‘ I—— _ ”I _

.._.. .‘H.......—.... .. _ _....... V _. 0H. ..- _ .V,. .. ......_, .—.- . ....~.... .. .. \ ‘
‘ .9 ~ Novv“. ".1...”

   

 

 

 

 

   

     

   

           

     

   

   

         

      

 

   

 

 

   

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

, 7 . _ ‘ ~ .
r ." ‘\ -, ~ ‘ ' V ' ,
V, ‘ . . ' a ,. 2 , . _ ' " Z‘ ‘
. ‘ , '. I’ , V V V 1 >, . ' ‘r ' ' .‘ -
, ' , : . . ‘ ' ‘ . ‘ , .
’ ‘ _ ‘ ' _ r r ‘ . _ I’ V ‘ l r .
.1. ‘ , 7 ‘ . .
. '7 r; _ . ‘ V , - - . ' '7 ' “ ' r '
‘ _ ‘ ' . ~ . j .I j; , - ' . 7— , , ,

 

illlllllllHHIIIIIIIIIHHHIllll illillTlllllllilzilllllllll

3129301771082

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Stakeholder Attitudes and Values With Implications
for Ecosystem-Based Management

presented by

Robert H. Holsman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Fish. & Wildl.

 

 

% @ W74,

Major professy/

Date May 13, 1999

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

-fi’Pbfiqn

0" e-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES retum on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAILED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

“9“.

I (s f g i J. (2
Ada 1 7 2033 mm 4 -
IE“: 1 1? 39531
AUG p1 ,2 12096

DATE DUE DATE DUEiFJ DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M WWW“

 

STAKEHOLDER ATTITUDES AND VALUES
WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN
By

Robert H. Holsman

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1 999

ABSTRACT
STAKEHOLDER ATTITUDES AND VALUES
WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN
By
Robert H. Holsman
The advent of ecosystem management presents many challenges to the Michigan
DNR’s Wildlife Division-- including understanding and integrating public values for
management of wildlife resources. Development of ecosystem management plans for
Southern Michigan State Game Areas (SGAS) is especially challenging because these
areas have traditionally been managed to provide hunter recreation. In some cases, this
management has included intensive agricultural practices to attract and hold wildlife
during the hunting season. Evolving ecosystem-based approaches to management suggest
a shift in emphasis would prioritize the maintenance of the diversity and functions of
ecosystems. At issue is the extent to the public understands and values these ecological
benefits relative to more tangible, traditional management goals (e.g., game species). This
study sought to improve our understanding of stakeholder attitudes and values for the
management of ecosystems in Southern Michigan and to examine the potential influence
of these values on an individual’s commitment to ecosystem stewardship.
A three dimensional conceptual model of ecosystem values was developed to guide
resource managers with the integration of social values into ecosystem management
planning. The model describes six basic categories of values ecosystem benefits:

ecological dependence, consumptive recreation, nature appreciation, existence, extractive,

and play space. The value preference of five different stakeholder groups--pure hunters,
dual-use hunters, Audubon members, Sierra Club members, and nonconsumptive
nonmembers were compared from data gathered in mail questionnaire. Though significant
differences were found across all six categories, all groups placed high importance on
ecological dependence, nature appreciation, and existence values. Survey results suggest
that the most substantial differences in attitudes occur in stakeholder perceptions of the
extent to which many wildlife benefits are currently being provided in Southern Michigan.
All groups were slightly positive to hypothetical ecosystem based approaches that included
trade-offs to traditional benefits. However, these attitude about ecosystem management
reflected much uncertainty--including a high percentage of undecided responses. Finally,
causal models of ecosystem stewardship were tested in LISREL 8.0 for both hunters and

nonhunters and these implications are discussed.

For Sarge, my dad

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, gratitude is due to the project fimeI‘S- the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Wildlife Division. I wish to also thank the MDNR for technical support on this
project. Particular thanks are owed to Drs. Bill Moritz and Gina Karasek for providing
samples of hunters for the survey. Appreciation is also extended to all those in the
Lansing and field staffs who cooperated with and provided valuable feedback that shaped
the direction of this study, especially Dave Dominic, Arnie Karr, Doug Reeves, Mark
Sargant, and Al Stewart.

I would like to thank the staff at the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge for
cooperation and participation in the development phase of this study and the Michigan
Chapters of the Sierra Club and Audubon Society for providing membership contact
information for focus groups and surveys.

Next, I’d like to thank all those who helped me with the variety of less heralded
(“grunt”) work during this project. These include Tiffany Baron, Kelly Sicilano-Carter,
Shannon Fowler, Dale Hall, Michelle Haggerty, Sasha Kodet, and Brandon Schroeder.

Thanks to my committee members Dr. Rique Campa, Dr. Larry Leefers, and Dr.
Charles Nelson for their time, patience, and critical reviews of my work. Special thanks go
to two colleagues, Dr. Donna Minnis (Mississippi State University) and Dr. Angela
Mertig--who although not “official” committee members-- were steadfast sources of

knowledge, insights, encouragement and friendship for me.

Speaking of friends, special thanks goes to Daniel Rutledge for his willingness to
toss a baseball around the parking lot whenever life got rough.

Finally, thank you to Dr. R. Ben Peyton, my major advisor, for the many roles
played in my life over the past three and half years including mentor, teacher, tormentor,
counselor, Quonset construction foreman, hunting companion, and valued friend. I will
surely miss our “baked potato chats” at Wendy’s where I nearly always came away with

something new to think about.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... xiii
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
A new approach to management ...................................... 1

Does the public really want Ecosystem Management ? ..................... 6
Statement of the problem ............................................ 8
Connection to Stewardship ......................................... 12

The goal of this research ........................................... 14

Study objectives ............................................ 14

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................... 16
Overview ....................................................... l6
Ecosystem management ............................................ 17
Biodiversity view of ecosystem management ..................... 19

Egalitarian view of ecosystem management ...................... 21

Different Treatment of Values ................................. 23

Ecosystem management characteristics .......................... 27

Disturbance vs. control ................................ 28

Change versus steady state .............................. 28

Connection versus fragmentation ......................... 29

Natives versus exotics ................................. 30

Natural productivity versus artificial production ............. 30

Species diversity versus preferred species management ....... 30

Ecologically based boundaries ........................... 31

Long term versus short term ............................ 31

Conclusion ................................................ 31

Values ......................................................... 32
Different meanings for value .................................. 33

Held values versus assigned values ....................... 33

Normative/Cultural Values ............................. 34

Functional values ..................................... 34

Intrinsic value ........................................ 35

The debate ................................................ 36

Are there such things as nature-specific held values ? ............... 37

Rival categories of nature/wildlife values ........................ 4O

Kellert’s attitudes ..................................... 40

Forest values ........................................ 43

State Park Values ..................................... 43

Wildlife Value Orientations ............................. 44

vii

Understanding three critical dimensions: A proposed ecosystem values

model ............................................... 45

Six categories of valued benefits ........................ 46

Who accrues benefits ? ................................ 50

When do benefits accrue ? .............................. 51

Stewardship: Conceptual and philosophical foundations ............ 51
Stewardship as moral norm ............................. 52

Empirical findings .................................... 57

Association between outdoor recreation and stewardship ............ 58
Empirical findings on public environmental attitudes ..................... 59
General Environmental Attitudes .............................. 60
Stakeholder attitudes and values ............................... 62
Recreational trends .................................... 62

Relevant attitudinal studies of stakeholders ....................... 64
Hunters ............................................. 64
Nonconsumptive recreation: wildlife viewing ............... 67

Birders ....................................... 68

Environmentalists .................................... 7O

Attitudes toward Ecosystem Management ........................ 71

State Game Area Users ...................................... 77
Summary ....................................................... 78
Research questions & hypotheses .................................... 78
METHODS ........................................................... 87
Study area ....................................................... 87
Research design .................................................. 91
Agency input .............................................. 91
Pre-survey focus groups ...................................... 92

Pilot survey ............................................... 94
Questionnaire design ........................................ 95
Measurement of variables .............................. 95

Item ordering and scoring .............................. 95

Reliability and validity of values model .................. 100

Total design method ........................................ 101
Sample selection .......................................... 101

Deer hunters ........................................ 102

Waterfowl hunters .................................... 102

Michigan Audubon Society members. .................... 103

Sierra Club members .................................. 103

General public ...................................... 104

Data analysis ............................................. 104
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) .......................... 106

How stakeholders are defined ................................ 107

viii

Revisions to measurement scales for ecosystem values ............ 110

RESULTS ........................................................... 112

Response rates .................................................. 112

Nonresponse bias .......................................... 1 12

Stakeholder segments and definitions ................................ l 14

Demographic descriptors .......................................... 116

1997 Pure Hunters ......................................... 116

Key Differences: Pure hunters versus dual-use hunters ....... 119

Audubon Society Members .................................. 123

Sierra Club members ....................................... 124

1998 Nonconsumptive users (nonmembers) ..................... 125

Agency Credibility ............................................... 125

Perception of Anti-Hunting Threat .................................. 126

Belief about our dependence on ecosystems ........................... 128

Stakeholder value profiles ......................................... 129

Stakeholder value comparisons ..................................... 132

Stewardship .............................................. 134

Key differences: 1997 and 1998 hunters .................. 134

Recreational use and values .................................. 140

Current perceptions ........................................ 149

Attitudes toward ecosystem management ....................... 160

Model Testing .................................................. 170

DISCUSSION ........................................................ 180

Overview ...................................................... 180

Limitations ..................................................... 1 80

The values “cube” revisited ........................................ 183

Ecosystem values ................................................ 184

Ecosystem/wildlife attitudes ....................................... 190

Ecosystem management attitudes ................................... 194

The big picture .................................................. 201

Need for clear, concrete policy vision .......................... 203

Communication needs ...................................... 204

Building on common ground ................................. 206

The role of ecosystem values on stewardship .......................... 207

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................ 212
APPENDICES

APPENDD( A .................................................. 228

APPENDD( B .................................................. 230

APPENDIX C .................................................. 245

ix

APPENDIX D .................................................. 253
APPENDIX E .................................................. 263
APPENDIX F ................................................... 272

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. A listing of competing value/attitude typologies regarding nature or wildlife. 1 1

Table 2. Measures of environmental concern used by Theodori et a1. (1998) ....... 59
Table 3. Measurement items used by Jacobson and Marynowski (1997) to measure public
attitudes toward ecosystem management in Florida ..................... 73

Table 4. Standardized factor loadings and alpha reliabilities for ecosystem value scale896
Table 5. Questionnaire items (Appendix E) depicting ecosystem management value trade-

offs ........................................................... 99
Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis of recreational patterns ................... 107
Table 7. Overall survey response rates to 19997 summer survey ................ 113
Table 8. Response rates to nonresponse follow-up (abridged survey) ............. 113

Table 9. Combined response to both full questionnaire and nonresponse follow-up . 113
Table 10. A comparison of mutually exclusive stakeholders by demographic
characteristics .................................................. 1 17
Table 11. Distribution of the number of stakeholders residing in each study area tier 117
Table 12. A comparison of hunting participation levels and favorite types of hunting for

mutually exclusive hunter segments and all hunters in both years of the survey ..... 118
Table 13. Frequency of the favorite types of hunting by types of hunters in the 1997
survey ........................................................ 118
Table 14. Frequencies of favorite recreations for mutually exclusive stakeholder
groups ........................................................ 120

Table 15. Frequency of study area public land use for recreation by stakeholders . . . . 121
Table 16. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholders

who reported the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge ................. 121
Table 17. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholders
who reported the Gratiot-Saginaw State Game Area .................... 122
Table 18. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholders
who reported the Shiawassee River State Game Area ................... 122
Table 19. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholders
who reported the Maple River State Game Area ........................ 122
Table 20. Frequency of stakeholder responses to items about DNR credibility ..... 127

Table 21. Frequency of stakeholder responses to belief about ecological dependence 129
Table 22. One-way ANOVA tests for mean ecosystem value differences of 1997 mutually

exclusive stakeholders ............................................ 130
Table 23. A comparison of 1997 and 1998 hunters’ importance ratings of consumptive

recreation benefits ............................................... 137
Table 24. A comparison of hunting participation levels between 1997 and 1998

hunters ........................................................ 1 3 8
Table 25. Frequency of favorite types of hunting for hunters in 1997 and 1998 ..... 138
Table 26. A comparison of the frequencies of favorite recreations for 1997 and 1998

hunters ........................................................ 139

xi

Table 27. Association of nonconsumptive recreation participation and mean scores of
select ecosystem values of hunters and environmental organization members

(1997) ....................................................... 141
Table 28. One-way AN OVA test of ecosystem value differences of hunter segments
defined by their favorite type of hunting .............................. 142
Table 29. Row percentages of ecological dependence importance ratings of all
respondents who participated in nature study as a favorite recreation. ....... 145
Table 30. Row percentages of nature appreciation importance ratings of all respondents
who participated in nature study as a favorite recreation ................. 145
Table 31. A comparison of the mean ecosystem value ratings of nonconsumptive
environmentalists and nonmembers. ................................ 146
Table 32. A comparison of the mean ecosystem value ratings of nonconsumptive
environmental organization member-birders and nonmember-birders. ...... 148
Table 33. Frequency of stakeholder opinions regarding current abundance levels of 4
ecosystems in Southern Michigan ................................... 150
Table 34. Frequency of stakeholder opinions regarding current abundance levels of 5
wildlife attributes in Southern Michigan ............................. 151
Table 35. Frequency of stakeholder opinions regarding current abundance levels of 4
recreational opportunities in Southern Michigan ....................... 153
Table 36. AN OVA of differences in beliefs about abundance of ecosystem attributes in
Southern Michigan by types of hunters .............................. 157
Table 37. AN OVA of stakeholder mean scores on the ecosystem management trade-off
questions. ..................................................... 162
Table 38. Frequencies of stakeholder support on the ecosystem management attitude
index. ......................................................... 164
Table 39. Frequency of categorical ecosystem management support comparing waterfowl
hunters with non-waterfowl hunters. ............................... 164
Table 40. Frequency responses of stakeholders to ecosystem management trade-offs
dealing with efforts to increase nongame management. ................. 166
Table 41. Frequency of responses of pooled stakeholders to ecosystem management
trade-offs in which no significant differences were observed. ............. 167
Table 42. Frequency of categorical ecosystem management support based on levels of
education. ..................................................... 1 70

Table 43. LISREL output fit statistics for causal stewardship models ............. 173

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A conceptual model of the three dimensions of ecosystem values. ........ 47
Figure 2. A hypothesized path model of hunter stewardship. .................... 86
Figure 3. A hypothesized path model of nonhunter stewardship. ................. 86
Figure 4. Ecosystem management core study area. ............................ 88
Figure 5. Ecoregion classifications for the lower peninsula of Michigan from Albert
(1995) ......................................................... 90
Figure 6. Definitions of major stakeholder segments used in this study ........... 108
Figure 7. 1997 mutually exclusive stakeholder value profiles ................... 131
Figure 8. Differences in mean scale scores of ecosystem stewardship for mutually
exclusive groups in both years of the survey ................................ 135
Figure 9. Ecosystem value profiles by type of hunter. ......................... 143
Figure 10. Estimated path coefficients and structural error terms from ecosystem
stewardship model for hunters (full sample) in LISREL 8.0 ..................... 172
Figure 11. Estimated path coefficients and structural error terms from ecosystem
stewardship model for hunters (small sample) in LISREL 8.0 ............. 175
Figure 12. Estimated path coefficients and structural error terms from ecosystem
stewardship model for nonhunters in LISREL 8.0. ............................ 17 7
Figure 13. Structural equation model results of nonhunter stewardship based on revised
LISREL modifications ............................................ 178

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

"... all history consists of successive excursions from a single starting point, to
which man returns again and again to organize yet another search for a durable
scale of values"--Aldo Leopold (1949).

A new approach to management

Following the lead of the US. Forest Service in 1992, ecosystem management
continues to be adopted by both state and federal resource agencies and large-scale private
and corporate land owners as a guiding philosophy for management of natural resources
(Jones et a1. 1994, Ecol. Soc. of America 1995, Haufler et a1. 1996). The goals and
definition of ecosystem management are evolving amidst much debate among scientists,
academicians, land managers, environmentalists and others. In the most general sense,
ecosystem management is a complex, holistic and integrated approach to managing natural
resources (Wallace et a1. 1996), where intact, functioning ecosystems become the valued
attribute of management (Peyton 1990). Ecosystem management differs from traditional
wildlife management in its explicit recognition of the need to consider multiple spatial and
temporal effects of land use decisions and management practices on the long-term
sustainability of all resource values. This philosophy represents a significant paradigm
Shift for natural resource agencies that have been oriented toward short-term production
of a subset of resource commodities (e. g., featured species management) for nearly a
century (Bengsten 1994, Jensen and Everett 1994, Super and Elsner 1994, Kellert 1995,

Knight 1996).

2

It is important to consider why this paradigm shift in resource management is
taking place. There are several significant biological and social forces that have
precipitated the development of ecosystem management. Some have argued that
ecosystem management is an attempt by resource management agencies to realign their
missions to be more congruent with changing public values (Bengsten 1994, Jones et al.
1994). The changing public values have generally been described as a shift from resource
use (utilitarianism) to resource protection and can be inferred from several trends: 1)
continuing public support for environmental protection; 2) changing trends in demands for
outdoor recreations; and 3) increased litigation over forest/wildlife management plans.
These indicators of changing values are briefly discussed below.

Several authors have remarked that public values toward the environment have
shifted from resource utilization to a more environmental or stewardship orientation
(Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, Bengsten 1994, Brown and Peterson 1994, Salwasser 1994,
Kellert 1995, Kempton et a1. 1995, Knight 1996, Deason 1996-97). Xu and Bengsten
(1997) conducted a content analysis study of newspapers, forestry publications, and
environmental magazines from 1982-1993 to provide some empirical evidence that trends
in forest values have shifted away from economic/utilitarian values to more ecological and
spiritual values. Parallel to increased ecological concern, there may indeed be "new"
values developing among people such as a "biodiversity value" (Bengsten 1994). Though
the public expresses support for environmental protection in principle in opinion polls, that
support seems to erode quickly when it comes at cost to other important values (Times-

Mirror 1995, Belden and Russenello 1996, NEETF 1997).

3

Another potential indicator of changing public environmental values is the recent
trends in wildlife recreation. Changing patterns of recreation are evident from national
surveys showing marked increases in “nonconsumptive” activities like bird watching and
decreases in hunting and fishing (U .S.F.W.S. 1993). While most fish and wildlife agencies
have engaged in so called non-game or endangered species management programs for
many years, they have not always fully understood or adequately responded to the
preferences of the nonhunting public (Kellert 1995). Meeting the needs of a broad based
constituency is important if agencies hope to maintain both political and financial support
for wildlife conservation efforts (Witter 1990).

More evidence for a values shifi can be inferred from the increasing political
challenges directed at resource agencies over management of natural resources, such as
lawsuits brought forth by environmental organizations regarding forest management plans
(Alverson et al. 1994, Jones et al. 1994, Yaffee 1994, Wallace et al. 1996). The most well
known example includes the numerous court battles over the effects of logging old growth
timber on the survival of the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (Yaffee
1994). Other legal challenges have specifically targeted the failure of land management
agencies to adequately address the conservation of biodiversity in planning and
management activities on public lands (Alverson et al. 1994).

Finally, the most significant trend shaping ecosystem management is the growing
interest in conserving biodiversity--the variety of life forms and processes that make up the
world’s ecosystems (Wilson 1992, Grumbine 1992, 1994, Boyce and Haney 1997). The

emergence of theory and research from a pair of “new” sciences--conservation biology and

4

landscape ecology-- has focused attention on the relationship among habitat
fragmentation, degradation, and loss on the global acceleration of species loss and
endangerment (Grumbine 1992, Wilson 1992, Wilcove et. al. 1998). Overall, the growing
recognition by both scientists and environmentalists of the deepening biodiversity crisis is
the largest force behind the development of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994)

Our enhanced ecological understanding has created concern among resource
managers that some of our land management practices may actually contribute to
ecosystem degradation, habitat fragmentation and species loss through the cumulative
impacts of "stand level" management on both public (Scott et al. 1995) and private lands
(Sample 1994). This problem may be further compounded by disparate missions and
jurisdictions of agencies at federal, state, and local levels (Gerlach and Bengsten 1994,
Kellert 1995, Wallace et al. 1996). As conservation biologists, landscape ecologists, and
others have sought solutions to conserve biodiversity, public lands-- especially those in
the eastern U.S.-- have been singled out as critical components for several reasons. First,
public lands often provide the last vestiges of undeveloped land in a sea of expanding
urbanization and intensive agriculture. Second, resource managers have more control
over the management objectives on public lands than on private lands. Third, even where
private lands do contribute parcels of wildlife habitat to the landscape matrix, public lands
often represent the largest, least fragmented patches of wildlife habitat that remain. For all
of these reasons, many have argued for the prominent role of public lands in developing

strategies to conserve biodiversity (Scott et al. 1995).

5

Though the potential exists for public lands to provide integral pieces to the
biodiversity conservation puzzle, current management of state public lands in Michigan
and elsewhere may actually be contributing to the decline of biodiversity. A report
prepared by an ad hoc committee of professional wildlife ecologists for The Wildlife
Society identified two dimensions of this possibility. One is the “need to re-examine the
extent of early successional stages of habitat maintained on public lands, given that much
of the lands surrounding these public land holdings are early successional and will continue
to be” (Scott et al. 1995: p. 651). The other is the tendency to artificially increase
biodiversity at small scales by providing the highest number of generalist species on public
lands and ignoring the needs of specialists that are threatened regionally (Scott et al.

1995)

Public land management in the fragmented and intensely developed landscape of
Southern Michigan provides a good example of both the problems and opportunities that
exist for biodiversity conservation. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Wildlife Division manages 58 discrete public land areas in Southern Michigan
known as State Game Areas (SGA’s). These areas have traditionally been managed
primarily to provide hunter recreation in Southern Michigan. In some cases, this
management has included intensive agricultural practices to attract and hold wildlife
during the hunting season. The ecological merit of such approaches may be becoming
increasingly hard to defend, especially where SGA’S are already surrounded by a sea of

agricultural fields and where other native vegetation types are under-represented.

6

However, the potential for public lands to contribute to biodiversity conservation
strategies comes at a time when resource managers are also being asked to serve an array
of human demands and values, increasing in both number and intensity. The role that
public lands may play in achieving this balancing act between maintaining biodiversity and
satisfying public demands--including those for wildlife recreation-- has been the subject of
increasing attention (Salwasser 1994). Development of ecosystem management plans that
would encompass Southern Michigan SGAs is especially challenging because it can be
argued that both hunters and wildlife viewers currently using SGAs have developed
expectations regarding the current management of the areas.

Does the public really want Ecosystem Management ?

It is difficult to predict either the depth or breadth of support for the development
and implementation of ecosystem management. To say that public values are shifting or
have shifted implies a uniform movement that runs deep within society. Such an
oversirnplification threatens to underestimate the continuing demand for food, fiber, and
other utilitarian uses (including recreation) of public lands that show no signs Of
decreasing (Salwasser 1994). There are alternative hypotheses to consider with regard to
the public’s current ecosystem values. Any shift in environmental values has likely
occurred within segments of the population, rather than in the population at large.
Another possibility is that increased environmental awareness has raised the salience of
public environmental values, without necessarily bringing a corresponding reduction in
utilitarian values. Yet another possibility is that the segment of society that has long been

concerned about environmental preservation has become more effective at advancing their

7

agenda. This uncertainty about the nature and relative priorities of current and changing
public values may represent the biggest challenge faced by resource managers seeking to
integrate biological and social components in ecosystem management (Driver et al. 1996).

The fact that maintenance of ecosystem integrity and conservation of biological
diversity are often cited as goals of ecosystem management by Grumbine (1994) and
others (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Franklin 1993,1997) implies a need to shift away
from the more traditional consumptive --utilitarian-- wildlife values. If maintaining
ecological integrity as assessed through biological diversity or some other indicator is an
explicit goal of ecosystem management, this suggests that certain values (i.e., ecological
values) are prioritized or weighted more heavily than utilitarian values. If so this will shift
benefits away from traditional stakeholders and may create more, rather than fewer
conflicts directed at the agency (Peyton 1990). This aspect has heightened relevance for
this research given that the management of SGA’S in the study area has traditionally been
focused on the production of game species and the provision of recreational hunting in
Michigan. Therefore, it is vital to develop a clear understanding of the value hunters place
on benefits like biodiversity. For example, are hunters willing to accept lower populations
of game species in exchange for a perceived increase in biodiversity and other ecosystem
options ?

There is also potential for increased conflict with nonconsumptive nonmembers
regarding ecosystem management goals in Southern Michigan. It is sometimes assumed
that nonconsumptive user groups like bird watchers are more ecological and less utilitarian

in their orientation toward resource allocation (Kellert 1985). It is important to test these

8

assumptions because there may be instances where conservation of biodiversity and other
ecosystem management goals require reduced recreational opportunities for these groups
as well as for hunters. If nonconsumptive users are really only seeking enhanced amenities
or increased recreational opportunities (Manfredo and Larsen 1993, Martin 1997) rather
than enhanced ecological benefits, then resource agencies seeking to broaden their support
for conservation may be missing the target with ecosystem management. Likewise, many
outdoor users like cross country skiers or off-road vehicle riders who seek amenities on or
access to public lands may only have a passing, if not indifferent, interest in ecological or
other benefits of wildlife management.
Statement of the problem

The advent of ecosystem management presents many challenges to the Michigan
DNR’S Wildlife Division not the least of which is understanding and integrating public
preferences for management of wildlife resources in Southern Michigan. Three problems
are apparent in meeting this new challenge. The first is applying a more holistic, scientific
and technical understanding of the complex and dynamic functions of ecosystems to
wildlife management. The ability to assist managers on this level may be limited due to
our incomplete science and inability to identify all of the needs of species or all of the
ecological functions in ecosystems. Ecosystem management will have to proceed in an
adaptive management context, treating management prescriptions as working hypotheses
from which learning can occur (Hollings 1996).

A second problem that wildlife managers face is overcoming the wide range of

institutional and professional-cultural barriers that will serve to hamper adoption of

9

ecosystem management (Gerlach and Bengsten 1994). These include lack of appropriate
training in management of ecological systems and new technologies, lack of funding
sources for implementing ecosystem management, and personal attitudes of managers that
still reflect a utilitarian or commodity production orientation (Peyton and Langenau 1985,
Peyton 1990, Vining and Ebero 1991, Yaffee 1994).

Incomplete scientific data bases and institutional barriers are mentioned here to
acknowledge the complexity of implementing ecosystem management. A third problem
wildlife managers face--and the focus of this study-- is the need for a framework to
integrate sociological and ecological values in implementing ecosystem management
(Jensen and Everett 1994, Driver et al. 1996). This challenge includes the need to gain a
thorough and empirical understanding of stakeholder values to assist managers in
developing ecosystem management planning efforts. Many authors have argued that the
integration of social values into ecosystem management is not just merely a challenge but
THE challenge to maintaining diverse and productive ecosystems into the future
(Salwasser 1991, 1992,1994, Bengsten 1994, Brown and Peterson 1994, Driver et al.
1996). The need for a comprehensive system of ecosystem values is widely recognized
(Bengsten 1994, Hetherington et al. 1994, Ewert 1996). Bengsten (1994) cites three

Specific roles that incorporating an accurate understanding of values can serve for

managers:
1. facilitate the establishment of appropriate ecosystem management goals;
2. determine how stakeholders will react to practices that are part of

ecosystem management;

10

3. facilitate the clarification of value systems for stakeholders as part of
conflict management and resolution.

Though several wildlife or environmental value typologies already exist (Table 1),
none seem congruent with the needs of ecosystem management. A complete review of the
conceptual and/or instrumentation shortcomings of current value and attitude typologies is
discussed at length in the following chapter.

One particular Wildlife Division initiative has been the designation of a pilot
ecosystem-based management area located in Southern Michigan’s Clinton, Gratiot, and
Saginaw counties. Assessing the relative values of key stakeholders within the Southern
Michigan study area will help clarify similarities and differences among stakeholders and
provide a basis for avoiding potential conflicts in the implementation of ecosystem
management. At the heart of this problem is identifying the extent to which all
stakeholders value the less tangible, ecological benefits produced through ecosystem
management, and the extent to which they are willing to accept reductions in some of the
more tangible benefits in order to achieve those ecological benefits.

Stakeholders of wildlife management are typically those with strong recreational
interests in wildlife (i.e., consumptive and nonconsumptive users), landowners who may
impact or be impacted by management, and organized special interests (e. g.,
environmental organizations) (Susskind and Cruikishank 1987, Decker and Enck 1996).
Several stakeholders were considered in this research. Management of the three SGAS
(Maple River, Gratiot-Saginaw, and Shiawassee River) within the study area currently

places a high priority on providing hunting opportunities especially for waterfowl and deer

11

 

333% .
055mg .

55:?
3.8285 .

tea—95 on: .

03:55 .
385% .
owfito: 353: .
3926 265 .
8:25 .
055.83 .
353552 .
2.553.». .
3:855 .
toaasm om: .

ooes58<
.558; .

9.359 323.com .

8:05; 3.8m .

5332350
35:63:. .

8388 .
35:5 .
383% .

0:35.”; .
3253.2 .
385.32: .
“68:8 .
0.38.85.
evacuees“.
3£w2eoo .
3253—805 .
35526» .
353052 .
05553 .

uufléawoe .
023E»? .
ocmEoEou .
55:3: .
£5385: .
2335:. .
cams—53¢

353205 .
05553 .
23353: .

8&355: .
053330: .
eta—8.3.3 .
593:2: .
”35:38:: .
053.88 .
0:353...“ .
ocfiwofioo .
05553 .
05:82.8 .

was:
-eeewafic .
5:355 .
35:35
35532 .
mace—=—
éefiweaeea .
856:8
a. «8:59 .
8:555
353552 .
new: $23 .
on: v.22; .

 

 

 

ease
Am><3v 38m 33> 8:3 85m 3 "£335 0.23:3 38m a.
mos3> venom moa3> .88..“ 93 33833 3:25» 8:3> 330m 2:3: we «33> .3332 82532 823855 33>
Ea : :8 :
season :8: 380 $2 SE: 3%:
e ax a Seam 389 a. as: a. Roz 63: 5:3. 8%: :23 .3 a :22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.33:3 he once: macaw“: momma—09¢ 03533323 mavens—co a wag: < A 073...

 

12

hunters‘. The Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge is managed primarily as a migratory
waterfowl refuge with secondary benefits of wildlife viewing and deer hunting
opportunitiesz. Thus waterfowl hunters, deer hunters, and bird watchers were selected as
three key recreational stakeholders in the management of this area. Due to the growing
role of environmental organizations in shaping and monitoring agency polices,
environmentalists were included as key stakeholders of this study. Understanding the
relative value priorities and differences among these stakeholders will aid managers in
determining potential support for ecosystem management goals.
Connection to Stewardship

The ecosystem management approach operationalized for this study begins with
the assumption that managers can not simultaneously provide for all of the diverse and
increasing demands on ecosystems from a growing human population AND sustain diverse
and functioning, native ecosystems. Therefore, ecosystem management is fundamentally
about making value choices--some of which will entail sacrifices on the part of one or
more stakeholders (Ewert 1990). For example, resource professionals participating in a

round table discussion on the future of Wisconsin’s two national forests projected that

 

l

The Shiawassee River SGA issues daily permits on a first come first serve basis for
morning and evening waterfowl hunts throughout the season; archery and gun deer

hunting permits are available in 3 day sessions by application. Waterfowl and deer hunting
perrnittees are charged an access fee. Maple River and Gratiot-Saginaw SGAS do not
require permits for hunting with the exception of the opening day of duck season at Maple
River.

2
The Shiawassee Federal Wildlife Refuge issues hunting permits for limited goose and deer

hunts throughout the fall. The deer hunting permits are primarily for antlerless only
hunting and an access fee is charged.

13

ecosystem management would likely have negative impacts on both economic
development and recreational opportunities (lakes and Harms 1995). Though such
forecasts might raise some concerns about current resource utilization, an integrated
ecosystem management approach ought take a long term and realistic view about what
benefits managers can provide (Knight 1996), and given the uncertainty inherent with
scientific management (Brunson 1996, Hollings 1996), it ought to err on the side of
conservation over allocation. Implicit in this discussion of current benefits versus long
term ecological sustainability and maintenance of biodiversity is the broader issue of
environmental stewardship. Many ecosystem management benefits such as restoration of
old growth forests or managing to protect evolutionary pathways exceed the span of
human lifetimes. The success of such management goals will require the support of a
public that is willing to participate directly and indirectly in their achievement. If hunters
and nonhunting wildlife enthusiasts have a stewardship ethic, they ought to be willing to
forego some benefits themselves in order to ensure healthy ecosystems for future
generations. Therefore, measuring the presence of a stewardship ethic is a critical
component of understanding public support for ecosystem management.

Understanding the antecedents of stewardship also has far reaching and important
theoretical implications. In resource management there has been a long standing
assumption that participating in wildlife-related recreation can promote stewardship for
the environment. For example, hunter financial contributions through Pittman-Robertson
funding and license sales comprise the bulk of funding for wildlife conservation and

management. It is assumed this financial support indicates a value for stewardship of

l4

wildlife and habitats. To date, this assumption has not been widely tested and where it
has, results have not established a clear link (Theodori et al. 1998). As ecosystem
management broadens the focus of management of featured species and their obligate
habitats to ecosystems and their driving forces, it is necessary to understand whether
stakeholders value their role in maintaining ecosystems for future generations. It is time to
ask whether hunters are indeed “stewards of the environment”, or merely stewards of the
particular species sought for hunting. Similarly, wildlife viewers who currently enjoy
many of the benefits brought about through traditional management practices may also
need to accept some level of sacrifice in order to accommodate ecosystem management
goals. The need to understand the relationship between value preferences and stewardship
is apparent in this challenge.
The goal of this research

The purpose of this study is to provide a framework for understanding human
values for ecosystems that can facilitate the integration of human values into an ecosystem
management paradigm. A secondary goal of this research is to explore some important
causal factors that influence environmental stewardship.
Study objectives
The study objectives are:

1. to develop a theoretical model that describes the structure and types of

social values of ecosystems that will lend itself to integration into
ecosystem management;

2. to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure values theorized in
the conceptual typology of values;

15

to describe the ecosystem values and relevant ecosystem management
attitudes of key stakeholders which have implications for ecosystem
management in Southern Michigan;

to test a causal (path) model that investigates significant antecedents of an
individual’s level of ecosystem stewardship including their values for
consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation and their beliefs about
existing environmental conditions.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

The following chapter is divided into three major sections. In the first section, I
build the case that part of the difficulty in operationalizing “ecosystem management”
results from different applications of the concept as it appears in the literature. One
application is primarily concerned with achieving a mix of values that ensures the
maintenance of biodiversity as the ultimate goal. The second seems to apply the term as a
means to achieving a desirable mix of human values irrespective of particular outcomes
such as biodiversity. This section concludes by presenting a set of dichotomous principles
that serve to distinguish “ecosystem management” from what might be considered
“traditional” wildlife management. These principles served as the framework for
developing value trade-off questions on the study questionnaire.

The second major section of this chapter reviews the values literature and proposes
a conceptual model to serve as a framework for integrating stakeholder values into an
ecosystem-based approach to management of public lands in Southern Michigan. This
section also defines “stewardship” and discusses its theoretical relevance in the model.

The third section reviews the findings of relevant attitude/values studies that have
implications for measuring the ecosystem values and attitudes of the stakeholders
considered in this study. Literature pertaining to study methodology (namely Structural

Equation Modeling) is reserved for the next chapter.

16

17

Ecosystem management

Ecosystem management has been described as everything from a reaffirmation of
multiple use (Overbay 1992, Jensen and Everett 1994, Czech and Krausman 1997) to a
chance for humans to reinterpret our role to live more in accordance with nature
(Grumbine 1992). Similarly, it has been defined as a philosophy (Wallace et al. 1996), a
process (Overbay 1992, Lackey 1998), and a product (goals) (Grumbine 1994). Still
others (e. g., Super and Elsner 1994) maintain that we have been doing ecosystem
management all along (e.g., managing the prairie-pothole region--an ecosystem» for duck
production is ecosystem management [Furtmann 1996]). The waters get muddied even
more by the over simplification of ecosystem management as synonymous with increasing
biodiversity (e.g., Glenn 1995). With such a wide disparity of thought, it is no wonder fish
and wildlife agencies charged with implementing ecosystem management can get bogged
down trying to operationalize the term in a manner that is meaningful for field biologists
and is acceptable to the public.

Though use of the term appeared earlier (e.g., Wagner 1977), scholarly debate on
“ecosystem management” began in earnest in 1992 with a memo issued by then Chief of
the US. Forest Service Dale Robertson prescribing ecosystem management on all national
forest and grasslands. Since 1992, no less than 19 federal agencies and many state
resource agencies have sought to adopt ecosystem management despite its nebulous
meaning (Ecol. Soc. of America 1995). While there is no shortage of interest and activity

surrounding state and regional ecosystem management research and planning, it appears

18

many ecosystem management initiatives suffer from a lack of clear understanding about
what needs are supposed to be addressed (Driver et al. 1996).

The following section summarizes the ecosystem management literature and
attempts to illustrate why it is so difficult to explain "what it is". In the title to their essay
on the challenges to implementing ecosystem management, Gerlach and Bengsten (1994)
ask the question: "If ecosystem management is the solution, what's the problem?" In the
proliferating literature on ecosystem management, one can distill two general answers
regarding the nature of the problem that ecosystem management is meant to address. One
view of ecosystem management is characterized by the writings of Franklin (1993, 1997),
Grumbine (1992, 1994), Noss and Cooperrider (1994) and Beattie (1996). It considers
ecosystem management as a (potential) solution to an ecological problem, namely the loss
of biodiversity. Boyce and Haney’s (1997) text highlights many of the current technical
applications and landscape considerations that characterize this view of ecosystem
management. In this “biodiversity view” of ecosystem management, conservation of
biodiversity is the overriding goal and the integration of social objectives is considered as a
constraint or limitation to meeting the ecological objectives.

The other view-— what I’ll call the egalitarian view-- whose proponents include
Overbay (1992), Salwasser (1991, 1992, 1994), Wallace et al. (1996) and Lackey (1998)
conceptualize ecosystem management as a (potential) solution to social conflict over
competing uses (including non-use) of our natural resources. This application of the term
“ecosystem management” becomes a means to an end where processes are utilized to

derive a mix of values that is acceptable to a diverse public (Moote et al. 1994). Two

19

goals which are implicit in the egalitarian view of ecosystem management are socially
defined (and accepted) goals and collaborative decision-making (Cortner and Shannon
1993). Thus, process aspects of management are stressed over an adherence to any
outcomes related to biodiversity (or other particular outcomes). Again, it is important to
emphasize that the two views of ecosystem management are not mutually exclusive,
organized divisions within the scientific community, but they do serve to frame the
management problem differently. Others have noted the apparent split personality in the
literature as well. Grumbine (1992) termed it “scientific” versus “process” ecosystem
management. Many others identified the difference in ecosystem management
applications as one of anthropocentric versus biocentric concern (e. g., Stanley 1995,
Endter-Wada et al. 1998, Freemuth 1996). Whether this difference in applications of the
concept is merely one of semantics, a lack of communication, genuine philosophical
difference or a co-optation of terms to serve a political agenda, it has led to difficulty in
planning and implementation for agencies that have attempted to adopt it (Epperson
1997). Some of the seminal perspectives of the biodiversity view and the egalitarian view
of ecosystem management are reviewed next and the fundamental difference in their
prioritization of values is described.
Biodiversity view of ecosystem management

The awareness over the loss of biodiversity has been augmented by recent work in
conservation biology and landscape ecology research and our enhanced understanding of
the spatial and structural habitat requirements of species like grizzly bears (Craighead

1979) and forest interior song birds (Wilcove et al. 1986). Agee and Johnson (1988)

20

published the first book that contained “ecosystem management” in its title. This work
outlined the need for managers to think beyond the boundaries of national parks to that of
species with large home ranges that were not isolated and relegated to public lands. Agee
and Johnson (1988) did not express specific goals for managing across broad landscapes,
but they did describe the need to realign boundaries based on ecological rather than
administrative significance. Finally, the authors also suggested several principles necessary
in managing ecosystems that include interagency cooperation, better monitoring of
ecosystem responses to management, and stronger leadership in setting national policy
(Agee and Johnson 1988). Recent volumes by Boyce and Haney (1997) and Baydack et
al. (1998) highlight the current approaches in thinking from an ecological perspective.

Grumbine (1994: p. 28) states that "ecosystem management is a response to
today’s deepening biodiversity crisis." Furthermore, Grumbine (1994) sets forth the most
explicit set of goals of any other ecosystem management writer. His five goals are:

I. maintain viable populations of all native species;

2. represent within protected areas, all native ecosystem types across their
natural range of variation;

3. maintain ecological/evolutionary processes;
4. manage over long enough periods to maintain evolutionary potential;
5. accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints.

Grumbine's goals were based on his synthesis of ecosystem management literature,
but his review focused narrowly on publications in ecological journals. An Ecological

Society of America committee on ecosystem management produced a position paper

21

(1995) that parallels much of Grumbine's interpretation of goals. The report states:
"Ecosystem management assumes intergenerational sustainability must be a precondition
rather than an afterthought, not only for the maintenance of 'goods' or commodities but
also for the critical 'services' that ecosystems provide" (Ecol. Soc. of America. 1995:1).

There have been numerous strategies that have been proposed to maintain
biodiversity levels endemic across landscapes including bioreserves (N 053 and Cooperrider
1994), coarse filter/fine filter approaches (Haufler et al. 1996), historical range of
variability (Morgan et al. 1994, Oliver et al. 1994) and, emphasis use areas (Everett and
Lehmkuhl 1996). Franklin (1993, 1997) has argued that the only way to effectively
preserve global biodiversity and complex ecological functions is by managing at the
ecosystem level. While many ecologists disagree with adopting an exclusive ecosystem
approach (favoring instead ecosystem approaches in conjunction with flagship species
approaches: see for example Wilcove 1994 or Tracy and Brussard 1994), Franklin's (1993,
1997) rationale is indicative of growing recognition that imperiled species are only as
viable as the ecosystems that support them. This observation has been augmented by
findings that indicate many types of ecosystems are themselves becoming endangered
(Noss et al. 1995). Thus from the “biodiversity perspective”, maintenance of biodiversity
is not only an explicit goal of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994), it is the very
reason why theory has been developed, debated, and applied to management.
Egalitarian view of ecosystem management

On the other hand, the egalitarian view of ecosystem management has very

different goals and roots. “Ecosystem management” and its immediate predecessor "New

22

Perspectives" evolved with the US. Forest Service (U SF S) as an attempt to strengthen
"the ecological basis for land and resource stewardship" and to create "a better balance
between various resource uses and environmental values" (Salwasser 1991: p.567). Five
reasons were described by Salwasser (1991) that prompted the policy shifi to the “New

Perspectives” approach:

1. new scientific information about the complexity of ecosystems;

2. changing values and expectations of citizens for management of their public
lands;

3. greater diversity of technical expertise within the agency;

4. concern over soil loss, degraded aquatic systems, and native endangered

species loss;

5. social and ecological effects of management.

Though these driving forces bear some congruence to the goals articulated in the
biodiversity view (i.e., number 4), Jones et al. (1994) argued that adoption of ecosystem
management by the US. Forest Service was intended to resolve continuing social conflict
over land management objectives rather than perceived ecological crisis. This conflict
includes both stakeholder-agency rifts over management plans and competition between
commodity and amenity users (Knight 1996). In an attempt to better manage this social
conflict, management agencies are now realigning their historical emphasis on timber
(Jones et al. 1994, Super and Elsner 1994) and game species production (Kellert 1995,
Knight 1996) to serve a broader range of human values. Bengsten (1994) described this
as a shift from multiple use management to multiple values. Implicit in this application of

the term ecosystem management is the assumption that there exists a better, if not optimal

23

way, to divide the resource pie that will be acceptable to diverse stakeholders; and the way
to develop that mix is by focusing on decentralized, democratic processes in the
implementation of ecosystem management (Wallace et al. 1996). These processes include
such things as interagency planning and cooperation (Agee and Johnson 1988, Overbay
1992, Gerlach and Bengsten 1994, Grumbine 1994, Moote et al. 1994, Beattie 1996,
Wallace et al. 1996), public involvement in decision making (Salwasser 1992, Cooperrider
1996, Driver et a1. 1996, Endter-Wada et a1. 1998), monitoring (Overbay 1992, Grumbine
1994), and development of adaptable agencies (Peyton 1990, Gerlach and Bengsten 1994,
Moote et al. 1996).
Dijferent Treatment of Values

The ecosystem management literature is split between applications of the term
which seek to prioritize different perceived problems. The first application of term
ecosystem management--as laid out by Grumbine-- is much narrower in scope paying
relatively little attention to integration of sociological concerns, aside from acknowledging
the constraints of accommodating human desires on maintaining important ecological
values (Freemuth 1996). The emphasis on biodiversity gives a priori weight to ecological
values by making the assumption that biodiversity is an ecological imperative rather than
merely a human preference. Meanwhile, the egalitarian version of ecosystem management
is broader and more integrative of human values, but is less adherent to the protection of
biodiversity or specific ecological goals (Grumbine 1992). Biodiversity is treated as one
among many competing social values for which management seeks to find optimal social

acceptance and sustainability among all preferred uses and values. Furthermore, the

24

egalitarian view of ecosystem management often fails to explicitly link resource allocation
questions to ecological sustainability. It is possible to enhance such processes as public
involvement and interagency planning without altering traditional management goals or
strategies.

This shortcoming of the egalitarian view has led many to be skeptical about the
U.S. Forest Service's commitment to ecological stewardship under the banner of both
"New Perspectives" or "Ecosystem management", especially those with a biodiversity
orientation to ecosystem management. Initial criticism included claims that the policy shift
was nothing more than a public relations ploy (Lawrence and Murphy 1992, Alverson et
al. 1994). Specific concerns were initially raised that U.S. Forest Service pilot projects
conducted under the "New Perspectives" label sought only to protect habitats of common
species with utilitarian values (Lawrence and Murphy 1992) and that protecting
biodiversity was considered only within constraints of predetermined timber targets
(Frissell et al. 1992). Salwasser (1992) countered these claims by suggesting that
biodiversity advocates were ignoring the agency's legal mandate to provide multiple
benefits and he further cautioned practitioners of conservation biology to address only
factual rather than value issues.

This exchange characterizes the disjunct view in the literature about what the goals
of ecosystem management are, or whether there are in fact any goals inherent in its
approach. Lackey (1998) contends that ecosystem management may or may not

emphasize biodiversity, insisting the goals are based on social needs and desires--a view

25

upheld by several others (Overbay 1992, Salwasser 1994, Moote et al. 1994, F reemuth
1996, Endter-Wada et a1. 1998).

While conceptually separating these competing views of ecosystem management
may help to clarify some of the debate, there are two caveats that need to be added. First,
much of the social conflict that agencies seek to resolve has been generated by groups
(e.g., Sierra Club) concerned with biodiversity protection. Therefore, in reality
biodiversity figures prominently in both views. Second, it would be an oversimplification
to assume that the proponents of each view favor mutually exclusive philosophies relative
to environmental protection versus resource use. Some have tried to portray a
dichotomous view by describing this philosophical difference in ecosystem management
perspective as one of anthropocentric versus biocentric concern (e. g., Stanley 1995,

F reemuth 1996, Endter-Wada et a1. 1998). This bifurcation falsely assumes that
biodiversity advocates promote their view of ecosystem management on behalf of the
interests of species and systems alone, rather than as an attempt to ensure healthy, intact
ecosystems necessary to support human life and welfare. Similarly, the anthropocentric
characterization of ecosystem management assumes that humans can extensively
manipulate ecosystems to produce a variety of real and perceived needs without being
subject to the biological constraints of the system (Stanley 1995).

Ultimately, neither the biodiversity or egalitarian view (or biocentric versus
anthropocentric) is sufficient. A few authors have operationalized the term in a way that
strikes the need for a balanced, integrated approach (Driver et. al 1996, Haufler et al.

1996, Endter-Wada et al. 1998). In particular, Haufler et al. (1996) offer an approach to

26

conservation of biodiversity whereby both ecological and socio-economic concerns are
used to determine desired future conditions. This approach includes the development of
an ecosystem diversity matrix as a conceptual tool to use in maintaining ecological
representation of plant and animal associations within a given land area. While this
approach offers a helpful planning tool, the ultimate resolution in the debate over
ecosystem management may require a mutually agreed upon philosophical mandate that
specifies when and where to protect ecological values that conflict with human needs or
perceived needs. In the meantime, the success of ecosystem management (or any resource
management paradigm) depends on public acceptance, which depends on successfully
integrating values in resource planning and management (Driver et al. 1996, Endter-Wada
et al. 1998). This research to assess the values of key stakeholders in a pilot ecosystem
management area is guided by that belief.

There are several implications for integrating human values into ecosystem
management. First, managers can decide to increase or decrease certain benefits based on
public preferences. Second, managers can shifi the areas where benefits are provided to
better achieve dual objectives of serving human preferences and protecting unique,
degraded, or overused ecosystems. Third, managers can identify audiences or targets for
education in cases where serving value preferences would conflict with ecosystem
sustainability. In sum, integrated ecosystem management will aid in identifying which
values can be served where, and it also identifies intervention opportunities for education,
values clarification, and attempts to broaden or heighten the stewardship values of

stakeholders.

27

Ecosystem management characteristics

Due to the wide variability in the interactions of biophysical and social forces,
ecosystem management activities and outcomes are likely to always be context specific
(Crossley 1996). This is a source of frustration for wildlife managers seeking general
management models to apply and for researchers seeking to measure the impact of
management on social values. The ecosystem management literature provides a litany of
management processes and characteristics that give shape to the new paradigm. The most
widely cited ecosystem management characteristics are described below to further
distinguish it from the contemporary natural resource management paradigm of multiple
use.

The following dichotomies represent the types of considerations that managers
may confront when developing ecosystem management approaches. Wallace et al. (1996)
refer to such choices as “tensions” rather than tradeoffs. It must be clearly understood,
however, that implementation of ecosystem management will never employ guidelines that
are black and white. For example, ecosystem management does not entail a clear cut
choice between single species versus multi-species, or biodiversity management (Wilcove
1994). Considerations of geographic scale, ecological land types, and legal mandates
dictate that there will be places where single species management has a role. Yet,
ecosystem management is management that makes a generalized shift toward stronger,
more explicit consideration of maintaining native species and community diversity. The

following paired characteristics illustrate such general strategy shifts where managers

28

employ one approach over the other more often than not, and more ofien than past
management.
12W

Ecosystem management recognizes the influence that natural disturbance has had
on shaping landscape associations (Crossley 1996). Many ecosystems are now stressed or
threatened because managers have actively suppressed the natural disturbances (e. g., fire)
that drive the regeneration of the system and changed the scales of when disturbances do
occur (Alverson et al. 1994, Crow et al. 1994). Disturbances that occur at varying scales
have also contributed to the patchiness and distribution of many plant and animal
associations (Botkin 1990). Instead of trying to control or suppress natural disturbances,
ecosystem management allows such forces to play an important role in shaping and
creating landscape mosaics. Where it is not feasible to restore or allow natural
disturbances to occur, managers may try to mimic their activities through activities such as
controlled burns, clear cutting, and releasing flood water fi'om dams to imitate the timing
and flow rates of natural floods (Winter and Hughes 1997). The challenges are using ones
that truly mimic natural disturbances over the appropriate temporal and spatial scales.
WW

Concomitant to the notion of disturbance as a change agent is the acceptance of
gradual change as important to ensure representative age classes of different community
types. Sustained yield management has often favored early successional stages of plant
communities or has attempted to freeze local conditions in an attempt to maintain either

timber productivity or to sustain high populations of game species (Scott et al. 1995).

29

Ecosystem management accepts change and uncertainty as necessary outcomes within
ecosystems to ensure that a full range of niches remain viable and that natural competition
will produce different dominant species over time (Hollings 1996).
Connectionmsusfragmemation

This principle recognizes that the size and shape of habitat parcels have as much to
say about the species composition and diversity as the components within the habitat itself
Harris 1984). Conservation biology dating back to MacArther and Wilson’s (1967)
Theory of Island Biogeography has warned against the insidious threats that habitat
islands can pose for many species. Fragmentation of forests can alter micro-climates
(Hunter 1990) and leave species such as neotropical songbirds more vulnerable to
increased predation and nest parasitism (Brittingham and Temple 1983). Furthermore,
fragmentation on a large scale can create meta-populations of species where barriers to
genetic exchanges can result in inbreeding depression and leave small populations
vulnerable to stochastic events. For all of these reasons, ecosystem management tries to
account for the effects of management activities at multiple scales to mitigate the negative
aspects instances of forest fragmentation (Scott et al. 1995). Maintaining large blocks of
unbroken habitat is a priority. In addition managers seek opportunities to restore or
promote the connectivity of patches by establishing corridors. It must be noted that there
is not consensus among scientists about the best way to maintain biodiversity using
corridors, reserves, or large islands (see DellaSala and Olson 1996, Everett and Lehmkuhl
1996, Noss 1996). But it is generally believed that larger and more contiguous is better

than smaller and separate (Meffe and Carroll 1994).

3O
1 l . .

Exotic species have been shown to be a disruptive force on ecosystems, out
competing native species and radically altering the overall species composition of the
system (Winter and Hughes 1997). This has been true in both terrestrial (e.g., purple
loosestrife) and aquatic systems (e.g., the zebra mussel). Therefore, ecosystem
management strives to maintain the integrity of ecosystems by favoring management for
native plants and wildlife (Grumbine 1992).

11 l l . . v r 'E . l l .

Since ecological sustainability is the goal of ecosystem management, activities that
rely on infusion of nonsustainable petrochemical inputs to enhance productivity are
inherently contradictory. For example, the use of intensive crop farming to attract
wildlife requires more energy input to sustain than would an existing base of native
vegetation. Ecosystem management seeks ways to maintain or enhance productivity of
socially desirable outcomes like game species through natural production of the system.
In theory, ecosystem management strives to protect and maintain the long term net output
of ecosystems, while recognizing that the level of output in any given year is subject to
ebbs and flows (Crossley 1996).

S . 1' . E l .

Ecosystem management places a priority on maintaining native biodiversity at
regional scales (Grumbine 1992, 1994, Scott et al. 1995, Ecol Soc. of America 1995,
Beattie 1996). This characteristic is controversial and widely misunderstood. Managing

for species diversity does not mean manipulating all habitats at all spatial scales to increase

31

diversity by favoring edge or early successional species (Scott et al. 1995); nor does it
mean the elimination of single species approaches that focus on a rare, unique, or
endangered species (Wilcove 1994). Managing for species diversity simply means
providing a representative mix of vegetation types in a variety of successional stages
across a broad landscape to ensure the existence of viable niches for all endemic species
(Haufler et al 1996).
Ecclesiaallflassdflmdaties

It has long been recognized that wildlife species or ecological processes do not
adhere to human created political or administrative boundaries (Agee and Johnson 1988,
Lackey 1998). Ecosystem management shifts the planning and focus of management to
adhere to natural systems such as ecoregions or watersheds in a nested scale approach
where management actions are evaluated at several scales (Jensen and Everett 1994).
Longtenmrarsshertjcnn

Ecosystem management develops longer planning horizons than traditional
resource management to account for multi-generations of species and maintenance of
evolutionary pathways (Overbay 1992, Lackey 1998).
Conclusion

There are a variety of human values implicit in these “tensions” or trade-offs
(Ewert 1990). The receptivity of the public to these principles will depend in large part on
how they perceive the net difference of the associated costs and benefits. Understanding
the basis of potential support for emphasizing the long term productivity and functions of

ecosystems must start with an understanding of what types of social values need to be

32

considered in management. The next section summarizes the diverse landscape of public
environmental attitudes and values and offers a conceptual model for addressing their
integration in ecosystem management.
Values

Before we can improve our understanding of social values and integrate that
understanding into ecosystem management, we must first come to some agreement on the
nature of values. In the introduction to the book Valuing wildlife: Social and economic
perspectives, Steinoff (1987: p. 3) asks the 64 million dollar question, “Is there a
universally acceptable and comprehensive system for organizing our thoughts about
values?” The answer is, quite simply,“no”. The term value(s) has a variety of meanings
reflecting differences in technical usage (e. g., function versus worth), disciplinary bias
(e.g., economics versus social psychology), theoretical construction (e.g., values as
attitudes or beliefs), and stage of process (e.g., held versus assigned). Such diversity of
meaning has contributed to confusion over what types of values should be integrated into
ecosystem management and how to measure them (Bengsten 1994, Hetherington et al.
1994, Ewert 1996). The morass grows wider when one considers whether human
attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife management are based on a unique set of
fundamental wildlife values (Kellert and Wilson 1993, Kellert 1996), wildlife value
orientations (Fulton et al. 1996), broader environmental value orientations (Stern and
Dietz 1994), or generic held values (Schwartz 1992, Axelrod 1994, Belden and Russenello

1996)

33

The following review of the values literature attempts to deconstruct several of
these confusing and competing conceptualizations. It begins with a review of the various
types or meanings of the term value that are ofien invoked in relation to nature or wildlife.
Next, a summary of a debate over which type of value is most appropriate to consider for
management purposes is discussed. Then, existing environmental or wildlife value
typologies are presented and their shortcomings are described. Subsequently, a three
dimensional, conceptual model of ecosystem values is proposed to make order out of the
values universe. The conceptual model aims to make a theoretical contribution by
distilling many of the disparate uses of the term into a comprehensive framework that can
assist with the task of integrating human values into ecosystem management.

Diflerent meanings for value
Heldxdueuersuaassieneflalues

Brown and Manfredo (1987, p. 12) said “There are values about things and values
for things”. The former use of the term implies that values exist as firndamental and
independent precepts within one’s cognitive structure. In the psychological literature,
these are “held values” (Brown 1984) which are defined as an enduring conception of
good that can be classified as modes of behavior, end-states of existence, or abstract ideals
(Rokeach 1968, 1973, Bem 1970).

In addition to held values, Brown (1984) identified two other realms of value: the
object realm and relational realm. The relational realm recognizes the process of valuing
where “value arises from a preference relationship between a subject and object” (Brown

1984: p. 233). Finally, the object realm is focused on the end result of the valuation

34

process, the assigned value. Brown (1984: p. 233) defined assigned values as "the
expressed relative importance of an object to an individual or a group". This is the “values
for things” (Brown and Manfredo 1987: p.12). In other words, the relational realm deals
with the relative expression of values such as an individual preferring hunting to fishing,
and assigned value would be the absolute expression of value for hunting through some
economic or sociological measure’. Additional confusion can be created by the inclusion
of three additional non-preference uses of the term. These other value relationships are
obligatory/normative, functional, and intrinsic.
MEWS

Obligation is defined as a relationship of social norms. Obligatory or normative
values ofien derive from the philosophers in society as guiding codes of morality
(Andrews and Waits 1980) and are often dogrnatically advanced by proponents
(Hetherington et al. 1994). This type of value has elsewhere been referred to as cultural
values (Kellert 1980, Brown and Manfredo 1987, Sagoff 1988). Cultural or obligatory
values are the held values aggregated in society (Kellert 1980) and are inferred from
collective behavior (Andrews and Waits 1980).
Eunctionflxduas

Functional values are the purely technical relationships that occur between entities
and exist independent from human recognition (Andrews and Wait 1980, Hetherington et

a1. 1994, More et al. 1997). For example, biodiversity may perform a functional value for

 

3

For an alternative perspective, More et al. (1997) limit the expression of assigned value to
economic indicators only.)

35

ecosystems in sustaining resistance to and resilience from disturbances (Ecol. Soc. of
America 1995) whether or not humans recognize or assign value to such a functional role.
However, it is important to remember that humans can have preference for (maintaining)
functional relationships (Brown 1984). Indeed, investigating the types and extent to
which ecological functions are valued by people is an important objective of this research.
I . . l

The last type of non-preference value relationship is intrinsic value (Rolston 1985,
Brown and Manfredo 1987, Rolston and Coufal 1991, Bengsten 1994, More et al. 1997).
An object is said to have intrinsic value when it possesses value in and of itself, regardless
of any instrumental value for humans or non-human entities. Some environmental
philosophers (e. g., see Rolston 1985, Naess 1986) have suggested that species or
ecosystems possess intrinsic value, apart from individual preference or functional
importance. People who ascribe intrinsic value to species, ecosystem, or particular
environmental attributes (e.g., old-growth) believe society is obligated (yes, granting
intrinsic value can lead to obligatory value) to protect species or ecosystems "for their
own sake" (Naess 1986). It remains open to question whether value can be said to exist in
the absence of a valuer. It may be a moot debate, as Brown and Peterson (1994), point
out because the act of acknowledging or assigning an object such as spotted owls Or
ecosystems intrinsic value is in itself an expression of individual preference. While
debating the existence of intrinsic value is a job best lefi to environmental philosophers,

what is important is capturing the extent to which people do value species, biodiversity

36

and ecosystems “in and of themselves”. The model to be described subsequently assumes
that “assigned intrinsic value” will be captured by measuring environmental stewardship.
The debate

The selection of the appropriate type or types of values raises important
methodological and philosophical issues. A recent debate by Bengsten (1994) and
Hetherington et al. (1994) underscores the difficulty in developing and agreeing upon a
comprehensive values framework to assist land and resource managers in planning and
implementing ecosystem management. Bengsten (1994) argues that the traditional
approaches to understanding values have placed too much emphasis on preference based
measures to the exclusion of other types of values including functional, normative, and
intrinsic values. Instead of limiting ecosystem values research to individual preference, he
argues for an approach that employs multiple methods in order to assess incommensurate
value types "to provide a richer more complex understanding of values than one
dimensional rankings" (Bengsten 1994: p. 525).

Hetherington et al. (1994) rebuke Bengsten's call for methodological pluralism as
epistemological relativism, or equating opinion with fact. Specifically, they reject the
proposition of equating normative, intrinsic, or functional values' measures with preference
based values' measures. Instead they pose the research challenge as better understanding
human preferences for ecosystems by establishing the construct validity between assigned
values and postulated held values (Hetherington et al. 1994). Accordingly, these authors
emphasize the importance of critically developing valid and reliable measures of preference

based measures.

37

Though Bengsten’s approach threatens to mix value types including categories
(e. g., intrinsic) that may be inherently unmeasurable, his point about the failure of utility
based measures to capture the deeper importance of ecosystems and their many benefits is
well made. In general, resource agencies and academicians have done a poor job
accounting for the so called nonmarket values (Repetto 1992, Brown and Peterson 1994)
and the deeper spiritual meanings that people associate with natural landscapes (J akes and
Harms 1995, Williams and Patterson 1996). It will become especially important to
understand and accommodate these values as the implementation of ecosystem
management shifis the production of benefits from a commodity orientation to an
emphasis on ecosystem sustainability.

The disagreement about the appropriate structure of the value concept has
philosophical underpinning as well. Sagoff (1988) argues the term value ought to be
reserved for community beliefs about what is right or best, rather than equating the term
with preferences. Sagoff condemns the use of preferences in determining public policy
because public preferences may lack moral equivalence and instead describe individual
wants that may be “sadistic, envious, racist, or unjust” (1988: p. 102).

Are there such things as nature-specific held values ?

Brown’s value classification scheme begs the question, “Which realm or realms is
most appropriate for the study of human values for ecosystems ?” Many scholars have
treated the research into human natural resource values as a search for distinct categories
of held values (Stern and Dietz 1994, Kellert 1996, Xu and Bengsten 1997). For example,

Xu and Bengsten describe four categories values held for forests: life support,

38

economic/utilitarian, aesthetic, and spiritual. While these categories may indeed describe
important aspects sought by man through nature, they seem to describe categories of
preferences or potential benefits rather than held values-~i.e., abstract ideals, end states, or
modes of conduct» as defined by Rokeach (1968), Brown (1984), and Schwartz (1992).
This habit of calling categories of objects/attributes “held values” is built on the
assumption that assigned values are thought to be indicators of latent held values (Brown
1984). While this may be true, it is problematic to assume that people have a set of
“fundamental, evaluative beliefs” specific to the environment. More than likely assigned
values for wildlife or ecosystem attributes are not based on individual and corresponding
held values, but rather a set of held values that also serve as a foundation for our likes and
dislikes about a variety of things.

The biophilia hypothesis has even suggested that our held values for the natural
environmental are biologically evolved and necessary for our continued well being (Kellert
and Wilson 1993, Kellert 1996). Yet, Rokeach (1973) postulated that held values were
few in number (36) and natural resource specific values were not among his list. Schwartz
(1992) has further reduced the list of held values to ten in cross cultural studies, and again
discrete natural resource categories are notably absent (Fulton et al. 1996).

A study by Stern and Dietz (1994) illustrates the problem with establishing the
existence of environmental held values. The authors examined the role of dominant held
values in predicting choices among college students when confronted with environmental-
economic trade-offs. They attempted to classify subjects into one of three dominant value

types: egotism, social-altruism, or biospheric. Several studies had replicated the existence

39

of the first two categories as kinds of held values, and the authors employed established
measures for these constructs. Stern and Dietz also tried to develop a set of items that
would indicate the presence of a biospheric value where the health of the environment
itself--apart from human benefits» is the focus of concern.

Confinnatory factor analysis results failed to differentiate a hypothesized
biospheric value orientation from the social-altruistic value among students who opted for
environmental protection in the choice experiment. In other words, their environmental
support could be explained by general concern over the welfare of others (humans) in
society, rather than concern for the sake of the environment itself. The authors concluded
that a biospheric (held) value theorized in the environmental ethics literature did not
appear to exist (yet) in the general public (Stern and Dietz 1994).

Thus in human dimensions research and application, there appears to be a
significant inconsistency between the characterization of wildlife values as held values--
fundamental cognitions--versus categories that describe basic human preferences for the
range of benefits that ecosystems provide us. Andrew and Waits (1980) recognized this
problem and dismissed the existence of held values entirely insisting that values exist not
as cognitions but only as relationships of subject to object, in other words, as preferences
(Brown 1984). Failure to acknowledge this theoretical gap between values as
“cognitions” and values as “preferences” is one of the fundamental sources of conceptual
confusion over the use of the term. For example, though an individual may very strongly
value opportunities to view wildlife, it does not make sense to describe this as a “wildlife

appreciation” held value on the same par with ideal abstracts like freedom, equality, or

40

universalism. While researchers may find it appealing that persons possess a set of unique
held values about the natural world, it is more practical from a management perspective, if
not theoretically more defensible, to describe what benefits are valued (object realm)
relative to each other (relational realm). The ecosystem values model proposed
subsequently takes this approach. It will define categories of benefits that are valued
rather than attempting to establish categories of held values about nature or wildlife.
Rival categories of nature/wildlife values

In addition to trying to sort out the appropriate psychological or philosophical
form of values, much of the work has simply centered on coming up with handles to
describe the “things” about ecosystems that humans ultimately value. As stated earlier,
many authors have not clearly delineated the supposed cognitive structure of their value
typologies. In some cases, the terms attitudes or beliefs have been used instead of values.
This reflects differing schools of thought relative to the distinction of those constructs.
Nonetheless, the following typologies are reviewed in order to gain insight into how
others have attempted to categorize the benefits of nature that humans value.
Kellertlattimdfi

Probably the most widely cited classification of human attitudes regarding animals
is Kellert’s (1980) attitude typology which has been applied more broadly, and perhaps
inappropriately to wildlife and nature as a whole. The ten basic attitudes Kellert described
are labeled: naturalistic, aesthetic, ecologistic, scientistic, moralistic, humanistic, utilitarian,
dominionistic, negativistic, and neutralistic. In his 1996 book, The Value of Life, Kellert

argues that these ten categories represent (held) values for nature on the whole. He also

41
modifies the typology slightly by adding a “symbolic” value domain and also by combining
the “ecologistic / scientistic” domains, as well as the “negativistic/ neutralistic” domains.
The basic values (Kellert 1996: p. 38) and their definitions are as follows:
Naturalistic: direct experience and exploration of nature

Ecologistic/Scientistic: systematic study of the structure, function and
relationship of nature.

Utilitarian: practical and material exploitation of nature

Aesthetic: physical appeal and beauty of nature

Humanistic: strong emotional attachment and “love” for aspects of nature.

symbolic: use of nature for language and thought.

Moralistic: spiritual reverence and ethical concern for nature

Dominionistic: mastery, physical control and dominance of nature

Negativistic: fear, aversion, and alienation for nature.

Though the Kellert typology contributed to our understanding of human attitudes
toward wildlife, it is insufficient when applied as a general model to describe ecosystem
values. While the measurement instrument has produced consistently reliable measures of
these attitudes, several scales lack validity. Most notably, research conducted on the
attitudes of Bureau of Land Management employees produced low utilitarian scores which
goes against intuitive wisdom. One would expect valid scales to produce high utilitarian
scores for BLM managers whose very careers are dependent on producing utilitarian
benefits (Peyton and Langenau 1985). Examination of the scale items shows that certain

items force a choice between use of wildlife and destruction of habitat. One example is the

42

item: “I see little wrong with filling a wetland if the land can be used to produce more jobs
and income” (Kellert 1980). This tradeoff between short and long term use of habitat
likely depresses true utilitarian score where concern over future resource use is also a
strong individual value.

Recently, Yarrow and Guynn (1997) attempted to apply Kellert’s typology to a
study of attitudes toward ecosystem management. Predictive validity was again a
problem. Curiously, a sample of members of The Wildlife Society indicated that their
strongest attitude toward ecosystems was anti-scientistic ! Though this result is highly
suspect, it is difficult to fully evaluate given that validity and reliability assessments were
not reported for the adapted measures by the authors.

Beyond the measurement problems, the Kellert domains do not transfer well as
distinct categories of valued attributes. In other words, the Kellert typology becomes
awkward when applied in the object or relational realms. For example, what would be an
example of a moralistic resource management benefit4 ? What is negativistic benefit ?
Even the categories that more aptly describe benefits like utilitarian do not differentiate
well between the kinds of benefits a person with a high utilitarian value might seek. Bird
watchers may be just as utilitarian as deer hunters, yet the nature of the attributes or

outcomes they value is quite different.

 

4

I use the word “benefits” interchangeably with “objects” or “products” (e.g., recreational
opportunities). In the leisure and recreation literature, “benefits” refer to a broader class
of individual and social goods that are the ultimate results of participation in recreation,
rather than in the opportunities themselves (Driver et al. 1991)

43

Several other problems exist with the domain constructs themselves. First, the
dominionistic domain as it is defined suggests a value that may be an extreme form of
utilitarianism rather than a mutually exclusive category of value. Second, symbolic value
may be just a particular application of aesthetic value. Third, the term moralistic as it is
defined equates animal rights philosophy with spiritualism. Clearly, the two ideas can be
exclusive of one another. Fourth, the definition of ecologistic/ scientistic value focuses on
the potential benefits derived from educational aspects of ecosystems, while ignoring the
benefits that humans might value from the structural, functional, and interdependent
relationships within ecosystems (Lui et al. 1997). Fifth, one could ultimately argue that
most of the value domains described by Kellert are utilitarian in the broad usage of the
term. Whether one “uses” or “exploits” nature for wild game, timber products, or a
source of wonder and spiritual renewal, the benefits sought all serve some form of utility
for human well being. Even baseline ecological services (e. g., flood control) that may go
unrecognized provide utilitarian benefits for humans.

Forestxalues

In another typology, Rolston and Coufal (1991) proposed ten categories of forest
values: life support, economic, scientific, recreational, aesthetic, wildlife, biotic diversity,
natural heritage, spiritual, and intrinsic. Again category overlap is a problem for domains
like wildlife and biotic diversity, where the former is an element of the latter. The scheme
also mixes preference, functional, and intrinsic value relationships.

W

In a similar approach, Negra and Manning (1997) combined several existing nature

44

value typologies to generate an exhaustive list of social values for Vermont state parks
(though it presumably has broader applications). Their list included: aesthetic,
recreational, educational, moral/ethical, ecological, therapeutic, economic, solitude,
intellectual, historical, scientific, spiritual, cultural, and resource.

Still other approaches to classifying the range of nature related human values have
been suggested (Table l). Fulton et al. (1996) used a domain sampling technique with
Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel to derive eight categories of basic wildlife beliefs
(note earlier discussion where authors equated values as beliefs). The eight categories of
basic beliefs are: 1) wildlife use, 2) wildlife rights, 3) recreational wildlife experience, 4)
bequest and existence, 5) hunting/anti-hunting, 6) residential wildlife experiences, 7)
wildlife education, and 8) fishing/anti-fishing. This classification is also insufficient for
application to ecosystem management. Two weaknesses of these categories are the
considerable overlap between domains and the narrow focus on fish and wildlife as objects
of value versus a broader look at the context or environment in which they occur. The
former problem is common to most wildlife classification schemes, but the latter one
presents particular problems for integration with ecosystem management.

More useful for the purpose of this study are the latent value orientations that
emerged from the factor analysis of measurement items of the eight basic beliefs. The
authors employed a structural equation model approach to test the predictive capacity of
two latent orientations-~consumptive value and appreciative value-- on a respondent’s

intention to go hunting or take wildlife viewing trips (Fulton et al. 1996). Though my

45

study employs different measurement items, the consumptive and appreciative theoretical
constructs are useful for describing basic ecosystem preferences and are integrated in the
ecosystem values model proposed below.

Understanding three critical dimensions: A proposed ecosystem values model.

Driver (1985) argued there is a need for wildlife managers to establish a clearer
link between the products of wildlife management (e.g., ecosystem services, recreational
opportunities, scenic beauty) and public values for those products. Given the competing,
conflicting and inconsistent value classification schemes mentioned above, none offer a
workable framework for the study of human ecosystem values. I propose a new model
that integrates past work and attempts to avoid many of the inconsistencies and
measurement problems that plague rival typologies. The following section describes a
conceptual model» a three dimensional “values cube” to serve as a framework for this
research and to better organize our understanding of the seemingly incommensurate
classifications of wildlife and nature related values found in the literature. The model is an
attempt to propose a pragmatic, workable description of the fundamental nature of
ecosystem values (in response to the debate between Bengsten [1994] and Hetherington et
al. [1994]). Development of the values cube model was guided by the three following
questions.

0What are the types or categories of benefits that people value from ecosystems ?

-To whom do these benefits accrue ?
0When do the benefits accrue ?

46
S' . E l l l E

The first dimension of the proposed ecosystem values model modifies some of the
categories enumerated by Rolston and Coufal (1991). “Life support”, (Rolston and
Coufal 1991, Xu and Bengsten 1997) provided by maintaining a healthy environment,
sustainable resources, and ecological services, is the keystone of ecosystem management
(Franklin 1997) and thus an integral category for the model (Figure 1). In the present
model, “life support” benefits comprise a category called “W” which
is defined as the importance an individual places on the maintenance of ecological
processes, services, and interconnected food webs that are assumed necessary to sustain
human life.

Producing recreational opportunities has been part and parcel of the wildlife
management profession since its beginning and competing recreational uses are often at
the heart of value conflicts. There are a wide diversity of recreational benefits sought by
the public ranging from a desire for broad amenities to a narrow focus resource-specific
attributes. Three categories pose the greatest implications for wildlife managers and
comprise the value categories two through four in the model.

Traditional consumptive recreation is focused on opportunities to hunt and fish for
“game species” of wildlife. The “W” value is defined as the
importance placed on managing ecosystems to provide for and enhance fish and wildlife
species for recreational hunting.

The “W” value subsumes Rolston and Coufal’s (1991) aesthetic

and spiritual categories and integrates Kellert’s naturalistic (1980, 1996) domain as well.

 

 

 

 

Who accrues benefits ?

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. A conceptual model of the 3 dimensions of ecosystem values

48
The integration of spiritual values in this category is not meant to diminish it’s potential
importance (Williams and Patterson 1996). Instead, the spiritual benefits that people may
value from nature can be thought of as a deeper or more intense form of nature
appreciation. The danger remains that assessment of this value can be obscured if research
ignores the potential spiritual values of place versus the individual attributes that comprise
a place (Williams and Patterson 1996). Ultimately, decisions about consolidating versus
splitting categories were guided by what implications such decisions would mean for
wildlife managers.

Nature appreciation is thus defined as the importance placed on ecosystems and its
biotic inhabitants as sources of aesthetic beauty, wonder, spiritual renewal, or simple
pleasure experienced through direct or indirect means.

The final category of recreation benefits I have named “WW
space”. This describes the many forms of outdoor recreation that provide benefits that are
non-wildlife and non-naturalistic specific. For example, recreations such as riding
mountain bikes, off road vehicles, jet skis, and snowmobiles are increasing in popularity,
and creating more allocation conflicts and demands for space on public lands. In this
category, the object of the value is space to operate or “play” with certain equipment,
irrespective or incidental to specific environmental or wildlife attributes of a particular
setting. As an example, preferences for specific types of outdoor settings among mountain
bikers have been shown to be related to landscape factors that enhance the physical
challenge of the activity (e.g., steep climbs) , rather than aesthetic or ecological attributes

(Hopkins and Moore 1994).

49

The implication for management of this value category is a potentially large class
of “non-consumptive” users who ultimately may be indifferent toward nature-dependent
benefits, though they have high potential for degrading natural values sought by others.
“Play space” is defined as the importance placed on having available and accessible space
to engage in leisure recreation whereby a machine or exercise is the focus of the behavior.

The fifth category represents a special class of non-use appreciation. “Existenee
mines” are the satisfaction one receives from simply knowing that wildlife or an
ecosystem exists (Cocheba 1987, Pearce and Moran 1994). In a strictly technical sense,
the term “existence value” is a willingness to pay for the perpetuation of some object
regardless of opportunity to utilize or experience it directly. Its usage in the present model
is not constrained by type of measure (i.e., willingness to pay), but instead refers to the
inherent cognitive Satisfaction of knowing that species and ecosystems are being
maintained.

The sixth category is “W” which taps the commodity extraction
benefits of managing ecosystems. Humans can value both the direct products produced
from ecosystems such as food, minerals, fuel, and timber and also the indirect5 economic
benefits derived from jobs and industries that focus on exploitation of resources in a
broader sense. It should be noted that the two categories of valued economic benefits

described here should not be confused with economic valuation of resources as others

 

5

Originally the direct and indirect economic benefits were proposed as separate categories
of individual value, but factor analysis of pilot measurement items failed to produce a
satisfactory 2 dimensional construct.

50

have done (Kellert 1980, Brown and Manfredo 1987). For example, Rolston (1985)
treats market price and individual preference as distinct types of value. This seems to
confuse what is valued with how value is expressed or indicated. This study treated
economic values as specific desired outcomes (e.g., timber, job creation, tourism
development) rather than economic expenditures.
W12

The nature of the six categories of ecosystem values can be clarified further by
asking the question: to whom do these benefits accrue ? The answer to that question
becomes the second dimension of the ecosystem values model. In their own model of
social values, Brown and Manfredo (1987) specify four strata of social values exclusive of
economic values. They organize these strata as cultural values, societal values,
psychological values and physiological values. Cultural values are defined by authors as
the held values»thoughts and ideas» that make up a culture (e. g., wildlife have rights).
Societal values are those values that promote healthy relationships among people living in
a society (e.g., family togetherness from shared experiences). Psychological values are the
satisfactions that an individual perceives from an object of value. Physiological values are
the health benefits one may receive from engaging in activities in pursuit of some object
(e.g., exercise from hiking). Physiological value as the authors have described is trivial
unless recognized by the individual in which case they become indistinguishable from
psychological values. Regardless, the strata become more useful when tweaked slightly to
describe who accrues the benefits. By combining the last two subcategories as individual

benefits, one can see that values accrue at three different aggregations: cultures, societies,

51

and individuals. These three levels comprise the second dimension of the ecosystem
values model (Fig. 1).
Ward

The proposed ecosystem values model contains a third axis that addresses the
temporal dimension of values, that is, when are benefits accrued ? This becomes a critical
question when trying to assess public attitudes toward ecosystem management given the
long term thinking inherent with the concept. Obviously, individuals, cultures, and
societies can value ecosystems and their associated products in a present time context, and
the model reflects this layer. Moreover, economists describe two types of future oriented
values: option and bequest. Option values are “ the risk aversion premium individuals are
willing to pay for retaining an option for future use of a species” (Cocheba 1987: 277).
Bequest values are the satisfaction of preserving a class of benefits for future generations
to enjoy. Both of these classes of benefits are typically assessed through conventional
economic evaluation measures like willingness-to-pay measures, but should not be
theoretically bound to monetary expression of worth. Both of these classes of value are
added to the present time to illustrate the three temporal dimensions of ecosystem values.
Stewardship: Conceptual and philosophical foundations

The final expression of value depicted in the model is that of a We
which is indicated by the light shading in Figure 1. Stewardship is defined here as a deeply

held moral obligation to act in ways that conserve a baseline ecosystem in order to achieve

52
sustainable benefits for current and future others 6. In short, the stewardship value is the
form of an environmental ethic. A distinction should be clear that makes stewardship
different than the six preference based values already described in that it is a normative
based value.

The importance of stewardship as a variable in the model demands a slight
digression to review both the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the term. In a
Sand County Almanac, Leopold (1949:240) spoke eloquently about developing a land
ethic where man’s role is transformed from conqueror of the biotic community to “just
plain member and citizen of it.” He further establishes a benchmark by which individuals’
actions may be evaluated in relation to their environment:

“A thing is right when it tends to maintain the integrity, stability, and

beauty of the biotic community, it is wrong when it tends otherwise”

(Leopold 1949:266.)

It has been suggested that Leopold’s land ethic provides society with a broad
foundation for environmental stewardship as the human enterprise confronts various
environmental threats, including issues of sustainability (Knight 1996). While Leopold’s
maxims are certainly poetic and thought provoking, they are far from conceptually clear as
to what would qualify as environmental stewardship.

mm
The definition of stewardship proposed earlier posits the existence of a

fundamental value that guides one’s environmental conduct. In that sense, it may differ in

 

6

“Others” is deliberately broad enough to apply to non-human others to account for
humans who ascribe intrinsic value to species and ecosystems.

53

type from the other values described in the model in two ways. One, the stewardship
value may come closer to what Rokeach (1973) called a terminal held value. Second, and
more importantly, like Leopold’s land ethic, it serves as a moral norm rather than an
expressed preference (Sagoff 1988). Schwartz (19702128) identified three distinct
dimensions or attributes of moral decisions:

First, moral decisions necessarily lead to interpersonal actions having

consequences for the welfare of others. Second, decisions are classified as moral

only when the decision maker is the responsible agent-~a person who has chosen

an action knowingly and willingly when he could have done otherwise. Finally, the

actions resulting from moral decisions and the agent held responsible for them are
evaluated as good or bad according to the consequences the actions’ have for
others’ welfare. Cultural specifications of what constitutes good or bad
interpersonal behavior, i.e moral norms are the reference point for these
evaluations.

Schwartz (1970) further distinguishes moral norms from social norms which he
calls “non-intemalized” references. In other words, whereas social norms theoretically
influence one’s behavior based on the expectations of significant others (Ajzen and
Fishbein 1977), moral norms are based on personal standards of right and wrong.
Thogerson (1996) points out that social norms that initially guide many environmental
behaviors may eventually become moral norms if they become integrated into one’s
personal value system.

Refi'aming stewardship as a moral norm with altruistic motivations (i.e., taking
action to benefit others) establishes a more stringent criterion for what behaviors qualify as
examples of stewardship than are often used. Several examples are warranted to justify

this distinction. In the parlance of natural resource management, stewardship often refers

to the institutional mission to conserve and sustain wildlife and ecosystem in the public

54

trust (e.g., MDNR mission statement). In this sense, stewardship can be thought of as a
cultural value. Thus agencies tend to take on the responsibility and duty of maintaining
the resource on behalf of the public. The professional-cultural emphasis on resource
stewardship is mentioned to distinguish it from the personal obligation that is described in
this study.

As a further point of clarification, the term stewardship is inappropriately applied
to situations where individuals are merely acting in their own self interest, rather than
based on perceived moral obligation. Three important examples come to mind. First,
farmers who receive government cash payments for placing lands in the Conservation
Reserve Program have been described as practicing land stewardship. Gaining behavioral
compliance through financial incentives is theoretically based in economic models of
subjective utility where individuals are motivated by the desire to maximize private utility
(Thogerson 1996). Farmers in this case may merely be maximizing self interest, rather
than acting out of sense of moral obligation for others. This is an important distinction
because Thogerson (1996) found that financial incentives for participation in recycling
programs did not lead to development of moral norms in participants, but rather the old
behaviors (noncompliance with recycling) returned after financial incentives were
discontinued.

Second, hunters and anglers are often afforded the label of stewards based on their

financial support of fish and wildlife agencies through both the purchase of licenses and

55

revenue generated from an equipment surcharge established through federal legislation’.
This credit likely stems from the fact that sportsmen lobbied for the funding that
subsequently restored many species of wildlife and their habitat from perilously low levels
(Gray 1992). While most sportsmen may hold positive attitudes about supporting fish and
wildlife management through the current funding structure (Duda 1993), payment of
involuntary taxes falls again somewhat short of environmental stewardship. This is not
evidence to suggest that hunters and anglers are not stewards. But they do not qualify as
such on the basis of adhering to the legal requirements of obtaining a license for pursuit of
fish and game. In fact, critics of the current funding system argue that financial support of
fish and wildlife management by hunters and anglers is merely a way to make sure that
agencies remain beholden to narrow consumptive interests.

The third example presents an interesting “gray area” which illustrates the slippery-
ness of the stewardship concept. Suppose members of a local chapter of Ducks Unlimited
or an Audubon Society donate time and money to restore waterfowl habitat in a local
wetland in the hopes of enhancing their future hunting or bird watching opportunities. But
suppose also that these same individuals drive gas guzzling cars, do not recycle, run
businesses that pollute the environment with dangerous toxins, and advocate business and
residential development of upland forests to enhance economic growth. Are these people

environmental stewards, stewards of the waterfowl resource, neither, or both ? The

 

7

The major pieces of legislation are The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-

Robertson) of 1937 which established an 11% surcharge on guns and ammunition; and the
Federal Aid in Fisheries and Aquatic Restoration (Dingell Johnson) of 1950 which placed

a 10% tax on fishing equipment (Gray 1992).

56

example may be contrived, but it gets to a fundamental question of whether there is such a
thing as global environmental stewardship versus issue or context specific stewardship,
which Negra and Manning (1997) termed “utilitarian conservation”.

Though the social psychological and environmental education literatures are
replete with studies of environmental attitudes and behaviors, attempts to define and
operationalize stewardship have been surprisingly lacking. The approach that may come
closest is Dunlap and Van Liere’s (1978) New Environmental Paradigm (N EP). The NEP
is said to describe a revolutionary world view about the nature of the earth and man-
nature relationships, or what Stern et al. (1995) later called a sort of “folk ecology”. An
inspection of the items used to tap the NEP reflect a series of rather primitive and abstract
beliefs about ecology, but the scale stops short of measuring individual actions or
intentions regarding the environment.

Negra and Manning (1997) developed a complicated multi-factor typology of
environmental ethics. They define stewardship as “ethics that bridge the gap between
anthropocentrism and biocentrism by recognizing the moral status or spirituality of
nonhuman entities” (Negra and Manning 1997: p.15). The definition parallels Merchant’s
(1997: p.29) call for a “partnership ethic” whereby “the greatest good for human and
nonhuman communities is their mutual living interdependence”. But in use of the “moral”
connotes rights for individuals rather than obligations derived from awareness as I have
used in the definition of stewardship as a moral norm. This clarification is critical because

requiring the recognition of moral status of non human entities (i.e., bestowing rights) is

57

an overly narrow interpretation of stewardship that extends the land ethic far beyond what
Leopold intended.

Rather than defining and measuring stewardship, the majority of research has
focused on establishing a relationship between measures of general environmental concern
and various so called environmentally responsible behaviors (e. g., car pooling, recycling,
“green” consumerism, etc.). Overall, this body of research has typically found weak
associations between an individual’s environmental attitudes and behaviors (Guagnano et
al. 1995, Mainieri et al. 1997). Additional research has examined the consistency among
individuals across different types or categories of responsible environmental behavior. If
people truly embraced a land ethic as Leopold championed, we would expect them to
adopt an environmentally responsible lifestyle and exhibit a fair amount of behavioral
consistency. Yet, results have typically produced a pattern of low, positive correlations
among different types of behaviors which could be said to reflect stewardship (Tracy and
Oskamp 1983, Oskamp 1995, McKenzie-Mohr et al. 1995). These findings cast doubt on
the presence of a global environmental stewardship.

There have been several plausible explanations offered to account for the
discouraging pattern of findings. Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) point out that wide
variation exists in the way the independent variable--general environmental concern
(GEC)-- has been measured, which raises questions of validity. GEC has been
alternatively operationalized in studies as “perceived seriousness of environmental

9, 6‘

problems”, “knowledge of issues , support for reforms”, and “actual involvement in

58

environmental behaviors”. Further, Van Liere and Dunlap empirically established that
several commonly used scales for GEC were not equivalent. That is, the scales measure
different latent constructs.

Another possibility for the low correlations may be that the attitudes and behaviors
in environmental studies have typically differed in their degree of specificity (Mainieri et a1.
1997). Ajzen and F ishbein (1977) pointed to the need to address the specificity issue
when testing attitude-behavior correlations. It has been shown in attitude research that
general attitudes do not predict specific behaviors well, and vice versa (Schuman 1972).

Finally, researchers have found important moderating variables that may attenuate
the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors including effort, financial
cost, convenience, and perceived self efficacy (Hines et al. 1987, McKenzie-Mohr et al.
1995, Mainieri et al. 1997, Schultz and Oskamp 1997).

Association between outdoor recreation and stewardship

Dunlap and Heffeman (1975)»now referred to as “the Dunlap-Heffeman” thesis--
investigated the relationship between participation in different types of outdoor recreations
and environmental concern. Using regression analysis, they found significant, but weak,
positive correlations between participation in select outdoor recreations and environmental
concern. The authors found somewhat stronger support for the hypothesis that the
positive relationship was stronger for “appreciative” recreations (hiking, camping, and
visiting scenic areas) than for consumptive recreations (hunting and fishing). Since then,
several other researchers have attempted to replicate Dunlap and Heffeman’s study and

have produced inconsistent results (Theodori et al. 1998).

59

Most recently, Theodori et al. (1998) looked at the issue among Pennsylvania
residents. Their study differed from previous attempts to measure this relationship
because they utilized measures of behavior rather than attitude for the dependent variable-
-environmental concern (Table 2). They also improved upon previous work by confirming
the presence of consumptive and appreciative recreations though a factor analysis rather

than by a priori assignment. Ultimately, they found significant associations between all

Table 2. Measures of environmental concern used by Theodori et al (1998).

 

7 items‘I measuring “environmental concern”

 

Have you engaged in any of following behaviors during the past year:

contributed money or time to an environmental or wildlife conservation group;
stopped buying a product because it caused environmental problems;

attended a public hearing or meeting about the environment;

. contacted a government agency to get information or complain about an
environmental problem;

5. read a conservation or environmental magazine;

6. watched a television special on the environment;

7. voted for or against a candidate based on his/her position on the environment

#939!"

 

 

 

" Positive responses were scored (+1) and summed into a scale score.

eight activities that were investigated. The strongest zero-order correlation with
environmental concern was found between birdwatching (R=.262), while hunting
produced the weakest correlation (r=.074) (Theodori et al. 1998).
Empirical findings on public environmental attitudes

The following section summarizes findings related to environmental or wildlife
related studies of public values, attitudes, and preferences that pose implications for the

current study. The empirical findings that are presented in this review are organized by

60

moving from general environmental attitudes to research specifically addressing ecosystem
management. Nested within this continuum are summaries of results relevant to key
stakeholder groups in this study.

General Environmental Attitudes

Recent national and international surveys have revealed broad public concern for
environmental protection (Times-Mirror 1992, 1994, 1995, Belden and Russenello 1996,
Dunlap and Mertig 1997, NTEEF 1997). About seven in ten Americans describe
themselves as being pro-environmental. In 1995, about one in five (21%) described
themselves as "active environmentalists", while another 51 % reported that they are
"sympathetic toward environmental concerns, but not active" (Times-Mirror 1995.) In
terms of self-reported environmental knowledge scores, only 10 % report knowing "a lot"
about environmental issues. The majority» 54%»claim to "know a fair amount", 32 %
know "only a little", and 4% know "practically nothing".

In 1992 the Roper Organization reported the results of a cluster analysis that
identified five discrete segments of the American public based on measures of
environmental attitudes and behaviors. "True-blue greens" made up 11% of the survey
sample and are characterized as having positive environmental attitudes and very likely to
engage in several environmentally responsible behaviors including volunteering, recycling,
and donating money to environmental organizations. The next tier were the
"greenback-greens" (11%). Individuals in this cluster held positive environmental
attitudes and were the most likely of any group to donate money to an environmental

organization. The middle segment representing 24% of Americans--"the sprouts"»

61

espoused positive attitudes, but were less likely to engage in responsible environmental
behaviors, especially if confronted with personal costs. The remaining two clusters (52 %
of the sample) ranged from neutral to anti-environmental in their attitudes and behaviors.
While support for the environment is impressive in an absolute sense, it still
remains a "second tier" issue for most Americans when compared to other issues such as
crime and the economy (Belden and Russenello 1996; Times-Mirror 1994). Meanwhile,
most Americans (67%) believe that protecting the environment and growing the economy
are not mutually exclusive goals. When asked whether the environment or the economy
should receive priority when a reasonable compromise can not be found, 63 % sided with
the environment and 23 % opted for economic development in a 1995 survey (Times
Mirror 1995). Conversely, when asked whether all endangered species should be
protected at any cost, 67 % of respondents thought the costs should be considered while
23 % said that all species should be protected regardless of cost (Times-Mirror 1995).
While attitude trends toward the environment remained stable in the 1990's, results
suggest growing cynicism about the ability of government, industry and other institutions
to provide solutions to environmental problems. For example, in 1995 only 43 % of the
public thought government should do more to regulate pollution-a decline of 20
percentage points in two years. The authors of the Times-Mirror (1995) report suggest
that this indicates a shift toward individual self-reliance and responsibility to protect the
environment, noting that both volunteering and interest in volunteering on behalf of the

environment have increased. It is important to keep in mind that the backlash may not

62

represent cynicism about environmental protection per se but rather a broader anti-
govemment sentiment (Times -Mirror 1995).

The attitudes of Michigan residents toward environmental protection are similar to
the Times-Mirror national study, but may be more supportive of governmental regulation,
especially with regard to land use planning and reduction of urban sprawl (Hembroff
1995). Sixty-three percent of Michigan citizens in 1995 thought that environmental
protection and economic development could go hand in hand, while 36 % thought they
were in conflict. Of those 36 percent, 70 % said they would rather support policies that
protect the environment (Hembroff 1995).

High public support for environmental protection should translate into support for
ecosystem management to the extent that the public makes the association between the
need to maintain ecosystem services as a pre-requisite to maintaining environmental
health.

Stakeholder attitudes and values
Recreatiunalmds

I begin with a general description of the national trends in participation in
consumptive and nonconsumptive recreation and what those trends may suggest about
changing societal values. Based on the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife
Associated Recreation, over 108 million Americans participated in some form of wildlife
recreation in 1991 (USFWS 1993). Overall, 14.1 million people hunted, 35.6 million
fished and, 76.1 million participated in some nonconsumptive activity for which enjoying

wildlife was the primary purpose. It is important to note that there is significant overlap

63

between consumptive and nonconsumptive nonmembers. Results from the national survey
indicate that 57 % of hunters also engaged in some form of nonconsumptive wildlife
activity such as feeding or viewing, while 26 % of nonconsumptive users also hunted.
Taken together consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation generate about $ 59
billion dollars of economic expenditures annually.

While levels of wildlife participation and its substantial economic impact provide
some indication of the value of wildlife recreation to Americans, trends in participation
may provide clues as to shifting values and demands for resource use (Decker and Enck
1996). According to several recent studies, demand for nonconsumptive or nature
appreciation activities is rising dramatically while participation in hunting and fishing have
stagnated or declined slightly (U SF WS 1993, USF S 1995, Wight 1996 and USF S 1997).
Perhaps the most striking example is the 155 % increase in birdwatching reported between
1983 and 1994 (U SFS 1994-95). Over the past ten years birdwatching has been the
second fastest growing leisure activity in the U.S. (Adams et al. 1997).

Other outdoor activities with large increases during the same period include hiking
(+93.5 %), backpacking (+72.7 %), downhill skiing (+585 %) and primitive area camping
(+58.3%). Hunting (-l2.3%) and fishing (-3.8) exhibited modest declines (Cordell et al.
1997). In addition to increases in wildlife related nonconsumptive activities, there have
also been increases in participation in biking, boating, off road vehicle use, and personal
water craft use (jet skis) (Cordell et al. 1997). It appears that increasing levels of
participation by younger cohorts, dubbed “Generation X”, are primarily responsible for

increases in these “play space” activities (Cordell et a1. 1997).

64

It has been suggested that the general shift from consumptive toward appreciative
recreation activities in the U.S. is one indicator of changing societal values that are more
preservationist and less utilitarian (Kellert 1995, Knight 1996). Birdwatchers--as an
example» have been described as being “low” on utilitarian attitude scores (Kellert 1985).
It is premature to infer the values of society or of recreational stakeholders based on
participation trends in certain categories of activity.

An alternative to the “values shift” hypothesis to explain current participation
trends is demographic shifts that influence opportunity and recruitment into activities
(Murdock et at. 1992). Models that link general demographic trends in the U.S.
population with participation in outdoor activities suggest that participation in traditional
consumptive uses will continue to decline unless recruitment patterns change (Murdock et
al. 1992). Increasing urbanization--affecting both the number and convenience of hunting
opportunities» and increases in the number of female headed households are believed
responsible for the decline in hunting which is traditionally a male dominated and rural
activity (Witter 1990, Heberlein 1991, Dann and Peyton 1996). Participation in nature
appreciation activities have been demographically associated with urban, well educated,
and upper income individuals (Wight 1996, USFWS 1993, Witter 1994). These patterns
of recreational demand and associated demographic changes pose tough challenges for
public land managers with regard to ecosystem management planning.

Relevant attitudinal studies of stakeholders

Hunters

The motivations and satisfactions of hunters have been widely studied. Duda

65
(1993) provided an extensive review of research to identify reasons people hunt. Hendee
(1974) proposed a multiple satisfactions approach that recognized that hunters (and other
wildlife related recreationists) seek multiple benefits from participation in their respective
recreations. In other words, hunter success (i.e., game bagged) is not the only factor
leading to satisfaction, and indeed may be a comparatively minor one. While we know
quite a lot about what people seek from hunting, we know surprisingly little about what
hunters value from ecosystems. A brief examination of hunter motivations may provide
some clues as to how they may value the different ecosystem benefits proposed in the
model.

Kellert (as cited in Duda 1993) divided hunters into three types based on
differences in their attitude profiles. Nature hunters (11%) were characterized by their
high ecologistic and naturalistic attitudes, whereas meat hunters (43% ) and sport hunters
(3 7% ) exhibited high utilitarian and dominionistic scores respectively. These categories
have implications for the ecosystem benefits model. Given the labels of the latter two
types of hunter--meat and sport» one would certainly expect strong values for
consumptive recreation. Nature hunters, however, may place a higher value priority on
ecological dependence. Kellert (1996:71) hypothesized what makes “nature hunters tick:

Nature hunters seek an active role in natural surroundings, and hunting represents

a compelling opportunity for pursuing this interest. Exercising their role as

predator offers nature hunters a chance for intimate experience of the complexity

of ecological relationships and dependencies within a natural context.

Whether or not this segment of hunters develops a value for ecological dependence, at the

66

very least, their attitudes may lead to “a vivid appreciation and awareness of nature’s many
details and processes” (Kellert 1996:71).

Decker and Connelly (1989) categorized hunters based on motivations for hunting.
They found that nearly three quarters of New York deer hunters could be classified into
one of three types of primary motivations. Achievement hunters (11%) were those who
placed the most importance on opportunity to fill their tags, obtain venison, or shoot a
trophy animal. Appreciative hunters (65%) were those who placed the greatest
importance on the opportunity to get outdoors, observe nature, and relax. Affiliative
hunters (24%) placed the highest importance on group camaraderie of the hunting
experience and the opportunity to spend time with friends and family (Decker and
Connelly 1989). Decker and Connelly (1989) found that appreciative deer hunters were
more likely to be older, while achievement oriented hunters were younger than the other
two segments. Ringelmann (1997) found similar categories among waterfowl hunters, but
a slightly different distribution. In Ringelmann’s study (1997), there were nearly equal
proportions of appreciative and affiliative waterfowl hunters; achievement oriented hunters
were still the vast minority.

Decker and Connelly’s hunter motivations have three implications for this
research. One, hunters»both deer and waterfowl» are likely to place high value on nature
appreciation benefits. Two, at least some hunters will value consumptive recreation
benefits of management more than anything else. Three, the finding that appreciative
hunters tend to be older lends some support to the stage development hypothesis which

suggests that hunters’ primary motivations change as they get older, culminating in a

67

sportsmen’s stage where participation in conservation and stewardship may be the biggest
motivation (Jackson and Norton 1980).

Though still lagging behind our understanding of the motivations of consumptive
users, the literature examining the preferences of nonconsumptive recreationists is
beginning to expand. According to Duda and Young (1994), the number one reason for
participation by wildlife viewers is the opportunity to “see beauty in nature”. Surveys
indicate participation in wildlife viewing crosses demographic lines of age, gender, race,
and economic status, but there is a clear relationship between participation and level of
education. As level of education increases, so does the likelihood of one’s participation in
wildlife viewing (Duda and Young 1994).

Several studies have identified different segments of nonconsumptive wildlife
viewers (Manfredo and Larsen 1993, McFarlane 1994, Martin 1997). For example,
McFarlane’s (1994, 1996) study of Canadian bird watchers and Martin’s (1997) research
on Montana tourists both segmented users based on degree of specialization posed in
Hobson Bryant’s (1977) theory. Alternatively, Manfredo and Larsen (1993) developed
four segments of users from cluster analysis of desired “experience-based” outcomes of
wildlife viewers. These ranged from high-involvement users to viewing generalists.

Martin (1997) found that wildlife viewing specialists and novices were significantly
different in their preferences for site amenities and types of wildlife sought. Though
specialists and novices both indicated a strong desire to see large mammals and birds of

prey, specialists were substantially more interested in seeing songbirds, reptiles and

68

amphibians, small mammals, and waterfowl. Manfredo and Larsen (1993) found similar
species preferences among all categories of wildlife viewers, with one exception: only high
involvement users indicated a strong preference for viewing large mammals such as big
horn sheep and antelope. However, the lower preference for viewing these large

mammals expressed by less involved viewers may have been caused by perceived difficulty
in accessing habitats where those species are prevalent.

Specialists in Martin’s (1997) study also differed from novices in the preferences
for site development. Novices were much more likely to desire facilities such as gift
shops, rest rooms, and picnic areas than were viewing specialists. It has been
hypothesized that site development will decrease use among wildlife viewing specialists
who seek more “natural” environments in which to observe nature (Duffus and Dearden

1990)
Brim

The group of nonconsumptive users that has received the most research attention
is bird watchers (birders). This is likely the result of the long, recognized history of
birding as pastime, the significant amount of economic expenditures it provides, and it’s
rapid growth in participation (Adams et al. 1997). Birders may represent a unique type of
wildlife viewer in that they exhibit a particular fascination with avifauna and have been
shown to be more ecologically knowledgeable than other segments of society (Kellert
1985)

McFarlane (1994) adapted Decker and Connelly’s (1989) primary motivation

categories in her investigation of bird watchers in Canada. In addition to achievement,

69

affiliative, and appreciative motivations, a fourth category--conservation» emerged in a
factor analysis of survey results (McFarlane 1994). Unlike hunters, no birder had a
primary affiliative motivation. Most interesting for the purpose of my study, however, are
the implications of the relationship between level of birding specialization and primary
motivation.

McFarlane (1994) classified birders into four levels of specialization based on past
experience, economic commitment, and centrality to lifestyle measures. The four levels of
birders»casual, novice, intermediate, and advanced were then compared based on their
primary motivations. Two aspects of the results are particularly interesting. One, there
was a tendency of specialized birders to be achievement-oriented in their motivations.
Two, conservation decreases as a primary motivation as specialization increases
(McFarlane 1994). This evidence is contrary to both specialization and stage development
theory where one would expect support for conservation of the valued resource to be
highest among the highly specialized and the most experienced (Bryant 1977, Jackson and
Norton 1980). The implications for the current investigation are that some birders, indeed
the most ardent, may tend to have lower stewardship value.

Adams et al. (1997) compared the recreational motivations and attitudes toward
wildlife management of Texas bird watchers and waterfowl hunters. Similar motivations
emerged between the two users and also parallel findings of previously reviewed
motivational studies. The top two reasons given for birding were “to be close to nature”
and “fascination with birds”. Hunters listed “to be close to nature” and “to be with

friends” (Adams et al. 1997). To the extent that recreation motivations reflect one’s

70

values, this finding suggests that both waterfowl hunters and birders in the present study
may both place high importance on “nature appreciation”.

While hunters and birders may share some of the same motivations, Adams et al.
(1997) found significant differences between the two groups on all nine survey questions
concerning beliefs about wildlife management. Similar to findings of Witter and Shaw
(1979) birders were far less likely to agree that the opinions of non-hunters were
considered by wildlife managers than were hunters. Birders were also less likely than
hunters to agree that hunting was necessary as a management tool and that nongame
species received enough attention in management decisions. Finally, hunters were leSs
likely than birders to think that management primarily benefitted game species, that
endangered species protection should be protected if it leads to job losses, and habitat
protection should supersede property rights (Adams et al. 1997).

E . I.

National environmental organizations like the Sierra Club have increasingly relied
on the courts to challenge traditional resource management policy and planning, especially
the impacts of timber harvest on wildlife species and biodiversity (Yaffee 1994, Woiwode
1998). Yet, dissatisfaction may not only be with forestry managers. In Michigan, the
Sierra Club has threatened lawsuits over the management of state game areas unless
environmental impact statements are conducted to assess the effects of current practices
on biodiversity (Woiwode 1998). The legal challenges of environmentalists are a
significant driving force in the shift to ecosystem management (Jones et al. 1994).

Several studies have shown that economic, commodity, or utilitarian values for

71

resource management are low among environmentalists (Kellert 1980, Vining and Ebero
1991, Reading and Kellert 1993, Xu and Bengsten 1997). The forest management
preferences of environmentalists have been shown to be linked to aesthetic, amenity, and
spiritual values (Vining and Ebero 1991, Xu and Bengsten 1997). Kellert (1980) found
that members of environmental protection organizations had the highest ecologistic
attitude scores among 15 segments of the population.

At issue is the relative priority of value preferences of environmentalists for the
benefits categories in the present model. Vining and Ebero (1991) compared national
environmental organization members with those of the general public and resource
managers on benefit preferences for national forest lands. Surprisingly, environmentalists
tended to be more like the general public (non-organization members) than were resource
managers in management benefits. Overall, environmentalists assigned higher importance
to scenic beauty, wilderness, and wildlife habitat than to recreation, which suggests that
environmentalists’ ecosystem values may not directly reflect personal use benefits.
Attitudes toward Ecosystem Management

Fan and Bengsten (1997) reported that 75 % of public attitudes were favorable
toward ecosystem management, and that favorable public attitudes had been increasing
over the five year period from 1991 to 1996. Their findings were based on a nationwide
content analysis of mass media coverage of ecosystem management in the most generic
and abstract expressions. Descriptions of ecosystem management from media texts were
coded and judged to be positive or negative descriptions of the term. Using newspaper,

radio, and television accounts as proxies for attitudinal evaluations presents a serious

72

methodological shortcoming. As an example, the adjective “broad based”»used to
describe ecosystem management» was judged to be favorable (Bengsten and Fan 1997),
yet one could make a case that such description could be construed negatively as well.
Another problem is that Fan and Bengsten (1997) make the assumption that all media
accounts of “ecosystem management” were equally valid. No attempt was made to
control for variability in the accuracy or level of sophistication of the concept descriptions.
Three recent studies have assessed public attitudes toward ecosystem management
in a select geographic area. Reading et al. (1994) looked at attitudes and ecological
knowledge levels of residents of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Overall,
residents expressed an understanding of the need to undertake "coordinated management"
of the region for species like grizzly bears and elk, but many feared that ecosystem
management would lead to increased government control of private lands and would
negatively impact the region's economy. Of particular interest, Reading et al. (1994)
found no differences between hunters and non-hunters on a ecosystem management
attitude scale or ecological knowledge scale. However, hunters were significantly more
utilitarian and libertarian in their attitudes than non-hunters. Reading et al. (1994) also
found members of conservation or wildlife organizations 8 (e. g., World Wildlife Fund)
were significantly more knowledgeable and supportive of ecosystem management than
non-members. Finally, several demographic variables were related to attitudes toward

ecosystem management. Young, female, high income, and well educated respondents

 

The authors did not specify whether hunters and environmental organization members
were treated as mutually exclusive groups.

73
were more likely to endorse ecosystem level management for the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem.

Jacobson and Marynowski (1997) reported results of an ecosystem management
attitude study that had three similarities to this study of Southern Michigan. One,
Jacobson and Marynowski (1997), like Reading et al. (1994), assessed public attitudes
toward ecosystem management in a specific place: in their case, Florida’s Eglin Air Force
Base. Second, Jacobson and Marynowski investigated attitudes of both consumptive and
nonconsumptive users who recreate on Eglin’s 110,000 ha complex. Three, respondent
attitudes toward ecosystem management were measured using items that a) addressed
specific management objectives on a 5 point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree options) and b) implied trade-offs in the production of benefits.
Ecosystem management items from the Florida study are listed in Table 3.

The Jacobson and Marynowski study also differs from my research in several
important respects. First of all, the authors offer no theoretical framework for their

operationalization of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management was one of four

Table 3. Measurement items used by Jacobson and Marynowski (1997) to measure public
attitudes toward ecosystem management in Florida.

WW5. (5 point Likert scale: strongly agree to
strongly disagree)

 

OEglin managers should have a broader focus than game animals alone.

vEglin managers should focus on whole forest ecosystems rather than specific species.
oRecreational impacts to Eglin’s native plants and animals should be limited.

oEglin mangers should have a broader focus than the conservation on native pine forests
alone.

 

 

 

74

attitude areas surveyed by the authors. The three others included attitudes toward 1)
native and endangered species; 2) fire ecology; and 3) forest resources. These four
content areas are not mutually exclusive. The latter three are all to some extent subsets of
ecosystem management.

The second problem lies in the items purported to measure the four attitude
constructs. The authors do not specify whether the items were developed for each scale a
priori or whether they were grouped via the subsequent use of factor analysis. A visual
inspection of the items (see Table 2) suggests the latter approach was taken. For example,
the item “Eglin is important in the southeast for native plants and animals” is reported
under the fire ecology composite. Intuitively, one would expect such an item to load on
the native and endangered species attitude scale. More problematic is the inclusion of the
item: “The number of people allowed to use Eglin should be limited” with the native and
endangered species composite score, despite no substantive reason for doing so. Further
analysis of the scales is not possible because the authors fail to report either the factor
loadings of each item from the factor analysis or reliability tests done on composite scale
scores. In short, given the lack of rigor in the measurement of attitudes, the following
interpretation of their results must be viewed with caution.

Jacobson and Marynowski surveyed both residents surrounding Eglin Field and
recreational users including hunters, anglers, hikers, canoeists, bicyclists and wildlife
viewers. Results were reported for hunters, anglers, and general recreationists (i.e.,
nonconsumptive users), but it is unclear how the authors may have handled dual users

(those who participated in both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities.) In addition

75

to the attitude measures discussed previously, knowledge levels were also assessed using
ten true-false items covering natural history features of the plant and animal communities
found at Eglin.

Overall, attitudes toward ecosystem management were found to be neutral to
slightly positive. Mean scores (on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 was very supportive) for
nonconsumptive users (3.6), anglers (3.4), and hunters (3.0) exhibited significant
differences on the ecosystem management composite (F=17.69, p= .0000). Highly
educated, higher income, and urban respondents expressed higher levels of support for
ecosystem management, replicating the findings of Reading et al. (1994) in the GYE.

Significant differences were also found between hunters and nonconsumptive
recreationists on two other attitude composites as well. Nonconsumptive recreationists
(3.3) were slightly more positive than hunters (3.2) in their attitudes about endangered
species (F = 4.55, p=.01). Hunters were substantially more positive in their attitudes
toward fire ecology than the more neutral nonconsumptive users. Hunters averaged 3.5
compared to 3.2 for nonconsumptive users (F = 3.91 , p= .02). No significant differences
were found between recreational users in their attitudes toward forest resources.

While not addressing ecosystem management per se, some other recent attitude
studies have implications for the kinds of ecological objectives that are part and parcel of
ecosystem management. Belden and Russenello (1996) conducted a nationwide study on
behalf of the Nature Conservancy to assess public values for biodiversity. They found that
only 20 % of Americans had even heard of the term, and fewer yet knew what it meant.

Once biodiversity was defined for them, three quarters of the respondents expressed broad

76

support for its conservation. However, that support was out almost in half when costs
such as economic development were introduced. Most relevant for this study is that a
cluster analysis of the sample indicated that a group dominated by hunters (referred to as
“Disconnected sportsmen”) were least supportive of biodiversity conservation, especially
when it threatened private property rights. This private property backlash against
environmental protection has also been noted in other national surveys (Times-Mirror
1995).

In a regional study of attitudes toward salmon restoration, Smith et al. (1997)
found that Oregon coastal residents placed more importance on production of salmon than
on genetic variation in the salmon stocks. In other words, most residents did not make the
connection between hatcheries and the decline of wild fish, and viewed salmon production
as more important than genetic integrity. These results are similar to a study of Lake
Michigan anglers who preferred higher numbers of available fish over fewer, but wild
strains of salmonids (Peyton 1990).

Furthermore, most residents identified the need to reduce predators (such as
marine mammals and corrnorants) as an important salmon restoration strategy (Smith et al.
1997). The predator reduction strategy was supported more than improving forest or
agricultural management practices or reducing the negative effects of hatchery raised fish.
These findings along with the Belden and Russenello (1996) study suggest that while the
public may express support for benefits like biodiversity or restoration in principle, many
people remain focused on, and in fact opt for, narrow preferences like single species or

economic development over broader ecological objectives.

77

State Game Area Users

In 1993 a longitudinal study to develop user profiles of state game area
recreationists was initiated in Southern Michigan. The study was scuttled after two years
due to some methodological problems with data collection, which involved year long site
intercept interviews (Maureen McDonough, Dept. of Forestry, pers. comm).
Consequently the results of the study must be interpreted cautiously (McDonough 1995).
Nonetheless, the findings suggest some potential implications for the current study.

Five state game areas were selected for the study, including the Shiawassee River
State Game Area. The two most common activities reported on the five areas were
hunting (46 % of all use) and fishing (14.1 %). Activities like birdwatching, nature study
and cross country skiing were reported by very few of the respondents. Seven in ten users
in the sample pool reported having hunted on the area where they were contacted at least
once during the course of that year (McDonough 1995).

The reader needs to bear in mind that the reported results were not segmented by
type of user, and were heavily weighted toward hunters. The survey included numerous
questions about wildlife management practices on the state game areas. Most notably,
there was strong support for traditional game species management practices. Overall, a
majority of respondents felt the following practices were important: maintaining wildlife
food plots (92%), regulating water levels for waterfowl (84%), emphasizing game species
over nongame species (66%), and timber harvesting (58%). Only 45% felt it was
important to create wildlife travel corridors or use fire as a management tool (McDonough

1995).

78

When asked about benefits that state game areas provide, “conserving natural
areas for future generations” (82%) and “protecting water quality” (81%) were the top
rated responses. The number of people who thought that “providing hunting
opportunities” and “protecting rare/endangered species” were important benefits was
approximately equal (65 %). Fewer respondents thought that providing scenic beauty
(55%), nature study (39%), providing recreational variety (37 %) or enhancing local
tourism (32 %) were important benefits (McDonough 1995).

Summary

The preceding section offered an overview of research findings that suggest a basis
for developing hypotheses to guide investigation of relative values stakeholders may hold
for benefits described in the three dimensional, conceptual model. Overall, it is clear that
no previous studies have conceptualized or operationalized public ecosystem values in
manner congruent with this study. Most notably is that stewardship has thus far been
poorly defined and no studies have explored its relationship to other preference based or
assigned values. The implication of the research that was reviewed above is that
stakeholders are likely to place at least some importance on multiple benefits, but may
have a top priority. The results of this literature review was used in conjunction with
focus group findings from preliminary stages of this research to design the research
question and associated hypotheses presented below.

Research questions & hypotheses

Question #1: Do the measurement items form reliable and valid measures of the
theoretical ecosystem values constructs ?

79

Hypothesis, 1-8: Measurement hypotheses’.

Question #2: What are the absolute and relative value priorities for exclusive
stakeholder groups (hunters, birders, and Sierra Club members) and how do they
differ ?

Hypothesis, 9: Consumptive recreation will be the highest rated ecosystem benefit for pure
hunters.

W

Past research has demonstrated that hunters are motivated by a variety of social,
environmental, and achievement goals and that segments can differ in the priorities
they place on those goals (Decker and Connelly 1989; Ringlemann 1997).
However, it seems logical that hunters would place the highest value on
consumptive recreation since that value is part and parcel of the activity that
defines them as a sub-culture of society. Focus group results also support this
hypothesis

Hypothesis, 10: Nature appreciation will be the highest rated ecosystem benefit for
Audubon members.

W10:

McFarlane (1994) found support for this hypothesis in her study of the motivations
of Alberta birdwatchers. Kellert (1985) also found aesthetic appreciation of birds
as a primary motivation for birders in the U.S. Focus group results also support
this hypothesis that birdwatchers place a highest value on the opportunity to
observe and study birds and other wildlife. It is plausible that birders may have an
equally high value for ecological dependence given the fact that they tend to have a
higher degree of ecological understanding (Kellert 1985) than many other wildlife
recreation groups.

Hypothesis, 11: Ecological dependence will be the highest rated ecosystem benefit for SC
members.

RatinnalefoLHkli:

This hypothesis is based on the assumption that many people who join
environmental organizations are motivated by the cause (perceived need to protect
the environment) rather than interests in any direct recreational experience with

 

9

Hypotheses 1-7 were excluded to avoid redundancy. Each posits that items used to
measure the six ecosystem values and the stewardship value are reliable indicators.
Hypothesis, 8 states the items are valid indicators of the seven constructs.

80

wildlife or nature. Since environmental organization members typically receive
negative information about the state of the environment from organization
newsletter and magazines, one would expect their ecological dependence value to
be reinforced through these communication channels. Once again, focus group
result suggest environmental organization members value ecological dependence
over nature related recreation values (consumptive, appreciative, or play space).

Hypothesis, 12: Hunters will place less importance on ecological dependence benefits than
will Audubon members and SC members.

W42.

Hunters typically have lower ecological knowledge levels than the other two
groups (Kellert 1980). Since ecological dependence value is dependent on
possessing and understanding certain beliefs about the constraints of natural
systems for human well-being, I suspect most hunters are deficient in their
understanding of this dependence.

Hypothesis, l3: Hunters will place more importance on the consumptive recreation and
exploitive benefits than either birders or SC members.

W:

The fact that hunters should have a higher value for consumptive recreation than
those who don’t hunt is obvious. Several studies have demonstrated that hunters
possess a greater tendency toward utilitarian or economic uses of nature than do
other groups (Vining and Ebero 1991, Reading and Kellert 1993). This likely
stems in part from the higher likelihood for hunters to live in rural or resource
dependent communities than other stakeholders (Times-Mirror 1994, Belden and
Russenello 1996).

Hypothesis, 14: SC members will have the highest mean scores for ecological dependence
benefits of all stakeholder groups.

Hypothesis, 15: SC members will score higher on the stewardship value than other
stakeholder group.

WW:

Sierra club members will place a higher value for stewardship than other groups
because it is the value domain that defines who they are. While other groups (e. g.,
bird watchers) may also rate highly on this value, their recreational self-interest will
be their primary value priority.

81

Question # 4: Do the priorities placed on ecosystem benefits differ within or
between stakeholders based on any of the following factors: site-use, hunting
preferences, or recreation participation patterns.

Hypothesis, 16: The greater the number of nonconsumptive wildlife recreations that
hunters participate in, the higher the value they will place on existence, ecological
dependence, and nature appreciation benefits.

WI While it seems obvious that nature appreciation values would
be positively related to the number of nonconsumptive recreations one participates
in, multiple activities should also indicate a broader understanding the importance
placed on ecosystems and wildlife.

Hypothesis, 17: Consumptive recreation value of hunters will increase based on the
number of types of hunting one participates in.

This hypothesis is based on the assumption that breadth of hunting types can be
taken as sort of a rough surrogate for hunting importance. In other words,
individuals who participate in many types of hunting during the course of a year
ought to be more committed to the sport of hunting than someone who only does
one type of hunting. If this is true, one would expect these more committed
hunters to place a higher value on managing ecosystems for consumptive benefits
than more casual hunters. Caution is advised with this hypothesis because it is
plausible that a small number of species-specialists hunters (e. g., waterfowl-only
hunters) may be highly committed (Ditton et al. 1992) even though they only do
one type of hunting.

Hypothesis, l8: Waterfowl hunters (as defined by favorite type of hunting) will have
higher ecological dependence and nature appreciation values than do gun-deer
hunters.

This hypothesis arises from results of focus groups held in the preliminary stages of
this research. The specialized nature of waterfowl hunting suggests that
participants may have a more refined sense of ecological communities because of
their need to identify more select habitats in order to be successful than do deer
hunters whose prey is a wide ranging generalist. In other words, waterfowlers

tend to be more plugged into the natural environment and this awareness should
lead to a greater value placed upon natural settings and processes.

82

Hypothesis, 19: Participation in nature study as a favorite activity will be positively related
to both nature appreciation and ecological dependence for both hunters and non-
hunters.

W2:

Nature study as recreation suggests that participants either bring to the activity or
develop some degree of environmental sensitivity and environmental knowledge.
This awareness ought to be associated with a greater value for healthy functioning
ecosystems (Hines et al. 1987 ).

Hypothesis, 20: The ecological dependence and existence values will be higher for
environmental organization members than for nonconsumptive nonmembers.

RatienaleforiLZQ; The basis for this hypothesis lies in the underlying
motivations for inclusion into the two stakeholder groups. Nonconsumptive

nonmembers are defined based on recreational activity that may or may not include
environmental awareness or concern. We would environmental organization
members to be an indicator of stronger ecosystem values.

Hypothesis, 21: Birders who belong to environmental organization will have higher
ecological dependence, nature appreciation, and existence values than will non-
organization birders.

W Kellert (1985) found that participation in birdwatching was
partially a function of personal fascination with birds. McFarlane (1994) found
specialized bird watchers to be especially focused on achievement aspects of the
activity, and less concerned with conservation motivations. This hypothesis
suggests that while nonmember birders may possess strong nonuse related values,
those birders who are also environmental organization members should place a
higher priority on these categories.

Hypothesis, 22: There will be no difference in the priorities placed on the valued
ecosystem benefits by study site users and nonusers among both hunters or non-
hunters.

WW2:

While one might expect differences to exist toward specific attitudes and values of
on and off site users in some local area, measuring fundamental values within any
select population (e. g., hunters) ought to yield similar results (Ajzen and Fishbein
1977)

83

Question # 5: How do stakeholders differ in their perceptions about current
ecosystem attributes in Southern Michigan ?

Hypothesis, 23: Hunters will perceive fewer deer, waterfowl, and places to go hunting
than will non-hunters.

W23:

Hunter evaluation of the current amount of these attributes will be influenced as
much by their desire for those attributes as by their objective opinion about actual
amounts.

Hypothesis, 24: Audubon and SC members will perceive less than adequate levels (i.e.,
“too few exist”) of songbirds, frogs and amphibians and wildlife diversity than
hunters and non-member, non-hunters.

W:

Environmental organization members are more likely to be influenced by
information rather their own experience and evaluation of current conditions.
Therefore they will likely rate songbirds, frogs, and diversity as lacking due to
recent publicity about the decline of those attributes that have appeared in the
media and in organization communications.

Hypothesis, 25: Waterfowl hunters will perceive fewer ducks than will deer hunters; and
deer hunters will perceive fewer deer than will waterfowl hunters.

W15:

Similar to the rationale in support of hypothesis 23, specific types of hunters will
likely advocate for own self interest. Those who specialize in specific recreations
are likely to demand more of those resource specific attributes that drew them into
the activity (Ditton et a1 1992).

Hypothesis, 26: Public land hunters will perceive fewer places to hunt, fewer deer and
fewer ducks than will non-public land hunters.

W: Assuming that selection and use of a hunting area is partially
a fimction of access and availability, hunters who use public lands regularly
probably do so because they have few or no options to hunt private lands. Since
public land hunters are also more likely to experience crowding than hunters on
private lands, they will be more sensitive to competition for hunting opportunities
including the types of game species sought.

84

Hypothesis, 27: There will be no perceived differences in abundance levels of all wildlife
attributes among non-hunters who visit public lands and those who do not.

W: Since nonconsumptive users tend to be less focused on
specific attributes (with the exception of specialist who may wish to observe or

study certain species), use of a particular area is less likely to affect their evaluation
of conditions (Martin 1997).

Question #6: What factors are related to support for the “ecosystem management”
options presented in the hypothetical trade-off scenarios ?

Hypothesis, 28: Hunters will be less supportive of ecosystem management options in the
tradeoffs than non-hunters.

113W

Ecosystem management studies done in other geographic locations have shown
that hunters tend to be neutral to moderately negative in their attitudes toward
“ecosystem management” expressed at a broad conceptual level (Reading et. al.
1994) or as a set of concrete strategies (Reading and Kellert 1993, Jabcobson and
Marynowski 1997).

Hypothesis, 29: SC members will be more supportive of ecosystem management options
than either of the other exclusive stakeholder groups.

W:

It is likely that environmentalists would be most supportive of management that
shifts its focus to producing benefits within a framework of long term sustainability
of ecosystems.

Hypothesis, 30 : Hunters who use the study site public lands will be less supportive of
ecosystem management than other hunters.

W19: Implementation of ecosystem management poses the most
risks to the current users of the study site areas. Therefore it stands to reason that
those users would be most wary of changes from the status quo, especially if the
benefits to them are unclear.

Hypothesis, 31: Most of the nonhunting, non-organization member respondents will be
undecided about (most) ecosystem management trade-off options.

W11:
It is likely that most people will be largely unfamiliar and perhaps unprepared to
evaluate complex trade-offs inherent in ecosystem management. Therefore, it is

85

reasonable to expect a large portion of undecided opinions from users who have
not had much opportunity to be exposed to communication about the goals of
ecosystem management.

Hypothesis, 32: Support for ecosystem management trade-offs will be higher among urban
residents, females, and college educated individuals for both hunters and non-
hunters.

W: This hypothesis is based on the assumption that those who
people whop typically express the most environmental concern will be able to
recognize ecosystem management as a means to achieving environmental health.

Question 7: Which factors best predict the presence of an individual’s stewardship
ethic ?

Hypothesis, 33: (SEM Path model) Hunters’ value for consumptive recreation will directly
and positively influence their nature appreciation and ecological dependence
values; nature appreciation will also directly and positively influence one’s
ecological dependence value; ecological dependence value will directly and
positively influence stewardship(Figure 2).

Hypothesis, 34: (SEM Path model) Non-hunters’ value for nature appreciation will
directly and positively influence their ecological dependence values and existence
values; their existence value and ecological dependence value will positively
directly influence ; ecological dependence value will directly and positively
influence stewardship (Figure. 3)

86

Figure 2. A Hypothesized path model of hunter stewardship

    

 
   
 
  
 
 

consumptive

, ecological
recreation

’ dependence

   

stewardship

  

  

nature
appreciation

  

Figure 3. A hypothesized path model of non-hunter stewardship.

existence

value

 

 
 

   
 

  

nature

appreciation stewardship

 
   

  

   

ecological
dependence

  

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Study area

Stakeholder ecosystem values and their attitudes toward ecosystem management
were investigated in a two-tier area of Mid-Michigan (Figure 4). The core area for this
research corresponded with the MDNR Southern Michigan Ecosystem-Based
Management study site that included Clinton, Gratiot, and Saginaw counties (indicated in
dark shading on the map in Fig.4). Second tier counties immediately adjacent to the three
county pilot study area comprise the expanded data collection area. These counties
include Isabella, Bay, Midland, Tuscola, Genesee, Shiawassee, Ingharn, Eaton, Ionia, and
Montcalm.

The pilot ecosystem-based management area features three managed state game
areas, a federal wildlife refuge, and extensive acreage of private, agricultural lands. The
area was selected because it has three features that present unique opportunities to do
ecosystem management in Southern Michigan. First, the physical proximity and linear
configuration of the public lands in the area offer the potential to model the effects of
changing landscape patterns. Second, the combination of state and federal ownership in
the area presents opportunities for interagency cooperation and development of holistic
management strategies. Third, the interspersion of private lands offers Opportunities to
pursue cooperative agreements with willing private landowners in the management area,

including potential development of wildlife corridors. It is important to acknowledge that

87

88

Gratiot Co. Shiawassee

Natl. Wildlife
Refuge

 

 

  

 

Gratiot-Saginaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shiawassee
River SGA
Maple River
SGA
Clinton Co.

 

 

 

Figure 4. Ecosystem-based management core study area.

89

the pilot area lacks an important criterion of ecosystem management in that the boundaries
are not ecologically based. Indeed, the pilot study area contains parts of two different sub-
regions in Albert’s (1995) classifications of ecoregions of the Midwest (Figure 5).

The Lansing sub-subsection (V 1.4.1) covers all of Clinton county and a portion of
Gratiot county. Albert (1995: p. 119) describes this area as “medium-textured ground
moraine; beech-sugar maple forest, and hardwood swamp”. Common pre-settlement
vegetation included black maple, basswood, red oak, and ash. Swamp forest and wet
meadows contained American elm, red ash, and swamp white oak. Most of the original
forest has been converted to agriculture and pasture lands. One of the rarest plant
communities in the state--the inland salt marsh occurs along the Maple River (Albert
1995)

The Saginaw Bay Lake Plain subsection (V 1.6) is described as “glacial; lake plain
and reworked till plain, mesic to wet-mesic forests, swamp forests, wet and wet-mesic
prairie, and emergent marshes” (Albert 1995: p.127). Historically this area was quite
diverse in its composition of coastal marshes and wet prairies. The wet prairies contained
true prairie grasses like big blue stem, Indian grass, and cord grass. Many of these areas
have been ditched and farmed. Upland conifer stands were dominated by white pine and
eastern hemlock. Lowland conifer swamps characterized by tamarack were also common.
Logging and agriculture have transformed the landscape. Numerous rare plants and
animals can be found in what is left of original glacial plain marshes (Albert 1995).

The rationale for expanding the survey sampling area to 13 counties was to

increase the likelihood of obtaining large enough sample sizes for certain stakeholders

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:3 ' . 53711.1
vu.3 V1121 ;: "
o I _J'—‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 ‘0'}...
,. 3 v1.6 ..
3. 4‘ L3: ' f c
53' V14? $vuz vt§2
'.\ {At 32‘. O.“ '3 xx:
v1.9a: -’
‘-I '.3.3
i..o"'.::::: 0‘.
1311.31 :'
0’ . :0
0'... " ... 0- Q
(.0: '0'..:,.. .0 {Egg .1 .~.: :3 i:
o. a“ :';I ‘ .0" :
d": . I,” {I L
Vl.2.1 "' ’ ' " ° '-

V1.2.2
scale in miles

20 40 ‘0

Scale 1 : 2.000.000

 

Figure 5. Ecoregion classifications for the lower penisula of Michigan

from Albert(l995).

 

 

 

91

(e.g., bird watchers) that may be hard to capture in a three county range given available
databases. The second reason for surveying a broader area is that many recreational users
such as waterfowl hunters likely travel greater distance from home to pursue waterfowl
hunting10 on the state game areas (Al Stewart, MDNR, pers. comm). Sampling in adjacent
counties allowed me to test hypotheses related to differences between “resident” and
“tourist” users of the recreation areas.
Research design

Data were collected using qualitative and quantitative methods. The Michigan
State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) approved
all methodology (Appendix A).
Agency input

During the initial year of this research, several workshops were held with MDNR
staff members to obtain a practical set of ecosystem management objectives in the study
area that could be incorporated into attitude measures on a mail questionnaire. These
meetings included both on-site tours of each of the four public land areas with agency field
biologists and facilitated planning meetings at MSU with field biologists and mid-level
managers within the MDNR. During the latter meetings, a nominal group technique
(Delbecq et al. 1975) was used to try to generate hypothetical ecosystem management

opportunities (e.g., objectives) in the study area. Results of this process are summarized

 

10

A visual inspection of hunter addresses from 1996 daily hunting permits at Shiawassee
River State Game Area confirmed a general pattern that a higher proportion of waterfowl
hunters lived outside the 3 three counties than did deer hunters.

92

in Appendix B. Ultimately, the agency personnel had difficulty in articulating many
concrete ecosystem management products or goals that could guide this research. In the
absence of clear agency goals, the author developed some ecosystem management “trade-
off” questions by adapting some of the ideas generated during these discussions that had a
basis of support in the ecosystem management literature.
Pre-survey focus groups

Focus groups were also utilized to guide the development of the survey
instrument. Focus groups provide a useful tool for obtaining qualitative data about the
perceptions of a given population on some subject or topic of interest (Minnis et al. 1997).
Focus groups are structured, facilitated group discussions that allow researchers to gain
insights into the ways in which individuals relate to and think about concepts (Krueger
1994). We conducted focus groups with five different stakeholders: deer hunters,
waterfowl hunters, bird watchers, environmentalists, and landowners adjacent to the study
area SGAS.

Specifically, focus groups were conducted to achieve the following objectives:

1) Determine stakeholder perceptions about current environmental conditions and
management practices on public and private lands within the study area.

2) Identify key criteria or variables that guide decisions for stakeholders in value
trade-offs.

3) Evaluate stakeholder understanding of key terms (e. g., biodiversity) that may be
used on the questionnaire.

4) Explore the use of hypothetical management scenarios as a vehicle for
developing questionnaire items.

93

5) Identify stakeholder attitudes about ecosystem management when applied to
their region.

6) Determine how stakeholders perceive their own degree of stewardship or

obligation to support ecosystem management objectives.

Each group discussion was conducted by following a scripted set of questions (see
Appendix C). Following the advice of Morgan (1996), ordering of questions varied
among groups to take advantage of: 1) group differences in wildlife participation (e.g.,
bird watchers were not asked why they like hunting); 2) Spontaneous development of
issues or topics that were unique to a particular group; and 3) revised attempts to present
participants with clear and meaningful definitions/goals of ecosystem management
concept. Prior to discussion of ecosystem management with each group, a short
explanation of biodiversity and ecosystem management was provided. For example,
participants were told that biodiversity meant “the full variety of species in all the types
and age classes of plant communities in which they occur”. A simple handout was
provided to emphasize that biodiversity exists at several levels including genetic,
population, and community levels.

Meanwhile, ecosystem management was presented as a holistic management
strategy that attempts to produce optimal levels of the following categories of benefits:

- biodiversity

0 restoration

- self-sustaining, functioning systems

0 reduced habitat fragmentation

0 diverse human uses including recreational opportunities

Ecosystem management was contrasted with traditional management or single species

94

production, whereby managers attempt to produce or attract some maximum number of
some species (e. g,. game or endangered species). Ecosystem management applications
that were tested in the focus groups were formulated from a synthesis of the current
literature and through facilitated group discussions with Michigan DNR Wildlife Division
Staff about possible approaches to future management. Focus group respondents were
asked to react to trade-off scenarios where management decisions would favor one set of
values over another. Participants were told that all questions were hypothetical and did
not reflect actual management proposals for the state of Michigan or the pilot study area.

The analysis of focus group results guided the development of several hypotheses
for this research and the selection of several variables for model testing. Most notably,
initial plans to develop alternative, paired paragraphs that varied multiple attributes to
present trade-offs were abandoned based on their poor performance during focus groups
(Minnis et al. 1997). Instead trade-offs were simplified into discrete items that pitted two
values against one another.
Pilot survey

A pilot survey (Appendix D) was mailed to a random sample of 200 people
selected fi'om the Lansing area phone book. The sample was drawn solely for convenience
to allow for assessment of instrument reliability and validity, and not to infer any
substantive meaning about public opinions. The results from the pilot survey were
assessed for construct validity and item reliabilities for the variables measured with the
instrument (see below for procedural details). Following statistical analysis of the pilot

survey data, several measurement items were added, deleted, and modified to develop the

95

final instrument (Appendix E).
Questionnaire design
I l [v . l l

Likert scales were used for all of the value and attitude items on the questionnaire.
Likert scales offer the primary advantage of being user fiiendly for survey respondents
(Suskie 1992). There is some disagreement in psychometric theory about whether Likert
scales produce ordinal or interval level data (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). This study
assumes that data gathered is interval and that statistics used in the study are sufficiently
robust to handle violations of this assumption (SPSS 1993).

I l . l .

The six ecosystem values were measured on a 5 point scale of importance using
options of: “critically important”(4)l ', “very important” (3), “moderately important” (2),
“slightly important” (1), and “unimportant” (0). An undecided option was also included to
increase reliability (Converse and Presser 1986). Four of the ecosystem values were
measured using four items each, existence value was measured using three items, and play
space was measured with six items (Table 4).

Items for consumptive recreation, nature appreciation, existence, and economic
extraction were intermixed to try to avoid “response sets” (Converse and Presser 1986).
These can occur when respondents fall into a pattern of answering based on the repetition

of item ordering without fully considering each question.

 

11

Numbers in the parenthesis following response options indicate the numerical value that
the response was coded as in data entry and analysis.

96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ed w Z<O_=U:2 .Om Z— .25th2 220208. Emu—t. MO... maz<4 03m?— 20 D230... mtmgmo a<~§2=2 GZ< m<O >Z< mNECD >52 m3 .r<:._..:
m. 20:2 .0m 2. 3.2232200
owd .290.— m0 h2m2m04m>ma U—ZOZOUm mm: mUZ<IZm O... m. moz<q 03m?— 20 mug—30mm”— 4<¢DH<Z ~50 “.0 >HEODE h2m2m0<2<2 < #5:.
Ed 2.. mm:_ZD.FMOm.—O UEOZOUm OZ< me» mmh<mxu .10.: .0m 2— mDZ<q 2.53m 20 may—30mm:— 4<¢E<Z ~50 no h2m2m0<2<2 ._.<=._.
owd owd 5.. mmF—ZDEZOD .222 .8 ".0 HZNZmOAmng U—EOZOUm um E010 3.020”: O.» Qm0<z<2 my: maz<q 2.53m .74.:
gaze-bum
N. 48:2 dm 2. MESS—3 Expo
36 x0 . whz<4m imam—m mmw OH mun—23.5.2.5 muz<=Zm OH Dme>0¢m my: mZO_._.<oOZZOUU< m<d$=m mo .m<m¢< OZ—Bm; £42»: 025:: ._.<=._.
N. 02:22:
55.6 OZEDQ 25: ~5th r222 .0m 2. moz<4 05m?— 20 $922me 33:2 2. mum—.54; >0..Zm Q 1823 O._. mmFEZOmx—O m¢< mam»: hit.
inc N. 55.52 .EHOmt. 732m.— DZ< O0 0... mmUh—m auto .222 .0m 7: mDZ<4 95m?— ._.<»=.
6 20.2 .Om
owd Fwd Z. map—.(Z >O»Zm QZ< X‘Ed Oh OD Z<U mamOm—m mam; mmu<am m< Owl—(#222 mm >S<wm BZmUm QZ< A<¢E<Z OEmmmmmOm m<m¢< H<:._.
.3528.— < 0.. 3.. Z
5.. 10.2
cad .0m 2— HZmZZO~=>Zm m3... m0 Elia: mm... “baby—.— 0.-. m2.— USmDL ZO DMZ—<2; mm m2mhm>mOUm DZ< mum—ADA; m0 tad—mac < ks:
m. 1_<>_>~5m 2523: do... HZ<FMOAE_ my:
wwd 5:: mm<u Z_ mz_<:U GOO... GZ< OZSU>U thEDZ m< IUDm mmmmmoolmm 45200408. DEA—355 Q_O>< thZmD<Z<Z QZ<._ 03E: #5:.
mwd 5.. 20 Qmemo 30> ._.<E PZBZZOMSZM 5:. ".0 2.535 m2... humfibxm O.— Dm>O~ES= mm .122 .0m 2— EiDO «Mr—k3 ow ~=< #5:
N. 10:2 .0m Z— 20 92950 N? .74»; Ems—20:52”.—
mad had m»: OZ—Z—(HZES 7: 95¢ < ><qm FIG—E >8: mmD<Umm mnz<q 2.52m 20 amzzhmx mm w._.Z<.E d. mum—‘54:? m0 mug... 4?. ._.<=._.
92.2...» cc .3. 23m
at? mass.
whens—.20 . .28..— mEDHH o—aom nun—ax? Eo~w~nmoom

 

 

 

.838 33> 82388 no.“ 35:32:: «sq—m c5 amazeme— uoaofl vofiwcwccflm .v 032.

 

97

.8 4m1m_qv£§_m§ .28.. heap—taco... E 83:58 3228.: £2...me do coca—8 toads—Ema 2.. o... mus—3o. .98..— .

 

 

 

 

 

 

and N. ozE<0m do. mmmoo< mo 8:25.930 .559... .222 ow z. 825 232.. ..<E...

dwd N. mam m: quE «on. 3.89.. do 3:22....an .559... £22 8 z. 825 2.53.. FE...

Rd N. $3.0 025:. «o. 3.69.. .5 8:25.23 .359: .22.). 0m 2. 825 use... EE...

3d 8d N. oz.d..o:3o% do. $59. «0 mm.:z.5.o....o .559... :22 0m 2. 825 2.5.: RE...

vial; m a...

N. ZmE 55 20> 52 mo «Emma

Ed 82.54%: z<35= .8 he: >dm>F<dm¢3 mzoEozP. 3.5 $522 5.....3 .222 .8 z. 825 03.5.. mm... BEE ENE >65. 8

Ed N. 5.: mum «0 .5: «mi. 30> 52 .5 $25....» :22 .8 z. 825 2.52.. zo 82.5.22: 025m 5.... madman 9.33.? :E 305. E

N. 5E 55 xm>mz 30> .. 2.5.. 9:55....

.wd Ed .5 82.5.22: mm 9.5825 9.5.2 .8 mo ES. 2...... 54525.... .35. SE mmEzszzoc E25,. oz< 9.33.3 5E Bozo. E

o=_a> 353...”.—

N. :2: .8

.dd 2. 82.... use... 20 mm.:zE~.o....o 02:23.. 823.75 oh 89.3.: mm Ngoémbds dz< Mama :0... $.85 .53 .0 mzoE<S..o.. FE

odd N. :22 .8 z. $33.3 do Ema; < .23.. E mmEExEE 52 SEE EE

mdd Ndd N. :22 .8 z. ozEza. 22925.8”. 8 $89.. auto 825 ESP. HE...

538.8: 3: 5:230

and? 9.68.. 8.8. £an 82.; Eodmfioom
$535.0 .28“.

 

 

 

 

~38. v 03......

98

The four items measuring ecological dependence had to be blocked because they
were preceded by a belief question regarding ecological dependence that served as a filter
question. I reasoned that valuing ecosystems for survival was dependent on holding the
belief that human survival is in fact tied to a healthy environment. Therefore, respondents
were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the following statement: “Unless a
suflicient level of environmental quality is maintained in Southern Michigan, our own
existence as individuals and as a society will be jeopardized Those respondents who
disagreed with this item were directed to skip the four eco-dependence items and were
assigned a score of zero for each of those items. The six items measuring play space were
also blocked for purposes of saving space in layout and design.

The questionnaire also included items to measure other three other constructs
which were believed to be important influences on one’s acceptance of ecosystem
management goals and strategies. Ecosystem stewardship, DNR credibility, and perceived
anti-hunting threat were all measured on five point Likert scales with these response
options: “strongly agree”(+2); “agree” (+1); “undecided” (0); “disagree” (-1); and
“strongly disagree” (-2). Stewardship and credibility were measured with four items each,
with one item negatively phrased and reverse coded. Perceived anti-hunting threat was
measured with three items and only hunters were asked to respond to these items.

Attitude toward ecosystem management was measured through a series of nine
questions relating to hypothetical management trade-offs on the public lands in the study
area. A map was provided for the respondents who were asked to consider the questions

in the context of the area depicted. These items were the only ones on the questionnaire

99

that addressed opinions about a specific part of Southern Michigan. The ecosystem
management questions utilized the same responses as described above. Agreement with
the “ecosystem management option” presented in each trade-off was coded as a favorable
(positive attitude) response. The underlined portion of the items in Table 5 indicates the
preferred ecosystem management goal within each choice underlined. Four of these items

(#42,43,45 & 48) were worded negatively and reverse coded.

Table 5. Questionnaire items (Appendix E) depicting ecosystem management value trade-
offs.

WWW even if it means lowering the population sizes of some common

species of wildlife living there.

WW even though opportunities for economic benefits from logging

are passed up in the short term.

Always maintain game species at high population levels rather than allowingmpflaflmmgh
WM.

Manage ecosystems to meet specific public demands for wildlife recreation and scenic beauty even if it

curtails W.

W (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil conservation, and groundwater recharge), even if it
means providing fewer opportunities for wildlife recreation.

Enhance existing ecosystems for wildlife rather than WWW
degraded.

Divert efforts from game species management to focus Went;

Introduce plants from other countries that provide good food for wildlife species even if the introduced

Plants eliminatenatixulanm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To assess an individual’s overall ecosystem management attitude, a scale was
created by collapsing the agree and strongly agree responses and assigning them a value of
one (+1). The disagree and strongly disagree responses were collapsed and assigned a

value of negative on (-l). Undecided were left at zero (0). Each person’s ecosystem

100

management score became the sum of the collapsed responses to the nine items. The
respondents were then sorted into three categories based on percentile scores of this
distribution. The lowest 25 % of respondents were given a categorical value of one (1.0)
indicating “low ecosystem management support”. The middle 50 % of the responses were

assigned a value of two (2.0)-- “medium ecosystem management support”. Finally, the

K
WK

highest 25 % of the scores were assigned a value of three (3.0), indicating “high
ecosystem management support”.
El.” 1 H. E I ll

Cronbach’s alpha scores were used to assess the scale reliabilities for each of the
six ecosystem values measured, and for “stewardship”, “MDNR credibility”, “perceived
anti-hunting threat”, and “attitude toward ecosystem management”. By convention,
Cronbach alpha’s of 0.7 or greater were considered sufficiently reliable (Cortina 1993).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using LISREL 8.0 ® to test
measurement hypotheses related to validity of the measurement items for each of the
variables in the hypothesized causal model and for each of the six hypothesized valued
ecosystem benefits. Internal consistency and parallelism tests in CFA allow one to infer
that variables of interest are unidimensional and sufiiciently exclusive of one another.
Both of these characteristics are evident that construct validity has been achieved (Boster,
MSU, Dept. of Com., pers comm.)

Scale scores were created for the latent variables described above. In the case of
the six ecosystem values, scale scores represent the respondents’s average score across all

items in the scale. Averages were used rather than a summative score because the six

101

scales differed in the number of items used and several hypotheses required direct
comparison of the relative importance of these values to each other. In contrast, scale
scores for stewardship and the other attitude scales were developed by summing across
item measures.

The questionnaire also posed a series of questions targeting attitudes about current
levels of several ecosystem attributes in Southern Michigan. Attributes fell into three
categories: ecosystem types, wildlife and recreational opportunities. Five point Likert
scales offered the following response options: “far too many” (+2”); “slightly too
many”(+1); “about the right amount” (0); “slightly too few” (-1); “far too few” (-2); and
“no opinion” (treated as missing data). Variables involving participation in outdoor
recreation, site visits, organization membership and demographic questions were posed as
yes/no and check-off questions.

Total design method

Final surveys were administered using Dillman's (1978) total design method where
the initial mailing is followed by a post card reminder and a second survey is mailed to
nonrespondents. Surveys were mailed using first class postage and included a cover letter
(Appendix F) and prepaid business return envelope. Nonrespondents were mailed an
abridged 2 page questionnaire to assess non-response bias (Appendix G).

Sample selection

In the summer of 1997, surveys were mailed to four separate sample groups based

 

12

The direction of sign for the value of the response was assigned positive to indicate a
surplus, and negative values to indicate a deficit.

102

on a priori interest in measuring the values and attitudes of certain stakeholders: deer
hunters, waterfowl hunters, bird watchers, and members of environmental organizations.
The same survey instrument was also mailed to a sample of the “general public”'3 in the
summer of 1998. Each of the five survey groups was generated from random samples
from their respective sampling sources. Lists were pooled and sorted by last name to
identify duplications and those were removed. The rationale and limitations of each of the
five sample sources is discussed below.
W

The names of 592 deer hunters were randomly selected from the MDNR database
of 1996 resident hunters--both archery and gun--who completed hunter kill surveys and
indicated that they hunted in Clinton, Gratiot, or Saginaw counties in 1996. Deer hunters
were chosen from counties in the core study area to maximize the likelihood of capturing
respondents who hunted on one or more of the state game areas. The sample was
stratified 50/50 among archery and gun hunters to provide adequate sample sizes of
archers.
W.

Name (n=605) were selected from records of the Michigan’s point-of-sale license
terminals of persons who purchased state waterfowl hunting stamps in 1996 and also

resided in one of the 13 study counties. Names were drawn from the records in this

 

13
Though the term “general public” is used as a label of convenience, the author sides with

the view of Witter (1990) that as a stakeholder group, the “general public” only becomes
meaningful when it is segmented along some practical basis.

103

expanded area based on the observation by area managers that waterfowl hunters were
more likely to travel farther to hunt in the state game areas than were deer hunters (Arnie
Karr, Al Stewart, MDNR, pers. com.).

The names of 614 subjects were selected from Michigan Audubon Society
members living within the 13 county area. Though all members of Audubon Society are
not active bird watchers, it was assumed that sampling from this organization was the
most efficient way to reach people with an interest in bird watching, short of doing field
intercept interviews which were deemed to be cost and time prohibitive. The selection of
organization members posed some potential limitations for this study in that these
individuals may differ from non-member birdwatchers. An assessment of this limitation
was made by comparing Audubon birdwatchers to nonmember birders who responded in
the 1998 general public survey. These results are discussed subsequently.
Sierraflnhmemhers.

A random sample of 495 Sierra Club members living in the expanded 13 county
area was selected from membership lists of the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club.
There were pragmatic reasons for selecting the Sierra Club for this study, though this
organization can not be said to be representative of “all” environmentalists or
environmental organizations. One practical reason for choosing the Sierra Club over other
alternatives was that their centralized membership list represented the most complete and
accessible database of all the potential environmental organizations queried for

participation in this study. Another reason for their inclusion in this study is their

104

increasingly active role and interest in shaping forest and wildlife management policies in
the state of Michigan (see Woiwode 1994, 1998).
gamma;

This sample was derived by randomly selecting 1,000 names that were purchased
from the Michigan Department of Motor Vehicle's driver license database. The sample
frame was drawn from drivers 18 or older living in Saginaw, Gratiot, or Clinton counties.
The use of licensed drivers as a sampling source is an imperfect representation of all
Southern Michigan citizens. However, the source was deemed more desirable than
purchasing addresses from a commercial vendor '4 due to potential problems with gender
bias and out of date addresses. Interest in sampling from the general public arose for three
reasons. 1) It was hoped that an adequate response would yield a sizable group of “non-
involved” stakeholders (e. g., nonmember, nonusers) for value and attitude comparisons.
2) Response from hunters and birders would allow for comparisons between sample frame
and sampling tiers to increase confidence in measurement reliability. 3) If the percentage
of respondents had been large enough, then attempts to identify cluster segments within
the general population would have been pursued. The latter opportunity was abandoned
due to a poor response from this sample survey.

Data analysis

Usable surveys were entered in a spreadsheet for analysis on SPSS 6.1 ® for

 

l4

E.g., Survey Sampling, Inc. of Connecticut. Address lists available from commercial
vendors are drawn from telephone directories which typically list males as head of
household.

105

Windows. Every twentieth survey was rechecked for key-stroke errors and corrections
were made when errors were discovered. The keystroke error rate of 0.04 % was
calculated and determined to be sufficiently negligible on the outcome of data analysis.

Because many of the univariate histograms indicated that the data was not
normally distributed, nonparametric statistics were employed to test a variety of
hypotheses related to value and attitude profiles for discrete groups of interest. Alpha
levels for significance testing were set at 0.05 for all statistical tests. Casewise deletion
was used for missing data when performing univariate, descriptive statistics. Listwise
deletion was used for missing data for model testing in LISREL 8.0 ®. Hypotheses
regarding significant mean differences between key stakeholders utilized independent
sample t-tests for comparing two groups and one way analysis of variance (AN OVA) for
comparisons among two or more groups. In the latter instance, Sheffe’s post-hoc
comparison test was used to identify where the significant difference(s) had occurred.

All AN OVAs run to test for group differences included Levene’s test to check for
violations of the homogeneity of variance assumption--or that the variances of each
groups were equal. In most cases this assumption was satisfied, but there were a few
cases where violations occurred. These type of violations can be expected when dealing
with non-normally distributed data as was the case for many of variables in this study
(SPSS 1993).

Hypothesis testing involving bivariate relationships utilized cross tabulations and
Pearson’s Chi-square as the statistic to test for significance. Hypotheses testing of the

effects of simple multi-variate models of influence utilized multiple regression and the

106

results include both significant model values (F-test) and significant single variable results
(t-test).
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM

Theoretical models examining the effects of selected ecosystem values and
attitudes on the presence of ecosystem stewardship were tested using structural equation
modeling (SEM) in LISREL 8.0 ®. Structural equation modeling, also referred to as
covariance structure analysis, has emerged as a promising methodological advancement in
the testing of hypotheses positing causal relationships among latent variables. Recent
examples of the use of SEM in human dimensions research include Fulton et al. (1996),
Bright and Manfredo (1996), and Minnis (1996).

SEM subsumes several statistical methods including multiple linear regression,
path analysis, and factor analysis into one package (Fassinger 1987, Bollen 1989, Joreskog
and Stirbom 1996). In doing so, structural equation modeling allows a researcher to
simultaneously test the fit of a linear model that posits a set of causal relationships among
a set of unobserved (latent) variables and also the fit of a measurement model of indicator
variables and the latent constructs they purport to measure (F assinger 1987). This
flexibility allows separate inspection of each component of a full SEM and enables the
researcher to diagnose both measurement and theoretical shortcomings.

Full SEM’s incorporate the error terms present in measured in assessing the fit of
the global and measurement models. This feature presents an improvement over previous
psychometric techniques such as multiple regression by testing the strength of theoretical

relationships as if the variables of interest were measured perfectly (Bollen 1989).

107
How stakeholders are defined.

Wildlife-related, nonconsumptive recreations were defined to be birdwatching,
nature study, wildlife feeding, and photography. These four activities loaded together in
an exploratory factor analysis of the outdoor recreations included on the questionnaire
(Table 6). The presence of two apparent play-space factors--machine based and fresh air--
add additional support to the earlier decisions to drop cross country skiing and biking

from the measurement model".

Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis of recreation patterns.

 

 

 

WM
FRESH AIR TRADITIONAL APPRECIATIVE MACHINE
activity factor activity factor activity factor activity factor
loading loading loading loading
backpacking .68 fishing .53 ‘ birding .78 ORV riding .72
CC skiing .57 hunting .54 1 photography .55 snowmobiling .73
biking .60 trapping .60 nature study .69 boating .64
hiking .70 picking .52 feeding .71
canoeing .59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

The factor analysis of outdoor recreations is discussed only as a basis for establishing
which recreations to classify as “nonconsumptive-wildlife-related”. However, the
emergence of two potential play space factors will be discussed in the final chapter.

108

Membership in stakeholder groups was determined by responses to questionnaires
rather than by origin of sample frame. Depending on the research question and associated
hypotheses, several stakeholder segrnentations were used in data analysis. The simplest
segmentation into hunters and non-hunters was done by splitting the pooled samples based
on their response to item number #54 (Appendix E), “Are you a hunter?”. All refinements
of stakeholder segments retain this fundamental split.

The delineation of the five major, mutually exclusive stakeholder types are as
presented in Figure 6, which will be repeated throughout the remainder of the dissertation
for the readers’ convenience. Those respondents who belonged to more than one
category were eliminated from the all analysis related to attitude and value differences.
Figure 6. Definitions of major stakeholder segments used in the study.

mm: hunters who did not check any of the four nonconsumptive wildlife

recreations16 as one their favorite types of outdoor recreation (1997 survey).

MW: hunters who checked one or more of the nonconsumptive wildlife
recreations as a favorite (1997 survey)

Winners: non-hunters who belonged to Audubon Society, but not the Sierra
Club (1997 survey)

When: non-hunters who belonged to Sierra Club, but not the Audubon
Society (1997 survey)

WWW: includes all those who checked at least one type of

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation as a favorite, are not hunters, and are not members of
any environmental organization (1998 survey)

 

l6

Nonconsumptive wildlife recreations were considered bird watching, wildlife feeding,
photography and nature study. These were determined through results of exploratory
factor analysis of 14 types of outdoor recreations.

109

Evaluation of construct validity and item reliability (Measurement hypotheses)

A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using LISREL to test a six factor
model of orthogonal, latent constructs as a means to establish the construct validity of six
ecosystem values hypothesized in the 3-D values framework. Maximum likelihood
estimation procedures were employed to generate path coefficients between each observed
indicator and the associated latent construct from a covariance matrix of the 25 indicators
purported to measure the six latent ecosystem values. The overall fit of the model was
assessed using a Chi-square test and several other indices provided in the LISREL output,
including the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), and Root Mean
square residuals (RMSR). GF I is the ratio of the sum of squares accounted for in the
model over the total sum of squares of the estimated population matrix. Values range
from 0 to 1; the closer this ratio is to one, the better the fit of the model to the data
(F assinger 1987). Generally values in the 0.8 or 0.9 range are deemed as an adequate fit
of the model (Jorsekog and Sorbom 1996). The NFI measures how well the model fits the
data compared to a baseline model with no common factors among the observed variables.
Again, this value ranges from 0 to 1.0 and is interpreted similarly to the GFI (Fulton et al.
1996). The RMSR is a measure of the overall error variance in fitting each parameter to
the model and should be close to zero (F assinger 1987).

The initial confirmatory factor analysis model produced a solution after seven
iterations. The solution yielded a Chi-square of 2,504.09 with 261 df, (p=0.00). Since
SEM tests the null hypothesis that the model fits the observed data, a significant Chi

square is not desirable. However, chi-square values are influenced by sample size such

110

that it is almost assured that a significant test result will occur when the sample size of a
model exceeds 500 (Bollen 1989). Given that the n=1517 for the CFA of ecosystem
values, Chi-square alone is insufficient as a test of model. For example, the model
produced a GFI of 0.87, a NFI of 0.90, and a RMSR of .08-- all indicators that a
moderate fit was achieved.
Revisions to measurement scales for ecosystem values

A second ecosystem values CFA model was tested afier dropping three indicators
from the original model based on modifications indices suggested by the LISREL output.
These items were:
How important is it to you...

O... that game fish populations be managed to enhance the fishing opportunities on public
lands in So. Mich. ? (Consumptive Recreation Scale)

O... that public lands in Southern Michigan provide opportunities or access for biking .7
(Play Space Scale)

...... that public lands in Southern Michigan provide opportunities or access for cross
country skiing ? (Play Space Scale)

The exclusion of these items from the model makes sense on theoretical grounds.
The first item"-- dealing with fishing-- may have caused problems in the pooled sample
that included both hunters and non-hunters. Nonhunting anglers’ responses to this item

were likely inconsistent with their responses to the three other scale items that dealt with

 

'7 Although this item was dropped for purposes of model testing that involved the
consumptive recreation latent value, it was included as one of four measures used to
compute the consumptive recreation scale scores reported for stakeholder groups.

lll

hunting benefits. This inconsistency would depress the inter-item correlations within the
scale.

The exclusion of the two play space items suggest that there may actually be two
separate play space factors-- one that is machine based and one that deals with the so-
called “silent sports”. Meanwhile, the value for biking and cross country skiing were not
included in the computation of play space mean scores for stakeholder groups.

Based on these modifications to the six factor ecosystem values model (n=1512),
the evaluation indices of the CF A were improved: chi-square=972.24, 194 df, (P=0.0);
GFI=0.94; NFI=0.96; and RMSR=0.04. Standardized factor loadings and Cronbach’s
alphas for the latent constructs are reported in Table 4.

Strong reliability coefficients were achieved on each of the six value scales.
Cronbach alpha’s ranged from 0.94 for the consumptive recreation value18 to 0.80 for the
nature appreciation scale (Table 4). Based on the confirmatory factor analysis results and
the strong reliabilities that were achieved scale scores were constructed for the six
ecosystem values. In doing so, value scores that are reported throughout represent mean
scores across the items within each ecosystem value. Based on these results, measurement

hypotheses 1-8 are supported.

 

'8 Incidently, the Cronbach alpha for the consumptive scale with the fishing item included
was 0.92.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Response rates

During the 1997 survey, a total of 1545 usable questionnaires were returned from
the four stakeholder sample groups for an overall response rate of 68. 7 %. Response
rates for sample groups ranged from 78.1 % for Sierra Club members to 65.3 % for
Audubon members (Table 7). Response from Sierra Club members was deemed
satisfactory and no nonresponse follow-up was conducted for this sample group. An
abridged version of the questionnaire (Appendix G) was mailed to non-responding deer
hunters, waterfowl hunters, and Audubon members along with a stamped return envelope
in an attempt to cutdown on the number of hardcore nonrespondents. This mailing
yielded an additional 205 responses (81 deer hunters, 68 Audubon members, and 56
waterfowl hunters) (Table 8). With the addition of this nonresponse mailing, the
percentage of contacts rose to over 76% for all groups (Table 9).

The response to the 1998 survey of the general public was poor. Three hundred
and ninety (3 90) usable surveys were returned. After adjusting for the 71 undeliverable
surveys, the response rate was 42%. Eleven surveys were returned without a single
question being answered.

Nonresponse bias
In the 1997 sample, statistical comparisons were made between those who

answered the full questionnaire and those who sent in the abridged nonresponse survey.

112

113

Table 7. Overall survey response rates to 1997 summer surve .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Group Sent Undeliverable ' Delivered Returned response rate %

Sierra Club members 495 10 485 379 78.1
Waterfowl hunters 605 15 590 398 67.4
Deer hunters 592 16 576 377 65.4
22:03; Society 614 17 587 390 65.3
unidentified returns -- -- -- 1 ..
TOTAL 2306 58 2248 1545 68.7

 

' Undeliverable surveys included those surveys returned by the Post Office marked “incorrect address”,
“forwarding order expired” and also persons who responded to indicate that the addressee was deceased. A
total of 6 surveys were refused and returned and these were treated as nonrespondents.

Table 8. Response rates to nonresponse follow-up (abridged survey).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample group ’ Sent Returned Response rate %
Deer hunters 216 81 37.5
Audubon members 225 68 30.2
Waterfowl hunters 210 56 26.6
TOTAL 651 205 31.5

 

‘ A nonresponse follow-up was not conducted on the Sierra Club sample due to their high response rate.

Table 9. Combined response to both full questionnaire and nonresponse follow-up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample delivered surveys total returns response rate %
Deer hunters 576 458 79.5
Sierra Club members ' 485 379 78.1
waterfowl hunters 590 454 76.9
Audubon members 597 458 76.7
TOTAL 2248 1750 77.8

 

 

 

' Sierra club did not receive a nonresponse mailing.

 

 

 

 

114

Among Audubon Society members no differences were found between respondents and
non-respondents on several key variables.

There were a couple of differences that emerged between hunter respondents and
non-respondents. Nonrespondent hunters were less likely to be users (30 %) of the study
public lands than were hunter respondents (48 %) (x2=4.16, 1 df, p<.05). This suggests
that 1997 hunter respondents may represent a higher percentage of public land users than
would appear in a random sample of all Michigan hunters. There were no significant
differences on items measuring ecosystem benefits. Therefore, nonresponse bias does not
appear to be a substantial issue among either 1997 hunters or Audubon Society birders.

Among the 1998 survey group, too few nonresponse survey cards were returned
to perform statistical comparison within stakeholder segments. Of those who did return
the nonresponse post card (n=42), the most frequently cited reason (20) for not returning
the long form questionnaire was “Not interested in the topic”. Eighteen people checked
“Survey was too long/complicated”. Overall, those responding to the 1998 survey were
primarily people with some recreational interest in wildlife. The survey failed to capture
nontraditional wildlife stakeholders, especially minorities.

Stakeholder segments and definitions

For purposes of data analysis stakeholders were segmented into mutually exclusive
groups. Results are reported for five stakeholder groups that were segmented based on
responses to survey results rather than on sample origin. Results are intended to provide
profiles of the stakeholder types, but are not meant to characterize the prevalence of the

stakeholders within Southern Michigan. As a reminder, the delineation of the five major

115

stakeholder types are repeated in Figure 6. Some of the stakeholder terminology
described in this chapter will utilize more or less specific labels. For example, the term

“hunters”, without

Figure 6. Definitions of major stakeholder segments used in the study.

mm: hunters who did not check any of the four nonconsumptive wildlife
recreations" as one their favorite types outdoor recreation (1997 survey).

W2 hunters who checked one or more of the nonconsumptive wildlife
recreations as a favorite (1997 survey)

MW: non-hunters who belonged to Audubon Society, but not the Sierra
Club (1997 survey)

When: non-hunters who belonged to Sierra Club, but not the Audubon
Society (1997 survey)

W: includes all those who checked at least one type of

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation as a favorite, are not hunters, and are not members of
any environmental organization (1998 survey)

qualification, means ALL hunters. Any references to types of hunter (e. g., “waterfowl
hunter”) was defined by responses to the question “What is your favorite type of
hunting?” even though the respondent may also have participated in other types of
hunting. Furthermore, segmentation by hunter type does not adhere to the boundaries
established for mutually exclusive stakeholders (i.e., small game hunters may or may not

engage in nonconsumptive recreations). The term ”environmental organization members’

refers to both Audubon members and Sierra Club members collectively.

 

19
Nonconsumptive wildlife recreations were considered bird watching, wildlife feeding,

photography and nature study. These were determined through results of exploratory
factor analysis of 14 types of outdoor recreations.

116

Demographic descriptors
1997 Pure Hunters

Forty-three percent of all hunters in the sample were classified as pure hunters
which means they did not check any of the four nonconsumptive wildlife recreations (bird
watching, wildlife feeding, nature study, and photography) as one of their favorite types of
outdoor recreation. The average age of pure hunters was 39.6 years old. As one would
expect, most pure hunters were male (96.7 %) and Caucasian (88.7%). A plurality of
pure hunters lived in rural areas (43.6%) (Table 10). Almost half (48.8) of the pure
hunters lived within the core study area (Table 11). The median responses for education
and household income were “some technical school” and $50-75,000 dollars respectively.
About half were members of some conservation organization-~about one in five pure
hunters was a member of Michigan United Conservation Clubs (22.5 %). Slightly over
one quarter of pure hunters (27.2 %) belonged to the National Rifle Association. .

On average, pure hunters participated in 3.5 types of hunting (out of 6 possible
categories) annually. About 92 % of hunters reported gun-deer hunting and about 55%
percent hunted for waterfowl (Table 12). When asked to select a favorite type of hunting
among six options provided, archery deer hunting was the most frequently selected type
(36.2%), followed by gun deer hunting (27.6%). About 21 % selected waterfowl hunting

as their favorite type (Table 13). Besides hunting (98.1%), the most frequently reported

117

Table 10. A comparison of mutually exclusive stakeholder by demographic
characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

StakeholdeLsegmem
Demographic
char actenstic pure dual-use Audubon Sierra club T63? . Sig.
hunters hunters members members statistic
=3 54 n=395 n=181 n=215
>'< age 39.6 43.1 54.7 49.9 F=48.2 0.001
sex (% of 96.7 95.5 71.2 43.5 x2=53l.5 0.001
males)
median 50-75K 50-75K 50-75K 50-75K x2=67.3 0.001
household
income
% with 21.8 20.2 52.7 73.6 x2=33 l .4 0.001
Bachelors
degree or
higher
% rural 43.6 45.3 19.9 9.0 x2=181.2 0.001
% Caucasian 88.7 90.9 96.1 95.7 x2=70.7 0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' Of the non-white respondents to this surveys, most were Native Americans (e.g., 6.1 % of the hunters and
4.3% of the hunters/birders.) African, Asian, and Latino Americans were nearly absent from the respondents
reflecting the low level of participation by those groups in both conservation and environmentalism.

Table 11. Distribution of the number of stakeholders residing m each study area tier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Of pure _ ?_ dual use . Audubon Sierra Club x2= 171.2
residence . . ,ahunters hunters» :Members ;  members , 6df .1
Tier 1 S1g<.0001
(study site counties) 176 178 2 4 1 5

Tier II

(“1393“ 161 182 121 172

counties)

Tier III

(outlying 27 4O 40 29

counties)

 

 

118

Table 12. A comparison of hunting participation levels and favorite types of hunting for
mutually exclusive hunter segments and all hunters in both surve years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outdoor recreation Pure hunters Dual use hunters t-value Sig

participation levels

mean number of favorite 5.0 7.9 -15.11 0.000

recreations '

mean number of hunting 3.5 3.8 -2.47 0.05

types/year b

type of hunting Percentage who participated in x2 Sig.
hunting ty pe each year

archery deer 47.6 52.4 0.002 0.99

gun deer 92.3 94.0 0.86 0.35

waterfowl 55.2 63.0 4.78 0.05

small game 85.4 83.8 0.41 0.51

upland birds 47.8 59.3 10.0 0.001

bear 6.0 9.0 2.37 0.12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' Respondents were asked to check outdoor recreations that represented “their favorite types” from a list of 14
options.
b Respondents were asked which of 6 difierent types of hunting they participated in during “a typical year”.

Table 13. Frequency of the favorite types of hunting by type of hunters in 1997 survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of hunting types selected by hunter as “their favorite”.
Type of
hunter Archery Gun-deer waterfowl small upland bear

deer game birds 762:1 4_ 1
pure 5 .df
hunters 36.2 27.6 21.4 8.6 6.2 0.0 S‘g<'°5
(n=364)
dual-use
hunters 37.4 27.4 25.5 3.0 6.9 1.0
(n=400)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

favorite types of outdoor recreations 2° for hunters were fishing (87.9%), camping
(58.8%), and boating (53.3 %) (Table 14).

Approximately seven in ten of the pure hunters reported visiting at least one of the
four public lands in the study area for outdoor recreation, and about 46% visited at least
two of the areas. Over 40 % of pure hunters have used the Shiawassee River SGA
(42.9%). Slightly fewer reported visiting the National Wildlife Refuge (36.5%), Maple
River SGA (36.0%), and Gratiot-Saginaw SGA (33.8%), (Table 15). The most frequently
reported use by the hunters visiting each property include: NWR, waterfowl hunting
51.1%; Shiawassee SGA, waterfowl hunting 63.5%; Gratiot-Saginaw SGA, deer hunting
69.9%; and Maple River SGA, deer hunting and waterfowl hunting were tied (51.9 %)
(Tables 16, 17, 18 & 19).

r ' v -

About 57 % of hunters checked at least one nonconsumptive wildlife-related
recreation as a favorite. Among these dual-use hunters, wildlife feeding was the most
frequently reported favorite type of nonconsumptive recreation (39.8 %); twenty-nine
percent of hunters reported birdwatching as a favorite outdoor recreation.

Several significant differences were observed between pure hunters and dual-use
hunters on both demographic and recreational use variables. Dual use hunters were
slightly older, were more likely to belong to an organization, and included a larger

percentage of females than did pure hunters. In addition to the nonconsumptive wildlife

 

20

Respondents were allowed to check more than one type of outdoor recreations as “a
favorite type”.

120

Table 14. Frequencies of favorite recreations for mutually exclusive stakeholder groups.

 

% of stakeholders who checked outdoor recreation as “one of their favorites".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outdoor X2 values are significant at p<.001 for all activities except for hunting.
recreations pure dual-use Audubon Sierra Club nonconsumptive
hunters hunters members members users
"3 = = = z
backpacking 7.4 12.8 20.1 39.4 12.1
CFOSS COUNTY 9.1 18.8 32.6 48.8 21.6
skiing
biking 23.4 34.3 39.7 47.4 39.7
hiking 16.2 32.5 52.2 68.1 44.0
canoeing 43.1 51.8 38.6 48.4 34.5
hunting 98.1 98.0
trapping 11.3 19.8 0 0 0
fishing 87.9 93.3 40.8 18.8 47.4
berry& 30.8 49.0 31.0 16.0 31.0
mushroom
picking
birding 44.0 79.3 41.8 61.2
photography 35.5 52.2 42.3 45.7
nature study 26.8 65.2 46.5 30.2
wildlife feeding 71.5 60.3 22.5 46.6
ORV riding 25.0 29.5 3.3 1.0 6.9
boating 53.3 61.3 25.0 24.9 31.0
snowmobiling 32.4 29.5 3.8 0 12.9
camping 58.8 69.8 45.1 49.8 49.1
jogging 5.5 9.5 12.0 21.6 11.2

 

 

121

Table 15. Frequency of study area public land use for recreation by stakeholders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of stakeholders who have visited each of the areas
PUblic pure dual use Audubon Sierra Club nonconsumptive X2 Sig.
land area hunters hunters members members users

n=364 n=400 n=185 n=216 n=lll
Maple 36.0 43.8 24.3 19.4 24.3 50.5 0.001
River SGA
Gratiot- 33.8 44.5 11.4 12.0 29.7 106.6 0.001
Saginaw
SGA
Shiawassee 42.9 56.3 24.9 18.1 40.5 106.2 0.001
River SGA
Shiawassee
Fefleral 36.5 48.8 28.1 22.2 39.6 50.5 0.001
Wildlife
Refuge
N0 VlSll 28.6 16.8 50.8 59.3 29.7 144.5 0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholder
who reported visiting the Shiawassee Federal Wildlife Refuge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of federal refuge visitors who engaged in select
outdoor recreations.
, _ x2 Sig
Type of pure dual use Audubon Sierra Club nonconsumptive
Recreation hunters hunters members members users
n=131 n=175 n=45 n=42 n=27
deer 38.3 31.3 1.75 0.18
hunting
waterfOWl 51.1 56.9 1.07 0.3
hunting
bird 13.5 31.3 80.8 50.0 65.9 96.2 0.001
watching
hiking 20.3 34.4 63.5 66.7 50.0 52.3 0.001
others 15.8 16.9 13.5 25.0 18.2 2.79 0.59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

Table 17. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholder
who reported visiting the Gratiot-Saginaw State Game Area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Gratiot-Saginaw visitors who engaged in select
outdoor recreations.
. . X2 Sig.
Type of pure dual use Audubon Sierra Club nonconsumptive
Recreation hunters hunters members members users
n=131 n=175 n=45 n=42 n=27
deer 69.9 62.9 1.58 0.20
hunting
WW1 31.7 33.7 0.13 0.71
hunting
bird 4.9 18.5 71.4 46.2 36.4 67.9 0.001
watching
hiking 16.3 28.1 61.9 57.7 54.4 40.1 0.001
others 22.8 25.3 9.5 26.9 24.2 2.79 0.59

 

Table 18. Frequencies of past participation in select outdoor recreations by stakeholder
who reported visiting the Shiawassee River State Game Area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Gratiot-Saginaw visitors who engaged in select
outdoor recreations.
. . x2 Sig.
Type of pure dual use Audubon Sierra Club nonconsumptive
Recreation hunters hunters members members users
n=l3l n=175 n=45 n=42 n=27
deer 42.3 47.8 i 1.58 0.20
hunting
waterfowl 63.7 61.7 1 0.13 0.71
hunting
bird 4.7 21.0 51.4 37.5 31.6 44.2 0.001
watching
hiking 12.6 19.1 55.9 49.3 54.4 36.7 0.001
others 11.6 17.3 9.5 20.1 19.6 2.79 0.59

 

 

 

123

Table 19. Frequencies of stakeholder recreation participation by visitors at the Maple
River State Game Area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of Maple River visitors who engaged in select
Reason OlltdOOl' recreations.
for . l . x2 Sig.

. . tin pure dual use Audubon Sierra Club nonconsumptive

V151 g hunters hunters members members users

n=l31 n=175 n=45 n=42 n=27
deer 51.9 36.0 7.74 0.01
hunting
waterfowl 42.7 46.3 0.37 0.53
hunting
bird 10.7 34.2 86.7 71.4 63.0 114.7 0.001
watching
hiking 13.0 19.0 40.0 50.0 37.0 35.3 0.001
others 29.8 26.9 1 1.1 14.3 29.6 9.4 0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

recreations, dual use hunters were significantly more likely than pure hunters to check all
categories of outdoor recreations as their favorites (Table 14). Dual use hunters
participated in more types of hunting than pure hunters and were more likely to have
visited state game areas (Tables 12 & 15).
Audubon Society Members

Audubon Society Members tended to be older (i=54.7 years old), to live in
suburban or urban areas (58.5%), and included a higher percentage of females (71.2
%)than did hunters. Almost all Audubon members were Caucasian (96.1 %) (Table 10).
Only 13 % of Audubon Society members lived in the core study area, while most of them
(65.4%) lived in an adjacent county. A majority (56.2 %) had some sort of post-
secondary education, and the median education level was a bachelor’s degree. The

median household income for birders was the same as it was for hunters and Sierra Club

124

members: $50-75,000. Thirty-eight percent (38.4%) of Audubon members also are
members of The Nature Conservancy.

Almost four out of five Audubon members reported bird watching as a favorite
type of outdoor recreation. The next most frequently reported favorite recreations were
nature study (65.2%), wildlife feeding (60.3%), and photography (52.2 %) (Table 14).
Less than half (49.2%) have visited any of the four public lands (Table 15). The NWR
had the highest percent visitation by Audubon members (28.1%) followed closely by the
Shiawassee River State Game Area (24.9%), and the Maple River SGA (24.3%) (Table
15). For each of the public lands, birding was reported by more on-site Audubon
participants than hiking or other activities.

Audubon birders were compared with Audubon non-birders for differences on
demographic, recreational participation, and psychological variables. The only significant
difference that emerged was that Audubon birders had visited a higher number of study
site public lands (>‘<=0.97) than did non-birders (>‘<=0.53) (t=2.18, 148 df, p<.05).
Therefore, these two groups were combined in the results that follow.

Sierra Club members

Nonhunting Sierra Club members (SC members) were predominately white
(95.7%), well-educated and urban dwellers. Their median education level was a
bachelor’s degree and over one third held graduate or professional degrees. Sixty-six
percent resided in urban areas with only 7 % living in one of the three core counties;
79.6% resided in adjacent counties. There was a fairly even split between men (43.5%)

and women (56.5%). The average age for SC members was 50 years. In addition to

125

belonging to Sierra Club, many also were members in the Nature Conservancy (39.4%)
and Greenpeace (22.7%).

The most frequently reported “favorite outdoor recreation” of this stakeholder
group was hiking (68.1%) (Table 14). About 60 % of Sierra Club Members have not
visited any of the study site public lands. Of those people who did use the public lands,
hiking was the most frequently reported activity (Table 16,17,18, and 19).

1998 Nonconsumptive users (nonmembers)

The average age for members in this segment was 52.7. Sixty percent of this
segment were woman. Nine in ten were Caucasian and the median household income was
between S 50-75K. Birding was the most frequently reported favorite recreation for
nonconsumptive users (61.2%). Bird watching was the most popular activity for
nonconsumptive nonmembers using Maple River (Table 19) and the federal refuge (Table
16); while hiking was the most highly reported activity for this group at the Gratiot-
Saginaw and Shiawassee River SGA’s.

Agency Credibility

Attitudes regarding DNR credibility were slightly positive for all five mutually
exclusive groups. On a four item scale ranging from (+8) extremely positive to (-8)
extremely negative, nonconsumptive nonmembers had a significantly higher mean score
(>‘<=1.85) from either Audubon (>‘< =1.00) and Sierra Club members (52 =0.92) (F=5.72, 4
df, p<.0001). Pure hunters (>7 =1.36) and dual-use hunters (>‘< =1 .55) were not statistically

different than any of the other groups on the DNR credibility index.

126

There were significant group differences in the responses to three of four
credibility items that comprised the scale (Table 20). Nonconsumptive nonmembers had
the largest frequency of positive responses on all three of the items where differences were
found. Sierra Club members were least likely to endorse statements about agency
credibility and also most likely to offer an undecided response. The one item for which no
group differences were found was: “I do not trust the DNR to fairly consider my own
interests when managing our public lands.” Though no group had a majority of
respondent’s agree to that item, the results indicate a fairly high level of distrust of the
agency across groups (Table 20 ). This finding suggests that while stakeholders can
positively view the agency’s scientific competence and ability to maintain a healthy,
sustainable environment, this does not necessarily translate into trust that the agency will
consider them in the process.

Perception of Anti-Hunting Threat

The timing of this survey was six months following a major ballot initiative in
Michigan that challenged the right of bear hunters to use bait or dogs as legal methods.
Though the effort was defeated at the polls, the issue clearly dominated the thoughts of
hunters. Both pure hunters and dual-use hunters shared strong attitudes about the “anti-
hunting threat” in Michigan. In fact, three questions targeting hunter perceptions about
the extent to which anti-hunting posed a threat produced little variance as hunters offered
nearly universal agreement. For instance, 93 % of hunters agreed with the statement that:
“those in society who oppose recreational hunting pose a serious threat to future hunting

opportunities”. About 60 % of hunters agreed that “any resource management action

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ed— m.c_ 3; Wm— _.mm 8885 98222 2 8:2 23:: :o
. . . . . 89:58.. 3.53: So wEwSEE
w mm N an o mm o «N m on 82825 sombodoflmamm as $868.33
Sod v.9. N.. 6 new mdm mdm mdm ouum< a wEov mm MZD 2: £830
odm wdm wNN odm wdm 8885
. a m M
ed... Sm Nam 8m 93. 828%: seen odd: :5 5 none
8:? 38:85 :30 >8 82.6.86
fled Ed 5va vdm NZ:s adv New 823 2:5 2 M75 2: 83.: do: on _
Nam 1m 2 o.w_ 5.: m.m~ 8885 22::
w
edm 3e 2... 38 mg 8282: 238 so eo 626:; £885
8 8:80 a 8:3 2:369:00
53 Se ode as. we. 3m 2% 8e? deceased e 22: 2:.
d4: ~.w~ ddm NAN wdm 8:885 8:850 :meoSZ
28 now am me e. a 82825 no: Eoeeoeseo 63883 a.
5:8: a 83:0 9 8:2 23:2
Sod mdm 0% m. :s ode :h v.3 8:3. So 08:22: 8 #75 .65 62.: H
flea—66:88 8386:: 83:88 88:2: 038
deg—.88: 2:0 9:05 8:222 um: .26 22:2: aha me—wwmmww sham—5:55 MZQ 05 E 255
.Em ~x

 

 

.88: 222626 Seems 2 8:88: 98% 82028.8.“ do e\e

 

 

 

5:29:88 MZQ :o 8.86: 9 88028: 8223228 do 20:88.22 .om 63mg.

 

128

that reduces hunting opportunities is the result of the growing anti-hunting movement in
this country”. Non-hunters were not asked to respond to the anti-hunting threat items.
Belief about our dependence on ecosystems

A one-item filter question21 was used to determine respondent beliefs about
(human) dependence on healthy ecosystems in Southern Michigan for maintaining a high
quality of human life. A majority of all stakeholders agreed with the following statement:
“Unless a sufficient level of environmental quality is maintained in Southern Michigan,
our own existence as individuals and as a society will bejeopardized There were
significant differences in the strength of agreement among groups--namely, environmental
organizations members were more likely than hunters to strongly agree to that item (Table

21).

 

2' Respondents who disagreed with the ecological dependence belief question were
assigned a score of zero for each of the four ecological dependence value items.

129

Table 21. Frequency of stakeholder responses to belief about ecological dependence.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nonmembers

 

 

 

x2=128.4 following statement: Unless a sufi‘icient level of
df=8 environmental quality is maintained in Southern
p<0.0001 Michigan our own existence as individuals and as a
society will be jeopardized.
Stakeholders % Strongly % Agree % Undecided or
agree disagree
pure hunters (n=358) 28.8 50.6 20.7
dual-use hunters (n=392) 44.4 41.8 13.8
Audubon members 57.4 38.8 3.8
(n=183)
SC members (n=213) 70.9 26.8 2.3
nonconsumptive (n=1 16) 41.4 49.1 9.5

 

Stakeholder value profiles

MW. Consumptive recreation will be the highest rated ecosystem benefit for

pure hunters.

Of the six categories of ecosystem benefits, hunters placed the most importance on

consumptive recreation based on mean scores (753.34) of ratings scales (on a scale of

zero to four) ( Table 22, see Figure 7). Pure hunters also placed very high importance on

a second tier of benefits that included existence, nature appreciation, and ecological

dependence. Exploitive and play space benefits were given much lower importance

ratings. Hypothesis 9 was supported.

W. Nature appreciation will be the highest rated ecosystem benefit for

Audubon members.

W11: Ecological dependence will be the highest rated ecosystem benefit for SC

members.

 

130

..mov 00: :00: 0.00:0:mv 030: 0:: 000:00 00:000 50:: 0:. :2 0005:0006 .50:.:m.0 2020:. 0:000. 0:20:05 3..

5053:0082 ..m :0 00:: u 0
...Eatan. 30:0..0: u . ...Emtoafi. 3000:0005: u N ”...:8395 50>: u m wage—00:: 3.0225: n e 80:: 00mg: 0.00m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.80 0.00 00.0 a; 08 £0 000.0 0: 8.0 00.. 000 2: .0: 90 880 E:
.000 men 00.0 um?” m . m 00.0 0N6 mm. ~00 ... ..m m0m 00.0 .0w.~ 0mm 00:20:00
.000 we. 00.0 on . .. mm. N0. .00.. 00. 00.. .00.. men e0. . .00.. 0. m 03:00:28
5:200:09:
.000 w. .e 00 .0 0N6 m . m . m .0 0nd .0. 00.0 ..m0.m 00m 2.0 00:0. mmm 0:30:
5:00:00:
.000 ..000 00.0 90.0.0 00. 00.. 00m: 00. 00.0 . . Om 00m 00.0 .em.m wmm 0309:0080
00:00:08.:
.000 :0 :0 end 00. .50 0nd 0... 00.0 000d 00m 0... .0m.u mmm .02w0.000
Om m : Om 0: : Om m : Om _ m :
0:00:08 00:80:: :0:00=< 000:0: 00: .000 0:00:00: 0:00
00:: 00%. 00.0 0::2m 000.?
n. n. 8000000”:
2020:0030 0300.88 .332).

 

 

 

 

 

 

0020:0030 0300.000 3.033: 000. .00 0005:0000: 000.? 800000000 50:: :00 0:00: <>OZ< 830:0 .mm 0.00...

0.5 ’ ‘ ‘

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eco.dep cons. rec. nat. app. extract. exist. play sp.

 

 

0.0m --- ..... —

pure hunters dual use hunters Audubon members Sierra club members
0 O o {'7

h—J

 

Figure 7. Ecosystem value profiles of 1997 mutually exclusive
stakeholder groups.

 

132

Value profiles for Audubon members and SC members revealed a triple peak
pattern where three ecosystem benefits were given nearly equal and very important
ratings--ecological dependence, nature appreciation, and existence values (Figure 7). In
fact, mean scores for Audubon members on these three values were identical (>‘<= 3.29).
Though little practical difference occurs in the mean ratings scores of each of these values
for SC members, they placed the most importance on ecological dependence (>‘<=3.34)
(Table 22). Hypothesis 11 was supported. Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.

Dual use hunters exhibit a triple peak of value priorities as well with high
importance placed on consumptive recreation (i=3.31), existence values (i=3.11), and
nature appreciation (2:103). Among dual use hunters, those who reported birdwatching
as a favorite activity had a significantly lower consumptive recreation value (>‘<=3.l6) than
did dual use hunters who did not birdwatch (i=3.42), (t= 3.87, 395 d], p<.OOl).
Stakeholder value comparisons

One way analysis of variance (AN OVA) for mean value differences among four
stakeholder segments produced significant results on all ecosystem values (Table 22). In

general, Audubon members were very similar to SC members in their relative values

133

suggesting that membership in either organization reflects a certain shared perspective.
The only statistically significant difference between Audubon members and SC members
was on their value for consumptive recreation. On that scale, scores for Audubon
members were slightly higher than those of SC members. However, neither group placed
much importance on consumptive benefits (even with the inclusion of the fishing item).

Dual use hunters were unique in their values when compared with pure hunters.
Dual users differed from hunters in all value domains except consumptive recreation and
play ground space (Table 22). Dual use hunters showed a pattern of values that appeared
to place them midway between scores for pure hunters and Audubon members on five of
the six scales (Figure 7).
W112: Pure hunters will place less importance on ecological dependence
benefits than bird watchers and SC members.

Pure hunters’ scores on eco-dependence were significantly lower than Audubon
members, SC members, and dual use hunters (F=37.3, p<.000). However, pure hunters
still rated this value as nearly very important. This hypothesis was supported.

W11: Hunters will place more importance on the consumptive recreation and
extractive benefits than either birders or SC members.

Both pure hunter and dual use hunters scored significantly higher on the
consumptive recreation than did the other two groups (F= 605.1, p<.000). On the
extractive scale, hunters were significantly higher than SC members (F=14.8, p.<OOO), but
not significantly different than Audubon members. This hypothesis was partially

supported.

134

111429111351"; L4: SC members will have the highest mean scores for ecological dependence
benefits of all stakeholder groups.

SC member’s coo-dependence score was significantly higher than both hunters and
dual use hunters, but showed no difference with Audubon members on this scale. This
hypothesis was partially supported.

Stewardship

W15: SC members will score higher on the stewardship value than other
stakeholder group.

Mean scores for all groups indicated positive support for stewardship (scale scores
ranged from -8.0 to +8.0) (Figure 8). On the item “Our generation has a major
responsibility to incur whatever costs and sacrifices are necessary to sustain wildlife and
ecosystem into the fixture”, agreement ranged from 70.9 % for pure hunters to 91.7% for
Sierra Club members. Item # 25--the most concrete of the stewardship items-- measured
intention to donate money to environmental or conservation organizations. Here, 57.3 %
of pure hunters agreed that they would be willing to donate money and 21.1% were
undecided. Meanwhile over 90 % of Sierra Club members expressed a willingness to
donate money. Pure hunters and dual use hunters were both significantly lower on
stewardship overall than either the Audubon members or SC members ( F=11.7, p<.000).
Post hoc comparisons revealed no differences between Audubon and SC members, nor
between pure hunters and dual use hunters. Hypothesis 15 is not supported.
WWW

Hunters from the 1998 survey were found to significantly differ from 1997 hunters

on several demographic and psychological bases. These results can be attributed to the

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

7
6 586°
_ 5.35
5 n
4.48
4
3 — e E
. 3 E
E 0
2 — ° 5
g E 2 e
. é a ~2
1 —— -'= = E 3
g 2 .2 E
0‘ a < 0 a
1997 1998

Figure 8. Differences in mean scale scores of ecosystem stewardship
for mutually exclusive stakeholder groups in both years of the survey.
abc Different letters across groups indicate significant differences

at p<.05 (Shefl‘e's post hoc comparison).

136

different sampling methods utilized in each year of data collection. Hunters drawn from
the drivers license sample tended to have slightly higher average extractive values (t= -
4.04, p<.001, df=923) and slightly lower average consumptive values (t=3.46, p<.001,
df=1044) than hunters drawn from the hunting license sample frame. The slightly lower
consumptive value for 1998 hunters seems to be driven by an approximately 10 percent
decrease in the number of respondents who thought it was “critically important ” to have
a variety of wildlife to hunt on public lands and also that game species be managed to
enhance hunting (Table 23).

Several clues suggest that hunters from the 1998 data set were slightly less
committed as a group than those hunters who responded in 1997. These differences likely
reflect biases in the different sampling methods. For example, 1998 hunters reported
participating in fewer types of hunting (>‘<=268) than 1997 hunters (>‘<=3.50) (Table 24),
had lower participation in waterfowl and archery deer hunting (Table 25), and included a
cadre of hunters (16 %) who participated but did not indicate that it was one of their
favorite recreations (Table 26). These differences may partially account for the lower
consumptive recreation value. Additionally, a higher proportion of 1998 hunters reported
“gun deer hunting” as their favorite (50%) than was the case for the 1997 hunters (29%).22
Those hunters who identified gun-deer hunting as a favorite type of hunting tended to

have slightly weaker consumptive value than hunters who said archery or waterfowl

 

22

The deer hunter sample in 1997 was created in equal proportions from hunters who had
responded to archery kill and antlerless tag (gun) survey from the MDNR. This 50-50
split created an artificial population of “deer hunters” that does not likely reflect the
percentage of all Michigan hunters.

137

Table 23. A comparison of 1997 and 1998 hunters’ importance ratings of consumptive

recreation benefits.

 

Consumptive recreation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

items 1997 hunters 1998 hunters
- Critically moderately Critically moderately 2
[‘11-‘0th 1:31p (32mm or very or somewhat or very or somewhat X

y important important important important (2 d0 Pmb-
...that Public lands after 84.1% 0.143 78.0% 20.8% 4.24 0.1 1
access to recreational hunting.
mthat game 1581‘ POPUIatiOUS 85.0% 13.1% 81.0% 17.6% 1.63 0.44
be managed to enhance
fishing opportunities.
that Opportunities exist to 79.6% 18.7% 68.0% 28.7% 9.02 0.01
hunt a variety of wildlife on
public lands.
that Populations of game 84.0% 14.2% 73.4% 0.2 10.9 0.01
species be managed to
enhance hunting
opportunities.

 

 

138

Table 24. A comparison of hunting participation levels between 1997 and 1998 hunters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outdoor recreation 1997 hunters 1998 hunters t-value Sig

participation levels n=910 n=1 5 8

mean number of favorite 7.6 6.0 7.48 0.001

recreations '

mean number of hunting 3.5 2.7 3.00 0.01

types/year "

type of hunting Percentage who participated in x2 Sig.
hunting type each year

archery deer 66.4 49.7 16.6 0.001

gun deer 90.9 87.3 2.15 0.141

waterfowl 54.2 1 8.5 70.8 0.001

small game 80.7 73.9 3.92 0.05

upland birds 52.4 33.1 19.9 0.001

bear 6.7 6.4 0.02 0.87

 

“ Respondents were asked to check outdoor recreations that represented “their favorite types” from a list of 14

options.

b Respondents were asked which of 6 different types of hunting they participated in during “a typical year”.

 

 

 

 

76:47.0
4 df
Sig<.0001

Table 25. Fre uency of the favorite types of hunting for hunters in 1997 and 1998.

% of hunting types selected by hunter as “their favorite”.

Year of

survey Archery Gun-deer waterfowl small upland
deer game birds

1997

hunters 33.7 29.0 21.7 7.2 8.4

(n=910)

1998

hunters 25.0 44.4 4.9 18.1 7.6

(n=158)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

Table 26. A comparison of the frequencies of favorite recreations for 1997 and 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hunters.
% of stakeholders who checked outdoor recreation as “one of their
Outdoor recreations faVOfiteS"-
I 9 hunters 1998 hunters ' 2 Si .
backpacking 12.8 14.0 0.18 0.66
cross country skiing 18.0 13.4 2.03 0.15
biking 30.7 31.2 0.01 0.86
hiking 29.2 28.0 0.08 0.77
canoeing 49.0 38.2 6.19 0.05
hunting 96.0 84.7 32.3 0.001
trapping 14.2 6.8 7.22 0.01
fishing 89.5 84.7 3.16 0.07
berry & mushroom 41.1 33.1 3.59 0.06
picking
birding 30.1 20.1 5.43 0.05
photography 23.1 22.3 0.05 0.82
nature study 20.0 17.2 0.67 0.41
wildlife feeding 40.7 31.8 4.39 0.05
ORV riding 24.5 20.4 1.27 0.26
boating 56.1 49.7 2.23 0.13
snowmobiling 27.6 25.5 0.30 0.57
camping 64.1 61.8 0.32 0.57
jogging 8.8 12.7 2.44 0.12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140
was their favorite type of hunting (Table 25). Thus, the higher proportion of gun hunters
in the 1998 sample may be partially responsible for depressing the consumptive value.
Recreational use and values
W. The greater the number of nonconsumptive wildlife recreations that
hunters participate in, the higher the value they will place on existence, ecological
dependence, and nature appreciation benefits.

Simple correlations were performed on the 1997 survey respondents after splitting
the sample into hunters and non-hunters. Similar results were obtained for each group as
nonconsumptive recreation was positively associated with values for nature appreciation,
ecological dependence and existence values (Table 27). Results indicate that “dual use”
hunters placed greater importance on existence, ecological dependence and nature
appreciation values than did pure hunters. These findings were significant across all three

values (Table 27). This hypothesis was supported.

Hypothesis 17: Consumptive recreation value of hunters will increase based on the
number of types of hunting one participates in.

There was a positive association found among the number of traditional
(consumptive) recreations one participates in and the strength of an individual’s
consumptive value (r=0.23). A linear regression performed using number of traditional
recreations as the independent variable explained only 6% of the variance (r=.06, F=55.7,
P<.001) in a person’s consumptive recreation value. This suggests that other important
factors are related to a hunter’s consumptive recreation value. Hypothesis 17 is partially

supported. .

141

Table 27. Association of nonconsumptive recreation participation and mean scores of
select ecosystem values of hunters and environmental organization members (1997).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations of value scores and number of
Categories of nonconsumptive wildlife recreations
Valued benefits _
hunters env1ronmentalists

r P T P
existence 0.20 0.001 0.12 0.004
ecological dependence 0.17 0.001 0.12 0.002
nature appreciation 0.20 0.001 0.13 0.002

 

 

 

 

 

 

' 153: Waterfowl hunters (as defined by favorite type of hunting) will have

higher ecological dependence and nature appreciation values than will gun-deer hunters.

Focus group findings in preliminary phases of this study suggested that waterfowl
hunters may place greater value on nonconsumptive benefits of ecosystems than deer
hunters. Results from the survey data do not support this relationship. One-way analysis
of variance tested value differences among 5 categories of hunters based on their favorite
type of hunting 23. There was no difference in mean value ratings between waterfowl and
archery-deer hunters on ecological dependence, nature appreciation, or existence values
(Table 28, Figure 9). However, waterfowl hunters (>‘< = 3.35) tended to place slightly
more value on consumptive recreation benefits than did gun-deer hunters (>‘< =3. 16).
Waterfowl and archery deer were similar in their consumptive, ecological dependence,

nature appreciation and existence values. Archery-deer hunters tended to be more like

 

23

The number of respondents who selected (n=8) bear hunting as a favorite type of hunting
was too small for statistical analysis.

142

..mov 00:. .02. 0.0.00an 030: 0:: 00800 00:80 :02: 0:. E 08:20.0... 0:005:00 0:00.05 0:000. E0005 3.

0:50:85: 050:0.

“05:05.8. :0 :0 6:: u 0
. ...Emtonfi. 0.880.008: n N ....fitoae. b0? u m ...Eatomfi. 3.00.0.8: u v 80:... 00mg: 0.00m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.0 00.0 ~00 ...m. 0.. 00.0 ...Nm. .0 3.0 0.00.. w: m00 .00.. 0mm :00 .8. 00m 8000 0.0.:
000 Sam ~00 0.2 ow $0 ~0.N S. 00.0 000 00. 00.0 v0... v0... 000 ...m ...m 00:20.2
00.0 ...0. N00 .00.. ... 00.. 300.. 0.. .0. X0»... 00. 00.. 0000 .nm 00.. ...... RN 3:00:00
5:200:00:
0.0 00.. 50 ~00 .... 3.0 $0 .... 00.0 .00 mm. 00.0 ..0.~ mom 00.0 000 ..m 9.20:
£239.00.—
000 0.0. 00.0 .00.~ .0 00.0 3.0.N 0.. v0.0 930 mm. 00.0 00...“ vom .00 .0?” 2m u>_aE=0:8
0050:0000
00.0 00.0 ...... 0m.~ 2. P0 ..m.~ .m 00.. 0m.~ .m. 00.0 0m.~ mwm 8.. 3: vwm 30.00.80
am a Z Om m 2 Om m 2 Om m Z Qm m 2 00:.0>
. o: o. 0
0 m .0 w. 0:: 0:07.: 0::0w ..0E0 .3803? :000 :00 :000 b0:0:<

 

 

 

 

 

0:05:20 09.. 0E0>£ :05 .3 00:00.0 0.:0Ew00 0:52:00 0005:0006 0:.0> E00080? .00. <>O>< 003-0:0 .mm 0.00...

 

143

 

III In. I .2... 22...: al®|l
0.5 0:03: 0800 :95 Eotmfiz, 500-30 E0280

 

 

 

00000 >03 005.008 co_.m._o_ax0 60.000 05.0: .00. 0>_.aEzmcoo 00:00:000000mw
. .

 

. _ _ .

 

.
. 0..
. m
. 0.0
m
0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Ecosystem value profiles by type of hunter.

144
gun-deer hunters on the extractive scale, while waterfowl hunters place lower importance
on exploitation than either gun-deer or archery deer hunters.

Furthermore, those hunters who reported small game or upland bird hunting as
their “favorite type of hunting” also exhibited significant value differences from gun-deer,
archery deer, and waterfowl hunters (Table 28). Mean scores for small game hunters
show that this group placed roughly equal importance on existence value (>‘<=2.92),
consumptive recreation (>‘<=2.91), ecological dependence (i=2.98) and nature
appreciation (>‘<=2.83). For upland bird hunters, however, the mean score for consumptive
recreation was only the fourth highest among those values (>‘<=2.69).

Both small game and upland bird hunters placed less importance on consumptive
benefits than did other types of hunters; they also placed less value on play space than
gun-deer and archery hunters. Upland bird hunters had the lowest extractive value of any
hunter group. Favorite type of hunting did not differentiate mean scores for the ecological
dependence value among hunters. Hypothesis 18 was not supported.

mm 12: Participation in nature stuafl» as a favorite activity will be positively
related to both nature appreciation and ecological dependence for both hunters and non-
hunters.

Bi-variate correlations using Spearman’s coefficients indicated a small, but
significant linear association between participation in nature study and one’s value for
ecological dependence and nature appreciation among both hunters and non-hunters. As

Tables 29 and 30 indicate, a higher percentage of those who participated in nature study

rated ecological dependence and nature appreciation as “critically important” than did

145

Table 29. Row percentages of ecological dependence importance ratings of all
respondents who participated in nature study as a favorite recreation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average response category for ecological dependence
Checked value
nature study
as favorite Not at all slightly moderately very critically X 2:15425
recreation important important important important important P<-001
yes (n=351) 1.3% 0.6% 12.1% 33.8% 60.1% 100%
no (n= 896) 4.8% 2.7% 14.3% 47.9% 30.3% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 30. Row percentages of nature appreciation importance ratings of all respondents
who articipated in nature study as a favorite recreation.

 

Average response category for nature appreciation value

 

Checked

nature study

as favorite Not at all slightly moderately very critically x 2=1 [0.57
recreation important important important important important p<.001

 

yes (n=331) 0.4% 2.0 % 16.4% 52.9% 28.3% 100%

 

 

 

 

no (n=833) -- 0.5% 4.8% 44.0% 50.7% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

those who did not check nature study as a favorite activity. Whether or not engaging in
nature study causes one to have a stronger value on these domains is unknown. However,
nature study appears to be a strong predictor of the presence of extreme scores on these
two values. Hypothesis 19 is supported.

W212: The ecological dependence and existence values will be higher for
environmental organization members than for nonconsumptive nonmembers.

The mean values of nonconsumptive nonmembers differed from environmental
organization members on all six categories of ecosystem benefits (Table 31).

Environmentalists were more likely to say ecological dependence benefits were critically

 

 

146

Table 31. A comparison of the mean ecosystem value ratings of nonconsumptive
environmentalists and nonmembers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonconsumptive users
Environmental 2-tailed
Ecosystem orgamzanon t-value df Sig.
values mem ers nonmembers
n >‘< (SD) n >‘< (SD)
ecological 516 3.39 217 2.94 -7.37 731 0.001
dependence (0.71 ) (0.81 )
consumptive 500 1.07 230 1.51 5.13 728 0.001
recreation (1 .03) (1 . 14)
nature 554 3.29 241 2.91 -7.80 793 0.001
appreciation (0.58) (0.74)
extraction 482 1.28 217 1.99 8.56 697 0.001
(1.00) (1.06)
existence 553 3.36 241 2.82 -9.92 792 0.001
(0.64) (0.85)
play space 535 0.77 229 1.19 6.87 762 0.001
(0.70) (0.93)
stewardshipa 552 5.83 243 3.35 -12.90 793 0.001
(2.29) (2.91)

 

 

 

 

 

“ Scale scores for the stewardship scale ranged from -8.0 to +8.0, whereas mean scores
for the other six values ranged from 0.0 to 4.0.

important than were nonconsumptive nonmembers. However, in an absolute sense,
nonconsumptive nonmembers did place very high importance on ecological dependence.
Environmentalists also assigned extremely high importance to existence values, while
nonmembers rated existence as moderate to very important. Hypothesis 20 was

supported.

147
W. Birders who belong to environmental organization will have higher
ecological dependence, nature appreciation, and existence values than will non-
organization birders.

The mean values of environmental birders differed significantly from nonmember
birders on all six categories of ecosystem benefits (Table 32). Environmental birders had
significantly higher value scores on all categories of benefits in the hypothesis.
Environmental birders placed less importance than did nonmember birders on consumptive
recreation, exploitation, and play space benefits of Southern Michigan public lands.
Hypothesis 21 is supported.

W522. There will be no diflerences in the priorities placed on the valued
ecosystem benefits by study site users and nonusers among both hunters or non-hunters.

There were several significant, albeit slight, differences in the mean value scores of
users and nonusers of the four public land areas among both hunters and non hunters
[Tables in Appendix H]. These differences were revealed by splitting the 1997 pooled
data set by hunters and non-hunters (Audubon and Sierra members). Independent sample
t-tests were run using value scale scores as the dependent variable and the reported
visitation of each public property as the independent variable. Value differences between
public land users and nonusers were more frequent for hunters than for environmentalists.
Public land hunters had higher mean scores for consumptive recreation and lower
exploitation and play space scores than hunters who did not visit the public lands. With a

couple of exceptions this was true regardless of which property was examined. This

suggests that differences may be attributed to the types of hunters that are attracted to

148

Table 32. A comparison of the mean ecosystem value ratings of environmental
oianization member-birders and nonmember-birders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonconsumptive users
Environmental 2-tailed
Organization nonmember-birders -
Ecosystem member-birders t—value df Sig.
values
n >‘< (SD) n >‘< (SD)
ecological 333 3.44 92 3.14 -3.51 423 0.001
dependence (0.71) (0.83)
consumptive 318 1.01 95 1.57 3.78 411 0.001
recreation (1.04) (1 .16)
nature 351 3.31 101 3.09 -3.13 450 0.002
appreciation (0.60) (0.71)
extraction 303 1.24 86 1.90 5.01 387 0.001
(1 .04) (1 . 17)
existence 351 3.42 103 2.99 -5.68 452 0.001
(0.63) (0.77)
play space 339 0.73 94 1.09 4.29 431 0.001
(0.69) (0.87)
stewardship “ 348 6.07 102 4.16 -7.27 448 0.001
(2.24) (2.63)

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Scale scores for the stewardship scale ranged from -8.0 to +8.0, whereas mean scores
for the other six values ranged from 0.0 to 4.0.
public lands in general rather than unique differences among hunters utilizing specific
game areas.

There were fewer differences among environmentalists who did and did not visit
public lands. No differences were found among environmentalists based on use of the
Gratiot-Saginaw or Shiawassee River State Game Areas. Environmentalists who visited

Maple River or the Federal Refuge had significantly lower extractive values than those

149

who did not visit either of those areas. In addition, Maple River users also had lower play
space values than non users. Both hunters and environmentalists who visited that federal
refuge had higher ecological dependence values than their counterparts who did not
(Appendix H). Hypothesis 22 is not supported.

Current perceptions

W. Hunters will perceive fewer deer, waterfowl, and places to go hunting
than will non-hunters.

MW. Audubon and SC members will perceive less than adequate levels (i. e.,
“too few exist ”) of songbirds, flags and amphibians and wildlife diversity than hunters
and non-member, non-hunters.

Respondents were asked to rate the current level of 13 different ecosystem
attributes in Southern Michigan in order to determine their opinions about existing
conditions. These attributes included 4 major vegetation types (ecosystems), 5 wildlife
attributes, and 4 types of recreational opportunities. Response options on a 5 point Likert
scale included: “far too few/little” (-2), “too few/little” (-1); “about the right amount” (0);
“too many/much” (+1); and “far too many/much” (+2). One way analysis of variance was
performed to check for group differences on mean scores for each of these 13 attributes.
In addition, x2 tests were performed on cross tabulations of stakeholders by their
frequency responses across categories. Results indicate significant differences in
stakeholder attitudes on all 13 attributes (Tables 33,34,35).

In all but one instance, stakeholders agreed on abundance of the elements (i.e.,
whether something was lacking or over abundant), but ofien differed in magnitude of their

evaluations. In general, all five groups felt there were too many deer and too few or too

150

Table 33. Frequency of stakeholder opinions regarding current abundance levels of 4
ecosystems in Southern Michigan.

 

Please indicate your opinion about the current level
of each attribute in Southern Michigan. f, ,

% response of abundance levels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About
ecosystem Too the right Too No
attribute , _ stakeholder n )7 ' (SD) few amount many opinion
pure hunters 311 -O.49 (0.86) 36.5 42.8 5.2 14.0
pine dual use hunters 359 -0.63 (0.90) 43.5 42.0 4.3 10.3
(x 2 =46.3 .
p<.001) nonconsumptive 136 -0.58 (0.85) 35.3 43.1 3.4 18.]
users
SC members 169 -1.02 (0.86) 55.1 21.3 1.9 21.8
Audubon members 159 -0.81 (0.81) 48.1 37.8 0 14.1
pure hunters 326 0.86 (0.83) 52.7 34.1 7 1.1 11.1
dual use hunters 372 43.99 (0.82) 63.0 29.3 , 0.8 7.0
hardwoods . . . . , .
(X2 =2“, V . nonconsumptive 91 -0.85 (0.81) 50.9 26.7 0.9 21.6
p<.001) . users ' , , . . .
sc members 178 4.24 (0.73) 67.6 14.8 0 17.6
Audubon members 158 , -1.05 (0.96) 60.0 25.4 0 14.6
pure hunters 410 -0.50 (1.02) 41.4 38.5 10.3 9.6
wetlands dual use hunters 452 -0.70 (0.84) 53.3 34.3 6.5 5.9
2=53.2
(3,2001) nonconsumptive 138 -0.59 (0.87) 39.4 34.7 5.6 20.2
users
SC members 178 -1.08 (0.94) 59.1 18.8 3.7 18.4
Audubon members 168 -0.98 (0.96) 61.5 23.0 5.4 10.1
pure hunters 389 l -0.52 (0.84) 35.5 46.3 4.0 14.3
; dual use hunters 430 0.70 (0.83) 47.9 38.3 3.3 10.4
1 d , » '
$375 nonconsumptive 134 -0.63 (0.81) 39.4 34.7 3.4 22.5
p<.001) "5°“ .
.~ SC members 163 -0.96 (0.83) 50.4 22.9 1.4 25.3
’ w ‘, AudUbon members 157 -0.86 (0.79) 53.5 29.4 1.1 16.0

 

' Scale ranged from -2= “far too few”; -1= “too few”; 0 = “about the right amount”; 1= “too many”; 2=”far too

many”.

 

151

Table 34. Frequency of stakeholder opinion regarding current abundance levels of 5
wildlife attributes in Southern Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please indicate your opinion about the current level of each
attribute in Southern Michigan. % response of abundance levels
About
, wildlife Too the right Too No
attribute , stakeholder n )7 ' (SD) few amount many opinion
pure hunters 389 -0.51 (0.84) 27.1 46.3 4.0 14.3
songbirds dual use hunters 423 -O.65 (0.83) 43.1 42.9 2.1 11.9
2 =159.7
(xp<,001) nonconsumptive 152 -O.88 (0.81) 57.2 28.9 1.7 12.2
users
SC members 171 -l.15 (0.73) 62.4 16.1 0 21.5
Audubon members 175 -1.26 (0.77) 76.0 17.1 0.5 6.4
pure hunters 442 0.29 (1 .01) ' ' 17.6 41.2 f 38.6 2.6
dual use hunters 471 0.26 (1.02) 16.9 44.6 36.7 2.9
deer
(X 2 =1155 nonconsumptive 153 0.69 (0.87) , 5.2 31.2 52.0 11.5
p<.001) “36's . .
SC members 187 0.88 (0.90) 3.6 g 23.9 58.2 14.3
Audubon members 173 0.94 (0.94) 3.7 24.6 64.2 7.5
pure hunters 340 -0.43 (0.84) 26.9 43.6 4.5 25.1
frogs & dual use hunters 393 -0.58 (0.85) 35.5 42.7 3.7 18.1
amphibians .
(X 2=70.6 nonconsumptive 134 -0.63 (0.86) 35.9 38.2 3.5 22.5
P<001) USCI’S
SC members 151 -1.01 (0.87) 45.0 ‘ 23.4 0.9 30.8
Audubon members 161 -l .12 (0.95) 59.3 24.1 2.6 13.9
pure hunters 404 .045 (0.89) ' 39.7 40.7 8.8 10.8
dual use hunters 450 -O.62 (0.95) 48.8 36.9 8.2 6.2
d ks '
(at 2:200 nonconsumptive 141 -0.28 (0.72) 24.3 50.3 6.9 18.5
p<.001) ' "56's ’ x
' SC members 147 ~0.29 (0.82) 21.5 38.5 7.3 32.5
Audubon members 169 -0.33 (0.71) . 32.6 39.6 12.8 15.0

 

 

152

Table 34. (Cont.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please indicate your opinion about the current level of each
attribute in Southern Michigan. % response of abundance levels
About
wildlife Too the right Too No
_ attribute stakeholder 11 >7 (SD) little amount much opinion
pure hunters 404 -0.37 (0.64) 27.3 60.6 1.1 11.1
wildlife dual use hunters 429 -0.49 (0.69) 38.3 49.8 1.2 10.6
(2)3352 nonconsumptive 144 -054 (0.73) 36.4 45.1 1.7 16.7
p<.001) users
SC members 168 -0.97 (0.80) 51.4 25.7 0 22.9
Audubon members 169 -0.79 (0.83) 50.2 39.0 1.1 9.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Scale ranged from -2= “far too few”; -1= “too few”; = “about the right amount”; l= “too many”; 2=”far too

’9

many .

153

Table 35. Frequency of stakeholder opinions regarding current abundance levels of 4
recreational opportunities in Southern Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please indicate your opinion about the current level of each
attribute in Southern Michigan. % response of abundance levels
5 About
recreational _ Too the right Too No
opportunities stakeholder n )7 1 (SD) few amount many opinion
pure hunters 372 -0.50 (0.75) 35.5 44.1 2.4 18.1
places to dual use hunters 445 -0.68 (0.72) 50.6 41.5 0.6 7.3
observe & .
study nonconsumptive 153 .074 (0.77) 55.5 31.2 1.8 11.5
nature users
(1 2 =7” sc members 192 a 96 (0 72) 63 3 24 7 0 12 o
p<.001) . . . . .
Audubon members 175 -0.95 (0.74) 68.5 39.0 1.1 9.6
purehunters 441 -1.08 (0.81) 70.5 26.0 0.6 2.6
dual use hunters 469 -1.05 (0.87) 70.4 25.4 1.8 2.3
places to go .
hunting V nonconsump. users 119 . 0.35 (1.03) 9.8 _ V 36.4 22.6 31.3
2 = ' . .
““5337 so members 130 0.64 (0.98) 5.0 25.2 29.4 40.3
Audubon members 120 0.30 (0.93) 8.1 38.5 17.7 35.9
pure hunters 347 -0.39 (0.73) 27.6 45.8 3.1 23.6
access to dual use hunters 394 -0.50 (0.77) 33.8 46.3 2.0 17.9
hiking trails .
“2:533 nonconsumptive 145 -0.58 (0.81) 42.2 38.7 2.9 16.2
p<.001) USCI’S
SC members 191 -0.84 (0.81) 55.5 31.2 0.9 12.4
Audubon members 159 -0.72 (0.68) 51.3 33.2 0.5 14.9
' pure hunters 436 '-0.64 (0.89) 40.5 53.3 2.2 3.9
. dual use hunters 466 -0.55 (0.78) 40.4 55.2 1.4 2.9
| t '
p 333:5" nonconsumptive 139 —0.84 (0.81) 19.1 , 56.6 4.6 19.7
()1 2=55.9 “5°15 .
P<.001) ., * sc members 152 N -0.22 (0.70) 15.6 51.8 2.3 30.2
Audubon members 153 -0.20 (0.74) 18.1 58.8 4.8 18.2

 

 

‘ Scale ranged from -2= “far too few”; -1= “too few”; 0 = “about the right amount”; l= “too many”; 2=”far too

9,

many .

154

little of everything else. The only directional disagreement existed over the item “access
to hunting opportunities” where both pure hunters (>‘<= -1.l4) and dual user hunters
(>‘<=—1 .12) thought that too few opportunities existed while nonhunting stakeholders
thought there were too many (Table 35).

Sheffe’s post hoc comparisons indicated that there were no differences between
SC members and Audubon members in mean ratings on any of the 13 categories. Though
mean scores did not differ between SC members and Audubon members, SC members
were unique among all stakeholder types in that a sizeable portion checked “no opinion”
to many of the attribute items (Tables 33,34,35). This included a sizable portion (>30 %)
who checked “no opinion” on current levels of frogs & amphibians, waterfowl, places to
hunt, and places to fish. Between one-fifih and one-third checked no opinion on many of
the other items (Tables 33,34,35). This may reflect an unwillingness by some SC members
to offer an opinion not based on direct experience as this group was characterized by
lower participation in wildlife related recreation and lower visitation rates to study area
public lands than any of the other groups (Table 15).

Pure hunters differed significantly from SC members and Audubon members on all
attributes except for “number of ducks” (Table 34). Overall, hunters rated shortages of
most attributes as being less severe than did non-hunters. Dual use hunters acted very
much like hybrids in their evaluation of abundance ratings, differing from hunters on 5 of
13 and from Audubon members on 8 of 13.

Judging by mean scores and percent responses in each category, pure hunters

appear generally more satisfied with current conditions in Southern Michigan. While pure

155

hunters are more likely to respond that there are “too few” of a given attribute than “too
many” (with deer being the exception), a plurality feel there is “about the right amount”of
grasslands (47.3%), pine forests (42.8%), songbirds (45.6%), frogs and amphibians
(44.2%) and ducks (41.2 %).

Two attributes that pure hunters were most concerned with are the amount of
hardwood forests and lack of hunting opportunities. A majority of both pure hunters and
dual hunters rated these attributes as lacking (Table 33). Of the five wildlife
characteristics, the number of ducks received the highest percentage of “too few”
responses among both pure hunters (40.7 %) and dual use hunters (52.8%).

Concern for the amount of all four ecosystem types was higher among
environmental organization members when compared to both hunters and nonconsumptive
nonmembers. In all but one instance, a majority of Audubon and Sierra Club members
thought there were too few pine, hardwoods, wetlands, and grasslands (only 48.1 % of
Audubon members thought there were too few pine) (Table 33). Among the nonhunting
stakeholders, the abundance of hardwoods, wetlands, songbirds, and frogs & amphibians
appear to be the most serious concerns (Table 33 and Table 34).

Though a majority of each stakeholder group felt there were too many deer in
Southern Michigan, fewer hunters thought deer were overabundant than did their
nonhunting counterparts. A clear 1119391211! of both Audubon members (63.8%) and SC
members (58.3%) thought there were too many deer, compared to only 37.1% of the pure

hunters and 35.5 % of dual-use hunters.

156

There were no differences between pure hunters and nonhunting groups regarding
number of waterfowl (Table 34). Curiously, dual use hunters rated waterfowl shortages
as significantly greater than the other four stakeholders, perhaps indicating an additive
effect of both consumptive and nonconsumptive values for that attribute. Hunters and
non—hunters rated places to go hunting as significantly fewer than either nonhunting
stakeholder group.

Finally, in most cases, Audubon and SC members were more extreme than either
types of hunters in their attitudes about shortages in the attribute types. These differences
were significant for the number of songbirds, frogs and amphibians, and level of wildlife
diversity (Table 34). For example, a clear majority of both Audubon birders (76.8%) and
SC members (62.0 %) thought there were too few songbirds compared to only a quarter
(25.8 %) of the pure hunters. Dual use hunters were more likely than pure hunters to
think there were too few songbirds in Southern Michigan (Table 34). Hypothesis 23 and
24 were supported.

W. Waterfowl hunters will perceive fewer ducks than will deer hunters; and
deer hunters will perceive fewer deer than will waterfowl hunters.

There were also significant differences in attitudes toward ecosystem attributes
among different types of hunters (Table 36). A couple of general patterns were apparent.
Those hunters who said “gun-deer hunting” was their favorite tended to be most satisfied
when it came to rating the 5 wildlife attributes. That is to say, gun-deer hunters rated
shortages as less severe than did other types of hunters. Significantly fewer gun-deer

hunters thought there were “too few” songbirds in Southern Michigan than every other

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wags; .«o 693 Bto>£ 3 Amcocagou Banzai ecu $53. :82

 

E2:
Sod Ev who ago- be 1.6 fond- cw wed a; n6- 8— 8.0 .136. :N mod L vd- new ”Wm—2%
Sod m.~_ hwd ...Emo we No; .mnd- em and ‘84. $— 3.0 .94.? «mm $6 .346. own 833:0 u
Sod be $6 .223. G vod and- 9. cod amnd- 3; «ad .136. wE vwd .mvd- ANN mmoc Co a
Sod n6 3.0 hand 2. 8.— ..mod on 86 emvd o2 S.— nomd Sew mod .26 m: Sou mo u
mwuswcom
Ecd cg. 5:. .33. cc cod 23¢. S mud 23.0. _m_ mad ammo- in 3.0 .mvd- NmN ..c a
Sod ow wwd to. _ - 8 36 ...—ad- mm 36 22.6- mg Nwd .36. :N wmd .omd- New mean—m3.»
Sod mg: 23 13.7 no m: :36. em 33 Ba. T E.— No._ 3.0. mmm cad .Nod- mum means?)
cod mmd S; we. _- S vwd 0:- cm mmd mod- mm: 8.0 3.0- SN 56 mod- SN mvooBEm:
Ed 34.. mod Gd- 3 oo._ mod- Vm No.0 3.0. 52 nmd end- EN owd end- own 23.8 baa
.noi ozmx Om m c Ow m : Qm m : Om m : Om _ m c
m L 235:“
m9} cam—a: 68mm :95 758833 .526 cam hove bozo; Esmfioom

 

.3355 Co 893 .3 53:22 Eufisom E mogsntzm 58388 .8 3.895% Sosa “mum—on E muocouob€ Co <>OZ< .om 633.

 

158

.AmO.V 00: «won w.obun—mv mac.— DSH amp—om mouOOm Gave 0:“ Cm muucuuobmmv agocmflwmm 03032.: ”~030— «COHOhwmQ one

...»:mE 02 be: ..u N manque 02: u_ Mag—Sofia Emu 2: Sons: no ”:30“ cor. n T ”..Bou 09 be..." N- Eat vuwcfi £QO _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mazes; Co 25 Sega .3 $5333 235me can 388 :32

 

9.26

3.6 3.0 end 2.0. we and and- mm end 9.6. 3.— Ed Gd- nmu and 9.? 2h om 938E
2.2. was;

$6 cod mod who- 3 Ed mad- 3. 2.6 med- .3 2.6 ~00- .2 and mad. 7mm Qmmuuu<
mazes:

mod NEN 5.. 36 on :6 no.7 on 3.0 2... wt 36 3.0- 9H end 2.? 2h omoumoomE
283.32”

#3830

26 A: 6o Rd- we and Sue. 3. 3d 3.0- G_ who who- 03 :6 5nd- SN 988E

Om m : Om m : Om m a Om m : Om m c

2.533

.coi 6:3. "4:5 ecu—a: 66mm :35 398833 .826 com but bonus Euaboum

u u

 

:83 em 2%...

 

159

type of hunter except waterfowlers. Additionally, gun-deer hunters differed from all four
other types of hunters in their attitudes toward the deer herd in Southern Michigan. The
mean score for gun deer hunters (>'<= -0.12) was the lowest of any group suggesting that
most of this group did not perceive an overabundance of deer.

Waterfowl hunters rated the number of wetlands and ducks as “too few” on
average. They differed from all groups except upland bird hunters in their mean score for
current amounts of ducks (Table 36). Similarly, waterfowl and upland bird hunters were
also similar in their differences with the other three types of hunters in their attitudes
toward wetlands. Both of these groups differed significantly from deer and small game
hunters in their mean ratings for the amount of wetlands in Southern Michigan.
Hypothesis 25 was supported.

W. Public land hunters will perceive fewer places to hunt, fewer deer and
fewer ducks than will non-public land hunters.

W. There will be no difl'erences in perceived abundance levels of all wildlife
attributes between non-hunters who visit public lands and those who do not.

Mean scores of site-users versus non-site users were compared for both hunters
and non—hunters on each of the four public lands using independent sample t-tests. In
general there few significant or meaningful differences that emerged based on site-use
among hunters or non-hunters. The only exception was for mean scores of on-site hunters
at each of the four properties which indicated more severe shortages of “places to go

hunting” than the ratings of hunters who did not use a given public land. This finding

160

suggests that the attitude measures are reflecting preferences to some extent rather than
objective evaluations of amounts of various attributes. Hypotheses 26 and 27 were
partially supported.
Attitudes toward ecosystem management

Assessing stakeholder attitudes toward ecosystem management proved to be the
most challenging aspect of this research due to the difficulty in explicating and measuring
the ecosystem management attitude as a uni-dimensional construct. An exploratory factor
analysis performed on the nine ecosystem management trade-off questions yielded a two
factor solution that did not achieve face validity upon examination of their factor loading.
In other words, there was no justifiable, theoretical reason to accept the factors as
selected by the SPSS analysis. Similarly, attempts to achieve acceptable alpha reliabilities
using the exploratory factors failed. This likely reflects the complexity of ecosystem
management as a multi-dimensional concept for which individuals may have as many
attitudes as there are dimensions.

W. Hunters will be less supportive of ecosystem management options in the
tradeoffs than non-hunters.

flmoLhefls 28: SC members will be more supportive of ecosystem management options
than either of the other exclusive stakeholder groups.

We will consider results for overall responses to nine trade-offs collectively and to
each question individually. To assess an individual’s overall ecosystem management
attitude, a scale was created by collapsing the agree and strongly agree responses and
assigning them a value of one (+1). The disagree and strongly disagree responses were

collapsed and assigned a value of negative on (-1). Undecided were left at zero (0). Each

161

person’s ecosystem management score became the sum of the responses to the nine items.
The respondents were then sorted into three categories based on percentile scores of this
distribution. The lowest 25 % of respondents was given a categorical value of one
indicating “low ecosystem management support”. The middle 50 % of the responses were
assigned a value of 2-- “medium ecosystem management support”. Finally, the highest
25% of the scores were assigned a value of 3, indicating “high ecosystem management
support”.

Overall, ecosystem management attitudes across all groups might be described as
slightly positive, but there were a substantial number of undecided responses on many of
the trade-off questions. Few significant group differences emerged either on individual
items on the ecosystem management index score (Tables 37 and 38). Sierra Club
members were more likely to be among the highest supporters of ecosystem management
than were other stakeholders, including hunters (38:50.0, 8 df, p<.0.001). About 44 % of
SC members wound up in the highest category of support for ecosystem management
compared to about one-third of the hunters. Meanwhile, a solid majority (69 %) of the
nonconsumptive non member wildlife users were in the medium support category.

All hunters who participated in waterfowl hunting (not just those who indicated it
was their “favorite”) tended to score slightly lower on the ecosystem management index
than non waterfowl hunters (Table 39). Of particular interest is that the only statistically
significant differences among state game area hunters was among Shiawassee River

waterfowl hunters who tended to score slightly lower than other hunters on the ecosystem

162

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. :0. 3.0.0588
Grad. add. Co... Rd... 0.8.. 0.3: :: 0 .8. 08.2.80 0.08.. o. 0.0:... 0.38. :o
8... tan a... ...- .... . .o .02. 18...- .8... 8.2.3 mamas: 82.. .8382 a; 05.88... .8: 5% .30

5.8 83. 25.8 62.. Gas
cod mod . .d. d . d- 8d. 3d. .dd 3:0... .058 0.2.2.3 8.. 080.0888 92.0....0 00:88 .30
88.8.8. 0.2.2.? 8.. 8.2.5.830 830..
odd Sad. And. 3 Add. 3 Go. 5 820.88 888 .. 2 :08 .0988. 833.88.» .08. 80.83088
dmd MN. wvd Nod .vd nnd and ..8 88.08 80.8.: 2.0. 8088.. 80.... 800 880:0 .340

28.88... a. 8808.

Sod. God. . And. C 90.8 ad... grow 2.880 .. .2 :08 .0382 0808 28. 8.8080. 0.2.2.3
.ddd e.~m e. .d- .3... .. md ..cd .de 8.. 88.80.. 0.58. 2.200% .008 0. 080.388 088.8 940
and. Amodv 3.... ac... Add... 68.888... .888 2 8.... e 2 8282888830.... 82.. 82.8
. ..o cm. 00.0 .06 Nvd de mvd 0.08. 5.8.2.0.. 2m... .u 00.00% 08% 88:88 m>85... .540
.88. .82... 0...
God. 8d. .2 Ahmdv Sod. Cad. :. a: 2082. 0.8 wfiwwo. 89.. 820:2. 0.80800 8.. 8.285.250
w . d on. do. om. m . .. 3.. am. 298... :08 88 do. 8.. 808 20.88.. 088 0.28 .0... ...40
.08...
Sad. God. God. Amadv Ag. 3 0.2.2.3 8 8.8% 8:880 0800. ..o 80.». 80.8.89. 0... 8.830.
3... 8... NZ. mm... mm... 2... mm... 28:. ...: use .8: u... so; :8... .80

v. .u: N . N": NE": van": ammu:

88888: 80280:. 80280:. 80.5.2 80.8...

.85 2.3. .8082 Um 823.03. 00: .8... 0.5..
h. ... ......820 8088.8
8022.00.30 00808.. .88 8.8 .380 0... :0 8.5.0.: 0.05. 0.32. :O
808.. $820.82 80.888 .80 _ 888 8.0.).

 

 

 

 

 

0828.... .2008... 80808.88 80.9.88 02. :o 888 :88 82028.8... 0.... ..o 00:028.. .0 0.9.2824 ...m 0.8....

163

Gov: 802.8800 00.. .8: 0.0.2025 80:08.2... :88 800.28.: 0.8.0:. 030.. 0880 08.8. 808.25 2.

88:8. 02.08: w:0..m 0 8.. m- 0. 080:8. 0228: m:0..0 0 8..
N+ 80... .0088 082... 880:8. 28:88:08 80.9.8868: 8.. 888 0228: 0>0m 20.23 8...? 00.800. .0020. 888 :82.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:». 80.: 02.0:
.38. .8. c 8:. .8 8m... 3:... 0.8.820 8.2: 08:02.... 0...... :30 8.8:. 02.2.3 .0. .08.
3.0 on... 3.0 8.. mad 3.. no. 080 0.2.6.: .0... 8.8.58 .050 :8... 9:2: 8:02.... .80
8:6. 3. . .V Cb. C 8.. 3 Av. . 5 82.2.3 ..0 8.8 0 0:8 -:0: :0
So... tum .. m... in... 89o- .0 . .o- .w. .o- 0...i08.|.m.:|00.. 0. 80:88:08 8.8:... 080» :8... £820 .82.. ED. 0
L
w. .u: Emu: mm .n: can": awn":
308085: 082808 082808 80.8.... 08.8...
.20.: 0...... .8252 Um 8820.2 08 .9... 08:
: ... ......0020 8088.8
0.8.0.0202...» 00808.. :08 8.... 2.80 0... :0 2088.: 8:0. 0.3:: :0
8080 2.80.8.8: 28.80.... .8. _ 8800 :83.

 

 

164

Table 38. Frequencies of stakeholder support on the ecosystem management attitude

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

index.
Mutually exclusive Levels of Ecosystem management support '
stakeholder groups n x2=50.0, 8 df, p<.001

% Low (1) % Medium (2) % High (3)

pure hunters 353 23.8 40.8 35.4
dual use hunters 387 33.1 40.3 36.2
Audubon members 176 23.9 46.0 30.1
Sierra Club members 206 18.9 36.9 44.2
Nonconsumptive 1 1 1 17.1 68.5 14.4
nonmembers

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Categories were created fi'om the distribution of ecosystem management attitude index
scores. “Low support” represents the lowest 25 % of the distribution of index scores.
“Medium support” represents the middle 50 % and “high support” is the upper 25 % of

the distribution.

Table 39. Frequency of categorical ecosystem management support comparing waterfowl
hunters with (non-waterfowl) hunters.

 

% of categorical ‘ support for
ecosystem management among

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stakeholder type stakeholders n x2 Sig.
Low Medium High

waterfowl hunters 29.7 41.5 28.9 515 10.8 0.01

all other hunters 21.2 43.5 35.3 518

 

l Ecosystem management support categories were created from the frequency distribution of the combined

scale score of responses to all nine ecosystem management trade-off questions. Low support respondents were
those in the lowest 25 % of the distribution. Medium support was assigned to those from the 26-74% and high

support was assigned to the highest 25 % of the scale scores.

 

 

165

management index. No significant differences on ecosystem management scores were
observed among any other type of hunter for any of the game areas.

Among the individual trade-off items, significant stakeholder group differences
emerged on three of the nine questions (Table 37). On item # 43, nonconsumptive
nonmembers were more likely to agree “that ecosystems should be managed to meet
specific demands for wildlife recreation and scenic beauty, even if it curtails ecosystem
processes and fimctions” than were any other stakeholder group (F=13.8, p<.01). In fact,
almost forty percent of nonconsumptive users agreed with the statement--almost twice as
many as any of the other groups: pure hunters (19.6%); dual-use hunters (21.3%); SC
members (12.3 %), and Audubon members (17.1%). There were also significant group
differences on the question of whether managers should “divert eflortsfiom game
management to focus more on non-game species of wildlife”. On this matter, both
nonconsumptive nonmember wildlife users and SC members were more likely to endorse
this statement than pure hunters, dual user hunters and Audubon Society members
(x2=56.9, 4 df, p<0.001) (Table 40). Mean scores for groups on this item indicate that
nonconsumptive users (i=0. 1 6) and SC members (>"<=O.21) slightly favored placing more
emphasis on nongame species, while the other three stakeholder groups were slightly

opposed to the idea on average (Table 40).

166

Table 40. Frequency responses of stakeholders to ecosystem management trade-off
dealing with efforts to increase nongame management.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x 2 = 56.9 On the public land areas pictured in the study area, resource
8 df managers should divert efforts from game species management to
p<.001 focus more on nongame species
n % AGREE % UNDECIDED % DISAGREE

pure hunters 359 30.1 28.4 41.5
dual use hunters 396 29.0 27.3 43.7
Audubon members 183 33.3 26.2 40.4

SC members 213 46.9 24.9 28.2
nonconsumptive 1 13 44.2 37.2 1 8.6
wildlife

users

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two of the nine ecosystem management trade-offs produced a clear consensus
among all stakeholders. When confronted with a choice between establishing areas of
mature (old growth) forests and generating economic benefits through logging, 84.5 % of
all respondents opted for the forested areas (Table 41). Only 7 % thought logging should
take precedence. A similar mandate emerged in response to the trade-offs of native plants
versus exotic plants. Even when told that the exotics provided good food for wildlife,
77% of respondents--including hunters-- agreed that managers should favor native species
(Table 41 ).

At the other end of the spectrum were two ecosystem management questions that
were “toss-ups” for the survey respondents. Items # 45 and 46 addressed the issues of
ecosystem restoration and development of corridors between private and public lands

respectively. Over one third of the respondents were undecided and the remainder were

.167

00:300.. 038mg mac? 0 .8.“ N- 2 00:300.. 03:03 wcobm 0 08 ~+

Soc 00300 002,—. 00200000 :EoEowaan 80093000600: 08 00.800 03:03 0>0m £023 0029 0000000 000c00 000000 502 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.003 :83 03.00

cod 3.. $0.0m $0.3. $0.3 $~6 $5; 0.05.5.0 080:— vooavobfi 06 h .80 0.060% 00:25 08 .0000

coo» 023.5 005 85550 0050 Sea 8003 00.6205 .30

00¢ 86. $~.m $~.w~ $n.nm $0.2 $m.n .vouflmou ..o .00— :009 022 .05 0089 2.0.9330 008000
:05 0052 0.50:3 08 «80.0.3000 wccflxu 00:05.0 .30

60300000. 0.26:? 08 moEcntonao 0030.. «£235

8.. $6 $6~ $01 $0.3 $~.~v $~.n_ 0:008 ._ a :05 Aomcasuoc 00.03058m 0:0 6200:0800
:00 .9503 305:: .m8 000000000 8000.380 £8020 .30

0.520300: 3.80: 93:25 em 9 meets—anon 336:0

8.. :0 .x. 3 _ .x. a. G .x. S: $0.2 .\. 3. =2. .208 226. :02 a £80... 250 £552: 33:... do
.800. team 05 E

nod 3.. $5; $m.m $v.w $0.0m $va a: 000000 0.0 wfiwmo— Soc «Egon 0:20:80 00.. 002030800
£955 :00 0000» 2: 08 00000 0000000.“ 0800 0200 .00 .30.

.0005 ohm—Em? .00

3.0 . 02 $2 $3: an. _ m $0.0m $0.... 308... 8858 2:200 an: 8002230 20 access 288
a a :03 .0000 05 Sop—mach: 37.00.0620 58508 .30

x 02035 09.2 20020 E0358 00.50000 00000 0005 :O

Om I 50295 05.9.0.0 000.0002: 09.0... 50205

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0960» 50300 0020090 0003

0000000006 0:005:30 0: £053 5 0.0.3-000: E0Eow0c05 80000000 9 00029—0030 0033 .3 00259000 >0c0=c0£ .2» 030%

 

168

evenly split in each case. Among the other ecosystem management items, there was no
clear direction of opinion (Table 41). These responses indicate that wildlife stakeholders
are hesitant to give up the benefits provided by existing management in order to obtain the
restoration of a degraded ecosystem or the development of wildlife corridors

Overall, the evidence for hypotheses 27 and 28 is inconclusive. With the exception
of the question of promoting nongame management, the other trade-offs do not produce
clear patterns of differences among stakeholders. But when summed as an index, the
slight differences on individual items do suggest Sierra Club members are more supportive
than are the other groups.

Mai: 22 : Hunters who use the study site public lands will be less supportive of
ecosystem management than other hunters.

Independent samples t-test comparisons of on-site versus off-site hunters on mean
scores on all nine ecosystem management items showed no significant differences.
Hypothesis 29 was not supported.

W: Most of the nonhunting, non-organization member respondents will be
undecided about (most) ecosystem management trade-ofl options.

Nonhunting, non-organization members (n=190) were selected from the 1998
survey respondents. A larger percentage of this group was undecided on all nine
questions than were the 1997 stakeholders. Undecided was the most frequent response
for this group on three of the nine trade-off questions. These three items addressed the
issues of ecosystem restoration, corridors, and nongame management. Respondents
leaned slightly toward disagreeing that restoration should be given priority over

management of existing ecosystems and toward diverting DNR staff time to developing

169

public-private corridors. They also tended to slightly oppose wildlife corridors. Overall,
nonhunting, nonmember wildlife enthusiasts did seem to have opinions about ecosystem
management applications on state lands. Hypothesis 24 was not supported.
W11: Support for ecosystem management trade-offs will be higher among urban
residents, females, and college educated individuals for both hunters and non-hunters.

The demographic variables were treated as categorical, independent variables and
the responses to the trade-offs were treated as interval, dependent measures. Again, the
sample was split and analysis was repeated for both hunters and non hunters.
Demographic variables of gender, level of education, and size of residence, were not
significant predictors of the ecosystem management index scores for hunters. Level of
education was the only demographic variable to produce significant differences among
non-hunters (x2=20.0, 6 df, p<.01). In general, as level of education increased so did the
percent of non-hunters who were among the medium and highest category of positive
ecosystem management attitudes (Table 42).

There were a few relationships of note that emerged among non-hunters. Level of
education appeared to have a positive effect on ecosystem management attitude for
managing old grth forest, naturally fluctuating wildlife populations, and ecosystem
processes. Two significant relationships were observed based on the gender of non-
hunters. Females were more likely to be undecided about whether ecosystem processes
should be maintained if scenic beauty and wildlife recreation were diminished. Male non-

hunters were more likely to support restoration while female non-hunters were undecided.

170

Table 42. Frequency of categorical ecosystem management support based on levels of
education

 

% of categorical ' support for
ecosystem management among

 

 

 

 

 

Level of education stakeholders n x2 Sig.
Low Medium High

high school diploma 28.1 41.5 30.4 427 19.9 .01

or less

associate degree 22.7 49.0 28.3 674

or technical school

bachelor’s degree 23.7 40.1 36.3 342

advanced degree 19.3 43.9 36.9 358

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' Ecosystem management support categories were created from the frequency distribution
of the combined scale score of responses to all nine ecosystem management trade-off
questions. Low support respondents were those in the lowest 25 % of the distribution.
Medium support was assigned to those from the 26-74% and high support was assigned to
the highest 25 % of the scale scores.
Both of these cases provide counter evidence to the idea that women have more positive
ecosystem management attitudes than do men. Additionally, the other seven trade-offs
revealed no differences between men and woman. Despite the few significant results
observed, the data do not provide a strong case in support of hypothesis 31.
Demographics do not appear to be strong predictors of attitudes toward ecosystem
management in Southern Michigan.
Model Testing

Separate path models of stewardship were tested for hunters and non-hunters. In

each case, both components of the full SEM--the measurement model and the path model

of latent variables -- were tested simultaneously. Maximum likelihood estimation

171

procedures were used in all cases. In addition to testing separate theoretical models of
stewardship for hunters and nonhunters, different testing methods were employed to
demonstrate (test-drive if you will) the features of the LISREL program. For hunters, the
same linear model was tested using a large sample and a small sample of hunter
respondents to compare the effects of sample size on parameter estimates and fit statistics.
For nonhunters, the respondents were split into two halves and different models were
tested on each half. The first half was used to test the hypothesized stewardship model,
while the second half of the sample was used to test a revised model using LISREL
modification indices. Results for the hunter model (Figure 10) will be discussed first.
Goodness of fit statistics for the hunter model of stewardship suggest a reasonable
fit to the data. The global test of the model produced a significant )8 =25 8.27 (86 df,
p=.000) with a sample size= 801. A significant (and large) Chi-square indicates that the
data do not fit the proposed model. However, other fit statistics produced more
encouraging results. Both the Goodness of Fit Index (0.96) and the Normed Fit Index
(0.96) are acceptably high, and the Root Mean Square Residual (0.048) is very low (Table
43). GFI is the ratio of the sum of squares accounted for in the model over the total sum
of squares of the estimated population matrix. Generally values in the 0.8 or 0.9 range are
deemed as an adequate fit of the model (J orsekog and Sdrbom 1996). The NFI measures
how well the model fits the data compared to a baseline model with no common factors
among the observed variables. Again, this value ranges from 0 to 1.0 and is interpreted

similarly to the GP] (Fulton et a1. 1996).

172

.45

V
-.14 .56
@a 0 ——> Stewardship

V
.30\‘ /90 '25

l
n=817 -37 All paths sig. at .05

Figure 10. Estimated path coefficients and structural error terms from the ecosystem
stewardship model for Hunters (full sample) on LISREL 8.0

173

Large sample size was likely a major influence on the large )8 value. Marsh and Hocevar

(1985) proposed one modification of the 12 test which they suggest is a more suitable

assessment of models with large sample sizes. Their modification looks at the ratio of the

x2 to the degrees of freedom. According to Marsh and Hocevar, a xz/df ratio ranging

from 2:1 ro 5:1 is acceptable. Fulton et. a1 (1996) used this modification ratio as an

important criterion in accepting the fit of hypothesized structural equation models to

predict the intention to engage in wildlife recreation in Colorado.

 

Table 43. LISREL output fit statistics for causal stewardship models.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Hunters Non-hunters
Model based
Select Fit Statistics Full sample Subsample Original on
' ' ‘ ‘ n=801 n=125 model modifications
n=300 n=300
x2 258.27 103.0 225.91 175.63
p=.000 p=.063 p=.000 p=.000
x2 for independence model 6145.8 1242.2 2177.4 2177.4
Root mean square residual 0.048 0.058 0.006 0.044
Goodness of Fit index 0.96 0.90 0.89 0.91
Normed Fit Index 0.96 0.92 0.90 0.92
Parsimony Normed Fit Index 0.78 0.71 0.73 0.74
Comparative fit index 0.97 0.98 0.93 0.96
Relative fit index 0.97 0.98 0.87 0.90
Critical N 370.9 137.6 126.3 160.5

 

The current model yields an adjustment ratio of 3.01 which suggests an acceptable

model fit. A word of caution is necessary. As with all the fit indices in structural equation

 

174

modeling, decisions about acceptability of model fit must be made tentatively because
conventional standards for value cut-offs such as Cronbach’s alpha (e. g., >.7) have not
been established. Furthermore, the Marsh and Hocevar Chi-square adjustment may be
arbitrary because the ratio seems to correct for number of variables in the model (i.e.,
degrees of freedom) rather than sample size (A. Mertig, MSU, pers. com).

In order to assess the influence of the large sample size on the evaluation of model
fit, the hypothesized stewardship model for hunters was re-tested using a sub-sample of
the larger data pool. A second covariance matrix of the same variables was created in
SPSS by taking a random sample of 15 % of hunter cases from those in the first sample
population in order to obtain a smaller size (n=125).

An identical linear model was then re-run in LISREL to assess the effects of
sample size on fit statistics. The smaller sample model yielded a significant, but
substantially smaller x2 value of 106.94 (86 df, p=.006), providing additional support that
the proposed global model of hunter stewardship fit the data adequately. However, an
examination of the estimates of individual path co-efficient shows that improvements
could be made. Results indicated that three of the four hypothesized links in the model
were significant predictors within the model. Consumptive recreation value was a
significant predictor of nature appreciation (y=0.44, t=4.06, p<.01). The paths from
nature appreciation to ecological dependence (B=0.73, t=5.61, p<.01) and from ecological
dependence to stewardship (B=0.74, t=6.91, p< .01) were also significant) (Figure 11).
The path from consumptive recreation to ecological dependence was not significant. It is

interesting to note that a reduced sample size not only effected the size of the Chi-square

175

 

.36
V
*.74
—> Stewardship
A
.22
l
n:125 -32 * indicates path sig. at .05

Figure 11. Estimated path coefficients and structural error terms from the ecosystem
stewardship model for Hunters (small sample) on LISREL 8.0

176

value for the model, but it also reduced the statistical power of path parameter estimates.
The path from ecological dependence to stewardship (y=-0. 14) was significant in the larger
sample size test, but not significant in the small sample test. These findings suggest that
hunter’s value for ecological dependence does not result directly from their consumptive
recreation values (and may in fact be negatively associated), but indirectly through nature
appreciation. The hypothesized model was partially supported.

In order to take advantage of modification specifications provided with each
LISREL data output, a split sample approach was taken to test the non-hunter model of
stewardship. Since the appropriateness of retesting models on the same sample is
generally frowned upon, treating the sample as two separate populations allows the
researcher to investigate post-hoe improvements to model assessment (Bollen 1989).
Fifty percent of the non-hunter cases were randomly selected in an SPSS spread sheet and
the other cases were saved as a separate file. Separate covariance matrices were
constructed for each half. The covariance matrix for the first half of the non-hunter
sample was used to test the hypothesized model. Both the measurement and structural
path model were tested simultaneously.

The initial test of the hypothesized non-hunter model of stewardship yielded a
significant x2 of 225.9, 86 df, p=.000. Though several of the other goodness of fit
measures suggested a moderate fit (Table 43) , the path between ecological dependence
and stewardship was not significant (t= -0.33) (Figure 12). Therefore, a second non-

hunter model was tested using the path modifications suggested by LISREL (Figure 13).

177

 
    

 
 

ecological
dependence.

.29
* indicates significant at

p<.05

Figure 12. Estimated path coefiicients and structural error terms from
the ecosystem stewardship model for nonhunters on LISREL 8.0

178

.26

     

existence

.38*

     
 

nature
appreciation

, 57* _. O 4 stewardship

 

 

.58* V

ecological
dependence

 
     
   
 

* . . . ..
Indicates Significant
path at p<.05 *

.23

Figure 13. Structural eguation model results of non-hunter stewardship
based on revised LISR L model.

179

The revised model yielded a non-significant Chi-square = 175.6, 85 df, p=. 000).
In addition, the goodness of fit scores for the revised model represented improvements
over the original model (Table 43). All but one of the paths were significant predictors in
the revised model (Fig. 12). Nature appreciation value predicted both stewardship (y=.58,
t=5.57, p<.01) and existence value (y=.79, t= 7.72, p<.01). Existence value was also a
significant predictor of stewardship (B=.3 8, t= 3.89, p< .01), though the magnitude of its
effects on stewardship were greatly reduced compared to the initial model.

The revised model suggests that existence value may contribute to one’s sense of
ecological dependence ([3=.57, t=6.22, p<.01), but that the relationship is non recursive.
Contrary to the path modification that ecological dependence and existence value
reinforce each other, the path from former to the latter was not significant (t=—0.33) once
the effects of other variables were controlled. This leaves in doubt the role of ecological
dependence in the development of stewardship. Like the hunter model, it appears a more
direct and parsimonious model would eliminate the ecological dependence value as a
significant predictor of ecosystem stewardship. This has important implications for
education and persuasive attempts to increase support for ecosystem management goals
centered around maintaining ecosystem functions and services. These will be discussed in

the following chapter.

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Overview

This study sought to improve our understanding of stakeholder attitudes and
values for the management of ecosystems in Southern Michigan and to examine the
potential influence of these values on an individual’s commitment to ecosystem
stewardship. These objectives were achieved and the results offer both meaningful
theoretical contributions and pragmatic management implications for resource managers
seeking to implement ecosystem management principles.

The key findings and their theoretical and/or management significance are
organized in the following manner. The utility of the ecosystem values cube will be briefly
discussed. Next, the major findings related to stakeholder ecosystem values, attitudes
regarding current ecosystem conditions and attitudes toward ecosystem management
principles are considered individually. There are some “nuts and bolts” implications of
these findings for agency communication and public involvement efforts that are included
within each of these sections. This is followed by a section which pulls together the “big
picture” messages and implications that can be gleaned from the overall results of this
study. Lastly, results from the models of ecosystem stewardship are discussed along with
their theoretical significance. This chapter begins with a look at the limitations of this
study.

Limitations

This research sought to develop profiles of the attitudes and values of key

180

181

stakeholder groups that were identified prior to data collection. The rationale of focusing
on key recreation users of the state lands, as well as two prominent environmental
organizations--The Sierra Club and the Audubon Society-- has already been described in
the methodology. However, all decisions come with trade-offs and there are many other
important stakeholders that were not surveyed that do warrant attention if the DNR wants
to build public support for ecosystem management. Two in particular come to mind.
Although “recreational play space” was not found to be a high priority benefit among the
users described in this study, national recreational trend surveys suggest that there will be
growing demands placed on public lands for activities like mountain biking, riding ORV’s,
and other activities that have strong potential to impact wildlife, habitat, and wildlife
stakeholders--both consumptive and nonconsumptive. Therefore, the low importance that
this study’s stakeholders placed on play space opportunities should not be taken as a way
to dismiss those interests.

Another extremely important stakeholder group not included in this study is
adjacent landowners of the public land areas. The significance of this group in the success
of ecosystem management almost goes without saying. Landowners have the potential to
contribute to or impede the achievement of both ecological and sociological objectives.
Landowner support or opposition to public land management is one important
consideration. But another important consideration is the contributions that private land
management can play in the achievement of both ecological and sociological goals. By
coordinating ecosystem management objectives with cooperating landowners, wildlife

managers have more flexibility with regard to providing adequate ecological

182

representation of vegetative cover types and successional stages (Haufler et al. 1996) than
if they are forced to utilize public lands exclusively. Additionally, fostering more
opportunities for hunter access onto private lands could help offset declines in public land
hunting opportunities if increased emphasis on ecological objectives should result in less
emphasis placed on game species management.

Another limitation of this study was created through the sampling design. The
results of this study provide profiles of the attitudes and values of certain types of
stakeholders, but they do not speak to the relative proportion of those views in the
Southern Michigan population. There are two dimensions of this limitation. One is that
these results are not applicable to the general public at large. The inadequate response
rate derived from the 1998 mail survey of driver license holders prevented the exploration
of the frequency of stakeholder types within the general public. Two, the over sampling of
waterfowl and archery deer hunters during the 1997 survey limits the generalizability of
the attitudes and values results to all hunters. Although there was utility in segmenting
hunters into “pure hunter” and “dual-use hunter” categories, the reader needs to keep in
mind that both of these segments contain a higher percentage of archery and waterfowl
hunters than would be found in a random sample of southern Michigan hunters.
Therefore, the results reflect differences in proportion of hunter types and the extent to
which value or attitude differences do occur among types of hunters. While these
differences are not substantively dramatic, caution must be exercised when generalizing

the results even within hunter segments. Any attempts to talk generically about the

183

attitudes of all hunters in Southern Michigan is problematic because the differences
resulting from type of hunting preference are magnified in this sample.
The values “cube” revisited

A major portion of this study was guided through the operationalization of a three
dimensional ecosystem values model (Figure 1). Before discussing the results of data and
the implications for management, I thought it appropriate to discuss the utility of the
model in helping achieve the goals of this study. The conceptual values model provides on
good organizational framework for bringing together the multi-dimensionality of values
that are found in the literature. As the model depicts, values can exist within societies and
cultures and with present and fixture implications. However, values measured in this study
were limited to individual’s preferences for various ecosystem benefits.

The benefit categories served the purpose of this project well. The development of
valid and reliable measurements for these six benefit constructs was successful. The
results which will be discussed momentarily give guidance to managers in terms of
describing the broad and diverse values shared across groups. Though the value results do
not provide “a cookbook” for management goals, they do provide a starting point in
establishing goals based on multiple values as called for in the ecosystem management
literature.

Future attempts to utilize these benefit categories should adjust experiment with
adjusting measurement items to attempt to capture more variance within samples without
losing the unidimensionality of constructs.

The results of the exploratory factor analysis of outdoor recreations revealed the

184

potential existence of two categories of play space-- “fresh air” activities (e.g., cross
country skiing) and “machine—based” sports (e.g., riding jet skis). This split makes
intuitive sense, but needs further investigation to verify empirically. Certainly, demands
for each type of play space would pose different challenges for the MDNR.

Ecosystem values

The results demonstrate that all stakeholders in this study place strong value on
several categories of ecosystem benefits. In an absolute sense, all groups thought that
nature appreciation, ecological dependence and existence benefits were important. In
addition, hunters placed high importance on consumptive recreation benefits. All groups
also placed low importance on play space and extractive benefits of public land
management in Southern Michigan. The low priority assigned to play space may to some
degree reflect stakeholder acceptance of current laws that forbid the use of motorized
recreation on state lands in Southern Michigan. If that is the case, these scores may be
under representing the potential demand for such activity if it were legalized. Similarly,
the low priority of extractive benefits may also reflect the Southern Michigan application
of the questions and could yield very different results if another geographic area was
specified.

Both consumptive and nonconsumptive groups appear to have expectations that
wildlife managers should be maintaining biodiversity and natural communities on public
lands. The value for maintaining native plant and wildlife species extends beyond their
contribution to recreation enjoyment. All groups placed high importance on existence and

ecological dependence benefits as well as nature appreciation benefits of maintaining

185

wildlife and ecosystem diversity. The implication of these findings is that the public
expects that the agency has responsibility for managing public lands to maintain a healthy
environment as well as providing places to go and to interact with nature.

Though significant group differences were found across all six categories of
ecosystem benefits, in most cases these differences were not substantially large. The two
most substantial group differences were in the consumptive recreation and the ecological
dependence domains. It is not surprising that nonhunting stakeholders would not assign
very high importance to management that enhances consumptive recreation, but the fact
that they place very little value on this category does verify the challenge of maintaining
hunting and fishing as management tools in the future.

The low importance placed on the management of consumptive benefits on public
lands by all three nonconsumptive groups suggests that these users do not recognize the
indirect benefits they receive from the management of state lands for hunting. While it
seems unlikely that nonconsmnptive users will ever place high importance on consumptive
benefits themselves, there is potential to develop and maintain support for consumptive
management among these groups. The agency needs to direct some effort into
communicating how things like game species management enhance viewing opportunities
and provide habitat for a variety of species.

One of the keys to gaining public acceptance for ecosystem management may be to
narrow this wide gap between hunters and non-hunters in terms of the importance placed
on consumptive recreation management . In the wake of the 1996 anti-bear hunting ballot

initiative in Michigan, hunters are concerned about the threat posed by anti-hunters to

186

their hunting heritage as evidenced by their extremely high scores on the anti-hunting
perception scale. If the agency hopes to foster consensus among stakeholders in the
development of ecosystem management, it will be necessary to create trust between
groups. Hunters may react negatively to nonconsumptive groups whom they perceive are
not supportive of hunting opportunities on public lands and may view ecosystem
management as a codeword for the anti-hunting movement.

The second substantial value difference found was between hunters--especially
“pure hunters”-- and environmental organization members on the importance of ecological
dependence. This difference can be put into perspective by ranking the mean rating scores
of the stakeholders. Among Audubon members and Sierra Club members, ecological
dependence benefits were as important as their other top priorities. But among pure
hunters, ecological dependence was their fourth highest priority (among 6 categories) and
not nearly as important as consumptive recreation benefits. This relative priority rank
ordering may to some extent reflect hunter perceptions about current opportunities and
threats to opportunities, as well as their true preferences for maintaining healthy
ecosystems. In other words, pure hunters may have placed so much importance on
consumptive benefits in order to defend those values against potential threats (i.e.,
management that may emphasize other types of benefits). But if the correct interpretation
is that hunters truly do value recreational benefits more than ecosystem components and
functions on state game areas, then there is reason for ecosystem managers to be

concerned.

187

The results provide some evidence that hunters’ lower ecological dependence
value is related to differences in their beliefs about ecological dependence. Hunters are
less likely to believe that humans’ quality of life is directly tied to “maintaining some
minimum level of environmental health in Southern Michigan” than are environmentalists
who almost universally accept this assumption. This difference in beliefabout ecological
dependence appears to be influencing the relatively lower values which pure hunters
assigned to ecological dependence. The relationship between valuing the attributes that
make up ecological dependence and recreational participation values are discussed further
in the modeling section.

Based on these findings that reveal substantive value differences between hunters
and non-hunters regarding consumptive recreation and ecological dependence benefits,
one would expect that hunters may be resistant to any management that shifts its emphasis
from the production of game species to the maintenance or restoration of ecological
values. Therefore, on-going communication efforts with pure hunters may need to raise
the salience of human connections to fimctioning ecosystems if support for ecological
objectives of ecosystem management are to be fostered. Since dual-use hunters place a
higher importance on coo-dependence benefits than do pure hunters, they may make
effective and credible sources for these messages (Mackie et al. 1990). The agency might
consider enlisting the support of dual use hunters as messengers to communicate about the
need to maintain ecosystem function and productivity. The message itself should target
the relationship between maintaining quality hunting opportunities and maintaining the

health and productivity of local ecosystems. This message may resonate better with

188

hunters than appeals to conserve biodiversity for its functional importance because the
impacts are likely to be seen as more immediate than are less tangible connections between
ecosystem health and human’s quality of life.

There were value differences that emerged within stakeholder groups that also
have implications for ecosystem management. Among hunters, those who reported
waterfowl hunting or archery deer hunting as their favorite were particularly extreme in
placing a high value on managing for consumptive benefits. Other types of hunters--those
who said small game or upland bird hunting was their favorite» were more likely to place
moderate importance on consumptive benefits. This difference may be explained by the
more specialized nature of waterfowl and archery hunting-both of which can require more
substantial investments of time and money compared to other types of hunting.

The results also suggest that small game and upland bird hunters valued extractive
benefits even less than did deer and waterfowl hunters. Based on these value differences,
wildlife managers need to understand that not all hunters value all benefits equally. In
particular, waterfowl and archery deer hunters are likely to offer the most resistance to any
changes that they perceive as threats to management for game species. The agency may
consider targeting specific messages about ecosystem management through information
provided during the sale of different license types (e. g., waterfowl stamps).

The measurement of hunter type needs to be clarified. Hunter types were defined
by their response to their “favorite type of hunting”, but most of these hunters participated
in multiple types of hunting. Therefore, the segments used in this research may not

discriminate value differences as much as a measure of specialized participation (e. g.,

189

individuals who only waterfowl hunt) would have. This is an important distinction to
make and it also may explain why the hypotheses about waterfowl hunters formulated
from focus groups were not supported. Waterfowl hunters in the focus group were
almost exclusively “activity specialists”--that is, they only did waterfowl hunting. Almost
all of the hunters in the survey who indicated waterfowl hunting was their favorite type
also did other types of hunting. Future research should consider capturing more of the
activity specialists to further explore the impact of hunting type on values and attitudes
and to establish the proportion of these segments with the overall hunting population.

Finally, few substantive value differences were found between users and nonusers
of study site public lands among either hunters or non-hunters. However, hunters who
used public lands did exhibit slightly higher values for consumptive recreation. This is not
surprising, given that the value items all addressed public land management specifically.
Those who use the benefits (e.g., public land recreation) value them more. Again, a
qualification regarding this finding is necessary. The instrument only asked about
recreational use of the study site SGAs as opposed to any SGAs or public lands in general.
Therefore, some of the nonusers of the study site SGAS may be using other public land
areas. If that is the case and public land users do in fact have value differences compared
to nonusers, these results might not reflect the magnitude of those differences.

Still, it is safe to conclude based on the data that value differences that do exist
among public land users are not unique to any of the four properties in the study. As one
example, Maple River hunters are not significantly different from Shiawassee River

hunters in the importance they assign to all categories of ecosystem benefits. They may

190

differ somewhat in their attitudes toward specific management practices or issues, but at a
generic level users of both areas seek similar ecosystem benefits. The same can be said
regarding the non-hunting users of these areas.

Ecosystem/wildlife attitudes

In all but one instance, stakeholders agreed in their opinions about the relative
abundance of the elements (i.e., whether something was lacking or over abundant), but
often significantly differed in magnitude of their evaluations. In general, all five groups
felt there were “too many” deer and “too few or too little” of everything else. The only
directional disagreement existed over the item “access to hunting opportunities” where
both pure hunters and dual use hunters thought that “too few” opportunities existed while
non-hunting stakeholders thought there were “too many”.

Responses to current abundance levels of ecosystems, wildlife attributes, and
recreational opportunities likely reflect an individual’s preference as much as a reflection
of subjective evaluation of current conditions. For example, bird watchers rated songbird
shortages as more severe than other stakeholders did. Similarly, waterfowl hunters
thought there were fewer ducks than other types of hunters did. Indeed stakeholder
attitudes about the current ecological conditions in Southern Michigan are likely
comprised of their beliefs about what’s out there as well as their preferences for what they
would like to see (Peyton 1984).

Overall, most groups wanted more of everything. But stakeholders differed
dramatically in their opinions about the degree to which a given attribute (e. g., the

number of songbirds) was lacking. I am tempted to say pure hunters were “more

191

satisfied” with current levels of ecosystem types and wildlife attributes than were other
groups, but it is neither entirely appropriate to infer satisfaction from mean abundance
ratings, nor were their absolute attitudes indicative of a group that has everything they
want. Even hunters were more likely to answer “too few” than “too many” for all
attributes except for deer.

Yet in relative terms, a higher percentage of pure hunters answered “about the
right amount” to three out of four ecosystem types and three out of five wildlife attributes
-- more than any other group. Only on the number of hardwoods in Southern Michigan
did a majority of hunters think there were “too few”.

By contrast, a majority of environmentalists said there were “too few” hardwoods,
wetlands, grasslands, pine forests, songbirds and wildlife diversity. Meanwhile, dual-use
hunters tended to look more like hunters in their ratings of wildlife abundance levels, but
more like environmentalists in their ratings of ecosystem abundance. One exception
already noted in the results is that more dual-use hunters said there were “too few” ducks
than any other group.

Though mean scores did not differ between SC members and Audubon members,
SC members were unique among all stakeholder types in that a sizeable portion checked
“no opinion” to many of the attribute items. This included over one-third who checked
“no Opinion” on current levels of frogs and amphibians, waterfowl, places to hunt, and
places to fish. Between one-fifth and one-third checked no opinion on many of the other
items. This may reflect an unwillingness by some SC members to offer an opinion not

based on direct experience. This group was characterized by lower participation in

192

wildlife related recreation and lower visitation rates to study area public lands than any of
the other groups.

The difference in perception between non-hunters and hunters about current
conditions reflects value differences to some extent. The fact that stakeholders shared
many of the same ecosystem values suggest other factors are creating those perception
differences. This finding raises questions about the base(s) or sources of evaluation used
by hunting and non-hunting stakeholders in forming their attitudes. Non-hunters are more
critical of existing conditions than are hunters across most categories, yet they are also less
likely to use the state game areas than are hunters. Does this mean hunter attitudes are
based more on direct experience while environmentalists are relying more on indirect
experiences (e. g., organization magazines) to assess current conditions ? Unfortunately,
the survey instrument only asked about recreational use of study site public lands rather
public lands in general. Therefore, it is not possible to assign the importance of direct
experience. Investigating the bases of perceptual differences between hunters and non-
hunters is an important area for future research. A content analysis of interest group
publications might be instructive to investigate differences in ecological information that
may be contributing to perceptual differences.

These findings illustrate that although stakeholders value ecosystem benefits
similarly, they have substantially different attitudes about the current state of the
ecosystems in Southern Michigan. It is likely the attitudes reported by stakeholders are
influenced by their preferences for what they’d like to see as well their subjective beliefs

about what’s out there--which may be based in their own experiences, media messages, or

193

other sources. It is also likely that differences exist among stakeholders in the weights
given to these different sources that form their attitudes about abundance levels. Focus
group discussions suggested that hunters are more likely to form their attitudes based on
their own experience, while environmental organization members are more influenced by
external communication than on experience. This may be especially true when evaluating
conditions on state game areas where hunters are far more likely to visit for recreation
than non-hunters.

Regardless of how stakeholder attitudes are formed it is clear that important
differences do exist regarding their perceptions about the current abundance levels of most
ecosystem attributes in Southern Michigan. Hunters seem generally more satisfied than do
non-hunters with regard to the current levels of nongame species. Though all stakeholders
would like to have more of almost everything, non-hunters tend to rate current conditions
as more severely deficient than do hunters. If the MDNR hopes to engender support for
specific ecosystem management approaches, it will be important to facilitate a public
involvement process whereby stakeholders and wildlife biologists have an opportunity to
share information about their perceptions/concerns over what species, ecosystems, or
recreational opportunities are lacking and the bases for their perceptions. It is important
that all players come to a common understanding of each other’s perceptions in an attempt
to reach a shared understanding over what the real priorities of ecosystem management
ought to be and how the objectives will be met. Such an exchange may help stakeholders
and agency representatives to learn from each other and develop a more objective view of

ecosystem conditions and priorities or concerns.

194

For example, Audubon members expressed an overwhelming attitude that song
birds are lacking in Southern Michigan. It would be important to know whether this is
based on actual observations or what they have read in Audubon publications.
Understanding the source of their perceptions will determine implications for how the
agency might respond. The importance of developing a shared understanding of beliefs
will be elaborated on in the next section.

The significantly different attitudes among stakeholders regarding current
conditions must be considered in the context of the actual status of ecosystems and
wildlife in southern Michigan. In addition to developing a shared vision among
stakeholders about which species and ecosystems need more attention, the agency may
also be called upon to clarify for stakeholders the “true” status of nature in southern
Michigan. In other words, at the very least stakeholders will expect the agency to be able
to address the current status of game and nongame populations in Southern Michigan to
provide a scientific basis for ecosystem management. This suggests the need for the
Division to enhance it’s inventory and monitoring of biodiversity on state lands in order to
be able to assuage concems--especially of groups like the Sierra Club-- that adequate
measures are being taken to maintain all species. Equally important, it would also
convince the hunters of the need for improving ecosystem attributes that hunters perceive
to be adequate.

Ecosystem management attitudes
In this section, overall ecosystem management index scores will be discussed first,

followed by a consideration of the individual trade-off items. When responses to trade-

195

offs were calculated as a summative index, all stakeholders were slightly positive about
ecosystem management principles on state public lands to the extent they understood the
trade-offs involved. None of the nine ecosystem management options were viewed
negatively by a majority of respondents and two options were strongly endorsed by all
groups. But most of the questions yielded weak support with a substantial number of
undecided responses.

The reader is advised to keep the magnitude of the group differences described
below in perspective. First, significant differences between groups on the ecosystem
management index were substantively small--they represent slight tendencies rather than
profound differences. Second, even those individuals in the highest category of support
for ecosystem management rejected some of options they confronted.

Few significant group differences emerged either on individual items or the
ecosystem management index score. Hunters were less likely to be among the highest
supporters of ecosystem management (all items indexed) than were non-hunters (x2=6. l , 2
df, p<0.05). About three in ten hunters wound up in the highest category of support for
ecosystem management compared to four out of ten non-hunters who did. Those hunters
who participated in waterfowl hunting tended to score slightly lower on the ecosystem
management index than those hunters who did not participate in waterfowl hunting. This
would not have been predicted from the focus group with waterfowl hunting specialists.
Of particular interest is that the only statistically significant differences among state game
area hunters was that Shiawassee River waterfowl hunters tended to score slightly lower

than other hunters on the ecosystem management index. No significant differences on

196

ecosystem management scores were observed among any other type of hunter for any of
the game areas.

Among the five stakeholder groups, SC members were more likely to score higher
on the ecosystem management index than were members of any other stakeholder group
(F =3.66, 4 df, p<.01). On average, SC members scored 3.6 out of a possible nine on the
ecosystem management index. This score reflects the net difference between those items
that were supported minus those items that were opposed. This finding illustrates the
tentative nature of the ecosystem management support-~even the respondents that were
most favorable to ecosystem management did not endorse a majority of the nine trade-
offs.

The group differences on the ecosystem management index score make intuitive
sense. Of all the recreational user groups in the study area, Shiawassee waterfowl hunters
would have the most to lose if changes were made to current management. Thus they are
likely to be most wary about discussions of ecosystem management. The findings reflect a
wariness to change. Similarly, it also makes sense that SC members would be most
receptive to considering trade-offs where ecological benefits were given greater emphasis.
This is especially true given that SC members are less likely to be directly impacted by
changes since their recreation participation rates on state lands were lower than any other
group.

Among the individual trade-off items, significant stakeholder group differences
emerged on three of the nine questions. On item # 43, nonconsumptive non-organization

members were more likely to agree “that ecosystems should be managed to meet specific

197

demands for wildlife recreation and scenic beauty, even if it curtails ecosystem processes
and functions” than were any other stakeholder group (F =13.8, p<.01). In fact, almost
40% of nonconsmnptive users agreed with the statement-- almost twice as many as any of
the other groups: pure hunters (19.6%); dual-use hunters (21 .3%); SC members (12.3 %),
and Audubon members (17.1%). If this is a valid result (see upcoming discussion), it
suggests that nonconsumptive nonmembers may not understand or appreciate the
ecological services that public lands provide.

There were significant group differences on the question of shifiing emphasis to
non-game species management. This was perhaps was one of most concrete of the trade-
offs presented, yet the differences were not substantially huge. Hunters and Audubon
members disagreed slightly on average while SC members and nonconsumptive
nonmembers agreed slightly on average. Again, focus group results help to elaborate
these findings. Some hunters may find the question somewhat moot because of their
beliefs that is what’s good for game species is good for all species. SC members on the
other hand may be conflicted by the choice and reluctant to choose one over the other. I
point this item out in particular to illustrate that though differences appear small, they do
not necessarily reflect uncertainty or ambivalence on the part of stakeholders.

Two of the nine ecosystem management trade-offs produced a clear consensus
among stakeholders. When confronted with a choice between establishing areas of mature
(old growth) forests and generating economic benefits through logging, over 80 % of all
respondents opt for the forested areas. Only 8 % thought logging should take precedent.

A similar mandate emerged in response to the trade-offs of native plants versus exotic

198

plants. Even when told that the exotics provided good food for wildlife, three-quarters of
respondents-~including hunters-- agreed that managers should favor native species.

Strong attitudes expressed on these two questions likely reflect the fact that they
were two of the easier trade-offs these particular stakeholders were asked to make. Since
all stakeholders placed low importance on extractive values of public lands management, it
was probably relatively easy to forsake logging opportunities in favor of mature forests
and the many associated benefits (e. g., existence). The endorsement of native plant
species over exotics is more difficult to explain, but likely reflects a growing public
awareness of detrimental effects for which other state exotics have received substantial
negative publicity (e.g., purple loosestrife, zebra mussels). In light of this finding, the
agency may find it necessary to develop and communicate a clear policy on the use of
exotics in their management practices. Otherwise, agency credibility may be diminished
on this issue if stakeholders perceive contradictory messages regarding the role of exotics
in ecology and management of ecosystems.

While all stakeholders express support for things like maintaining biodiversity in an
abstract sense, that support quickly erodes when confronted with trade-offs that make the
costs of such a strategy more concrete. For example, although 48 % of hunters agree that
biodiversity should be maintained “even if it means lowering the population of some
common species living there”, only 29 % of hunters overall agreed that more emphasis
should be placed on nongame species management. Furthermore, almost half of the
hunters (48.8%) who did express support for biodiversity disagreed that management

should be diverted from game species management to focus more on non-game species of

199

wildlife. These contradictory opinions parallel other environmental opinion surveys that
have found that the public often pays lip service to abstract environmental principles, but
back away from these principles when confronted with the trade-offs of their choice (e.g.,
Times-Mirror 1994,1995). It reveals an inclination to value these attributes but also a
wariness of the costs to other values.

While it is possible that hunters may only be paying lip service to supporting
biodiversity, there is an alternative explanation for their seemingly contradictory attitudes
in this case. It is feasible that hunters may not believe it is necessary to choose between
game species management and nongame management because they think they are already
getting both. Our focus groups with hunters in the preliminary phase of this research
revealed that this is a common belief. The perception among many hunters is that what’s
good for deer (e. g., edge, early successional forests) is good for all species.

Another aspect of hunter perception about current levels of diversity and nongame
species may result from hunters using the more developed areas in Southern Michigan as
their baseline for assessing attributes present on state game areas. Simply put, for many
hunters the state game areas are already natural, wild, diverse, and self sustaining
ecosystems when compared to more developed areas of Southern Michigan. In contrast,
environmental organization members with less experience on public lands may be basing
their evaluations against a more pristine, ideal view of nature. There needs to be an on-
going effort to educate hunters and non-hunters about the ecological nuances of habitat,
niche specialization, disturbances, etc. that is placed in context of what are realistic

expectations for Southern Michigan ecosystems.

200

The survey responses to attitude items dealing with the current level of ecosystem
attributes in Southern Michigan also lend support to the notion that hunters are more
satisfied with the current levels of biodiversity and nongame species present than are non-
hunters. F or example, a majority of pure hunters (60.1%) and dual use hunters (50.0%)
think we have “about the right amount” of wildlife diversity in Southern Michigan. By
contrast, a majority of non-hunters thought that there was “too little” wildlife diversity.

Non—hunters also exhibit inconsistencies in their responses to ecosystem
management trade-off items. For example, 38 % of nonconsumptive nonmembers seem to
flip flop when asked about protecting critical ecosystem services versus managing to
provide wildlife recreation. A plurality of “nonconsumptive nonmembers” (40.0%) agreed
with item #43 that managers should “manage ecosystems to meet specific public demands
for wildlife recreation and scenic functions even if it curtails ecosystem processes and
functions”. Yet in the following item which makes the trade-off more explicit, 57.4%
agreed that managers should “sustain ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil
conservation, and groundwater recharge) even if it means providing fewer opportunities

for wildlife recreation.” It appears the inclusion of concrete examples of ecosystem
processes in the second item clarified the trade-off for “nonconsumptive nonmembers”-- a
majority of whom then supported the ecosystem management objective.

The fact that only nonconsumptive nonmembers exhibit this inconsistency in their
attitudes regarding maintenance of ecosystem processes versus recreational benefits raises
some question about the validity of these items. It could be that nonconsumptive

nonmembers are less involved and less informed than hunters and environmental groups

201

and therefore simply did not understand the abstract trade-off posed by item # 43.
However, this explanation raises some doubt about the validity of these two questions and
illustrates the difficulty of predicting context specific choices from the use of generic
measures of environmental values (Satterfield and Gregory 1998).

In addition to the apparently inconsistent attitudes described above, there is also a
substantially high percentage of “undecideds” on many of the items. The frequency of
undecideds ranged from 25-35 % on six of the nine trade-offs indicating that many
respondents had difficulty evaluating the consequences of choosing between ecosystem
management and traditional management alternatives.

The big picture

In summary, all stakeholders expressed some value for ecosystem management
benefits when these were posed to them in a generic sense in the absence of any costs.
However, the lack of clear opinions on many trade-offs, the lack of group differences on
those trade-offs, and the high percentage of “undecided” responses indicate that all
stakeholders will need opportunities to more fully consider the consequences to valued
benefits posed by ecosystem management approaches. As with any decision making that
utilizes complex, scientific information, wildlife managers will need to actively facilitate a
process to assist stakeholders in understanding and evaluating potential consequences to
valued benefits posed by specific management strategies (Hadden 1981).

These findings are encouraging in that the ecosystem benefits are valued and
stakeholders are not strongly polarized. Yet, area managers cannot interpret the results as

a mandate to move forward with ecosystem management at the expense of traditional

202

management. Many factors could cause stakeholders to oppose ecosystem management in
spite of these encouraging results. For example, because the full range of benefits were
important to most stakeholders, any attempt to shift from the status quo could cause an
immediate opposition from stakeholders compelled to protect existing benefits. This is an
especially likely concern given that hunters and non-hunters have widely different
perceptions about the extent to which ecological benefits are already being provided on
state lands. The fact that hunter concern about the threat of anti-hunting is very high
could also impact their willingness to consider shifis from traditional management.
Another potential factor that could create problems for agency efforts to adapt current
management is that there is some perception among all stakeholder groups that the agency
does not adequately consider their interests. Finally, the lack of specificity between the
hypothetical trade-offs used in this study and more concrete applications of ecosystem
management that the agency may be considering makes predictions about stakeholder
response risky (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Satterfield and Gregory 1998).

Based on the preceding interpretation, there are three major implications for the
MDNR Wildlife Division in integrating public preferences into ecosystem management
planning for southern Michigan. First, the agency desperately needs to articulate a clear
and concrete vision for ecosystem management needs and opportunities prior to any
efforts to involve the public in any meaningful way. Second, the need for and nature of
ecosystem management will have to be communicated to the public (and to area managers
as well) in a way that facilitates understanding of the potential benefits, as well as the risks

and uncertainties involved. Three, the agency should look for opportunities to build

203

relationships with and among stakeholders that capitalize on shared values to avoid
conflicts and to build support for ecosystem management. These implications are
elaborated on below.

Need for clear, concrete policy vision

Since 1995, the Wildlife Division has initiated several ecosystem management
planning efforts throughout Michigan in addition to this study, yet clear direction
regarding goals is only slowly emerging. Most recently, the agency has launched its “Joint
Ventures” project which establishes a series of broad goals for achieving “holistic”,
“ecosystem”, and “adaptive” management (MDNR 1997). An eleven page internal
document describing “Joint Ventures” offers no clear policy consideration for what land
management objectives may result from the broad goal statements. A review of this
document suggests that the agency has not progressed very far in identifying the needs or
priorities for ecosystem management since attempts in 1995-96 for this study failed to do
so.

In this study, ecosystem management was operationalized as management that
prioritized the maintenance of ecological values where those values directly conflicted
with recreational, economic, or utilitarian benefits of public lands. Obviously, human uses
and values can be quite compatible with maintaining diverse and productive ecosystems.
But how much emphasis should be placed on allocation of recreational opportunities
versus other ecosystem benefits like biodiversity when the two objectives conflict ? There
is a need for the agency to identify such potential conflicts and provide a clear set of

ecosystem priorities. Closely related to the need for clear policy priorities is the need for

204

the agency to evaluate its ability to provide “scientific management”. The public will
expect ecosystem management goals or priorities to be rooted in scientific data (i.e.,
species trends). The need to provide scientific information about ecological priorities will
be especially crucial given the vastly different perceptions of stakeholders regarding
current conditions in Southern Michigan.
Communication needs

As the agency defines options for ecosystem management in southern Michigan, a
good deal of intervention in the form of communication and public involvement will be
necessary to avoid conflict and gain acceptance of some of these management shifis.
Traditional attempts to “educate” user groups by providing more information can not
succeed unless the agency has an adequate database that clearly demonstrates the need to
pursue a given set of ecosystem management objectives. Nor can managers predict with
any certainty the effects of adopting new management strategies (Hollings 1996).
Therefore, the best approach may be public involvement strategies that allow stakeholders
to interact with managers to develop a shared vision for the ecosystem priorities of the
area. This will be a challenging proposition and one that has many risks for the agency.
A recent example in Missouri is a case in point, where a well conceived communication
effort not only failed to bring about public acceptance of the need for ecosystem
management, but created a backlash directed toward the agency (Epperson 1997).

The literature emphasizes public involvement based on collaboration and shared
decision making (and goal setting) in order to develop a mutual understanding of the need

to do ecosystem management and to develop a buy-in from all groups (Cortner and

205

Shannon 1993, Simon et al. 1993). Yet effective models or empirically tested approaches
for exactly how this can be achieved are severely lacking.

The agency has a suite of options for constructing deliberative, interactive public
involvement processes to integrate stakeholder values into ecosystem management
planning in Southern Michigan. These public involvement techniques range from
facilitated workshops to citizen juries (Brown and Peterson 1994, Rem et al. 1994). The
agency will need to confront the extent to which they wish to grant decision making
authority to the public in setting ecosystem management priorities. Another challenge will
be in designing public involvement programs that can achieve the desired reach among
many, diverse groups without becoming so large that they result in policy gridlock (Yosie
and Herbst 1998). Regardless of which approach(s) the agency uses, it should utilize
sound principles of issue management. A few examples are warranted.

First, stakeholders will need opportunities and assistance to understand and
evaluate potential consequences to values of ecosystem management options defined by
the agency. Even though many of the ecosystem benefits were highly valued, they were
not valued equally by individual stakeholders, nor among stakeholders. It will be difficult
for an individual to choose between some of the tradeoffs resulting from shifts in
management from game species to ecosystem goals. Managers will need to provide
information on ecological needs, but also acknowledge the uncertainty and limits of
science in order to maintain public trust and avoid creating unrealistic expectations for

what ecosystem management can achieve.

206

Second, information must also be presented and packaged properly to avoid a
perception of surprise and threat. Only then, can stakeholders be expected to openly
consider change, rather than concocting conspiracy theories about the motives of wildlife
managers and the agencies they work for (Holsi 1978).

Third, it will be important to limit the number of priorities that are established and
to set measurable goals so that decision making is not overcome by the complexity of
options (Weick 1984).

Building on common ground

Though the difficulty of the communication and public involvement challenges
posed by ecosystem management can not be underestimated, results of this study provide
some positive news with which to begin such efforts. The value findings in this study
suggest that seemingly disparate stakeholder groups have more similar value profiles than
might be expected. The shared values of stakeholders could provide a basis of common
ground that the agency could draw upon to foster support for ecosystem management
objectives. Two categories of benefits--existence and ecological dependence--that likely
would receive greater emphasis under the ecosystem management paradigm are highly
valued across groups. This is good news for wildlife managers seeking to develop
ecosystem management goals and strategies in Southern Michigan. The shared values of
the stakeholders means that information, education and public involvement efforts do not
need to invest substantial effort convincing the groups studied of the importance of many

ecosystem benefits. Hunters, nonconsumptive wildlife recreationists, and

207

environmentalists already recognize the importance of maintaining diversity and ecosystem
integrity on public lands whether or not they use them directly.

As public involvement efforts are developed, the agency should take every effort
to highlight the shared values among groups as a way to enhance cooperation among
stakeholders, to build trust in the process, and to avoid the development of contentious
issues. It will require a continued and on-going effort to nurture relationships among
stakeholders and with the agency, but the current atmosphere appears more favorable than
if the results had indicated that groups were radically different in the importance they
placed on different ecosystem benefits. Instead, managers can now focus on gaining a
mutual understanding of the nature of current benefits on state lands and the needs for the
firture. The ultimate approach will likely require a negotiated planning effort where
managers can foster the shared importance placed on multiple wildlife values while
building a basis of understanding for ecological stewardship.

The role of ecosystem values on stewardship

The hypothesized path models for value influences on ecosystem stewardship were
partially supported for both hunters and non-hunters. Though separate models were
tested for each group, the results indicate that a nature appreciation value has a strong
influence on stewardship for both hunters and non-hunters. Among hunters, there appears
to be a strong and positive link between nature appreciation and ecological dependence;
and a strong link between ecological dependence and stewardship. The consumptive
recreation value appears to have only an indirect effect on stewardship through its impact

on one’s nature appreciation value. In fact, the consumptive recreation is negatively

208

correlated with ecological dependence, though the magnitude of the relationship is fairly
weak (y=-0. 14).

These empirical findings on the causal influences of hunter stewardship have
significant theoretical implications. Past research has attempted to establish a link between
recreation participation and environmental concern. The Dunlap-Heffeman (1975) thesis
suggested that environmental concern was stronger among nonconsumptive users than it
was for consumptive users. Theodori et al. (1998) clarified the recreation--stewardship
relationship by testing paired combinations of recreations including participants who did
both consumptive and nonconsumptive recreations. They found support for the Dunlap-
Heffeman hypothesis when testing individuals who participated exclusively in consumptive
or nonconsumptive recreations, but got very different results when looking at people who
did both. Theodori et al. (1998) found the strongest correlation with environmental
concern existed among people who hunted and bird watched. My findings corroborate
these results to some extent and offer a mechanism for why the relationship exists.

I would argue that stewardship is not so much influenced by the recreational
activity itself, but from the values one derives from their exposure to the outdoors through
activities. For instance, Jackson and Norton’s (1980) stages of hunter development
suggests that one’s early involvement is highly focused on activity specific attributes (e. g.,
the equipment, game bagged) but that these attributes become less important over time as
other factors--including desire to participate in conservation» take on greater importance
over time. Ditton et al. (1992) analysis of recreational specialization also posits that

concerns over resource protection grow as individuals’ investments in an activity increase.

209

The SEM results of this study suggest that the mechanism for development of
stewardship among hunters is complex and is likely to be stronger for those who are dual
users of wildlife resources. The implication is that wildlife viewing and other
nonconsumptive recreations need to be promoted and encouraged among young hunters
to increase the likelihood that strong nature appreciative values will strengthen support for
ecosystem stewardship.

The finding that is most difficult to explain based on SEM results of hunter model
is the negative relationship that was revealed between consumptive recreation and
ecological dependence. Proponents of hunting would argue that in today’s highly
mechanized and urban world hunting remains one of last direct and participatory links to
the “natural” world (Peterson 1996). The results of model testing suggest hunters may
tend to develop their value for ecological processes and fimctions only if they do both
consumptive and nonconsumptive recreations.

The effects of ecological dependence value on the stewardship value of non-
hunters was also different than predicted in the hypothesized model. Value for ecological
dependence does not appear to have much direct influence on stewardship once the effects
of existence and nature appreciation values are controlled. There was, however, a strong
and positive effect of nature appreciation on existence value and of existence value on
stewardship for non-hunters.

The findings suggest that although environmentalists strongly value ecological
dependence, other values are more likely to influence their stewardship ethic. This finding

has implications for creating communication efforts about ecosystem management. Much

210

of the rationale for preserving biodiversity lies in its role for maintaining sustainable,
functioning ecosystems, yet this might not be the most effective message to garner support
from environmental organization members. Instead SC members and Audubon Society
members would appear to be more influenced by ethical appeals to maintaining species for
their existence value.

Future research is needed to investigate the complex causal relationships between
recreation participation, ecosystem values and ecosystem stewardship. The stewardship
items measured attitudes and behavioral intentions motivated by the desire to help future
others--as was operationalized in the conceptual values model. But the measures did not
address the extent to which individuals: a) engage in specific stewardship behaviors; b) the
consistency with which respondents act across behaviors; or c) the extent to which they
have awareness of the impacts of their behaviors on others. To date, no current
measurements of environmental concern or stewardship have addressed all of these
measurement challenges. Future efforts need to fine tune these measures to target more
specific stewardship behavior without losing the uni-dimensionality or inter-item
consistency of the current measurement scale.

From a theoretical standpoint, models of ecosystem stewardship need to be tested
that incorporate other variables for hunters and non-hunters. It may be instructive to
develop a measure of perception about environmental health as important moderator of
the value-stewardship relationship. Finally, there needs to be more work to establish an
empirical link between participation in consumptive and appreciative wildlife reaction and

the presence of stewardship. Specifically, we need to know under what conditions do

211

hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers and others develop a stewardship ethic so that educators
and managers can intervene in this process to enhance public support for a holistic

ecosystem management approach to wildlife conservation.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, C.E., J .A. Leifester, and J .C. Herron. 1997. Understanding wildlife constituents:
birders and waterfowl hunters. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):653-660.

Agee, J .K., and DR. Johnson. 1988. Ecosystem management for parks and wilderness.
University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. 237pp.

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical evaluation of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84:888-918.

Alverson, W.S., W. Kuhlman, and D.M. Waller. 1994. Wild forests: conservation
biology and public policy. Island Press, Washington, DC. 300pp.

Albert, DA. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin: A working map and classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture
GTR NC-l78. North Central Field Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. 250pp.

Andrews, RN, and MJ. Waits. 1980. Theory and methods of environmental values
research. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 5:71-78.

Axelrod, L. J. 1994. Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation:
Identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas. Journal of
Social Issues 50(3):85-104.

Baydack, R.K., H. Carnpa III, and J .B. Haufler. 1998. Practical approaches to the
consideration of biological diversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. 320pp.

Beattie, M. 1996. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation. Ecological
Applications 6(3):696-699.

Belden, N. and J. Russonello. 1996. Human values and nature’s future: American’s
attitudes on biological diversity. Belden and Russonello Research and

Communications, Inc., Washington, DC. 22 pp.

Bem, DJ. 1970. Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Brooks, Cole, Belmont, CA.
ll4pp.

Bengsten, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and
Natural Resources 7(6):51 5-533.

212

213

Bengsten, D.N., and DP. Fan. 1997. Evolving attitudes toward ecosystem management
in the United States. 59th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Bollen, K.A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
514pp.

Botkin, DB. 1990. Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century.
Oxford University Press, N.Y. 241pp.

Boyce, MS, and A. Haney, eds. 1997. Ecosystem management: Applications for
sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, London, England.
361pp.

Bright, AD, and M.J. Manfredo. 1996. A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural
resource issues: A case study of wolf reintroduction. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife Journal 1(1):l-21.

Brittingham, M. C. and SA. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to
decline ? Bioscience 33:31-35.

Brown, R]. and M.J. Manfredo. 1987. Social values defined. Pages 12-23 in D.J. Decker
and GR. Goff, eds. Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives.
Westview Press, Inc., NY.

Brown, TC. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics
60:231-246.

Brown, TC. and G.L. Peterson. 1994. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an
ecological approach to land management. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, General Technical Report RM-247, Fort Collins, CO. 363pp.

Brunson, M.W. 1996. The social context of ecosystem management: unanswered
questions and unresolved issues. Pages 113-126 in Brunson, M.W.;Kruger, L.E.;
Tyler, C.B.; Schroeder, S.A., eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem
management: a workshop proceedings; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, GeneralTechnical Report PNW-369, Portland, OR.

Bryant, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout
-fisherman. Journal of Leisure Research 9(3):]74-187.

Cocheba, DJ. 1987. Opportunities for improving wildlife management: An economist’s
view. Pages 269-284 in D]. Decker and GR. Goff, eds. Valuing Wildlife:
Economic and Social Perspectives. Westview Press, Inc., NY.

214

Converse, J. M., and S. Presser. 1986. Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized
questionnaire. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. 80pp.

Cooperrider, A.Y. 1996. Science as a model for ecosystem management--panacea or
problem? Ecological Applications 6(3):736-737.

Cordall, K.C., J. Teasley, G. Super, J .C. Bergstrom, and B. McDonald. 1997. Outdoor
recreation from the national survey on recreation and the environment. U.S.
Forest Service.

Cortina, J. M. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and
applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1):98-104.

Cortner, H. J. and MA. Shannon. 1993. Embedding public participation in its political
context. Journal of Forestry (July):l4-16.

Craighead, F. 1979. The track of the grizzly. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA.
26lpp.

Crossley, J. W. 1996. Managing ecosystems for integrity: theoretical considerations for
resource and environmental managers. Society and Natural Resources 5(9):465-
481.

Crow, T. R., A.H. Haney, and D.M. Waller. 1994. Report on the scientific round table
on biological diversity convened by the Chequamegon and Nicolet National
Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical
Report NC-l66, St. Paul, MN. 55pp.

Czech, B., and PR. Krausman. 1997. Implications of an ecosystem management
literature review. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):667-675.

Dann, S.L. and RB. Peyton. 1996. Facing realities in recruiting, retaining, and training
consumptive fish and wildlife users. Pages 315-323 in Transactions of the élst
North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.

Deason, J .P. 1996/97. Changing world attitudes on environmental values and
sustainability: Implications for educational institutions. Renewable Resources
Journal (Winter, 1996-97):610.

Decker, DJ. and NA. Connelly. 1989. Motivations for deer hunting: implications for
antlerless deer harvest as a management tool. The Wildlife Society Bulletin
17:455-463.

215

Decker, DJ, and J. W. Enck. 1996. Human dimensions of wildlife management:
Knowledge for agency survival in the 21 st century. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
Journal 1(2):60-7l.

Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van de ven, and DH. Gustafson. 1975. Group techniques for
program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott,
Foresman, and Co, Glenview, IL. 174pp.

DellaSala, D., and D. M. Olsen. 1996. Seeing the forests for more than just the trees.
The Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(4):770-776.

Dillman, DA. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, N.Y.
325pp.

Ditton, R.B., D.K. Loomis, and S. Choi. 1992. Recreational specialization:

reconceptualization from a social worlds perspective. Journal of Leisure
Resources 24(1):33-51.

Driver, BL. 1985. Specifying what is produced by management of wildlife by public
agencies. Leisure Sciences 7(3):28l-295.

Driver, B.L., P.J. Brown, and G.L. Peterson. 1991. Benefits of Leisure. Venture
Publishing, State College, PA. 476pp.

Driver, B.L., C.J. Manning, and G.L. Peterson. 1996. Toward a better integration of
social and biophysical components of ecosystem management. In A.W. Ewert, ed.
Natural resource management: The human dimension. Westview Press, Boulder,
CO. 265 p.

Duda, MD. 1993. Factors related to hunting and fishing participation in the United
States: Phase 1: Literature review. Responsive management, Harrisburg, VA.
281pp.

Duda, M.D. , and K. C. Young. 1994. Americans and wildlife diversity: public opinion,
attitudes, interest, and participation in wildlife viewing and wildlife diversity
programs. Responsive management, Harrisburg, VA. 155 pp.

Duffus, D.A., and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A
conceptual framework. Biological Conservation 53:213-231.

Dunlap, RE. and B. Heffeman. 1975. Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: An
empirical explanation. Rural Sociology 40: 1 8-30.

216

Dunlap, RE, and AG. Mertig. 1997. Global environmental concern: An anomaly for
postrnaterialism. Social Science Quarterly 78(1):24-29.

Dunlap, RE. and K.D. Van Liere. 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education 9:10-19.

Eagly, AH. and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt
BraceJovanovich College Publishers, N.Y. 794pp.

Ecological Society of America. 1995. The report of the Ecological Society of America
committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. 39 pp.

Endter-Wada, J ., D. Blahna, R. Krannich, M. Brunson. 1998. A framework for
understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological
Applications 8(3):891-905.

Epperson, J .E. 1997. The demise of coordinated resource management in Missouri:
Lessons learned. Abstracts of the 59th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference.
Milwaukee, WI.

Ewert, A. 1990. Wildland resource values: A struggle for balance. Society and Natural
Resources 3(4):385-393.

Ewert, A.W. 1996. Human dimensions research: Perspectives, experience, and the
future pages 257—263 in A.W. Ewert, ed. Natural resource management: The
human dimension. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Everitt, R.L. and J .F. Lehmkuhl. 1996. An emphasis-use approach to conserving
biodiversity. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:192-199.

Fan, D., and D. Bengsten. 1997. Public debates shaping forestry's future: An analysis. A

consulting report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Office of Communications, lnfoTrend, Inc., St. Paul, MN.

F assinger, RE. 1987. The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 34(4):425-436.

Franklin, J .F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes?
Ecological Applications 3(2):202-205.

217

Franklin, J .F . 1997. Ecosystem management: An overview. Pages 21-53 in MS. Boyce
and A. Haney, eds. Ecosystem management: Applications for sustainable forest
and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, London, England. 361pp.

F reemuth, J. 1996. The emergence of ecosystem management: Reinterpreting the gospel?
Society and Natural Resources 9(4):41 1-417.

Frissell, C.A., R.K. Nawa, and R. Noss. 1992. Is there any conservation biology in "new
perspectives?": A response to Salwasser. Conservation Biology 6(3):461-464.

Fulton, D.C., M.J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A
conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Journal
1(2):24-47.

Furtmann, M. 1996. Ecosystem based management: Who’s afi‘aid of the big, bad “E” ?
Wildfowl Magazine (Sept./Oct):82-84.

Gerlach, LP. and D.N. Bengsten. 1994. If ecosystem management is the solution, what’s
the problem? Journal of Forestry (Aug): 1 8-21.

Glenn, D. 1995. Viewpoint: ecosystem management: voices of reason and common
sense. Rangelands 17(1):20-22.

Gray, G.G. 1992. Wildlife and people: The human dimension of wildlife ecology.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 242pp.

Grumbine, RE. 1992. Ghost bears: Exploring the biodiversity crisis. Island Press,
Washington, DC. 294pp.

Grumbine, RE. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27-
38.

Guagnano, G.A., P.C. Stern, and T. Dietz. 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior
relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and
Behavior 27:699-718.

Hadden, S.G. 1981. Technical information for citizen participation. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 17(4):537-547

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest, island biogeography, and the preservation of
biotic diversity. Univ. Of Chicgo Press, Chicago. 211pp.

218

Haufler, J .B., C.A. Mehl, and G.J. Roloff. 1996. Using a coarse filter approach with
species assessment for ecosystem management. The Wildlife Society Bulletin
24(2):200-208.

Hetherington, J ., T.C. Daniel, and T.C. Brown. 1994. Anything goes means everything
stays: The perils of uncritical pluralism in the study of ecosystem values. Society
and Natural Resources 7(6):35-546.

Heberlein, TA. 1991. Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife--preserving the sport
hunter. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:528-534.

Hembroff, LA. 1995. Land use views and priorities of Michigan residents: Results of the
trend future surveys, 1994-1995. Planning and Zoning News (Sept.):4-8.

Hendee. J .C. 1974. A multiple satisfaction approach to game management. The Wildlife
Society Bulletin 2: 104-1 13.

Hines, J. M., H.R. Hungerford, and AN. Tomera. 1987. Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 1 8: 1-8.

Hollings, CS. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for
people. Ecological Applications 6(3):733-735.

Holsi, OR. 1978. Limitations of cognitive abilities in the face of crisis. Pages 39-55 in
CF. Smart and W.T. Stanbury, eds. Studies in Crisis Management. Butterworth
& Co. Toronto. 239 pp.

Hopkin, T. and R. Moore. 1994. The relationship of recreational specialization to the
setting preferences of mountain bicyclists. Pages 71-75 in G. Vander Stoep, ed.
Proceedings of the 1994 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-198,
Portland, OR.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for
biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 370pp.

Jackson, R., and R. Norton. 1980. “Phases”: the personal evolution of the sport hunter.
Wisconsin Sportsmen (N ov-Dec.): 1 7-20.

Jacobson, SK, and SB. Marynowski. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge about
ecosystem management on Department of Defense land in Florida. Conservation
Biology 1 l(3):770-781.

219

J akes, P. and J. Harms. 1995. Report on the socioeconomic round table convened by the
Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-177, St. Paul, MN. 39pp.

Jensen, ME. and R. Everett. 1994. An overview of ecosystem management principles.
In Jensen, M.E. Bourgeron, P.S.,eds. Volume H: Ecosystem management:
principles and applications. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
General Technical Report PNW-3 l 8, Portland, OR. 376 p.

Jones, J .R., R. Martin, and ET. Bartlett. 1994. Ecosystem management: The U.S. Forest
Service’s response to social conflict. Society and Natural Resources 8:161-168.

Joreskog, K., and D. Sbrbom. 1996. Lisrel 8: User’s reference guide. Scientific
Sofiware International, Inc., Chicago, IL. 378pp.

Kellert, SR. 1980. Contemporary wildlife values in American Society. Pages 31-60 in
W.W. Shaw and EH. Zube ,eds. Wildlife Values Report 1, Center for
Assessment of Noncommodity Natural Resource Values, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ.

Kellert, SR. 1985. Birdwatching in American society. Leisure Sciences 7(3):343-360.

Kellert, SR. and ED. Wilson, eds. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press,
Cavelo, CA. 484pp.

Kellert, S. R. 1995. Managing for biological and sociological diversity, or ‘deja vu, all
over again’. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:274-278.

Kellert, SR. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and hmnan society. Island
Press, Washington, DC. 263pp.

Kempton, W., J .S. Boster, and J .A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental values in American
culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 320pp.

Knight, R.L. 1996. Aldo Leopold, the land ethic, and ecosystem management. Journal of
Wildlife Management 60(3):471-474.

Krueger, RA. 1994. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd. ed.).
Sage Pub.,Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 255pp.

Lackey, Robert T. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban
Planning 40:21-30.

220

Lawrence, N., and D. Murphy. 1992. New perspectives or old priorities? Conservation
Biology 6(3):465-467.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford Press, London, New York, NY.
226pp.

Lui, J .H., B. Bonzon-Liu, and MP. Guarino. 1997. Common fate between humans and
animals? The dynamic systems theory of groups and environmental attitudes in the
Florida Keys. Environment and Behavior 29(1):87-122.

MacArthur, RH. and ED. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ. 203pp.

Mackie, D.M., L.T. Worth, and AG. Asuncion. 1990. Processing of persuasive in-group
messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (58): 812-822.

Mainieri, T., E.G., Barnett, T. R. Valdero, J .B. Unipan, and S. Oskamp. 1997. Green
buying: the influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The
Journal of Social Psychology 137:189-204.

Manfredo, M.J., and RA. Larsen. 1993. Managing for wildlife viewing recreation
experiences: An application Colorado. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 21 :226—236.

Marsh, H.W., and D. Hovecar. 1985. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the
study of self-concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance
across groups. Psychological Bulletin 97:562-582.

Martin, S. R. 1997. Specialization and differences in setting preferences among wildlife
viewers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Journal 2(1): 1-18.

McDonough, M.H. 1995. Development of a cooperative management model with a user
survey of Southern Michigan state game and recreation areas. Unpublished
manuscript. Department of Forestry, Michigan State University: East Lansing,
MI. 16 pp.

McFarlane, BL. 1994. Specialization and motivations of birdwatchers. The Wildlife
Society Bulletin 22:361-370.

McFarlane, B. L. 1996. Socialization influences of specialization among birdwatchers.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife Journal 1(1):35-50.

Mckenzie-Mohr, D., L.S. Nemoriff, L. Beers, and S. Desmarais. 1995. Determinants of
responsible environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior 23:494-519.

221

Meffe, GK. and CR. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer and
Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 600pp.

Merchant, C. 1997. Fish firstlz The changing ethics of ecosystem management. Human
Ecology Review 4(1):25-30.

Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resources. 1997. A Joint Venture. Unpublished memorandum.
Lansing, MI. llpp.

Minnis, D.L. 1996. Cultural carrying capacity and stakeholder’s attitudes associated with
the deer crop damage issue in Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 284pp.

Minnis, D.L., R. Holsman, L. Grise, and RB. Peyton. 1997. Focus groups as a human
dimensions research tool: three illustrations of their use. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife Journal 2(4):40—49.

More, T.A., J. M. Grove, and M.J. Twery. 1997. Wildlife, values, and the eastern forest.
Transactions of the 63 rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resource
Conference, Washington, DC, March 14-18.

Morgan, D.L. 1996. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22:129-152.

Morgan, P., G. Aplet, J. Haufler, H. Humphries, M. Moore, W.D. Wilson. 1994.
Historical range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change.
Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2:87-112.

Moote, M.A., S. Burke, H. J. Cortner, and MG. Wallace. 1994. Principles of ecosystem
management. Report from Water Resources Research Center. University of
Arizona, Tuscon, AZ. 33 pp.

Murdock, S.H., K. Backman, R.B. Ditton, M.N. Hoque and D. Ellis. 1992.
Demographic change in the U.S. in the 1990's and the twenty-first century:
Implications for fisheries management. Fisheries l7(2):6-13.

Naess, A. 1986. Intrinsic value: will the defenders of nature please rise? Pages 505-515
in ME. Soule, ed. Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity.
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. 1997. The National Report
Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors. N.E.E.T.F.
Washington, DC. 36 pp.

222

Negra, C., and RE. Manning. 1997. Incorporating environmental behavior, ethics, and
values into nonformal environmental education programs. The Journal of
Environmental Education 28(2):2-10.

Noss, RF and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring
biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. 443pp.

Noss, R.F., E.T. La Roe, and M.J. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United
States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 58pp.

Noss, R. F. 1996. On attacking a caricature of reserves: response to Everett and
Lemkuhl. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(4):777-779.

Oliver, C.D., D.E. Ferguson, A.E. Harvey, H.S. Malany, J .M Mandzak, and R.W. Mutch.
1994. Managing ecosystems for forest health: and approach and the effects on uses
and values. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 22113-133.

Oskamp, S. 1995. Resource conservation and recycling: behavior and policy. Journal of
Social Issues 51:157-177.

Overbay, J .C. 1992. Ecosystem management. In Proceedings for the national workshop:
taking an ecological approach to management. 1992 April 27-30; Salt Lake City,
UT. WO- WSA-3. Washington, DC: U.S. department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Pearce, D., and D. Moran. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Earths Can
Publishing, London. 172pp.

Peterson D. 1996. A hunter’s heart: Honest essays on blood sport. Holt & Co., New
York.331 pp.

Peyton, RB. 1984. A typology of natural issues with implications for resource
management and education. Michigan Academician l7(10):49-58.

Peyton, RB, and BE. Langenau. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM
biologists and the general public toward animals. The Wildlife Society Bulletin
13:117-120.

Peyton, RB. 1990. Institutional constraints on dynamic management of fish and wildlife
resources. In J. M. Sweeney, ed. Management of Dynamic Ecosystems:
Proceedings of the Slst Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Springfield, IL.
180 pp.

223

Purdy, K.G., and DJ. Decker. 1989. Applying wildlife values information in
management: The wildlife attitudes and values scale. The Wildlife Society Bulletin
17:494-500.

Reading, RP. and SR. Kellert. 1993. Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of
black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology 7(3)569-580.

Reading, R.P., T.W. Clark, and SR. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and knowledge of people
living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources
7:349-365.

Repetto, R. 1992. Accounting for environmental assets. Scientific American 266(6):94-
99.

Ringleman, J .K. 1997. Effects of regulations and duck abundance on duck hunter
participation and satisfaction. Transactions of the 63 rd North American Wildlife
and Natural Resource Conference, Washington, DC, March 14-18.

Rokeach, M. 1968 Beliefs, attitudes, and values. Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San
Francisco,CA. 214pp.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. The Free Press, N.Y. 438pp.

Rolston, H., 111. 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics 7(1):23-48.

Rolston, H. 111., and J. Coufal. 1991. A forest ethic and multi value forest management.
Journal of Forestry 89(4):35-40.

Roper, Inc. 1990. The environment: public attitudes and behavior. The Roper
Organization, Inc.

Sagoff, M. 1988. The economy of the earth: Philosophy, law, and the environment.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. 271pp.

Salwasser, HR. 1991. New perspectives for sustaining diversity in U.S. national forest
ecosystems. Conservation Biology 5(4):567-569.

Salwasser, HR. 1992. From new perspectives to ecosystem management: Response to
Frissell et al. and Lawrence and Murphy. Conservation Biology 6(3): 469-473.

Salwasser, HR. 1994. Ecosystem management: Can it sustain diversity and productivity?
Journal of Forestry (Aug):6-10.

224

Sample, VA. 1994. Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed
ownership landscapes. Journal of Forestry (Aug):41-44.

Satterfield, T., and R. Gregory. 1998. Reconciling environmental values and pragmatic
choices. Society and Natural Resources 11:629-647.

Schultz, P.W. and S. Oskamp. 1997. Effort as a moderator of the attitude behavior
relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Social Psychology
Quarterly 36:347-354.

Schuman, H. 1972. Attitudes versus behavior vs. attitudes versus attitudes. Public
Opinion Quarterly 362347-354.

Schwartz, SH. 1970. Moral decision making and behavior. Pages 127-141 in J.
Macauley & L. Berkowitz, eds. Altruism and helping behavior. Academic Press,
N.Y.

Schwartz, SH. 1977. Normative influence on altruism. Pages 221-279 in L. Berkowitz,
ed. Advances in experimental psychology, Volume 10. Academic Press, N.Y.

Schwartz, SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical
advances in empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.P. Zanna, ed. Advances in
experimental social psychology 25:1-66. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Scott J. M.M., E.D. Ables, T.C. Edwards, Jr., R.L. Eng, T.A. Gavin, L.D. Harris, J .B.
Haufler, W.M. Healy, F.L. Knopf, O. Torgerson, and H. P. Weeks, Jr. 1995.

Conservation of biological diversity: Perspectives and the future of the wildlife
profession. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(4):646-657.

Smith, C.L., J .D., Gilden, J .8. Cone, and BS. Steel. 1997. Contrasting views of coastal
residents and coastal restoration planners. Fisheries 22(12):8-15.

Solecki, W.D. 1998. Local attitudes on regional ecosystem management: A study of
New Jersey Pinelands residents. Society and Natural Resources 11(5):441-463.

Stanley, T. R., Jr. 1995. Ecosystem management and the arrogance of humanism.
Conservation Biology 9(2):255-262.

Steinoff, H.W. 1987 . Introduction to part I: the values of the wildlife resource. In DJ.
Decker and GR. Goff, eds. Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives.
Westview Press Inc., N.Y. 424pp.

225

Stern, RC, and T. Dietz. 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues 50(3):65-84.

Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, and GA. Guagnano. 1995. The new ecological paradigm in social-
psychological context. Environment and Behavior 27(6):723-743.

Super, G. and G. Elsner. 1994. The human dimension of national forest ecosystem
management. In W.W. Covington and LP. Debano, technical coordinators.
Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land
management. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical
Report RM-247. Fort Collins, CO. 363 p.

Suskie, LA. 1992. Questionnaire survey research: What works. Association for
Institutional Research, Tallahassee, FL. 107pp.

Susskind, L., and J. Cruikishank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to
resolving public disputes. Basic Books Inc., USA. 276pp.

Theodori, G.L., A.E. Luloff, and F .K. Willits. 1998. The association of outdoor
recreation and environmental concern: Reexarnining the Dunlap-Heffeman thesis.
Rural Sociology 63(1):94-108.

Thogerson, J. 1996. Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature.
Environment and Behavior 28:536-558.

Times-Mirror. 1995. The environmental two step: looking back, moving forward.
Times-Mirror Conservation Council, Washington, DC. 58 pp.

Times-Mirror. 1994. From anxiety toward action: A status report on conservation in
1994. Times-Mirror Conservation Council, Washington, DC. 58 pp.

Tracy, AP, and S. Oskamp. 1983. Relationships among ecologically responsible
behaviors. Journal of Environmental Systems 13:115-126.

Tracy, CR, and RF. Brussard. 1994. Preserving biodiversity: Species in landscapes.
Ecological Applications 4(2):205-207.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991 National survey of fishing, hunting and
wildlife associated recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Program Plans, Washington, DC.

Van Liere, K.D., and RE. Dunlap. 1981. Environmental concern: Does it make a
difference how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior 13(6):651-676.

226

Vining, J. and A. Ebero. 1991. Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual
and estimated goal priorities and decisions preferences of resource managers
environmentalists, and the public. Society and Natural Resources 4:177-196.

Wagner, F .H. 1977. Species vs. ecosystem management: concepts and practices.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference
42:14-24.

Wallace, M.G., H. J. Cortner, S. Burke, and M.A. Moote. 1996. The role of social
science in ecosystem management: Addressing issues of institutional change and

policy paradox. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ. 33 pp.

Wight, P. 1996. North American ecotourism markets: Motivations, preferences, and
destinations. Journal of Travel Research 35:3-10.

Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and AP. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the
temperate zone. Pages 23 7-256 in ME. Soule, ed. Conservation Biology: the
science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Wilcove, D. 1994. Response to editor. Ecological Applications 4(2):207-208.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Philips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying
threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48(8):607-615.

Williams, D. R. and M. E. Patterson. 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem
management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography.
Society and Natural Resources 5(9):507-521.

Wilson, ED. 1992. The diversity of life. Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA. 424pp.

Winter, B. D. and R. M. Hughes. 1997. American Fisheries Society Position Statement.
Fisheries 22(1):22-29.

Witter, DJ, and W.W. Shaw. 1979. Beliefs of birders, hunters, and wildlife professionals
about wildlife management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 44:298-305.

Witter, DJ. 1990. Wildlife management and public sentiment. Pages 162-172 in J. M.
Sweeney, ed. Management of dynamic ecosystems. North Cent. Sect., The
Wildlife Society, West Lafeyette, Ind.

227

Witter, DJ. 1994. Characteristics of wildlife watchers in Missouri: Facts and figures.
Watchable Wildlife Conference, Jefferson City, MO. Dec. 6, 1994.

Woiwode, A.M. 1994. A new way of thinking: Biological diversity and forestry policy in
the north woods of the Great Lakes states. A report prepared for the Great Lakes
Biodiversity Project of the Sierra Club. Lansing, MI. 100 pp.

Woiwode, A.M. 1998. Pittman Robertson an old law opens new possibilities for
biodiversity restoration. Wild Earth (Spring 1998):66-71.

Xu, Z. and D.L. Bengston. 1997. Professionals, environmentalists, and the news media,
1982-1993. Society and Natural Resources 10:43-59.

Yaffee, SA. 1994. The wisdom of the spotted owl: Policy lessons for a new century.
Island Press, Washington, DC. 46lpp.

Yarrow, D.T. and DC. Guynn. 1997. Attitudes and human dimensions in forest
ecosystem management. Transactions of the 63rd North American Wildlife and
Natural Resource Conference, Washington, DC, March 14-18.

Yosie, TR, and TD. Herbst. 1998. Using stakeholder processes in environmental
decision making: An evaluation of lessons learned, key issues, and future
challenges. ICF Incorporated. 74 pp.

228

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER

 

RESEARCH
AND
GRADUKHE
STUOES

Uflnnhtumwuen
Research Involving
lwmusuhdr
(UCRIHS)
wannanumun
zfiuhnufimuiho
40824-1046

517/3564M

FAX: 517M324!"

:1.th
“Asmara”
(Wu-m

madam-um
“mm

229

MICHIGAN STATE

lJ N l V E R S l T Y

 

March 20, 1998

TO: R. B. Peyton
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

FR: David E. Wright, Ph.D.
Chair
The University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
246 Administration Building

RE: IRE“: 97-307
TITLE: STAKEHOLDER ECOSYSTEM VALUES RITE
IMPLICATIONS FOR SUPPORT OF ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEMENT
CATEGORY: I-C

APPROVAL DATE: 05/14/97

RENEHAL: Our records indicate that this project was
approved on the date shown above. As you know.
UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year.
If you are planning to continue your study after
May 14, 1998, you must complete and return to the
UCRIHS office a green renewal application form by
April 14, 1998. There is a maximum of four such
expedited renewals possible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond that time
need to submit it again for complete review.

CHANGES: As you are aware. UCRIRS must review and approve
all revisions to human subjects activities. prior
to initiation of the change. Therefore, if you
have any future study revisions you wish UCRIHS to
review and approve at this time, please answer
question 87 on the renewal form 'no' and follow
the instructions given there.

If you have decided to discontinue the research or if you
have already submitted your application to renew this study,
please disregard this reminder.

THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWED APPROVAL HAS BEEN SENT TO THE
RESPONSIBLE PROJECT INVESTIGATOR (ADDRESSEE ABOVE).

cc: Robert H. Holsman

230

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS
WITH MDNR PERSONNEL IN 1996

231

February 6, 1996

r o fthe iscu ion fid a elatd c tem na e n rtuni' s
in he Ma le iver/ hiawa e td rea.

Participants

This report is a compilation of results from two sessions held recently with wildlife
professionals in Michigan DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss ecosystem
management opportunities in a pilot study area of mid-Michigan. Two separate groups
participated in similar nominal group activities designed to generate a list of concrete
examples of what management activities might include under an ecosystem or landscape
approach.

The first meeting on January 8th, 1996 included the following participants from the
DNR Wildlife Division's Lansing staff. George Burgoyne, Dick Elden, Penney
Melchoir, Bill Moritz, Dale Rabe, Ray Rustem, Pete Squibb, and Leni Wilsmann.
Also present during this session were MSU research team members Rique Campa, Jack
Liu, Bob Holsman, and Ben Peyton.

The second meeting on January 17th, 1996 included the following district and field
level biologists whose management areas lie in or near the pilot study: Ed DeVries and
Doug Spencer (Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge); Dave Dominic and Al Stewart
(Maple River and Gratiot-Saginaw State Game Areas); Doug Reeves, Arnie Karr, and
Brian Vogl (Shiawassee State Game Area); Brian Mastenbrook (Saginaw Bay
Restoration Project), and Mark Sargent (private lands). Also present were MSU
research team members: Rique Campa, Jack Liu, Bob Holsman, Kiersten Kress, Ben
Peyton and Scott Winterstein.

Iaskflucstinns

Each group was asked to respond to a series of different task questions (listed
below) to guide discussion of ecosystem management approaches. During the Lansing
staff meeting we sought to explore the range of possible ecological opportunities that
could be considered at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Initially, we hoped that this
exercise would provide a list of ecological conditions (stated both as management
strategies and desired outcomes) that would characterize or define ecosystem management
and enable us to assess the levels of support from various publics. What we got was a lot
more. Responses provided by the Lansing staff included a broad range of categories that
included not only ecological opportunities, but broad ecological goals, planning process
needs, research needs, and unresolved policy questions. Therefore, task questions for the
field staff participants were reorganized to address a broader range of ecosystem
management issues: goals, ecological opportunities and constraints (needs).

232

u ions

I What ecological opportunities are we using--or could we be using, or could we be
creatinguto implement ecosystem management at the state level over the next 5,
10, 50+years ?

I What ecological Opportunities are we using--or could we be using, or could we be
creating-to implement ecosystem management on the management areas within
the study area (e. g. Maple River, Shiawassee, private lands) over the next 5, 10,
5 0+ years ?

I What ecological opportunities are we using-or could we be using, or could we be
creating-to implement ecosystem management at the habitat level within the study
area (e.g. Maple River, Shiawassee, private lands) over the next 5, 10, 50+ years ?

I Are there some additional processes that need to be considered as priorities at the
state level before ecosystem management can be implemented on the ground ?

Wheaties:

I What do you think should be the primary goals of establishing ecosystem
management in the state of Michigan ?

I What ecosystem management opportunities are we using, could be using, or could
be creating to manage (across spatial boundaries) over the next 5, 10, and 50+
years ?

I What are the constraints to implementing ecosystem management at the field level
in Michigan ?

As usual with nominal group sessions, responses to specific task questions often
spilled over into other categories. In other words, ideas provided by participants ofien
mixed goals and objectives; opportunities and constraints; and processes and products
throughout the discussion. To simplify reporting these broad responses, I have regrouped
them into subcategories that became apparent during synthesis of this information. I have
also included the original order in which the ideas were listed from corresponding task
questions as appendices to this summary. It is important to remember that all ideas
brought forth during the nominal group activities and listed in this report are merely

possible ideas WWW

{orangeg‘o 0.0.0.043'.§. 010

WWW A180 editing performcd to clarify

233

statements was kept to a minimum to avoid changing the respondents' meaning of intent.
Therefore some of the listings highlight the need to firrther clarify goals and objectives
through future discussions and planning. For example, a response to ‘What should be the
goal of ecosystem management ?' was: Sustainability. It is not clear whether that by itself
means sustainability of economic production, ecological production, waterfowl
production, naturally sustaining systems, or some combination of the above.

Summary

One of the problems with the term Ecosystem Management is that it means
different things to different people. Much of the debate is triggered by the word
ecosystem which does not clearly specify spatial boundaries. If we are going to manage an
ecosystem, where does it begin and where does it end ? Even if we select ecoregions or
regional climax community types as the scale, it is an artificial delineation that discounts
species that utilize different ecosystems for different needs at different times (neotropical
migrants), as well as ecological interchanges that occur across community types. This
spatial problem was partially addressed during our two meetings through use of a multi-
tier spatial model that allowed participants to describe ecosystem management
opportunities at different spatial levels from a habitat stand level to statewide ecosystem
level. Such a model does not completely remove arbitrary boundaries or account for all
ecological needs, but it does point to a need to relate the management activities and
objectives at small scales to the ecological goals of larger scales. It requires asking the
question, "How does prescribing X strategy to this 50 acre field help to achieve regional
ecological objectives A and B and/or state objectives C and D ? Moreover, it requires that
managers also ask, "Are there other objectives whose achievement could be fostered by
prescribing strategy Y to this 50 acre field ? How do management activities on tracts of
public land provide ecological or social services not available on adjacent private lands ?
How do management activities at a local level contribute to or adversely affect the biotic
health of the region or the state ?

Another problematic aspect of the term Ecosystem Management is whether it is a
product (a set of ecological goals and resulting conditions) or a process (the planning,
interagency collaboration, and public involvement to coordinate and establish management
goals). Responses from groups indicate Ecosystem Management is both. Throughout the
early phase of this research, one question has been asked repeatedly in a variety of
different ways: How will management activities under the banner 'Ecosystem Management
be any different from what we are currently doing ? Underlying this question is the
assumption that there exists some biological or sociological needs that are currently not
being adequately addressed.

I The results of both meetings suggest that the Division has not yet had
sufficient opportunity to identify what those needs might be, to set priorities
among needs, or to link objectives for needs to regional and local
management units.

234

0 Based on the discussions during the second meeting, it is unclear to field
managers what would be expected of them in implementing ‘Ecosystem
Management' or how their discrete areas fit into the larger picture.

I If there was a consensus among participants of both sessions, it centered on
the need for the Division to undertake a strategic plan that would: 1)
establish statewide goals for species and their habitats and 2) develop
regional implementation guidelines that link local management objectives to
statewide goals.

Several policy issue questions consistently emerged during the discussions that a strategic
planning process on ecosystem management would also need to address:

1) What role does restoration play for native plant communities (e.g. pines, wet
meadows, prairie) and/or ecological processes (e.g."bistoric" hydrological
conditions) in the implementation of ecosystem management ?

2) If we are concerned about restoring some former ecological conditions, what
"historic" timefmme should serve as a baseline to guide management
strategies.

Resolving the related issues of restoration and baseline conditions would be especially
important for evaluating the “success” of ecosystem management programs. We won't
ever get there if we don't know where we're going. Comments from Al Stewart during
one of the discussions captured the uncertainty surrounding both of the previous
questions:

"I think we should look at native plants or exotics in terms of their use and what it would
take to get rid of them. Something like Reed canary grass, it's been established for a long
time. We could spend a bunch of time and energy trying to get rid of it, but it will still be
there. At what point is something native ? 100 years ? 200 years ? 500 years ? I'm just
uncomfortable with starting points under ecosystem management. Is there some sacred
time period we should be looking at ?"

3) What emphasis or priority doesjjgdmmmesemtmn receive in

implementation of ecosystem management ?

Biodiversity and ecosystem management as terms are often incorrectly assumed to be

235

inherently linked as the overriding goal and corresponding strategy of management. While
several participants identified this misconception during discussions, yet many others
identified goals or objectives based on preserving or enhancing biodiversity on genetic,
population and process levels. Clearly defined goals and corresponding objectives need to
be established to clarify the relative importance of biodiversity concerns under ecosystem
management.

4) To what extent should Wing ecological processes replace the use of
current intensive management practices ?

Many sub-issues are related to this question including: the use of agriculture vs. moist soil
management for waterfowl in wetland areas; setting back succession of some plant and
forest areas through techniques like clear cutting vs. allowing the development of a variety
of seral stages including climax communities; and breaking tile systems to allow a return to
more "natural" drainage. Ed De Vries provided one example of where a shift to naturally
sustaining ecological processes occurred quite naturally:

"In some cases, it would not take much to restore these areas. There are fields on the
refuge that we quit farming on and they regenerated naturally to prairie-cord grass
wetlands, which what the area was like historically. That habitat came back itself, it wasn't
anything we had to plan for or manage for."

But the issue of naturally sustaining ecosystems also ties back into the need for
establishing a historical baseline as pointed out in comments by Doug Reeves:

"If you look back in this state 100 years ago, things were radically different. There
weren't any forests. We had pine communities and sharp tails and prairie chickens and a
lot of fires after the logging. We let everything grow back, but maybe that fire\prairie
chicken community was sustainable. Maybe we could have just kept cutting and burning
and had sharp tails and prairie chickens but not much else. But somebody has got to make
a call on a time frame."

Many of the above questions and issues that emerged during our meetings are also tied
into societal values and the needs and desires of various publics. Several participants in
our discussion expressed the need to systematically evaluate and prioritize social demands
and integrate that information into establishing ecosystem management plans. The next
phase of our research project will the range of public values held by various stakeholders
toward some of the Ecosystem Management opportunities generated throughout our two
meetings. Implementing Ecosystem Management in the study site or anywhere involve at
some point will involve a negotiation of tradeoffs that are illustrated by many issues
outlined above.

So what is Ecosystem Management ? Is it a product or a process ? Is it about
managing ecologically or managing to meet public demand ? Is it about the past or the

236

future ? Is about 100 acres marshes or ecoregions ? The answer to all four of those
questions is YES, or as Brian Mastenbrook put it:

"This is not an either-or question about whether to have both farming and natural areas.
We are addressing different social needs and right now there are needs for both com fields
and natural areas. This is about providing a mix of ecological and social objectives. We
have already been doing this, now we just need to move it to the landscape level. That
doesn't mean that we give everybody everything they want either. We need to look at
what products society wants and then factor in what's possible ecologically."

Lansing staff responses related to ecosystem management.

I. c tem Man met ce
A) flauniugnseds

oEstablish landscape goals

'DCVClOp a uniform Strategic Plan

oBuild public land acquisition strategies for (natural areas) into strategic planning
initiative based on ecosystem boundaries, not political boundaries.

oDevelop a system for recognizing the different human values of land uses and
finding a means of weighting priorities/values involved in land use
decisions.

- Need system for consensus building among stakeholders.

oReview policy, guidelines, management activities to get feedback as a routine
process.

B) Researchflnfonnfiinnneeds

oldentify trends in land use activities (e.g. agriculture).

oReview other states Ecosystem management plans/programs including their
evaluation criteria.

oGain a better understanding of ecological processes--wildfire & natural water
fluctuations.

oComplete the statewide inventory of historical data and decide how to best apply
it.

~1mprove capability of using landscape wide information (through GIS and other
technological applications).

0Complete inventory of refuges.

Identify important habitat areas in relation to state significance (e. g. stopover for
migratory songbirds, deer travel corridors).

~Review laws that are constraints (e.g. drain code, pollution laws)-Assess barriers

II.

III.

237

that may have to be changed.

C) ngmunication needs

oEducate/Communicate information within and with other agencies.

0Coordinate management efforts with national/international efforts like 'Circle of
F light'.

oEducational process to gain acceptance of tradeoffs

-Provide feedback to staff/evaluate plans and guidelines for management units

D. W

oWeigh control of exotics vs. impact of their control on entire system.

cExisting Act needs to be implemented-examine activities re biodiversity.

Funding mechanisms.

oPut use of Southern Michigan guidelines on hold until they have been revisited to
reflect E.M. goals./ Initiate multi disciplinary group to revisit guidelines.

cRecognize that altering management may affect funding sources.

~Utilize easements as a tool to go along with acquisition.

olncrease private lands opportunities for both ecological and recreational
opportunities.

ad '01 ic a

~Development of programs that would emphasize restoration and enhancement.
oDevelop statewide natural areas as a core element of Ecosystem Management.
oPreservation of functioning natural systems.

0Maximize use of natural processes in management.

OMinimize use of non-renewable natural resources.

oMaximize long term impacts of decision making.

oMaximize consideration of accumulating impacts.

oPreservation of viable populations of state's 'wildlife'.

oPreservation of threatened/rare species: Bald eagle, fox snake, wood turtle,

orchid.
oPreservation of critical habitat needs: heavy migration area for spring warblers,

IV.

238

shorebirds; black tern nesting sites.
oRestore aquatic flora and fauna systems (e.g. mollusks, insects)
oManagement of exotic species (e.g. purple loose strife)
-Preservation of threatened/rare community types: brackish areas/artesian wells.
Provide for heterogeneity of habitats (at a variety of different spatial scales) based
on native patterns and processes.
oVariety of successional stages, critical components.
oProvide habitat critical habitat components of unique species in the area.
oEnhance lowland hardwood management.
oMore natural riparian functions of hydrology.
0Emulate natural disturbance factors for various habitats.

c'r an r

~Reduce pesticides
oEliminate farming

oNo till farming
oConservation tillage farming
oOrganic farming

oMoist soil management
Elimination of roads, wide trails; take into account impact of utility right of ways.
-Aggregate upland and lowland units to achieve restoration.
oWoody vegetation along ditches (drains)

olncrease grasslands

olncrease corridors

oPromote large hardwood blocks for interior species
oBreaking artificial drainage systems to establish ponding

239

Field Managers’ ideas related to ecosystem management.

I.

II.

III.

A O _u_u_a_ .2. _U__\_ "o

oBetter communications/sharing information.

oProjection & consideration of current and future trends.

OShould solicit support from all administrative levels.

olnvolve more collaboration in planning between agencies and across levels.

oEducate people to ecological impacts of management activities.

oProvide training and funding to private landowners to accomplish management.

~Address land-use zoning to protect ecological attributes.

oProvide for land acquisition

Focus ecosystem management on smaller regions consistent with funding sources
and constraints.

oIncorporate effective planning to compensate for limited human and monetary
resources.

oDevelop guidelines to provide direction for implementation

oNeed to define goals for ecosystem management that describe the a set of
conditions as end points.

io ' a1
ISustainability.
OMaintain productivity.
~Maintenance of habitat types at different spatial scales to meet multiple -use
objectives.

0Conserve, enhance, and protect species at levels that protect gene pools--
recognizing that some will vanish.

Conservation-oriented, as opposed to preservation.

ODiversity of historic habitats.

oSustainability within natural selection.

~Long term Sustainability of natural resource products.

oPreservation

oReduce herbicides.

oRestore hydrology.

oMaintain a variety of successional stages-~clear-cut to old growth.

at .I I- r "IICSIf I t‘tt IL: ii'll‘l

~Should contain practical social aspects.
oEliminate political boundaries for management purposes.

IV.

240

0Management time period should reflect in generational terms of species in
question.

-Should not be restricted to public lands.

oNot focusing on single species.

~Should provide human benefits compatible with the resource.

oSociologically acceptable and economically feasible.

oRecognize benefits of some exotics as well as native plant species.

oConsider effects of management on all resources (soil, air, water, wildlife) in
ecosystem.

oVariable in size and scope depending on the resource.

SL1 B-fiflALS/S 1 RA 1 ESTES

oUse new equipment and technology (e.g. no-till equipment, spot Sprayers).

oEliminate purple loose strife, replace with buttonbush.

oRe-establish conifer types.

oPromote better watershed stewardship on private lands.

oRe-establish native wildlife population (e.g. wild turkey).

~Create more habitat for upland habitat for species like cottontail.

oAllow natural succession to proceed in some areas (e.g. willow grth for
flycatchers, mallards).

Creating and managing wetlands.

-Promote the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

OProduce large, contiguous blocks of forest.

oPut more management emphasis on shorebirds and wading birds.

limiting/minimizing hard-core farming practices on public and private lands.

olntegrated pest management on public and private lands.

oPromote minimum/ no till farming.

oProvide diversity by various management disturbances.

oMaintain smaller deer herd.

oEncourage wildlife habitat on rural estates (i.e. growing trend of conversion of
farm lands into smaller residential parcels).

oMove to selective cutting; away from clear cutting.

oPromote private land sustainable agriculture.

oUse public lands’ demonstration areas to model desirable land practices to private
land owners.

-Have areas where NO cutting is allowed. Allow for succession.

-Use fire and mechanical means to control vegetation

241

V. 'n the] l t in
Management

oConflicting mission/goals between agencies and between agencies and the public.

Olnternal politics at various levels of bureaucracy.’

oNeed more professional humility.

~Establishing guidelines for ecosystem management.

oThe democratic process itself.

-Lack of evaluation process/strategic plan.

oLandowner goals conflict with manager’s goals.

-Lack of adequate staff.

oLack of funding.

cPolitics (economics of public choice for allocation of land/ resources.)

oLack of priority on ecosystem management as a focus within the Division.

~Previous education programs have created (negative) lasting impressions (e. g.
Smokey the Bear-wildfires; M.S.U.E.-need for fall plowing.)

oLack of adequate ecological databases.

oPublic health and safety considerations (e.g. flood control, fire protection).

olnstitutional inability to take risks.

oConflicting policies impede adaptability to address Specific issues and problems.

oLack of time or dedication

oLack of consideration for future generations.

INo ‘Vision’ for the future

oDiffrculty gaining public acceptance of any developed guidelines.

oLack of research to predict management outcomes.

oMicro-management by top level administrators.

~Present budget sources restrict thinking.

~Historically, researchers/managers have been reactive, not proactive.

-New challenges different from past training.

oPrivate property rights.

oPrevious farm policies that forced lack of stewardship (e.g. combase to qualify for
farm subsidies.)

-Inability to control factors beyond land boundaries.

olgnorance on the part of public and resource professionals.

oLittle opportunity for professional growth and training.

oLack of decision making.

oLack of any information and education bureau within DNR

oDifficult to establish ecosystem boundary.

oLack of an agreed historic starting point or reference point.

242

ORIGINAL RESPONSES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH
CORRESPONDING TASK QUESTION

What do you think should be the primary goals of establishing ecosystem
management in the state of Michigan ?

-Sustainability.

0Maintain productivity.

oBetter communications/sharing information.

oMaintenance of habitat types at different spatial scales to meet multiple -use objectives.
-Establish ecosystem boundary.

~Consider effects of management on all resources (soil, air, water, wildlife) in ecosystem.
oVariable in size and scope depending on the resource.

oConserve, enhance, and protect species at levels that protect gene pools--recognizing that
some will vanish.

oConservation-oriented, as opposed to preservation.

-Should contain practical social aspects.

~Have some historic starting point.

~Should solicit support from all administrative levels.

oMore collaboration in planning between agencies and across levels.

-Should not be restricted to public lands.

-Not focusing on single species.

oDiversity of historic habitats.

ISustainability within natural selection.

oLong term sustainability of natural resource products.

oProjection of future trends.

0Compatible w/ the resource ( human benefits).

~Sociologically acceptable and economically feasible.

-Preservation

oProvide direction.

oManagement time period should be determined in generational terms of species in
question.

What ecosystem management opportunities are we using, could be using, or could be
creating to manage (study area, unit level, habitat level) over the next 5, 10, and 50+
years ?

-Reduce herbicides; use fire and mechanical means to control vegetation.
ORestore hydrology.

oUse new equipment and technology (e.g. no-till equipment, spot Sprayers).
oEliminate purple loose strife, replace with buttonbush.

243

-Educate people to impacts of management activities.

-Outreach.

IRe-establish conifer types.

oPromote better watershed stewardship on private lands.

oRe-establish native wildlife population (e.g. wild turkey).

oProvide training and funding to private landowners to accomplish management.
oRecognize benefits of some exotics as well as native plant species.

~Create more habitat for upland habitat for species like cottontail.

oBetter planning needed with fewer people and fewer dollars.

0E1iminate political boundaries for management purposes.

oAllow natural succession to proceed in some areas (e.g. willow growth for flycatchers,
mallards).

Creating and managing wetlands.

~Promote the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

oDevelop land-use zoning to protect ecological attributes.

~Large, contiguous blocks of forest.

oPut more management emphasis on shorebirds and wading birds.
limiting/minimizing hard-core farming practices on public and private lands.
oMaintain a variety of successional stagesuclear-cut to old growth.

OIntegrated pest management on public and private lands.

oPromote minimum/ no till farming.

~Provide diversity by various management disturbances.

0Land acquisition.

oMaintain smaller deer herd.

OEncourage wildlife habitat on rural estates.

¢Move to selective cutting; away from clear cutting.

oPromote private land sustainable agriculture.

oUse public lands’ demonstration areas to model desirable land practices to private land
owners.

OBreak large areas down into focus regions for funding.

-Have areas where NO cutting is allowed. Allow for succession.

What are the constraints to implementing ecosystem management at the field level in
Michigan ?

~Conflicting mission/goals between agencies and between agencies and the public.
~Levels of bureaucracy (internal politics).

ONeed more professional humility.

oEstablishing guidelines for ecosystem management.

-The democratic process itself.

OLack of evaluation process/strategic plan.

oLandowner goals conflict with manager’s goals.

OLack of adequate staff.

244

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE FOCUS GROUP SCRIPT

245

Focus group script #3: Audubon Members

July 8, 1996
Quality INN, Saginaw, MI
I. INTRODUCTIONS
A. INTRODUCTION OF NONPARTICIPANTS
1. Moderator
a. name
b. MSU F&W Dept.
c. role
2. Recorder
a. name
b. Will not participate
c. Will record our thoughts in abbreviated form so that we have a
group memory to refer to during our discussion. We may need
to help her capture your ideas. Not concerned with spelling.
B. ORIENTATION

1.

Thanks for coming to participate in this discussion group. This is one of
several discussion groups we are holding with outdoor recreationists and
concerned citizens in Mid-Michigan. The issues and ideas brought forth in this
discussion will help us to formulate a questionnaire that will be sent to citizens
across the region next year.

From both the postcard you received and follow-up telephone calls, you are
aware that I am conducting this study for Michigan State University. The
purpose of this discussion is to investigate the values that people place on
wildlife and to gather opinions about various wildlife management options for
public and private lands. ‘

The results of this study will be shared with the Wildlife Division of the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Indeed both agencies are aware of this research project. But just so that
it is clear, I work for MSU. not the DNR or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
This is intended to provide direction to the DNR in its approach to
management in 80. Michigan. The agency is working to develop some
policy guidelines, but there are no specific proposals being considered at
this time. Public input is needed to help define what management options
might be considered.

As you can see, the discussion is being taped so that I do not have to take
notes, although I may occasionally jot some things down. Youridentities will
be confidential. We will be using only first names in our discussion tonight,
and your name will not be included in the report of this study. Let's all try to
speak loud and clear so the microphone can pick up what we are saying.

To help us get the most out of our discussion in the short time we
have together, there are a few simple ground rules for us to follow.

a. First and foremost, due to the small size of the group, it is

246

vital that each of you share what rs on your mind regarding
the topics we discuss. We want W
on everything. We do not want what others say here to
influence you.

b. I expect and hope that there will be differences of opinion in
this group. and I am ngt looking for any particular responses to the
questions I have for you tonight. Disagreeing or not having an
opinion about something is okay. There are no right or wrong
answers. So share your views and respect the views of others with
whom you might disagree.

c. Any time that a question is unclear, please just ask for
clarification.

d. As moderator mekmmhnetandhnamdte
W We have a lot of

questions to discuss in two hours and we have to get to all of
them. So please know up-front that I do not intend to be rude or
discourteous when I have to move the conversation along.

e. Again, please speak one at a time and loud enough so that
all of your comments can be clearly understood when I go
back over the tape.

f. Does anyone have any questions about the ground rules ?

g. Wewilltakeashortbreakinanhourorso.

h. Has everyone written down your social security number on

this sheet? The accounting office at MSU will process
your check and send it to you in the next week or so.
Sometimes they can be a little slow, but it will get to you.

i. I hope that you are all comfortable and relaxed. I think you
ill enjoy our discussion tonight.

I I . ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS

A.

I would like to begin the discussion by going around the table and having each

one of you share WW
WW2.

Everyone here tonight was invited to our discussion because of their membership in
an environmental organization like Audubon Society...

I’d like for us to go around the table again and share what prompted you to
join ?

How active would you describe your current involvement with regard to
environmental or wildlife issues? How regularly do you participate in types of
ACTIVISM such as voting for candidates, write letters, or attend meetings ?

247

1. When it comes time to vote for candidates for public office, how much
weight do you give environmental issues when deciding who vote for ?

III. SHIAWASSEE BENEFITS
Now I'm going to show you a regional map with several large tracts of public land.

A. I‘d like to see a show of hands for how many of you have visited the following
areas for any kind of outdoor aetivity. ..

l. Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
a. What did you go there for ?
b. What did you like about that area ?
c. What did you dislike about that area ?

2. Shiawassee River State Game Area
a. What did you go there for?
b. What did you like about that area ?
c. What did you dislike about that area ?

Gratiot-Saginaw State Game Area“

Maple River State Game Area"

Are there any particular reasons why you have NOT visited any
of these public lands for recreation ?

9:5?”

[ ** If there is a lot of usage of Gratiot-Saginaw and Maple River, I will repeat question series for these
areas also. but I do not anticipate much usage from this group.]

For the next question. I’d like to focus our attention on the Shiawassee State Game Area. I'm going to
give you a minute or two to think about your response. Feel free to write down your thoughts on the
paper in front of you and then we’ll go around the table and generate a list of people’s ideas. The question
is:

B. What benefits do the Shiawassee State Game Area provide for Michigm
C'I' ?

1. List.

2. Clarify

3. Rank most important to them.

“W Now that we’ve built this list of benefits that the Shiawassee State Game Area provides, I’d like each
of you to vote on what the most important benefit of the area is to you. Shannon is giving everyone three
colored stickers to vote with. I’d like everyone to go up and place their stickers next to the benefit or
benefits that are most important to them about the Shiawassee State Game Area. You can place all three
stickers next to one item. to spread them out over three different items. or place two on one and one on
another—however you want to spread your three votes. Does anyone ave any questions or need
clarification ?

"(Evaluate results and offer opportunity for comments or closure]

C. Of the benefits we’ve listed, which items are given priority by the agency that
manages the area ?
1. Do you agree with current management priorities ?

2mm; Are there some other considerations or benefits that should be
managed for ?

IV.

248

NOTIONS ON STEWARDSHIP & CONSERVATION
We are going to talk generally about conservation and stewardship of resources for a few

minutes. We will return to talking specifically about Shiawassee and the surrounding area in a

little while.

A.

What do you see as the major conservation and environmental issues facing us

today ?
1. How about the next 10 years ?
2. How about the next 50 years ?
a. Rank issues--most serious issues facing Southem Michigan.

When you hear the term stewardship in connection with the environment, what

does that suggest to you ?

I. What does it mean to be a good steward ?

2. Are there any types of people or organizations that are examples of
good environmental stewards ?

Next, I‘d like to hear your opinions about a few scenarios where management
for ecological benefits may conflict with producing mcmfional benefits. In
each situation, a hypothetical management option is included to address the
dilemma. Listen carefully and assume all the facts in each case to be true.
I’ll read each situation twice and Shannon will post the description on the wall.
Please write down your response to each situation and we will go around and
discuss everyone’s opinion.

1. Example # 1: Suppose there is a 300 acre wetland in the Northern Lower
Peninsula that is managed for waterfowl nesting through tight regulation

of water levels through a system of dikes. It has been discovered that

this intense water level control has lead to the reduction of wood turtles,
a threatened species in Michigan. Managers are faced with a decision of
retaining current water level management to benefit ducks or remove the

dikes to restore flowing water needed for the wood turtle. Less water
control will mean fewer ducks.

3. Which option do you recommend ?
Probe: Why or why not?

2. Example #2: There are examples where wildlife managers may deem it
necessary to close off nesting areas of certain bird species to human
access where excessive activity of hikers. birdwatchers, and others may
endanger nest sites. Examples include closing off roads and trails in
Kirtland Jackpine stands or closing stretches of beach to protect Piping
Plovers.

a. Are such measures acceptable to you ?
Probe: Why or why not ?
[If NO: The DNR closes fishing season to protect

spawning fish, should we not afford the same protection

to breeding birds ?]

249

V. DEFINITIONS OF SOME OPTIONAL MANAGEMENT GOALS

A.

Traditionally. management of wildlife has been based on W
W -~where an area is managed to produce some
optimal amount of species or closely related group of species. The featured
species can be a game species or a nongame species (usually an endangered
species). The featured species approach is usually sought through managing the
habitat to produce desired conditions for that species and imposing regulations
to control the harvest levels.

An alternative approach is being used in some areas of the country. This new
option is called ecosystem management. Let’s see a show of hands for how
many of you have heard of the concept ecosystem management.
1. [For those raised your hands] describe what you think it is.

231% Where did you hear about ecosystem management?

I am going to run through a list of ecosystem management goals or outcomes
and I’ll ask for your response to each one. Keep in mind as I introduce these
five outcomes. that they do not all necessarily receive equal consideration... but
under ecosystem management, managers would strive to achieve some desirable
mix of the following five products.
1 . Biodiversity.
a. Again, let‘s see a show hands. How many of you have heard of
the term biodiversity or biological diversity ?
mm; [For those raised your hands] describe what you think it
is.
Rube: Where have you heard about biodiversity ?
[Give them a hand out that describes biodiversity at 3 levels.]

i. Species--including threatened and endangered spp.
ii. communities
iii. genetic

( I) Is biodiversity something that is valuable to you ?
[If YES] What about biodiversity is valuable to
you ?

What benefits do you see from Biodiversity ?

(2) Should conserving biodiversity be an important
management goal for the DNR ?
m: [If no]: Do we have any obligation to
conserve biodiversity ? If so, what is it?

(3) How important is it that m an area that
has diverse plant and animal communities ?
firm; Are you concerned about losing
biodiversity in So. Michigan ?

2. Self-sustaining qualities
a. What do you think of when you think about a self-sustaining
ecosystem ?

b. How important is it to you to recreate in an area that represents a

250

self sustaining ecosystem ?

i. Areas CAN BE managed to produce artificially high
numbers of species like waterfowl through the use

of intensive agriculture. Would you favor such

production if it increased your bird viewing
opportunities ?
m: [If yes] Even if such production came at a cost of
naturally sustaining functions of the system ?

ii. There are many instances where fish are stocked in lakes
and stream where natural reproduction does not exist or is
poor. These fish are stocked solely to meet recreational
demand for angling opportunities. Some states have
pheasant stocking programs where birds are released on
public lands prior to hunting season. How would feel
about the opportunity to watch stocked wildlife at
Shiawassee that are released to increase biodiversity ?

Restoration-~A third element of ecosystem management is restoration of
native habitats and plant communities that have been lost or badly
degraded in quality. Examples would be restoration of oak-savannahs,
wet meadows, or prairie communities.

a. How important is restoration of plant communities ?

b. IF restoration is important. what types of communities (i.e.
prairie, wetlands, river bottom forests) would you
like to see restored ? What would you be willing to give up to
return part of the ecosystem to its previous condition ?

Reduce fragmentation. Managing whole ecosystems instead of
managing a colleCtion of individual habitats or forest stands also strives

to reduce the amount of forest fragmentation that can occur when
decisions are made at a small scale without looking at the big picture.

a. Do you think forest fragmentation is a problem in So. Michigan ?

Optimal human benefits. Ecosystem management also produces a
broader mix of social outputs including diverse recreational
opportunities and commodities like timber.

a. Should wildlife management agencies be concerned about
providing outdoor recreation other and hunting and fishing ?

Probe: What about direct wildlife viewing opporttmities such as
trails and bird watching observation towers ?

To review : The five outputs of ecosystem management are biodiversity,
naturally sustaining ecosystems, restoration of native habitats, reduced forest
fragmentation. and diverse recreational opportunities.

1.

What kind of an affeCt do you think ecosystem management would have
on your favorite types of outdoor recreation ?

What do you see as the benefits of ecosystem management in Southern
Michigan ?

251

3. What do you see as the costs of ecosystem management In Southern
Michigan ?

As a final exercise tonight. I want you to take out a sheet of paper and write

down the location of your favorite outdoor spot, but I'd like you to pick a place
that is located on public land somewhere. It can be in an area we’ve already talked
about or another location. After you picked a location. write a couple of

words to describe why you chose that spot. I‘ll give a minute to think about

II...

1. Under ecosystem management, one might expect that current benefits
that are provided may have to be redistributed across the landscape in
order to achieve important ecological objectives. For example, areas
actively managed to produce hunting opportunities may have to be
converted to more diverse, self-sustaining communities types like
prairie. while the hunting may have to be shifted somewhere else. Think
about the place you erte down on the piece of paper. Imagine that it
gets plowed up and converted to agriculture food plots to attract game
species for hunting in order to restore a diverse grassland community 10
miles away. Are you willing to make that sacrifice ?

2. On the other side of the coin, how much should hunters be expected to
give up in order to achieve the goals of ecosystem management?

3. Who should pay for ecosystem management?

252

APPENDIX D

PILOT SURVEY AND COVER LETTER

253

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT Of “SHERIB AND WILDLIFE LAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - «ON-I212
1} NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(5|?) 355-407

VAX (517) {321699

May 14, 1997

Dear Michigan Citizen:

Your opinion counts ! Enclosed is a survey being conducted by Michigan State University to
determine your preferences and opinions for vn'ldlife and public land management in Southern
Michigan. You are among a small number of Michigan citizen who have been randomly
selected to receive this important survey. The information collected will help guide the ‘Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and other resource management agencies in deciding the future
direction of management of our state lands.

It takes an average of twenty minutes to complete this survey. Because we have contacted a
relatively few number of people, your respome is extremely important to the success of our
study. You indicate your voluntary participation by returning the survey. Please be assured that
your responses will remain confidential.

If you have any questions about this survey. please call our toll—free survey hot—line: 1-800-738-
2168. Please return your completed survey in the postage paid envelope provided. Thank you
for your valuable assistance.

Sincerely,

WW

Bob Holsman. Research Assistant
Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife

MSU a u wan-ramp Aaron/Equal Oppmrumo- Inna-non

254

 

Survey of opinions on managing public land and
wildlife in Southern Michigan

Survey instructions:
~Please mark all of your choices in ink. a!
“DNR" = Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
oSouthern Michigan = the area below the dark line on the E:

 

 

map to the right. LL] 1 7
-Public Iands= all state and federally owned lands (eg national forests,
national refuges, state parks and state game areas)
~“Ecosystem”= a geographic landscape area and all the interactions
between living and non-living things residing there.

 

 

-“Biodiversity”— = dthe variety of all life forms; including plants,
wild animals capable thnvrng

THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP!
If you have any questions, please call toll-free at 1-800- 738-2168.

 

Your preferences about the Southern Michigan Environment

DIEEC’I‘IONSM The follomfig set ofquesstrons ONLY deal & 83‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
( Mich). Please Q"(0 “L ‘6 °
circle the response in the appropriate column to cate the t“ (0 \r .4. a .b
importance of the following Items to you. ‘t ‘8" .59 6““ a! .95
a
6g, 4'6 A95 ‘9 06¢ 3‘9
>How important is it to you ...
I)...TO KNOW THAT WILDLIFE SPECIES ARE BEING MAINTAINED ON PUBLIC
LANDS WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVER USE OR SEE ITIEM 7 5 4 3 2 l U
2)...TIIAT PUBLIC LANDS BE MANAGED To PRODUCE RAw MATERIALS
SUCH As TIMBER, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, AND MINERALS FOR 5 4 3 2 1 U
SOCIETY 7
3)...nIAT PLANT AND WILDLIFE DIVERSITY BE MAINTAINED ON PUBLIC S 4 3 2 1 U
LANDS 7
4)...TIIAT PUBLIC LANDS OFFER ACCESS FOR RECREAnONAL 5 4 3 2 l U
HUNTING 7
5)...THAT PUBLIC LANDS BE MANAGED To PROMOTE GROWTH &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL COMMUNmEs IN 80. MICHIGAN 7 S 4 3 2 l U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

255

 

 

 

 

 

\
\ (Go
by e 9° If
These guestions still apply ONLY to public lands 4°90 {9 ‘9 9o 0‘
In . ‘6 Q0 09 4° (9
. . . to" 6‘9 6’ 4‘6 49°
>How Important Is It to you c.“ 4‘ ¢° I) 9“
6)...THAT LAKES AND STREAMS ON PUBLIC LANDS BE MANAGED FOR 5 4 3 2 I
RECREATIONAL FISHING?
7)...THAT WE ImLIZE ANY GAS AND MINERAL DEPOSITS FOUND ON PUBLIC 5 4 3 2 1
LAND FOR THEIR ENERGY AND MATERIAL POTENTIAL ?
8)...THAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE PROVIDED To HUNT A VARIETY OF 5 4 3 2 1
WILDLIFE ON PUBLIC LANDS ?
9)...THAT MANAGEMENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS 5 4 3 2 l
STRIVE To CREATE JOBS AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ?
IO)...THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO wATCH AND ENJOY WILDLIFE IN 5 4 3 2 1

NATURAL SETTINGS ON PUBLIC LANDS 7

 

I l)...THAT A MANAGEMENT PRIORITY OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES ON
PUBLIC LANDS IS TO ENHANCE THE GROWTH AND ECONOMIC S 4 3 2 1
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES 7

 

12)...THAT POPULATIONS OF GAME SPECIES (E.G. DEER & WATERFOWL) BE
MANAGED TO ENHANCE HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS ? 5 4 3 2 I

 

I 3)...THAT we MANAGE PUBLIC LANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS
SUCH As TIMBER OR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 7 5 4 3 2 l

 

l4)...THAT GAME FISH POPULATIONS BE MANAGED TO ENHANCE FISIIING 5 4 3 2 l
OPPORTUNITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS 7

 

I 5)...THAT LANDS ARE MANAGED To PROVIDE A SUPPLY OF RAw
MATERIALS FOR FOOD. HOUSING. AND OTI IER MATERIAL NEEDS ? S 4 3 2 I

 

16)...THAT MANY UNDISTURBED, NATURAL AREAS ARE PROVIDED ON 5 4 3 2 1
PUBLIC LANDS To APPRECIATE, STUDY, OR OTHERWISE ENIOY NATURE ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17) How important is it to you that W provide OPPOHWIICS 0' access for

any of the following types of recreation ?

CRITICALLY VERY MODERATILY SLIGHTLY

IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMMPORTAKT UNDIC.
SNOWMOBILING 5 4 3 2 I U
thmo 5 4 3 2 I U
RIDING ATV‘s 5 4 3 2 1 U
RIDING JET SKIS 5 4 3 2 I U
BOATING 5 4 3 2 I U
x-c SKIING s 4 3 2 I U
EXERCISE 5 4 3 2 I U

256

The next 5 questions apply to ALL lands in Southern
Michigan in general, including public lands.

> How important is it to you...

 

GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ?

18)...THAT REMAINING UNDEVELOPED AREAS OF SO. MICHIGAN BE
AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE

 

SO. MICHIGAN BE PREVENTED?

l9)...THAT THE FURTHER EXTINCTION OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES IN

 

20)...THAT WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR NATURAL (UNDEVELOPED)
ENVIRONMENT IN 50. MICHIGAN IS MAINTAINED?

 

21 )...THAT WILDLIFE AND PLANT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN PART OF So. MICHIGAN'S LANDSCAPE BE
MAINTAINED OR RESTORED ?

 

SPECIES INTERACTIONS (E.G. FOOD CHAINS) BE SUSTAINED IN 80.
MICHIGAN 7

 

22)...THAT ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES SUCH AS FOREST SUCCESSION OR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personal Choices

 

Circle one response to indicate the extent to which

you 8% or disagree with each statement.

ACRE!

mom

MY
mucus

 

23) 1 AM NOT WILLING To PAY MORE IN TAXES TO INCREASE
EFFORTS To SUSTAIN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR nmJRE
GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE To ENJOY.

 

24) I CURRENTLY DONATE MONEY EACH YEAR TO
ORGANIZATONS OR PROJECTS TIIAT WORK TO PROTECT TIIE
ENVIRONMENT.

 

25) I INTEND TO LOOK FOR OR TAKE OPPORTUNITIES T0 DONATE
TIME OR MONEY TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS HAVE
ACCESS TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.

 

26) I FEEL No OBLIGATION To CONSERVE WILDLIFE
POPULATIONS OR OTHER RESOURCES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS
OF HUMANS.

 

27) I THINK THAT EACH ONE OF US SHOULD STRIVE To REDUCE
OUR MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN ORDER To MINIMIZE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS To WILDUFE AND THEIR HABITATS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinions about challenges to hunting

257

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circle one response to indicate the extent to which "1133' m “m m am
you agee or disagree with each statement.
28) THOSE IN SOCIETY WHO OPPOSE RECREATIONAL HUNTING
POSE A SERIOUS THREAT To FUTURE HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES. l 2 3 4 S
29) AITEMPTS To ABOUSH OR RESTRICT HUNTING IN MICHIGAN
ARE LIKELY To INCREASE IN THE FUTURE. l 2 3 4 5
30) ANY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTION THAT REDUCES
HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES Is A RESULT OF THE GROWING ANTI- 1 2 3 4 5
HUNTING MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.
Opinions about current levels of various

environmental attributes in Southern Michigan
Please circle the number in the F n “OUT
appropriate column to indicate your W0 #353”: “2:1, sumou I W “m 0,330"
opinion about the current level of each ' AMOUNT "I“!
attribute in So. Michi an.
31) PINE FORESTS l 2 3 4 5 n
32) HARDWOOD FORESTS I 2 3 4 5 n
33) WETLANDS 1 2 3 4 5 n
34) GRASSLANDS I 2 3 4 5 n
35) NUMBER OF SONGBIRDS I 2 3 4 5 n
36) NUMBER OF DEER 1 2 3 4 S n
37) NUMBER OF FROGS AND AMPHIBIANS 1 2 3 4 S n
38) NUMBER or DUCKS ' l 2 3 4 s n
39) DIVERsnY OF wnDLIFE l 2 3 4 5 n
40) PLACES To OBSERVE & STUDY NATURE I 2 3 4 S n
41) PLACES To Go HUNTING l 2 3 4 5 n
42) ACCESS To HIKING TRAILS I 2 3 4 5 n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

258

Opinions regarding the Michigan DNR

 

Circle one response to indicate the extent to which

zou ag or disagree with each statement.

AGREE

AGREE

DISAGIII

 

43) I TRUST THE DNR TO MANAGE OUR PUBLIC LANDS TO
ENSURE HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR
MICHIGAN CITIZENS.

 

44) THE DNR IS PROFESSIONALLY COMPETENT WHEN IT
COMES TO MANAGING WILDLIFE ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS.

 

45) I DO NOT TRUST TIIE DNR TO FAIRLY CONSIDER MY OWN
INTERESTS WHEN IT MANAGES PUBLIC LANDS.

 

 

46) OVERALL, THE DNR IS DOING A PROFESSIONAL AND
SATISFACTORY JOB MANAGING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
ON PUBLIC LANDS IN MICHIGAN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opportunities to manage Southern Michigan’s ecosystems

 

Circle one response to indicate the extent to which

zou agree or disagree with each statement.

ML?
AGREE

AGREE

DISAGm

 

47) THE LANDSCAPE IN So. MICHIGAN HAS ALREADY BEEN
so ALTERED BY HUMANS THAT EFFORTS To PROTECT
NATURALLY FUNC'I‘lONING ECOSYSTEMS WOULD NOT BE
WORTH THE COSTS AND CONTROVERSY.

 

48) I THINK THAT THERE ARE WORTHWHIIJ'Z OPPORTUNITIES
TO RESTORE UNIQUE OR NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN SO.
MICHIGAN.

 

49) RESTORATION OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES. NATIVE
SPECIES, OR ECOSYSTEMS IN A REGION AS DEGRADED AS 50.
MICHIGAN WOULD STAND LITTLE CIIANCE OF BEING
SUCCESSHJL.

 

 

50) IT Is REALISTTC TO EXPECT TTIAT ALL TYPES OF OUR
NATIVE PLANTS AND WILDLIFE CAN BE MAINTAINED IN SO.
MICHIGAN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

259

Opinions of trade-offs
in managing resources

 

Directions: The statements below involve a series of am. a
management tradeoffs typical Of those wildlife m“ °""
managers Of our public lands must confront. Assume

the statements apply to the lands shaded on the map.
Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree

with each statement. can-- c..

 

 

 

(CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH STATEMENT) STRONGLY Am "mm ”ISAC“! STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE

 

 

 

 

 

IN THIS AREA, RESOURCE MANAGERS SHOULD...

 

51) ...MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY THROUGHOUT THE AREA,
EVEN IF MEANS LOWERING THE POPULATIONS OF SOME 5 4 3 2 1
COMMON SPECIES OF WILDLIFE THERE.

 

52)... SET ASIDE SOME FORESTED AREAS FOR 100 OR so
YEARS EVEN THOUGH OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECONOMIC 5 4 3 2 l
BENEFITS FROM LOGGING ARE PASSED UP IN THE SHORT
TERM.

 

53) ...ALWAYS MAINTAIN GAME SPECIES AT HIGH
POPULATION LEVELS RATHER THAN ALLOWING POPULATIONS S 4 3 2 I
TO GO THROUGH NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS .

 

54) ...MANAGE ECOSYSTEMS TO MEET SPECIFIC PUBLIC
DEMANDS FOR WILDLIFE RECREATION AND SCENIC BEAUTY S 4 3 2 1
EVEN IF IT CURTAILS ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES & FUNCDONS.

 

SS) ...SUSTAIN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (E.G. NUTRIENT
CYCLING, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND GROUNDWATER 5 4 3 2 l
RECHARGE) EVEN IF IT MEANS PROVIDING FEWER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WILDLIFE RECREATION.

 

56) ...ENHANCE EXISTING ECOSYSTEMS FOR WILDLIFE
RATHER THAN RESTORE LOST OR DEGRADED ECOSYSTEM S 4 3 2 l
TYPES.

 

57) ...DIVERT DNR STAFF TIME AND RESOURCES FROM
MANAGING WILDLIFE ON PUBLIC LANDS TO DEVELOP 5 4 3 2 l
WILDLIFE HABITAT THAT CONNECTS PRIVATE, PUBLIC, AND
COMMERCIAL LANDS.

 

58) ...DIVERT EFFORTS FROM GAME SPECIES MANAGEMENT
To FOCUS MORE ON NON-GAME SPECIES OF WILDLIFE. 5 4 3 2 l

 

59) ...INTRODUCE PLANTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES THAT
PROVIDE GOOD FOOD FOR VALUED WILDLIFE SPECIES EVEN IF 5 4 3 2 I
THE INTRODUCED PLANTS ELIMINATE NATIVE PLANT TYPES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

260

Background Information

 

a? We need the following information to determine whether we have sampled the Southern Michigan
population adequately. This information will remain completely confidential. Your answers will not be
associated with your name or address.

 

 

 

60. From the following list of outdoor recreations, please check up to three (3) activities that represent
your favorite types Of outdoor recreation. You do not have to check three.

0 NONE OF THEE ARE FAVORITE ACTIVITIES OF MINE.

Cl BACKPACKING O IIUNTING Cl BIKING

D FISHING O PHOTOGRAPHY 0 IOGGING

CI BIRD WATCHING 0 BOATING CI HIKING

Cl CAMPING DSNOWMOBIUNG OCANOEING

0 ORV RIDING 0 NATURE STUDY 0 TRAPPING

D CROSS COUNTRY SKIING O WILDUFE FEEDING 0 BERRY & MUSHROOM PICRING
61. Do you hunt ? 0 YES ONO If ‘NO‘, Skip to Question # 64.

62. In a typical year which of the following types of hunting do you participate in ? (Check all that apply)
0 ARCHERY DEER 0 WATERPOWL 0 UPIAND BIRDS

0 GUN DEER Cl SMAu. GAME 0 BEAR

63. From the Six choices listed above, please indicate your single favon'te type of hunting (Choose only
one):

 

64. Please list any environmental or conservation organizations in which you are currently a member:

 

 

65. Within the past 5 years. have you been an Officer in any Michigan based environmental or conservation
organization ? 0 YES 0 NO

66. In what county do you currently reside ?

 

261

67. How would you describe the area in which you currently reside ?

D RURAL-FARM C) SMALL TOWN (LESS THAN 25,000 PEOPLE)
U RURAL—NON-FARM C] URBAN AREA (MORE THAN 25,000 PEOPLE)

68. In what year were you born ? 19 .

69. What is your sex ? 0 FEMALE 0 MALE

70. What is your race ? UAFRICANoAMERICAN 0 ASIAN
CI CAUCASIAN CI INTER-RACIAL
0 LATINO D NATIVE AMERICAN
C) OTHBI (PLEASE SPECIFY):

 

71. What is the highest level Of education you have completed ?

CI NO SCHOOL COMPLETED 0 HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA EQUIVALDIT Cl BACHEIDR‘S DEGREE ‘
0LESSTHAN9THGRADE OSOMECOLLEGEORTEOINICALSCHOOL OMASTER’SDEGREE
OSOMEHIGH SCHOOL UASSOOATEDEGREE Cl DOCTORATE

0 PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL DEGREE

72. What was your gross household income in 1996 ?

ULESSTHAN$9,999 0315,000324999 OS 31000-349900 DGREATERTHAN $75,000
0 SI 0,000-3 14,999 0 325,000-534,999 0 S 50,000-574,999 D No OPINION

Thanks for completing the survey ! Please return in the stamped envelope provided to:

Bob Holsman, ResearchAssistant

13 Natural Resources Building
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

262

 

 

How should we manage our public lands
and wildlife in Southern Michigan ?

An opinion survey conducted by Michigan State University
Summer 1997

 

 

 

L I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[In

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......
.......

r .:,:.;.:.:.:.:.:.'

 

 

 

 

263

APPENDIX E

FINAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

264

 

SURVEY DEFINITIONS:

 

Note the following definitions of terms used in this survey...

 

 

 

LIJI

 

~“DNR” = Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

oSouthern Michigan = the area below the dark line on the map to the right. All of
the survey questions apply only to ms in Southern Michigan (So. MICH.) ”3 ’

OPublic iands= all state and federally owned lands (e.g national forests, national
refuges, state parks and state game areas). This does not include county lands.

 

 

 

 

~“Ecosystem”= some identifiable area of the environment (e.g. oak-hickory woodlot or cattail marsh) and
all of the interactions between the living and non-living things residing there.

-“Biodiversity” = the full variety of all life forms; including plants, insects and wild animals that live in an
area. .

 

1. From the following list of outdoor recreations, please check ALL of the activities that represent
your favorite type(s) of outdoor recreation.

ONONEOPanSEAREPAVORnEAcnvasor-‘m

UBACKPACKING OHIJNnNG Datum

0mm 0mm OIOOGING

OBIRDWATCHING ODOATING OHutrNG

OCAMPING OSNOWMOBIUNG OCANOEING

OORVRIDING O NATURESTUDY OTRAPPING

Ocaoss COUNTRY SKIING Omar-Erma OEERRYJL MUSHROOMPICKING

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

“Unless a suflicient level of environmental quality is maintained in Southern Michigan,
our own existence as individuals and as a society will be jeopardized "

STRONGLY AGREE UNDECIDCD DMEI’. STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGIEI

fiNote: If you answered DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE, please skip to Question # 7.“

265

Your preferences for land 4%
and wildlife management ,0‘ 0°
Q06 .& «(6° 06°
\S“ 06 6‘ x «P
(d 9 \ \5‘ (0 (b
a” die b“. 6“ 9° 5°“
>How important is it to you... o a‘ 9° s“ gee o°

 

3) THAT ALL TYPES OF WILDLIFE & PLANTS BE RETAINED ON
PUBuc LANDS BECAUSE THEY MIGHT PLAY A ROLE IN MAINTAINING 4 3 2 l 0 U
THE ENVIRONMENT THAT we DEPEND ON IN So. MICH. ?

 

4) THAT AIR AND WATER QUALITY IN 50. MICH. BE IMPROVED TO

PROTECT THE HEALTH or THE ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU 4 3 2 l 0 U
DEPEND ON ?

 

5) THAT PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AVOID DISRUPTTNG
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES SUCH As NUTRIENT CYCUNG AND F000 4 3 2 l 0 U
CHAINS IN CASE THEY ARE IMPORTANT POR HUMAN SURVIVAL ?

 

6)... THAT A DIVERSITY or erDUEE AND ECOSYSTEMS BE
MAINTAINED ON PUBuc LANDS To PROTECT THE HEALTH or THE ‘ 3 2 I 0 U
ENVIRONMENT IN 80. MICH. ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Questions 7-21 ask the importance of managing our

\
public lands for reasons other than maintenance of d)!“ o‘ (If (f
environmental (ecological) health (A f at 52° {f .
a) a .0 a a i"
>How important is it to mu... $0 4‘6 9°. 96 f f

 

“l)...THATAREASPOSSESSINGNATURALANDSCENICBEAUTYBE
MAMADIEDASPLACESWHEREPEOPIECANGOTOREIAXAND 4 3 2 I 0 U
ENIOYNATTJREINSOMICH?

 

 

 

 

 

8) THAT PUBuc LANDS ARE MANAGED To PROMOTE GROWTH & 4 3 2 1 0 U
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT or So. MICH. COMMUNITIES 7
9)...THATPUBuCI.ANDsorI-'ERACCESSTORECREATTONALHUNTDIG 4 3 2 1 0 U
IN 80. MICH ?

IO) To KNOW THAT WILDLIFE & PLANT cOMMUNITTEs

(EOOSYSTEMS) THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN PARTorsO. 4 3 2 1 0 U
MICIL'S LANDSCAPE BE MAINTAINED OR RESTORED EVEN IPYou

NEVER vrsrr THEM ?

ll)...THATPUBuCLANDSINSo. MICH.OI=PERPLACESTOGOAND 4 3 2 1 O U
LEARN ABOUT NATURE ?

12) THAT GAME FISH POPULATIONS BE MANAGED To ENHANCE 4 3 2 1 0 U

FISHING OPPORTUNITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS IN 50. MICH. ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

266

 

 

 

Q (S Q
Q § Q 6\ Q0
. . . f" 96 06 If ye
>How Important IS It to you... 6‘ " o
13) THAT MANAGEMENT OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES ON PUBuc 4 3 2 1 O
LANDS IN So. MICH. CREATES IOBS & ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 7
l4) To KNOW THAT WILDLIFE SPECIES ARE BEING MAINTAINED ON
PUBuc LANDS IN So. MICH. WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVER USE OR SEE 4 3 2 I 0
THEM ?
IS) THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES To WATCH & ENJOY 4 3 2 1 0

WILDLIFE IN NATURAL SETTINGS ON PUBLIC LANDS IN 50. MICH.,
OTHER THAN DURING HUNTING 7

 

16) THAT A MANAGEMENT mom or OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
ONPUBuc LANDSISTO ENHANCETHEECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTOP 4 3 2 1 0
LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN 80. MICH. ?

 

l7) THAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE PROVIDED To HUNT A VARIETY or 4 3 2 1 0
WILDuPE ON PUBLIC LANDS IN 80. MICH 7

 

18)...THATHIItnIGTRAn.s,VIEWINGARI=AS,ORSIMILAR 4 3 2 1 O
AccOMMODATIONS ARE PROVIDED To ENHANCE OPPORTUNnIES To
SEEBIRDS,PLANTS,OROIHERWILDLIPEDISO.MICH.?

 

I9)...1HATWEU11UZEANYGAS&MINERALDEI’OSITSR)UNDON 4 3 2 1 0
PUBLICLANDS PORI'IIEIRECONOMICPOI'EN'I'IALNSQMICIL?

 

20)... THAT POPULATIONS OPGAMESPBCIEs(EG. DEER& 4 3 2 1 O
WATERPOWL) BE MANAGED To ENHANCE HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES
ONPUBLICLANDSINSO. MICH.?

 

21)...TOI<NOWTHATIHEREAREPUBuCLANDSII~ISo.MICH 4 3 2 1 0
WHERE NATURE STILL PUNCHONS “RELATIVELY PREE" or HUMAN
INFLUENCE WHETHER OR NOT YOU VISIT THEM?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22) How important is it to you that mhliglandsjnSomhgmMighigan provide opportunities or access
for any of the following types of recreation ? (Circle 911E response for each activity).

may VERY MODERATELY suermv
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT UNDECIDED

A) SNOWMOBIUNG 4 3 2 l 0 U
B) BIKING 4 3 2 I 0 U
c) RIDINGORV'S 4 3 2 l 0 U
D) RIDING JET SRIS 4 3 2 l 0 U
E) BOATING 4 3 2 I 0 U

4 3 2 l 0 U

F) CROSS COUNTRY
SKIING

 

267

Personal Choices

 

Circle one response to indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with each statement.

STRONGLY

STRONGLY
mm

 

23) OUR GENERATION HAS A MAJOR RESPONSIBILnY To INCUR
WHATEVER COSTS AND SACRIFICES ARE NECESSARY To SUSTAIN
WlLDLIFE SPECIES INTO THE FUTURE.

 

24) I INTEND TO SEEK WAYS TO REDUCE WHATEVER NEGATIVE
IMPACTS MY DAILY LIFESTYLE MAY POSE ON THE FUTURE WELL-
BEING OF WILDLIFE SPECIES.

 

25) IF I COULD BE CONVINCED THAT THE MONEY WAS BEING
SPENT EFFECTIVELY, l WOULD BE WILLING To DONATE MONEY To
AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS WORKING To SAPEGUARD THE FUTURE
WELL- BEING OF PLANT AND WILDuPE SPECIES.

 

26) I DITEND TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO LIVE MY LIFE SO AS TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSERVATION OF FORESTS, WETLANDS,
AND OTHER TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS FOR THE FUTURE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinions about current levels of various

environmental attributes in Southern Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please circle a number to indicate your FAR TOO SLIGHTLY ABOUT TIE SLIGHTLY
opinion about the current level of each WY T00 “WW RIGHT 70°
‘ attribute In So. Michigan. AW ’5‘” =

27) PINE PORESTS I 2 3 4 5 a
28) HARDWOOD FORESTS l 2 3 4 5 n
29) WEI'IANDS l 2 3 4 5 n
30) GRASSLANDS l 2 3 4 S n
31) NUMBEROPSONGBIRDS I 2 3 4 5 a
32) NUMBER OF DEER l 2 3 4 S n
33) mm or PROGS AND AMPHIBIANS I 2 3 4 5 a
34) NUMBERor-‘DUCKS I 2 3 4 5 n
35) DIVEIter'YOFWILDuI-‘E l 2 3 4 5 n
36) PLACES To OBSERVE a STUDY NATURE I 2 3 4 5 II
37) PLACES TOGOHUNTTNG l 2 3 4 5 n
38) ACCESS To HIKING TRAILS I 2 3 4 5 n
39) PLACES To GO FISHING l 2 3 4 S n

 

 

 

268

Opinions of trade-offs
in managing resources

121m: The statements below are examples of
management tradeoffs which wildlife managers
must confront on public lands. The statements apply
to the lands Shaded on the map.

 

 

 

CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH STATEMENT. MT 4°": mm m M"
INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU AGREE OR
DISAGREE WITH EACH STATEMENT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON THESE AREAS, RESOURCE MANAGERS SHOULD...

 

40) ...MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY THROUGHOUT THE AREA, 5 4 3 2
EVENIFITMEANS LOWERINGTHEPOPULATION SIZESOF 1
SOME COMMON SPECIES OF WILDLIFE THERE.

 

4|)... SET ASIDE SOME FORESTED AREAS FOR I00 YEARS
EVEN THOUGH OPPORTUNITIES FOR EmNOMIC BENEFITS 5 4 3 2 I
FROMLOGGINGAREPASSEDUPINTHESHORTTERM

 

42) ...ALWAYS MAINTAIN GAME SPECIES AT HIGH 5
POPULATION LEVELS RATHER THAN ALLOWING POPULATIONS T 3 2 I
TO GO THROUGH NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS .

 

43) ...MANAGE ECOSYSTEMS TO MEET SPECIFIC PUBUC
DEMANDS NR WILDLIFE RECREATION AND SCENIC BEAUTY 5 4 3 2 1
EVEN IF IT CURTAILS ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES & FUNCTIONS.

 

44) ...SUSTAIN ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES (E.G. NUTRIDIT
CYCLING, SOIL CONSERVATTON, AND GROUNDWATER 5 4 3 2 1
RECHARGE) EVEN IF IT MEANS PROVIDING FEWER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR WILDLIFE RECREATION.

 

45) ...ENHANCE EXISTING EOOSYSTEMS FOR WILDLIFE
RATHERTHANRESTOREEIDSYSTEMTYPESTHATHAVEBEEN 5 4 3 2 1
LOST OR DEGRADED.

 

46) ...DIVERT DNR STAFF TIME AND RESOURCES PROM
MANAGING WILDur-E ON PUBLIC LANDS To DEVELOP 5 4 3 2 1
GORRIDORS FOR WILDUPE THAT OONNEcr PRIVATE, PUBuc,
AND COMMERCIAL LANDS.

 

47) ...DIVERT EFFORTS FROM GAME SPECIES MANAGEMENT 5 ‘ 3 2 1
TO FOCUS MORE ON NON-GAME SPECIES OF WILDLIFE.

 

48) ...INTRODUCE PLANTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES THAT 5 1
PROVIDE GOOD FOOD FOR WILDLIFE SPECIES EVEN IF THE 4 3 2
INTRODUCED PLANTS ELIMINATE NATTVE PLANT TYPES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

269

Opinions regarding the Michigan DNR

 

Circle one response to indicate the extent to “1‘0““ 40"“ mm ”54““ 32222;:
which you agree or disagree with each statement.

 

49) I TRUST THE DNR TO MANAGE OUR PUBLIC LANDS TO
ENSURE A HEALTHY & SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR 1 2 3 4 5
MICHIGAN CITIZENS.

 

50) THE DNR IS PROFESSIONALLY COMPETENT WHEN IT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMES To MANAGING WILDLIFE ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS. 1 2 3 4 5
5 I) I Do NOT TRUST THE DNR To FAIRLY CONSIDER MY

OWN INTERESTS WHEN MANAGING OUR PUBuc LANDS. 1 2 3 4 5
52) OVERALL, THE DNR Is DOING A PROFESSIONAL &

SATISFACTORY IOB MANAGING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES I 2 3 4 5
ON PUBuc IANDS IN MICHIGAN.

 

S3. The four public lands from the map on page #5 are listed below. Please indicate whether you
have maxed any of the four areas and also check which activities you pursued while you were
there. (Check all that apply).

YES, DEER DUO: BIRD-

vgleEm HUNTING HUNTING WATurING HIRING OTHER
0 MAPLE RIVER STATE GAME AREA .................. for: 0 o 0 O O
0 GRATIOT-SAGINAW STATE GAME AREA-m. .Ior: 0 o 0 0 0
CI SHIAWASSEE RIVER STATE GAME AREA ....... for: 0 O 0 O O
o SHIAWASSEE FEDERAL WILDuEE RD'UGE ....Iot: O O o 0 O
O IHAVENOTvrerEDANYOPTHESEAREAS.

54. Are you a hunter ? OYES ONO If ‘No’, Skip to Question # 60.»

55. In a typical year which of the following types of hunting do you participate in ? (crack ALL that

Apply.)
0 ARCHERY DEER 0 WATERPOWL 0 UPIAND BIRDS
0 GUN DEER 0 SMALL GAME 0 BEAR
56. From the six choices listed in the previous question, please indicate your singlgjayon'n type of
hunting.

(Choose only one):

 

270

Opinions about challenges to hunting

 

- ' ' mONCLY AGREE UNOECIDED DISACREE STRONGLY
CIrcle one response to IndIcate.the extent to Ac“: omen;
which you agree or dlsagree With each

statement.

 

57) THOSE IN SOCIETY WHO OPPOSE RECREATIONAL
HUNTING POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO FUTURE HUNTING I 2 3 4 S
OPPORTUNITIES.

 

58) ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH OR RESTRICT HUNTING IN
MICHIGAN ARE LIKELY TO INCREASE IN THE RITURE. l 2 3 4 5

 

59) ANY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTION THAT
REDUCES HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES IS A RESULT OF THE I 2 3 4 5
GROWING ANTI-HUNTING MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Information

 

6’ We need the following information to determine whether we have sampled the Southern
Michigan pOpulation adequately. This information will remain completely confidential. Your
answers will not be associated with your name or address.

 

 

 

60. Do you belong to any of these environmentaVconservation organizations ?
(Check ALL am apply)

0 AUDUBON SOCIETY Cl M.U.C.C. 0 N.R.A.. 0 SIERRACwB
0 DUCKS UNuMIIED CI GREENPEACE ONATUREGONSERVANCY .
Cl IBELONG TO NONEOFTHESE

61. In what county do you currently reside ?

 

61. How would you describe the area in which you currently reside ?
0 RURAL-FARM D SMALL TOWN (LESS THAN 25.000 PEOPIE)

U RURAL-NON-FARM Cl URBAN AREA (MORE THAN 25,000 PEOPLE)

62. DO you own land within I mile of any of the public lands shown on page # 5 ?
0 YES ONO If ‘No’ Skip to question # 65A-

271

63. How large is that pTOperty ?

BLESSTHANIOACRES 010-40ACRES 04HOOACRES CJMORETHANIOOACRES

64. What is the primary use of this property ?

0 RESIDarnAL D FARMING 0 RESIDaITIAuRECREATIONAL
O RESIDarnAIJFARMING 0 RECREATIONAL 0 OTHER

65. In what year were you born ? I9

66. What is your sex ? OFEMALE 0 MALE
67. What is your race ?

0 AFRICAN-AMERICAN 0 ASIAN 0 CAUCASIAN Cl INTER-RACIAL

O LATINO O NATIVE AMERICAN 0 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY):

68. Please check the highest level of education you have completed.

UNOSCIIOOLCDMPLEI'ED UHIGHSCI‘KXJLWAEQUIVAIBTT UBACHELOR'SDBGREE
GIBSTHANmGRADE OSOMEWMTECHNICALSCHOOL DMASTER'SDEGREE
DSOMEHIGIISCHOOL OASSOCIATEDEGREE ODOCI'ORATE

D PROFESSIONAL SCIIOOL DEGREE

69. What was your gross household income in I996 ?

 

 

0 LESSTHANS9.999 0511000424999 as 35900-549900 OGREATERTHANS‘IS.000
0310900614399 0325.000-334399 as so.ooo-m,999 ONOOPINION
COMMENTS:

 

 

 

Thanks for completing the survey 1 Please return in the stamped envelope provided to:

Bob Holsman. Research Assistant. l3 Natural Resources Building. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Michigan State
University,East Lansing. MI 48824.

272

APPENDIX F

NON-RESPONDENT POST CARD (ABRIDGED) SURVEY

273

Dear Michigan citizen,

Earlier this summer we mailed you a lengthy wildlife management Opinion survey and
have not received a reply. We'd like to able to compare certain opinions of people who
sent back the survey with those who did not in order to better understand our
results.

i ask that you take 2 minutes to complete the attached postage paid post card.
Tear it off and mail it back to us. Thank you so much for your cooperation.

Sincerely.

R. Ben Peyton

Professor. Fisheries & Wildlife
Michigan State University

P5. If you have any questions regarding our study. call (517) 555-0577.

274

 

 

 

 

1. What was the primary reason you chose 2. Please check ALL of the activities
not to reply ‘0 the questionnaire 7 that represent your favorite type(s) of recreation.
D ldon‘t like surveys D hunting {3 birdwatching D boating
[:1 Not interested in topic .
Cl Survey was too long/complicated D “5th Cl carming D none otthese
C] Other:
3. In what year were you born 7 19 . x
— o
o‘ d:& ‘
4. How important is it to you... \\‘\\ «f 045“ el «9&9 f
. 0 '0
(Oll'Cle one for each) 49‘? .9“ («9° é“ J‘ G
a) ...lhat adiversiy otwfldliie & ecosySlems be mafifined
on public lands to protect the health of the environment in 4 3 2 1 0 U
Southern Michigan ? -
b) .. that opportunities are provided to hunt a variety of 4 3 2 1 0 u

wildlife on public lands in Southem. Mich 7

 

c) ... mat management of our natural resources on public 4 3 2 1 0 U
lands h Southem Michigan creates jobs a econorric
opportunities 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

detach hen

 

Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing. MI 48824