Anda di halaman 1dari 93

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master’s thesis by

Michelle Angela Payton

and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,


and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.

David C. Fulton / Dorothy H. Anderson

Name of Faculty Adviser(s)

Signature of Faculty Adviser(s)

Date

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Influence of Place Attachment and Social Capital on Civic Action:
A Study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School


of the University of Minnesota
by

Michelle Angela Payton


Natural Resources Science and Management Program

In partial fulfillment of the requirements


for the Degree of Master of Science
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN

June 2003
© Michelle Angela Payton 2003
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my co-advisors, David C.

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.

A special thanks to Joanna Rosendahl and Mae Davenport, graduate students at

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

their amazing support and encouragement.

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,

Refuge Biologist, for all their assistance and insightful comments.

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

The natural resource management model is shifting from an agency as authority

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

individuals. Promoting collaboration in an environment of declining citizen involvement

and public trust is a difficult task.

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.

A visitor questionnaire was conducted at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge to

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

the benefit of the natural landscape, community, and agency.

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

Appendices (continued) .....................................................................................................62


Appendix D Visitor Onsite Questionnaire, Half-page: Mail-back version...........62
Appendix E Visitor Mail-back Questionnaire ......................................................64
Appendix F Cover Letters.....................................................................................79
Appendix G IRB Approval Letter.........................................................................84

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

Figure 1. Location of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge and


other USFWS National Wildlife refuges in Minnesota, U.S. ............................46
Figure 2. Hypothesized interactions among place attachment, social capital,
and civic action. .................................................................................................47
Figure 3. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action;
including trust component of social capital .......................................................48
Figure 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action;
including association component of social capital.............................................49

v
Introduction

The paradigm of natural resource management is changing. For the first several

decades of professional resource management, agencies embraced a philosophy espoused

by Gifford Pinchot that emphasized maximum resource use within the constraints of

long-term sustainability (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). This “wise-use” philosophy

developed in reaction to the severe overexploitation of natural resources that occurred in

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

characterized by “top-down” decision-making and largely unilateral actions by the

managers (Decker, Krueger, Baer, Knuth, & Richmond, 1996).

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

in natural resource management decisions (Wellman, 1987). Agencies also began to

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,

1999; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).

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

between a management agency and a community could lead to a variety of community

benefits including: economic gains, a better understanding of the management agency,

community empowerment, and a positive atmosphere. Public participation might also be

the most efficient means of improving production of community benefits (Anderson,

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

community and visitor support. Positive agency-community relationships can also

benefit agencies by creating a positive work environment, mobilizing local knowledge

about the resource, encouraging volunteer efforts, and encouraging joint stewardship of

public lands (Frentz et al., 2000).

Collaborative management faces its own unique challenges. Some research

suggests the U.S. has experienced a general decrease in social capital, or the number of

associations and level of trust between individuals in communities (Putnam, 1995).

Other research has highlighted a decrease in citizen involvement in social institutions,

local clubs, religious organizations, and other groups (Cortner & Moote, 1999) and a

2
decrease in trust in individuals and institutions (Anheier & Kendall, 2002; Wondolleck &

Yaffee, 2000). Promoting collaboration in an environment of declining citizen

involvement and public trust is a difficult task.

Collaborative management efforts might be encouraged, however, by addressing

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

action among visitors at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Minnesota.

Study Area

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages the National Wildlife

Refuge System, which was created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. As of

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

and recreational opportunities for the American people (http://midwest.fws.gov/sherburne

/INDEX.HTM). Sherburne NWR is one of eleven refuges in the state of Minnesota

(Figure 1).

[Figure 1. Location of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge and other USFWS

National Wildlife refuges in Minnesota, U.S. HERE]

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/

sherburne/INDEX.HTM). Located in east central Minnesota approximately fifty miles

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).

A wide range of recreational opportunities are available including observing wildlife,

hunting, hiking on trails, fishing, biking, canoeing, cross-country skiing, and participating

in educational programs. The Refuge is dedicated to the conservation and management

of wildlife, plants, and associated habitats for the benefit of current and future

generations of Americans (http://midwest.fws.gov/sherburne/INDEX.HTM).

Background

As part of a comprehensive management planning process, a study was conducted

to better understand visitors’ motives, perceptions, and experiences at Sherburne NWR.

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

(http://northeast.fws.gov/planning/index.htm). The plan must encompass recreational

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

the management of recreation resources.

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

Understanding what factors influence civic action is essential to the success of

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

to increased civic action?

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

civic action data collected in a visitor questionnaire conducted at Sherburne NWR. In

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

relationship between place attachment and civic action.

Conceptual Framework

Place Attachment

Traditionally, natural resource professionals held a utilitarian philosophy

regarding natural resources management (Wellman, 1987) and recreation professionals

followed this pattern. Predominantly, recreation professionals have viewed outdoor

recreation settings as a collection of attributes or characteristics (Williams, Patterson, &

Roggenbuck, 1992) with the value of the setting depending on whether or not it met the

needs of recreationists. Williams et al. (1992) describe this approach as a commodity

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

explored through a variety of concepts. One concept in particular, which is largely

accepted and used in recreation research, is the concept of place attachment.

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

geography, environmental psychology, and landscape architecture. Research in these

disciplines has led to many different definitions for place, sense of place, and place

attachment.

Tuan (1977), a human geographer, defined place as a center of meaning created

from experience, “What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to

know it better and endow it with value” (p. 6). Russell and Ward (1982), environmental

psychologists, described sense of place as “the psychological or perceived unity of the

geographical environment” (p. 654). F. Steele (1981), a landscape architect, explained

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

us” (p. 9).

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

place attachment (Brown, 1987).

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 &

Roggenbuck, 1989). Functional place attachment is affected by two factors: 1) the

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

or goals is facilitated or impeded by the quantity of resources in the area, resource

quality, and how well they fulfill the requirements of users (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981).

Emotional place attachment. Emotional place attachment, or place identity, refers

to the emotional aspects of a person-place relationship and how place contributes to an

individual’s self-identity (Schreyer, et al., 1981; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989).

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

environment in maintaining self-identity has also been strongly supported in the

psychological literature (C. Steele, 1988). Research suggests that emotional place

attachment is one motivation for participation in outdoor recreation (Scherl, 1989).

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

emotional component of place attachment can lead to a sense of belonging or purpose

that helps give meaning to life (Tuan, 1980).

Emotional place attachment is useful in recreation resource management because

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

attachment was significantly related to environmentally responsible behavior. Vaske and

Kobrin (2001) found that as emotional place attachment increased, pro-environmental

behaviors increased. They argued that cultivating the relationship between people and

the resource could encourage environmentally responsible behavior.

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).

Individuals conceptualize a resource in different ways depending on how they define

themselves. Greider and Garkovich (1994) provide the following example. In a

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

see and value a resource, in this case a field, is a reflection of self-identity.

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

of consensus and as common ground for resource management and resolution of

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,

honesty, justice, toleration, cooperation, hope, and remembrance” (p. 119).

Social Capital: Associations and 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

result from a network of relationships, or, in other words, membership in a group.

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

major components: 1) objective associations between individuals—an objective network

11
structure linking individuals, and 2) a subjective type of tie—positive, trusting, and

reciprocal ties among people.

Associations. Networks or associations among individuals and groups are a major

component of social capital (Putnam, 1995). Associations benefit communities by

facilitating and increasing information flow (Paxton, 1999), encouraging reciprocity

(Putnam, 1995), and making individuals aware of coinciding interests. Associations fall

into two major categories: 1) informal, such as friendships, and 2) formal group

memberships, such as membership in a voluntary organization or professional society

(Paxton, 1999).

Previous research has measured the association component of social capital in a

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

neighborhood, and total number of memberships an individual had in voluntary

organizations. Brehm and Rahn (1997) measured the number of memberships in civic

and political organizations. Putnam (1995) examined membership in voluntary and

professional organizations, such as church related groups, school service groups, sports

groups, professional societies, and fraternal organizations.

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

positive, reciprocal ties in general (Paxton, 1999).

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

trust in specific, known individuals and trust in generalized individuals or institutions.

Individuals can make very specific assessments of a known individual’s trustworthiness,

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

usually based on estimates of abilities and obligations of individuals within the

institution. Both types of trust, individual and institutional, are important in measuring

the social capital of a community.

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

(Putnam, 1995). Goods can be produced at several levels: 1) individual or private—one

person benefits, 2) group—a group of individuals benefits, and 3) community—several

groups benefit (Paxton, 1999).

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

capital can lead to hostility and exclusion toward certain groups.

If high social capital already exists, it can facilitate individual participation

(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

networks facilitate coordination, communication, and dispute resolution, while

cultivating a collective identity. In effect, social capital lays the groundwork that makes

cooperative actions possible.

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

encouraging or inhibiting individual participation.

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

action can be defined in a variety of ways. This study focused on refuge-specific

activities because it was hypothesized that attachment to the refuge and social capital

levels at the refuge influence civic action at the refuge.

The benefits gained from civic action can be separated into two major types: 1)

individual—benefiting the participating individual and 2) general—benefiting

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

Wandersman (1990) noted that participation can increase an individual’s sense of

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

improvements in interpersonal relationships and social fabric (Prestby, Wandersman,

Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990); and human resources, such as volunteer groups, agencies

can use to accomplish their mission (Tindell, 1984).

Research suggests a variety of factors influence participation in pro-

environmental activities in different contexts. For example, recycling behavior is best

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

predictors of civic action in the environmental policy process. Involvement in

environmental issues and environmental organizations is highest among individuals with

above-average education levels, above-average income levels, and prestigious positions

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

pro-environmental activities (Stern & Dietz, 1994).

Creating opportunities for participation does not guarantee individuals will act.

Prestby et al. (1990) found that individual participation is facilitated by benefits, hindered

by costs, and promoted through management efforts. In other words, individual

involvement in an activity is determined by whether the benefits attained outweigh the

costs incurred. Prestby et al. (1990) recommended that managers make efforts to

maximize benefits and reduce costs to increase individual participation.

Influence of Place Attachment and Social Capital on Civic Action

Research has identified a number of variables as important predictors of

participation in pro-environmental activities. Ease and accessibility, socio-economic

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 social capital affect civic action.

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

2). Place attachment is hypothesized to serve as a common ground among individuals

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

“characteristic-based” trust. “Characteristic-based” trust is tied to a person’s

characteristics such as background, culture, values, or behavior. Individuals with similar

characteristics are likely to form “charateristic-based” trust. Thus, a shared characteristic,

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]

Social capital and civic action. Social capital is hypothesized to directly

influence civic action (Figure 2). Previous research indicates a significant relationship

between interpersonal trust and membership in voluntary organizations (Anheier &

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

participation and lack of participation discourages trust (Putnam, 1993a).

At Sherburne NWR, the common link, attachment to the refuge, is hypothesized

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

put into motion.

Methods

Sampling and Data Collection

A randomized sampling plan stratified by weekend/ weekdays, time of day and

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

visitors as possible were contacted on each sampling day.

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,

they were sent a mail-back questionnaire.

18
The mail-back questionnaire acquired data on: visitor activities and experiences,

attainment of experiences, attachment to the refuge, importance of benefits provided by

the refuge, perceptions of crowding at the refuge, perceptions of visitor caused problems,

perceptions of management actions, participation in environmental actions, and socio-

demographic characteristics of visitors (Appendix D & E). Dillman’s (2000) Tailored

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

written contact information that encourages response by highlighting the importance of

study participation and the social utility of the study.

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.

Measuring Place Attachment, Social Capital, and Civic Action

Place attachment. Emotional and functional dimensions of place attachment were

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).

Respondents replied to these items on a one to seven scale (“1”=strongly disagree to

“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

number of memberships the individual had in voluntary organizations. Other authors

have used number of memberships in voluntary and professional organizations as a

measure of association (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Putnam, 1995). None of these studies

assessed the reliability of association items.

This study used length of volunteer status and length of membership in the

“Friends of Sherburne” group as indicators of association. Respondents were asked

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

been involved at Sherburne NWR. As years of volunteering and/or membership

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

to measure institutional trust (Table 1).

Civic action. Civic action was measured by the number of times visitors

participated in refuge-focused activities. The statements used in this section were

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

participated in the activity.

[Table 2. Civic action statements listed on the visitor questionnaire. HERE]

Analysis

Regression models were used to assess the following study hypotheses: 1)

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

between place attachment and civic action.

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

indicators of level of association came directly from respondents, length of volunteer

status and length of membership.

Civic action includes a variety of activities ranging from respondents volunteering

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

refuge were expected to have low levels of civic action.

The variables calculated in the previous steps (emotional place attachment,

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

with the association component of social capital as the mediator.

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation occurs if the following

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

these conditions are met.

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

thirty-seven percent were in the $65,000 or higher category.

Non-response bias test. A non-response test was conducted to determine if non-

respondents differed from respondents. Respondents and non-respondents were

compared on three items: 1) Activity participated in while at the refuge (hiking/ snow-

shoeing/ cross-country skiing, hunting, fishing, photography, observing wildlife,

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.

Significant differences were found between respondents and non-respondents on

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

wildlife than non-respondents. A larger percentage of non-respondents participated in

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

made to the data.

Scale Assessment

Cronbach alpha scores for the four scales were all acceptable: emotional place

attachment (α=0.87), functional place attachment (α=0.86), individual trust (α=0.85),

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

Cronbach alpha scores.

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

disagree to 7 = strongly agree). On average respondents were slightly above neutral on

the emotional and functional place attachment statements. These results indicate that on

average respondents do not have particularly strong opinions on place attachment

statements, neither disagreeing nor agreeing with the statements.

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,

refuge staff, and USFWS.

Years of volunteering ranged from 0 to 20 years (mean=0.63 yrs) and years of

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

attachment and trust items. HERE]

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

(β = 0.5) (Cohen, 1988; Gliner, Vaske, & Morgan, 2001).

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

attachment dimensions accounted for thirty-five percent (R2=0.35) of the variance in

individual trust. Both dimensions of place attachment were significant predictors of

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

in institutional trust. Both place attachment dimensions were significant predictors of

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

trust component of social capital. HERE]

[Figure 3. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including

trust component of social capital. HERE]

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

percent (R2=0.08) of variance in years of volunteering. Emotional place attachment was

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,

p<0.001). Functional place attachment was not a significant predictor.

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

association component of social capital. HERE]

[Figure 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including

association component of social capital. HERE]

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

hypothesis and demonstrated significant relationships between variables. Overall, three

key findings were revealed.

First, a strong, significant relationship was found between emotional and

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.

One possible explanation for this strong relationship is the notion of

characteristic-based trust (Zucker, 1986). As described earlier, this type of trust is related

to a person’s characteristics such as background, values, culture, or behavior. Sherburne

NWR visitors may assume or perceive that other visitors enjoy and value the refuge.

This shared characteristic creates trust among visitors.

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

large an effect must be to be important. However, considering the multitude of variables

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

attachment is significantly related to pro-environmental behavior.

One possible reason for the “small” amount of explained variance is that

constraints prevent individuals with high place attachment from participation.

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

respondents (N=9) specifically mentioned in the open comment section of the

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

emotional place attachment and civic action.

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

experiences at the refuge.

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

action levels by promoting the development of place attachment.

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

attachment. Repeat visitation that accompanies functional attachment can lead to

emotional place attachment (Moore & Graefe, 1994). Over time visitors can develop a

strong relationship with the place.

Understanding and monitoring visitors’ attachment to place is useful for other

reasons. Managers can use place attachment as a way of uniting individuals concerned

about the resource (Cortner & Moote, 1999; Flora, 2000; Williams & Stewart, 1998).

Examining stakeholders’ place attachment can reveal common concerns among

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

visitor experiences on site and facilitating the collaboration process.

Managers can also increase social capital by working closely with volunteer

groups. A well-supported volunteer program is one important way visitors can be

involved in resource management. Many refuges, including Sherburne NWR, have

“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

they develop a better understanding and appreciation of agency goals.

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,

community, and agency.

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

provide additional information. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a technique used

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.

Another research possibility would be to compare levels of place attachment,

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

determine whether individual or institutional trust is more important to civic action

levels. The resulting information would help agencies determine where to put their

resources and funding.

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)

covariation between variables exist, 2) changes in independent variables occur before

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

action. The last condition is difficult to establish especially in non-experimental

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

this model, could impact an individual’s level of civic action.

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.

Brown, B.B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of


environmental psychology (pp. 505-531). New York: John Wiley.

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.

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundation of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard


University.

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.

Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1990). An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary


organizations, and community development: Insights for empowerment through
research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 41-54.

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.

Kemmis, D. (1990). Community and the politics of place. Norman: University of


Oklahoma Press.

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.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of


Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

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.

Scherl, L.M. (1989). Self in wilderness: Understanding the psychological benefits of


individual wilderness interaction through self-control. Leisure Sciences, 11, 123-135.

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.

Shumaker, S.A., & Taylor, R.B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people-place


relationships: A model of attachment to place. In N. Feimer & E. Geller (Eds.),
Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 219-251). New York:
Praeger.

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.

Steele, F. (1981). The Sense of Place. Boston: CBI Publishing.

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.

Tindell, J. (1984). Expanding citizen professional partnerships: “Grass Roots”


community development of leisure opportunity. Journal of Parks and Recreation
Administration, 2(1), 64-72.

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.

Zucker, L. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-


1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53-111.

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

•Taught others about natural resources or environment at the refuge


•Helped organize or assist with an event or interpretive program at the refuge
•Helped collect seeds for habitat restoration at the refuge
•Helped in maintenance within the refuge
•Participated in Spring Clean Up at the refuge
•Picked up trash or litter in the refuge
•Donated time or membership fees to Friends of Sherburne NWR

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

Functional items (N=415) 0.86


No other place can compare to this area 0.64
The time I spent here could have just as easily been spent somewhere else2 0.34
I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting any other 0.70
This area is the best place for what I like to do 0.76
I wouldn’t substitute any other place for doing the types of things I do here 0.82
Doing what I do here is more important to me than doing it at any other place 0.74

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

Institutional items (N=426) 0.94


In general, I have confidence in the decisions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service makes 0.82
I have confidence in decisions made by local staff at the refuge 0.90
I trust that refuge staff will do what is right for the refuge 0.89

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

Step 2: Regressing civic action on place attachment 0.09


Emotional Place Attachment 1.55 0.67 0.16 p<0.05
Functional Place Attachment 1.48 0.60 0.17 p<0.05

Step 3: Regressing civic action on trust and place 0.15


attachment
Emotional Place Attachment -0.02 0.71 -0.002 NS
Functional Place Attachment 1.22 0.59 0.14 p<0.05
Individual Trust 3.90 0.71 0.37 p<0.001
Institutional Trust -0.86 0.47 -0.11 NS

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

Step 2: Regressing civic action on place attachment 0.09


Emotional Place Attachment 1.55 0.67 0.16 p<0.05
Functional Place Attachment 1.48 0.60 0.17 p<0.05

Step 3: Regressing civic action on association and place 0.22


attachment
Emotional Place Attachment 0.46 0.64 0.05 NS
Functional Place Attachment 1.42 0.56 0.16 p<0.05
Years of volunteering 1.06 0.32 0.22 p<0.01
Years of membership 1.19 0.41 0.19 p<0.01

1
NS indicates not significant.

45
N

Refuge

Sherburne Refuge

Minneapolis/ St. Paul

Figure 1. Location of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge and other USFWS National Wildlife refuges in
Minnesota, U.S.

46
Social Capital

Place Attachment Civic Action

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

0.04N 0.384A / 0.19B


Years of
Membership
Functional -0.02N
Place Attachment

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.)

____ Hiking, snow-shoeing, or cross country skiing _____ Photography


____ Hunting _____ Observing wildlife
____ Fishing _____ Education or interpretive activities

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 ______

What is your gender? _______ Female _______ Male

What is your age? _______ years

Which of the following best describes you?


______ Hispanic or Latino
______ American Indian or Alaskan Native
______ Asian
______ Black or African American
______ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
______ White
______ Other, please describe: _______________

What is your five-digit zip code? ________________

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 ______________________________________________

______________________________________________

Phone ( )__________________________________ Thank you for your help!

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

VISITOR USE STUDY


B. Minnesota 2001- 2002

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.

Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to:


UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
200 Hodson Hall z 1980 Folwell Ave z St. Paul, MN 55108-6124

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

How did you learn about Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge?

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

Observation on Prairie's Edge Wildlife Drive from a 1 2 3 4 9


vehicle
Hiking on the longer trails (Mahnomen and Blue Hill) 1 2 3 4 9
Hiking on the trails off the Wildlife Drive 1 2 3 4 9
Hiking off-trail 1 2 3 4 9
Snowshoeing 1 2 3 4 9
Cross-country skiing on trails 1 2 3 4 9
Cross-country skiing off-trail 1 2 3 4 9

Fishing from the bank of the St. Francis River 1 2 3 4 9


Fishing from a canoe 1 2 3 4 9
Canoeing on the St. Francis River 1 2 3 4 9
Viewing scenery 1 2 3 4 9
Hunting upland birds (grouse, pheasant) 1 2 3 4 9
Hunting gray and/or fox squirrel 1 2 3 4 9
Firearms deer hunting 1 2 3 4 9
Archery deer hunting 1 2 3 4 9
Hunting waterfowl 1 2 3 4 9

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

Bicycling on Prairie's Edge Wildlife Drive 1 2 3 4 9


Bicycling on other roads within the Refuge 1 2 3 4 9
Berry picking 1 2 3 4 9
Mushroom picking 1 2 3 4 9
Photography 1 2 3 4 9
Bird watching 1 2 3 4 9
Watching wildlife 1 2 3 4 9
Looking at wildflowers 1 2 3 4 9
Talking with interpreter on Wildlife Drive 1 2 3 4 9

Using spotting scopes on Wildlife Drive 1 2 3 4 9


Studying nature 1 2 3 4 9
Viewing interpretive exhibits at trailheads 1 2 3 4 9
Participating in interpretive programs 1 2 3 4 9
Other: _____________________________ 1 2 3 4 9

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)

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.)

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

Develop my skills and abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4


Experience excitement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Gain a sense of self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Be on my own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

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

Do something with my family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4


Be with friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Be with other people who enjoy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
the same things
Talk to new and varied people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

View the scenic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4


Enjoy the smells and sounds of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
nature
Think about my personal and/or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
spiritual values
Do something creative such as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
take photographs
Maintain physical fitness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Release tension, relieve stress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Get away from the usual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
demands of life

Get away from family for a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4


while
Experience solitude 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

Get away from crowds of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4


people
Get away from the noise back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
home

Help others develop their skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4


Help others (e.g., my children) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
develop values
Feel a sense of pride in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
heritage
Enjoy a place that is special to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
me
Participate in activities that I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
wouldn’t be able to
Other: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
_________________________
____

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

Restoring the native landscape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Improving ecosystem health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Maintaining scenic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Helping clean the air 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Maintaining natural and undeveloped lands 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Providing habitat for wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Experiencing a serene and healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
environment
Preserving a part of our history 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Providing a place for family and friends to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
come together

Providing hunting opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Providing a place where all people are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
welcome
Providing diverse recreation opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aiding the region’s overall economy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Providing opportunities for photography 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Ensuring the natural and undeveloped land 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will exist for future generations
Providing educational and interpretive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
opportunities to learn about this natural area
Providing opportunities to view wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Being able to see my tax dollars being put to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
use

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

Not enough law enforcement present 1 2 3 4 5 9


Insufficient information signs 1 2 3 4 5 9
Too many information signs 1 2 3 4 5 9
Insufficient interpretive exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 9
Too many interpretive exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 9
Insufficient informational brochures to take home 1 2 3 4 5 9
Insufficient availability of Refuge maps 1 2 3 4 5 9

Inadequate accessibility for visitors with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 9


Poor trail maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 9
Poor road maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 9
Conflict with people engaging in other activities 1 2 3 4 5 9
Grass not mowed along road and at parking areas 1 2 3 4 5 9
Too much mowing along roads 1 2 3 4 5 9

Little racial or ethnic diversity of visitors at the 1 2 3 4 5 9


Refuge.
Inadequate availability of staff 1 2 3 4 5 9
Refuge rules not restrictive enough 1 2 3 4 5 9
Refuge rules too restrictive 1 2 3 4 5 9

Feeling unwelcome in the Refuge 1 2 3 4 5 9


Expectations of Refuge resources not met 1 2 3 4 5 9
Prescribed fire program not extensive enough 1 2 3 4 5 9
Prescribed fire program too extensive 1 2 3 4 5 9
Too many people 1 2 3 4 5 9
Other:_______________________________ 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

Neither oppose nor


Strongly Oppose

Strongly support
Slightly support
Slightly oppose

No opinion
support
Management Actions

Provide more information signs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9


Provide fewer information signs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Design and construct additional interpretive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
exhibits
Attempt to attract a larger racial and ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
diversity of visitors.

Build more hiking trails 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9


Provide more hunting opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Provide less hunting opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Provide more refuge maps to visitors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

Provide more informational brochures to visitors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9


Provide more exhibits to help visitors learn about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
refuge resources
Control purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, and other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
invasive species

Limit the number of hiking trails provided 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9


Close access to areas in the Refuge at specific times 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
to promote nesting.
Increase use of prescribed burning to restore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
habitats
Decrease use of prescribed burning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Close the Refuge to pets to reduce wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
disturbance
Provide more educational opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

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

The time I spent here could have just as easily been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


spent somewhere else.
I identify strongly with the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
than from visiting any other.

I feel like the Refuge is part of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


This area is the best place for what I like to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I wouldn’t substitute any other place for doing the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
types of things I do here.

Doing what I do here is more important to me than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


doing it at any other place.
I use this place to help define and express who I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
am.
Visiting this place helps me attain the life I strive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for.

When I am here, others see me the way I want 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


them to see me.
I feel a sense of pride in my heritage when I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
here.
I feel that the preservation of the Refuge serves as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a bridge between past and future generations.
I feel a sense of familiarity with the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is important that my children and my children’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
children will be able to visit the Refuge.

I feel there are opportunities to be involved in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


volunteer activities at the Refuge.
I feel welcome at the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am committed to working for the betterment of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the Refuge.

I feel a sense of belonging with other people at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Refuge.
People will work together to get things done for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Refuge.

74
I feel part of the community at the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Generally speaking, I trust the other people I see at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


the Refuge.
In general, I have confidence in the decisions that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service makes about
managing Sherburne Refuge.
I have confidence in decisions made by the local 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
staff at the Refuge.
I trust that Refuge staff will do what is right for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Refuge.

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.)

No Yes How many


General Activities
times in the past
year?

Wrote letters to newspapers N Y ______


Lobbied legislators or public agency officials by phone, N Y ______
letters, or in person
Signed petitions or solicited signatures for a petition N Y ______
Worked on committees or task forces N Y ______
Attended public meetings N Y ______
Attended workshops or educational programs to improve N Y ______
my own understanding of natural resource issues
Taught others about natural resources or environment in an N Y ______
informal setting (friends, family)
Taught others about natural resources or environment in a N Y ______
formal setting (classrooms, trainings, workshops)
Donated money or membership fees to a natural resource, N Y ______
wildlife, or environmental organization or program
Volunteered time to a natural resource, wildlife, or N Y ______
environmental organization or program
Taught others about natural resources or environment in an N Y ______
informal setting (friends, family) at the Refuge
Helped organize or assist with an event or interpretive N Y ______
program at the Refuge
Helped collect seeds for habitat restoration at the Refuge N Y ______
Helped in the maintenance of signs, walkways or other N Y ______
structures within the Refuge
Participated in Spring Clean Up at the Refuge N Y ______
Picked up trash or litter in the Refuge N Y ______
Donated time or membership fees to Friends of Sherburne N Y ______
National Wildlife Refuge
Volunteered in other ways at the Refuge, please specify :
_____________________________________________

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.)

Community Types Current Childhood


Community Community
Rural area _________ _________
Town with population less than 5,000 people _________ _________
Town or city with population between 5,000 and _________ _________
10,000
Town or city with population between 10,000 and _________ _________
50,000
Suburb of a city with population over 50,000 _________ _________
Metro area of a city with a population over 50,000 _________ _________

What is your gender? ______ Female ______Male

What is your age? ______ Years

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

In what ethnicity and race would you place yourself?


Race: (check one)
____Hispanic or Latino
____Not Hispanic or Latino
Ethnicity: (check one)
____American Indian or Alaska Native
____Asian
____Black or African American
____Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
____White
____Other: Please describe _______________

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.

Thank you for your help!

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.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT: A Federal agency may not conduct or


sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public burden for the collection of this
information is estimated to average 25 minutes per response. Comments regarding this
collection of information should be directed to: Desk Officer for the Interior Department,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503; and the Bureau Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807
National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192. OMB NO. 1028-0075. Expiration Date: July 31,
2004

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai