _____ Winterfest (February)
_____ Film Festival (January) _____ Migratory Bird Day (May)
Think back to your last visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. For that visit what was the
most satisfying activity you engaged in? (look at the activities listed above and write in your most
satisfying activity)
Are you a volunteer at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge (please check the appropriate
response)
_____No _____Yes, for how many years have you been a volunteer? __________ years
Are you a member of the “Friends of Sherburne”? (please check the appropriate response)
_____No _____Yes, for how many years have you been a member? __________ years
67
EXPERIENCES
Below is a list of possible experiences visitors may have while visiting Sherburne National
Wildlife Refuge. Please reflect upon your most satisfying activity during your most recent visit to
the Refuge. Look over the list below and indicate how important each experience was to your
satisfaction during that last visit. (Circle the number that best represents your response.) For
each experience that you circled a 5, 6 or 7 please indicate how much you were able to attain
that experience during your last visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. (Circle the number
that best represents your response.)
Unimportant
Experiences
unimportant
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Important
important
important
Remember to focus on your
attained
attained
attained
Neither
Totally
Very
Very
most satisfying activity
See wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Experience nature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Gain greater sense of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
independence
Do things my own way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Use my equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Learn about the natural history 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
of the area
Experience new and different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
things
Learn more about nature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
68
Did not attain
Unimportant
Unimportant
Experiences
unimportant
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Important
important
important
Remember to focus on your
attained
attained
attained
Neither
Totally
Very
Very
most satisfying activity
69
LANDSCAPE AND COMMUNITY COMPONENTS
Below is a list of some landscape and community components of Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge. Please evaluate how important you feel each component is to society. (Circle the
number that best describes the importance of each component.)
Unimportant
unimportant
unimportant
Somewhat
Somewhat
important
Important
important
Neither
Components
Very
Very
Maintaining unique habitat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Maintaining diversity of native plants and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
animals
Providing flood control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Storing and purifying water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Other: - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_________________________________
70
POTENTIAL SITUATIONS
This question concerns potential situations you may have experienced on your most recent trip to
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Please evaluate each situation below according to how
much the given situation detracted from your experience at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge.
(Circle one number that best describes your response.)
Slightly detracted
Did not detract
Very strongly
Don’t know
Moderately
detracted
detracted
detracted
Strongly
Situations
Litter and trash left by others 1 2 3 4 5 9
People not obeying Refuge rules 1 2 3 4 5 9
People not following hunting regulations 1 2 3 4 5 9
Pet owners not obeying rules 1 2 3 4 5 9
Other visitors being inconsiderate 1 2 3 4 5 9
71
We would like to know how you felt about seeing different numbers of people at various
locations during your most recent visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Please complete
columns A and B for each location in the Refuge. If you did not engage in a particular activity,
circle “Not applicable.”
COLUMN A COLUMN B
In general, how acceptable was the If you circled 1, 2, or 3 in
LOCATION number of people you saw? (Circle Column A, what made you
applicable
the most appropriate response.) feel this way? (Check the
options that apply.)
Very Very
Not
Unacceptable Acceptable
_____number of people
On the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
Wildlife _____something else
Drive (specify):
_____number of people
On the longer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
hiking trails _____something else
(Mahnomen (specify):
and Blue
Hill)
_____number of people
In the field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
while hunting _____something else
deer with (specify):
firearms
_____number of people
In the field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
while archery _____something else
deer hunting (specify):
_____number of people
In the field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
while hunting _____something else
small game (specify):
(grouse,
squirrel)
_____number of people
In the field 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
while hunting _____something else
waterfowl (specify):
_____number of people
Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _____behavior of people N/A
(specify): _____something else
(specify):
72
MANAGEMENT
Given the present conditions at and your current knowledge of Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge, to what extent do you ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ each of the following management actions?
(circle one number for each action)
Moderately support
Moderately oppose
Strongly support
Slightly support
Slightly oppose
No opinion
support
Management Actions
Other: ______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Are there wildlife-oriented activities or services that you think should be offered at Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge that currently are not offered?
______________________________________________________________________________
Are there wildlife-oriented activities or services that you think should be prohibited at Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge that are currently allowed?
______________________________________________________________________________
73
OPINIONS
Please indicate the extent to which each statement below describes your opinions about
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. (Circle one number for each statement.)
Moderately disagree
Strongly disagree
Moderately agree
Slightly disagree
Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Statements
Neutral
I would prefer to spend more time here if I could. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No other place can compare to this area. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am very attached to the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
74
I feel part of the community at the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
75
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
People participate in different activities to try and influence decision making on a variety of
natural resource issues. Please circle the activities you have used to try and affect decision-
making about natural resources in the past 12 months. (Circle the appropriate response. If your
response is “Yes,” please indicate approximately how many times in the past 12 months you have
participated in that activity.)
76
ABOUT YOU
The following questions will help managers at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge better
understand the demographics of Refuge visitors. Providing the following information is strictly
voluntary.
What is the size of the community of your current residence and of the primary community where
you grew up (up to 18 years of age)? Please check the community that best indicates the size of
your current and childhood community. (Check one for your current community and one for your
childhood community.)
What is the highest level of education you have completed? (check one)
____8th grade or less
____Some high school
____High school graduate or GED
____Some college, business or technical school
____College graduate
____ Some graduate school
____Masters, doctoral or professional degree
What was your total household income (before taxes) last year? (check one)
____Less than $15,000
____$15,000 to $24,999
____$25,000 to $39,999
____$40,000 to $64,999
____ $65,000 or more
77
Any other comments about your visit to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge or suggestions about
managing the Refuge are welcomed. Please use the space below or attach additional sheets of
paper to write your comments.
If you want more information about this study, contact the University of Minnesota Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, 200 Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Ave, St. Paul, MN 55108-6124.
78
APPENDIX F. Cover letters
79
Cover Letter #1
May 14, 2002
«name»
«Street»
«city», «state» «zip»
Dear «name»,
Within the past few weeks, you filled out a questionnaire at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
and indicated that you would be willing to participate in a study to improve the management of
the Refuge. As you may already know Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge represents a diverse
biological community characteristic of the transition zone between tallgrass prairie and forest.
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge also provides unique recreation opportunities for visitors as
well as wildlife habitat. These lands are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on your
behalf.
Knowing what people think about Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is crucial to making the
best decisions about management. By completing your questionnaire at Sherburne National
Wildlife Refuge and agreeing to complete a longer survey, you are one of only a few people
participating in a study to improve the quality of the Refuge and services provided to you and all
future Refuge visitors. For the results of this study to truly represent the thinking of Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge visitors, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and
returned.
Enclosed you will find a survey form that asks about the activities and benefits that Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge provides to you. It should take no more than 15 minutes of your time.
When you have finished the questionnaire please return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope
provided.
You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number
for mailing purposes only. We remove your name from the mailing list when your questionnaire
is returned. Your name is not attached to any of the study results or used in any study reports.
Your name will not be released to others.
Please fill out and return the enclosed questionnaire by May 28, 2002. If you have any questions
or concerns regarding the study please feel free to email me at payt0008@umn.edu or call at
(612) 624-4280. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Michelle Payton
Research Assistant
80
Cover Letter #2
June 13, 2002
«Name»
«Street»
«City», «State» «ZIP»
Dear «Name»,
We are in the final stages of our study of activities and benefits in Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge, but we have not yet heard from a few critical people. Our files indicate that we have not
received a completed questionnaire from you. Because you were one of a relatively few people
chosen for the study, your answers are essential to the success of the study. In case you did not
receive the original questionnaire or have misplaced it, another copy is enclosed. Please complete
and mail this questionnaire at your earliest convenience.
Please be aware that participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to
complete the questionnaire or any questions within the questionnaire.
We genuinely appreciate your cooperation and your opinions. Thanks very much for your help!
Sincerely,
David C. Fulton
Assistant Leader
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
81
Cover Letter #3
June 13, 2002
«Name»
«Street»
«City», «State» «ZIP»
Dear «Name»,
We are in the final stages of our study of activities and benefits in Sherburne National Wildlife
Refuge, but we have not yet heard from a few critical people. Our files indicate that we have not
received a completed questionnaire from you. Because you were one of a relatively few people
chosen for the study, your answers are essential to the success of the study. In case you did not
receive the original questionnaire or have misplaced it, another copy is enclosed. Please complete
and mail this questionnaire at your earliest convenience.
Please be aware that participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to
complete the questionnaire or any questions within the questionnaire.
We genuinely appreciate your cooperation and your opinions. Thanks very much for your help!
Sincerely,
David C. Fulton
Assistant Leader
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
82
Cover Letter #4
June 13, 2002
«Name»
«Street»
«City», «State» «ZIP»
Dear «Name»,
During the past few weeks we have sent you several mailings regarding our study of activities
and benefits in Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. We have not yet heard from a few critical
people, and our files indicate that we have not received a completed questionnaire from you.
Because you were one of a relatively few people chosen for the study, your answers are essential
to the success of the study.
We are sending this contact because of our concern that people who have not responded may
have had different experiences than those who have. In case you did not receive the original
questionnaire or have misplaced it, another copy is enclosed. Please complete and mail this
questionnaire at your earliest convenience.
Please be aware that participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to
complete the questionnaire or any questions within the questionnaire.
We genuinely appreciate your cooperation and your opinions. Thanks very much for your help!
Sincerely,
David C. Fulton
Assistant Leader
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
83
APPENDIX G. IRB Approval Letter
84
85