Place Attachment And Social Capital

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 proenvironmental 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 sociodemographic 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 mailback 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 thirtyeight 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 nonrespondents differed from respondents. Respondents and non-respondents were compared on three items: 1) Activity participated in while at the refuge (hiking/ snowshoeing/ 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, 549566. 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: McGrawHill, 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, 147169. 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. 441448). 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. [2002, July 25]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. [Online]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [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, 18401920. 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) 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 (N=415) 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 (N=422) 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 (N=426) 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

43

0.87 0.43 0.64 0.61 0.76 0.77 0.74 0.60 0.86 0.64 0.34 0.70 0.76 0.82 0.74

0.85 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.53 0.94 0.82 0.90 0.89

Table 4. Summary of mediation analysis for variables predicting civic action; including trust component of social capital (N=377). B SE β p1 Variable (B) Step 1: Regressing trust on place attachment Step 1a: Regressing individual trust on place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment Step 1b: Regression institutional trust on place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment Step 2: Regressing civic action on place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment Step 3: Regressing civic action on trust and place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment Individual Trust Institutional Trust 1

NS indicates not significant.

44

R2

0.35 0.44 0.13

0.05 0.05

0.47 0.15

p<0.001 p<0.05 0.13

0.17 0.27

0.08 0.07

0.14 0.25

p<0.05 p<0.001

1.55 1.48

0.67 0.60

0.16 0.17

p<0.05 p<0.05

0.09

0.15 -0.02 1.22 3.90 -0.86

0.71 0.59 0.71 0.47

-0.002 0.14 0.37 -0.11

NS p<0.05 p<0.001 NS

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 attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment Step 1b: Regression years of membership on place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment

0.47 -0.02

0.11 0.10

0.29 -0.02

p<0.001 NS

Step 2: Regressing civic action on place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment

1.55 1.48

0.67 0.60

0.16 0.17

p<0.05 p<0.05

Step 3: Regressing civic action on association and place attachment Emotional Place Attachment Functional Place Attachment Years of volunteering Years of membership 1

NS indicates not significant.

45

0.08 0.52 0.08

0.14 0.12

0.26 0.04

p<0.001 NS 0.08

0.09

0.22 0.46 1.42 1.06 1.19

0.64 0.56 0.32 0.41

0.05 0.16 0.22 0.19

NS p<0.05 p<0.01 p<0.01

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 Individual Trust

0.14C

0.69A

Civic Action

0.57A 0.15C Institutional Trust Functional Place Attachment

0.09N / -0.11N

0.25A

0.17C / 0.14C

A

p<0.001 p<0.01 C p<0.05 N Not significant B

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 Place Attachment

-0.02N

0.17C / 0.16C

A

p<0.001 p<0.01 C p<0.05 N Not significant B

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

Sunday 1

Monday 2

Tuesday 3

April 2001 Wednesday 4

Thursday 5

Friday 6

Saturday 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22 3–7 pm MT, WD, BH 29 3-7 pm; BH, MT, WD, C9, C1

23

24

25

26

27

21 11 am–7 pm OS, BH, MT, WD 28 3–7 pm; C9, C1, WD, BH, MT

30

51

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday 1

6

7

8

13

14 6-8 pm MT, BH, WD

20 3-8 pm WD, MT, BH 27

21

May 2001 Wednesday 2 6-8 pm MT, WD, BH

Thursday 3

Friday 4

9

10 6-8 pm BH, MT, WD

11

15

16

17

18

23

24

25

26 11 am-3 pm OS

28

22 6-9 pm MT, BH, WD 29

30

31

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

June 2001 Wednesday

Thursday

Friday 1

Saturday 2

3

4

5

7

10

11 6-9 pm WD, BH, MT

12

8 6-9 pm BH, MT, WD 15

9 6 am-12 pm MT, WD, BH 16

17 3-9 pm MT, WD, BH 24 6 am-12 pm WD, BH, MT

18

19 6-9 pm WD, BH, MT 26

25

6 6-9 pm WD, BH, MT 13

14 6-9 pm BH, MT, WD

Saturday 5 8 am–12 pm; C9, C1, WD, BH, MT 12 10 am-12 pm; OS, C9, C1, WD, MT, BH 19 8 am-2 pm BH, WD, MT

20

21

22

23

27

28

29 6-9 pm BH, MT, WD

30

52

Sunday 1 3-9 pm MT, WD, BH 8

Monday 2

Tuesday 3

9 6-9 pm BH, MT, WD

10

15

16

17

22 3-9 pm WD, BH, MT 29 6 am-12 pm WD, BH, MT

23

30

24 6-9 pm BH, MT, WD 31

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

5

6

12

July 2001 Wednesday 4 6-9 pm WD, BH, MT 11

Thursday 5

Friday 6

12 6-9 pm MT, WD, BH

13

19

20 6-9 pm MT, WD, BH 27

28

August 2001 Wednesday Thursday 1 2

Friday 3

Saturday 4

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 3-9 pm WD, BH, MT

26 3-9 pm BH, MT, WD

27

28

29

30

31 3-8 pm MT, WD, BH

18 6-9 pm BH, MT, WD 25

53

26 6-9 pm MT, WD, BH

Saturday 7 3-9 pm BH, MT, WD 14 8 am-12 pm WD, BH, MT 21

September 2001 Wednesday Thursday

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Friday

Saturday 1

2 2-8 pm WD, BH, MT 9

3 5-8 pm MT, BH, WD 10

4

5

6

7

8

11 6-9 pm BH, WD, MT

12

13

14

15 9 am-3 pm WD, MT, BH

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 9 am-3 pm LP

23

24

25

26

27 5-8 pm MT, BH, WD

28

29 11 am-5 pm LP

Sunday

Monday 1

Tuesday 2

Friday 5

7

8

9 4-6 pm MT, BH, WD

10

11

12

Saturday 6 12-5 pm LP, MT, BH, WD 13 11 am-3 pm OS

14 8 am-2 pm BH, MT, WD 21 12-6 pm MT, BH

15

16

17

18

19

20 12-6 pm MT, BH

22

23

24

25 6-8 pm BH, WD, MT

26

27 8 am-2 pm BH, MT

28 10 am-2 pm MT, BH

29

30

31

30 8 am-2 pm LP October 2001 Wednesday Thursday 3 4

54

November 2001 Wednesday Thursday 1

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Friday 2

Saturday 3 Deer Gun Hunting Season opener 8 am-5 pm* 10

4 Deer Gun Hunting Season opener 8 am-5 pm* 11 12-5 pm BH, MT

5

6

7

8

9

12

13

14

15

16

17 11 am-5 pm 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 Wednesday Thursday

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

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 Wednesday Thursday 2 3

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday 1

Friday 4

Saturday 5

6 11 am-4 pm MT, BH

7

8

9

10 5-7 pm OS

11

12 9 am-2 pm MT, BH

13

14

15

16

17 5-7 pm OS

18

19 12 pm-4 pm BH, MT

20 11 am-4 pm BH, MT

21

22

23

24 5-7 pm OS

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Friday 1

Saturday 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 9 am-2 pm BH, MT

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

February 2002 Wednesday Thursday

56

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

March 2002 Wednesday

Thursday

Friday 1

Saturday 2

3 11 am-4 pm MT, BH

4

5

6

7

8

9

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 12-5 pm MT, BH

25

26

27

28

29

30

Sunday

Monday 1

Tuesday 2

April 2002 Wednesday 3

Thursday 4

Friday 5

Saturday 6 8 am-2 pm BH, MT

7

8

9

10 5-7 pm MT, BH

11

12

13 11 am-5 pm BH, MT

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 3-7 pm WD, BH, MT

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

31

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 ____ Hunting ____ Fishing

_____ Photography _____ Observing wildlife _____ 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

What is your age?

_______ years

_______ Male

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 (

)__________________________________

59

Thank you for your help!

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 ____ Hunting ____ Fishing

_____ Photography _____ Observing wildlife _____ Education or interpretive activities

Counting yourself, approximately how many people are in your group? What is your gender?

_______ Female

____ Number of people

_______ 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 ______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

61

Thank you for your help!

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 ____ Hunting ____ Fishing

_____ Photography _____ Observing wildlife _____ Education or interpretive activities

Counting yourself, approximately how many people are in your group? What is your gender?

_______ Female

____ Number of people

_______ 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 ______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

63

Thank you for your help!

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

Did not participate

31 Times/Year or more

11-30 Times/Year

Activities

6-10 Times/Year

1-5 Times/Year

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.)

Observation on Prairie's Edge Wildlife Drive from a vehicle Hiking on the longer trails (Mahnomen and Blue Hill) Hiking on the trails off the Wildlife Drive Hiking off-trail Snowshoeing Cross-country skiing on trails Cross-country skiing off-trail

1

2

3

4

9

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

9 9 9 9 9 9

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

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

9 9 9

66

9 9 9 9 9 9

Did not participate

31 Times/Year or more

11-30 Times/Year

6-10 Times/Year

1-5 Times/Year

Activities Hunting from accessible blinds reserved for hunters with disabilities

1

2

3

4

9

Bicycling on Prairie's Edge Wildlife Drive Bicycling on other roads within the Refuge Berry picking Mushroom picking Photography Bird watching Watching wildlife Looking at wildflowers Talking with interpreter on Wildlife Drive

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Using spotting scopes on Wildlife Drive Studying nature Viewing interpretive exhibits at trailheads Participating in interpretive programs Other: _____________________________

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

9 9 9 9 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

Somewhat attained

Moderately attained

Totally attained

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

See wildlife Experience nature Gain greater sense of independence Do things my own way

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

Use my equipment Learn about the natural history of the area Experience new and different things Learn more about nature

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

Do something with my family Be with friends Be with other people who enjoy the same things Talk to new and varied people

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

View the scenic beauty Enjoy the smells and sounds of nature Think about my personal and/or spiritual values Do something creative such as take photographs Maintain physical fitness Release tension, relieve stress Get away from the usual demands of life

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

Get away from family for a while Experience solitude

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

68

Very important

2 2 2 2

Important

Somewhat Unimportant

1 1 1 1

Somewhat important

Unimportant

Develop my skills and abilities Experience excitement Gain a sense of self-confidence Be on my own

Neither

Experiences Remember to focus on your most satisfying activity

Very unimportant

Did not attain

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.)

Somewhat attained

Moderately attained

Totally attained

Did not attain

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

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

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

69

Very important

Somewhat Unimportant

2

Important

Unimportant

1

Somewhat important

Very unimportant

Get away from crowds of people Get away from the noise back home

Neither

Experiences Remember to focus on your most satisfying activity

LANDSCAPE AND COMMUNITY COMPONENTS

Neither

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Restoring the native landscape Improving ecosystem health Maintaining scenic beauty Helping clean the air

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

Maintaining natural and undeveloped lands Providing habitat for wildlife Experiencing a serene and healthy environment Preserving a part of our history Providing a place for family and friends to come together

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Providing hunting opportunities Providing a place where all people are welcome Providing diverse recreation opportunities Aiding the region’s overall economy

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Providing opportunities for photography Ensuring the natural and undeveloped land will exist for future generations Providing educational and interpretive opportunities to learn about this natural area Providing opportunities to view wildlife Being able to see my tax dollars being put to use

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

Other: _________________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

70

Very important

Somewhat unimportant

1 1

Important

Unimportant

Maintaining unique habitat Maintaining diversity of native plants and animals Providing flood control Storing and purifying water

Components

Somewhat important

Very unimportant

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.)

POTENTIAL SITUATIONS

Did not detract

Slightly detracted

Moderately detracted

Strongly detracted

Very strongly detracted

Don’t know

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.)

Litter and trash left by others People not obeying Refuge rules People not following hunting regulations Pet owners not obeying rules Other visitors being inconsiderate

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

9 9 9 9 9

Not enough law enforcement present Insufficient information signs Too many information signs Insufficient interpretive exhibits Too many interpretive exhibits Insufficient informational brochures to take home Insufficient availability of Refuge maps

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Inadequate accessibility for visitors with disabilities Poor trail maintenance Poor road maintenance Conflict with people engaging in other activities Grass not mowed along road and at parking areas Too much mowing along roads

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

9 9 9 9 9 9

Little racial or ethnic diversity of visitors at the Refuge. Inadequate availability of staff Refuge rules not restrictive enough Refuge rules too restrictive

1

2

3

4

5

9

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

9 9 9

Feeling unwelcome in the Refuge Expectations of Refuge resources not met Prescribed fire program not extensive enough Prescribed fire program too extensive Too many people Other:_______________________________

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

9 9 9 9 9 9

Situations

71

LOCATION

COLUMN A In general, how acceptable was the number of people you saw? (Circle the most appropriate response.) Very Unacceptable

COLUMN B If you circled 1, 2, or 3 in Column A, what made you feel this way? (Check the options that apply.)

Very Acceptable

On the Wildlife Drive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

On the longer hiking trails (Mahnomen and Blue Hill)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

In the field while hunting deer with firearms

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

In the field while archery deer hunting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

In the field while hunting small game (grouse, squirrel)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

In the field while hunting waterfowl

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Other (specify):

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

72

_____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify): _____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify): _____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify): _____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify): _____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify): _____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify): _____number of people _____behavior of people _____something else (specify):

Not applicable

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.”

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MANAGEMENT

No opinion

Strongly support

Moderately support

Slightly support

Neither oppose nor support

Management Actions

Slightly oppose

Strongly Oppose

Moderately oppose

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)

Provide more information signs Provide fewer information signs Design and construct additional interpretive exhibits Attempt to attract a larger racial and ethnic diversity of visitors.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

9 9 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

Build more hiking trails Provide more hunting opportunities Provide less hunting opportunities Provide more refuge maps to visitors

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

9 9 9 9

Provide more informational brochures to visitors Provide more exhibits to help visitors learn about refuge resources Control purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, and other invasive species

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

9 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

Limit the number of hiking trails provided Close access to areas in the Refuge at specific times to promote nesting. Increase use of prescribed burning to restore habitats Decrease use of prescribed burning Close the Refuge to pets to reduce wildlife disturbance Provide more educational opportunities

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

9 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

9 9

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

Statements

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Slightly disagree

Neutral

Slightly agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

Please indicate the extent to which each statement below describes your opinions about Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. (Circle one number for each statement.)

I would prefer to spend more time here if I could. No other place can compare to this area. I am very attached to the Refuge.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

The time I spent here could have just as easily been spent somewhere else. I identify strongly with the Refuge. I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting any other.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

I feel like the Refuge is part of me. 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.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

7 7 7

Doing what I do here is more important to me than doing it at any other place. I use this place to help define and express who I am. Visiting this place helps me attain the life I strive for.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

When I am here, others see me the way I want them to see me. I feel a sense of pride in my heritage when I am here. I feel that the preservation of the Refuge serves as a bridge between past and future generations. I feel a sense of familiarity with the Refuge. It is important that my children and my children’s children will be able to visit the Refuge.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

I feel there are opportunities to be involved in volunteer activities at the Refuge. I feel welcome at the Refuge. I am committed to working for the betterment of the Refuge.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

I feel a sense of belonging with other people at the Refuge. People will work together to get things done for the Refuge.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

75

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION People participate in different activities to try and influence decision making on a variety of natural resource issues. Please circle the activities you have used to try and affect decisionmaking 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 times in the past year?

Wrote letters to newspapers Lobbied legislators or public agency officials by phone, letters, or in person

N N

Y Y

______ ______

Signed petitions or solicited signatures for a petition Worked on committees or task forces Attended public meetings Attended workshops or educational programs to improve my own understanding of natural resource issues

N N N N

Y Y Y Y

______ ______ ______ ______

Taught others about natural resources or environment in an informal setting (friends, family)

N

Y

______

Taught others about natural resources or environment in a formal setting (classrooms, trainings, workshops)

N

Y

______

Donated money or membership fees to a natural resource, wildlife, or environmental organization or program

N

Y

______

Volunteered time to a natural resource, wildlife, or environmental organization or program

N

Y

______

Taught others about natural resources or environment in an informal setting (friends, family) at the Refuge Helped organize or assist with an event or interpretive program at the Refuge

N

Y

______

N

Y

______

Helped collect seeds for habitat restoration at the Refuge Helped in the maintenance of signs, walkways or other structures within the Refuge

N N

Y Y

______ ______

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 National Wildlife Refuge Volunteered in other ways at the Refuge, please specify : _____________________________________________

N N N

Y Y Y

______ ______ ______

General Activities

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 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

What is your age?

______ Years

Current Community _________ _________ _________

Childhood Community _________ _________ _________

_________

_________

_________ _________

_________ _________

______Male

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 [email protected] 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