-. 5.5 "fl .3 "I "10") . . a . 1.... .5 .flmaquac 2:15.»? (in... 3,335.. .i :2... 39.3.7 .. ill. I htzczl}..fiufll ......£.l2:.u x... 1....DIID31N‘I3 1.1.3505, 9.“..flnn.rl9? in ft. . . I il...‘ .334...‘ I... I flit .Iltt::n la. 51 152:), . 1.! A :9. . 1...! :7. 93,5 1}: zirivrif .372.) =1 {.89. ginnixxfmun. a ‘t.0\ l‘TrllI I 1 Du... {I 1.9. » vvlhx‘ fl . iu|?. 5 Is. ‘1 I‘SQJJJ: (it. I! Fifttfi. 1:, r'. ? .1? v I..." ‘ . 4.1.}... .L. . £3. .4 :z k .WTH~.§d...rvt2 r21 . 51:1, ‘ . TTW¥US 1604/ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Evaluating the Effectiveness of Two Outreach Programs: Wildlife Habitat Workshops and Personal Site-Visits presented by Kelly Siciliano Carter has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in FiSh. & Wild]... @ fig: mtgfi Date May 7, 2002 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution . LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1% 0 I5 3903 6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15 EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO OUTREACH PROGRAMS: WILDLIFE HABITAT WORKSHOPS AND PERSONAL SITE-VISITS By Kelly Siciliano Carter A THESIS Submitted 'to Michigan State University in partial fiilfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 2002 ABSTRACT EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO OUTREACH PROGRAMS: WILDLIFE HABITAT WORKSHOPS AND PERSONAL SITE VISITS By Kelly Siciliano Carter The future of wildlife populations across the nation is threatened with the large loss of private lands each year. In Michigan, 96% of southern Michigan’s land base is currently privately owned. Therefore, it is critical to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Wildlife Division that private landowners are informed about managing their lands in the best interest of wildlife. The DNR provided funding to county Conservation Districts (CD) so the CD could create wildlife habitat workshops and personal site-visits that would teach private landowners how to manage their property for wildlife. This research project was designed to evaluate those efforts by assessing changes in participant knowledge, attitudes and behaviors and by assessing whether training resulted in positive changes for wildlife in southern Lower Michigan. Evaluation surveys were distributed to gather data. And, a field evaluation model was created to determine what actual changes were being made on the property to benefit wildlife. Results indicated that positive changes occurred on private lands although they were not consistent. The two outreach programs did increase landowner knowledge about wildlife management. In addition, participants had a high opinion of the DNR and were highly motivated to make changes to their property. To my husband, Doug — my “Oasis” iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I must thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Wildlife Division for funding this project. I would also like to personally thank from the DNR Mark Sargent -- who was an enormous support and mentor to me throughout this project. You have been an incredible influence on my career and a wonderful friend. I will always be grateful. Next, I must thank the many hundreds of private landowners who filled-out surveys and allowed me to walk their property. I enjoyed exploring your inspiring wildlife retreats and will cherish the wonderfirl stories you shared with me. I am also grateful to the participating County Conservation Districts. You allowed me to observe wildlife habitat workshops, provided me with names of past landowner clients, and distributed surveys to landowners when needed. As always, there were behind the scene players who helped with many aspects of this project who I must acknowledge: Amy and Wynn Berry, Allison Cartwright, Natalie Krasnuik, and Bruce Warren. I would also like to thank my parents, Andrew and Sherry Siciliano and my in- laws, Terry and Ros Carter, for their love and support. (Dad, try to remember that it is a Masters degree in Fisheries and Wildlife with an emphasis in Human Dimensions — I know it is difficult. ©) Many thanks go to my committee members, Dr. Rique Campa and Dr. Angela Mertig for their time, patience, and assistance throughout my endeavor. Special thanks must go to my major professor, Dr. R. Ben Peyton for his incredible insights and unending patience. In the end, you taught a girl how to write more than a letter home iv from camp. You always pushed me to be my best and I thank you for that. I will never forget our experience together. Finally, I must thank my husband, Doug Carter. You were there from the beginning to the dire end. You pressed me to finish and always let me know that you understood what I was going through. And, you truly did. Thank you for your love, your support, your incredible sense of humor and most importantly for always “getting me”. Well, I did it — finally ! TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................... x INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1 DNR’s role ...................................................................... 1 Grant Biologist’s role .......................................................... 2 Workshops ...................................................................... 2 Site-visits ........................................................................ 3 The goal of this research ...................................................... 3 Study objectives .............................. . ........................ 3 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................... 5 Overview ........................................................................ 5 Private lands program ......................................................... 6 Private lands programs across the Nation ......................... 7 Cooperative wildlife management units program ....... 7 Private lands public wildlife program ..................... 9 Acres for wildlife program .................................. 9 Section summary .......................................... . ........... 10 Importance of evaluation ...................................................... 10 The evaluation process ................................................ 11 Section summary ...................................................... 13 Training programs advantages and disadvantages ......................... 13 Examining two other private lands outreach programs ........... 14 Workshop model ............................................. l4 Site-visit model ............................................... 16 Learning styles .................................................................. 18 Additional attributes that affect training program effectiveness ......... 18 Goal setting ............................................................ 19 Economic, social, and personal incentives ......................... 19 Values ................................................................... 20 Chapter summary ............................................................... 20 METHODS .............................................................................. 21 Population selection and study area .......................................... 21 Evaluation of 1998 workshop and site-visit training ............. 22 Evaluation of 1999 workshop and site—visit training ............. 22 Evaluation of 1996 and 1997 training .............................. 22 Habitat evaluation participants ....................................... 22 Study Design .................................................................... 23 Mail surveys ..................................................................... 25 vi Survey development ................................................... Survey distribution .................................................... 1998 and 1999 workshop and site-visit surveys .......... Past participant surveys ...................................... Survey administration ................................................ Survey analysis ........................................................ Habitat evaluation index ...................................................... HEI development ...................................................... Scoring and analysis ................................................... Instrument usability and reliability ................................. Evaluation procedure ................................................. Research Questions ............................................................ RESULTS ................................................................................ Demographics .................................................................. Opinion of the DNR ........................................................... Opinion of the instructor and treatment .................................... Intentions to modify their property .......................................... Habitat modifications .......................................................... Site evaluations ................................................................. Management plans ............................................................. Reasons for assistance ......................................................... Perceived barriers ............................................................... Items discussed within the treatment ........................................ Knowledge improvement ...................................................... Additional training ............................................................. Additional topics within treatment ........................................... Additional handouts availability ............................................. Requested changes to the treatment .......................................... Marketing ........................................................................ Reasons for owning their property .......................................... DISCUSSION ........................................................................... Limitations ...................................................................... Program impacts on Michigan wildlife ...................................... Workshops versus site-visits .................................................. Differences found between workshops and site-visits ............ How well items are covered ................................. Knowledge improvement .................................... Requested changes to the program ................................. The impacts of certain attributes ............................................. Goal setting ............................................................ vii 26 26 26 26 27 28 29 29 29 3O 31 31 34 34 35 35 37 37 38 39 40 4O 41 45 46 46 47 49 49 50 50 51 53 54 54 54 55 55 55 Perceived barriers ........................ . ............................ Values .............................................................. Management plans .................................................... The evaluation process ........................................................ Demographics .................................................................. Recommendations .............................................................. LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................... APPENDICES ........................................................................... APPENDIX A .................................................................. APPENDD( B .................................................................. APPENDIX C .................................................................. APPENDIX D .................................................................. APPENDIX E .................................................................. APPENDIX F .................................................................. APPENDD( G .................................................................. APPENDIX H .................................................................. APPENDIX I .................................... . ............................. APPENDIX J .................................................................. APPENDIX K .................................................................. APPENDIX L .................................................................. APPENDIX M .................................................................. viii 56 56 57 57 57 58 6O 63 66 68 73 79 83 88 92 96 101 105 111 113 LIST OF TABLES Table3..l Responserates ofsurveyparticipants Table 4 1. Participants’ intentions. Table 4.2 Number of management plans received by“ site-visit pamcrpants ......... Table 4 3. How participants’ rated how thoroughly certain items in 1998 and 1999 workshops and site-visits. Table 4. 4. How participants’ rated certain items that may have been ééveréa” m 1998 and 1999 workshops and site-visits. Table 1. Demographic variables of workshop partrcrpants Table 2 Demographic variables of site-visit participants“ Table 3 Significant testing comparing workshop and site-visit participants demographic variables” .. Table 4 Opinion of DNR before and after treaunent (1998 and 1999)”. Table 5. Opinion of the treatment and instructor (1998 and 1999).. Table 6 Opinion of the treatment and instructor (1996/97).. Table 7. Recommended changes conducted by 1996/97 site-visit participants ......... Table 8. Non-recommended changes conducted by 1996/97 site-visit participants Table 9. Recommended changes conducted by 1996/97 workshop participants .. Table 10. Non-recommended changes conducted by 1996/97 workshop participants . Table 11. Recommended changes conducted by 1998 site-visit participants Table 12. Non-recommended changes conducted by 1998 site-visit participants ...... Table 13. Recommended changes conducted by 1998 workshop participants .......... Table 14. Non-recommended changes conducted by 1998 workshop participants Table 15. Site-evaluation of 18 participants who stated they had made changes .... Table 16. Irnpactongoal setting .. Table 17. Goals of workshop participants“ Table 18. Goals ofsite-visitparticipants.. Table 19. Reason for contacting Conservation District Table 20. Open-ended responses . Table 21. Barriers participants may perceive... . .. Table 22. Workshop participants’ answers to succession questions Table 23. Site-visit participants’ answers to succession questions .. Table 24. Received previous training” Table 25. Further training received” Table 26. Additional topics covered within the treatment. Table 27. Availability ofadditional handouts .. .... ...... Table 28. Ways to change the treatment- part 1. Table 29 Ways to change the treatment— part 2.. . Table 30 - 1. Values of workshop participants before and after treatment... Table 30- 2. Values of workshop participants before and after treatment ............. Table 31 — 1. Values of site-visit participants before and after treatment Table 31 - 2. Values of site-visit participants before and after treatment .. .. . . .... Table 32. How participantsleamedaboutoutreach programs Table 33. Reasons participants owntheirproperty ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Flow chart outlining the 1998 and 1999 study groups, data collections instruments, and time frame between surveys ........................... 24 Figure 3.2. Flow chart outlining the 1996/97 study group, data collection instruments, and time frame .............................................................. 25 Figure 4.1. Participants’ response about the instructor .............................. 36 Figure 4.2. Participants’ response about the treatment .............................. 36 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION “Wiltflife, habitat, and people are all ecologically interrelated and change in any one of these is point to cause a change in the others. ” — Dada (1986) With 96% of southern Lower Michigan’s land base privately owned, it is critical to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wildlife management goals that private landowners are educated in managing their land in the best interest of wildlife. To create opportunities for achieving these goals on private land, the DNR provided funds to county Conservation Districts (CD) to be used in teaching private landowners how to manage their property for wildlife. This research project was designed to evaluate those efforts by assessing changes in participant knowledge, attitudes and behaviors and by assessing whether training resulted in positive changes for wildlife on the southern Lower Michigan landscape. DNR’s Role In 1991, the DNR created a Private Lands Unit within the Wildlife Division to assist private landowners with managing their land for wildlife. Assistance included workshops, site-visits, educational materials, and telephone consultation. However, due to the large number of requests, the DNR staff could not adequately respond to landowner needs. Therefore, in 1996 the DNR Private Lands Program created a Wildlife Habitat Grant Program. This grant1 contributed fimds to CD Offices within southern ‘ This grant was replaced in October 1999 with a new program titled the Cooperative Resource Management Initiative, which partners the DNR Wildlife and Forestry Management Divisions, the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and all Michigan County Conservation Districts. Lower Michigan to hire a wildlife biologist that provided assistance to private landowners within certain Michigan counties. The grant was dispersed as a 50:50 match with each county allocated up to $5,000. Biologists that were hired with these funds were trained by the DNR Private Lands Unit in a variety of private land management techniques and issues. _G_r_ant Biologists Role The role of the grant biologist was to provide technical assistance and information to private landowners, which included workshops, site visits, telephone consultations and the creation of brochures and demonstration sites. This research project only focused on workshops and site-visits. Workshops Workshops were half-day sessions that occurred on Saturdays. Participants were asked to register prior to attending. The cost to attend varied fi'om free to $10.00. The format typically included three hours of presentation (9am to noon), using overheads or a slide projector. Workshop time was expanded if there was a need to remain and answer questions from the participants. Workshop topics included backyard wildlife management, wildlife habitat management, and procedures for planting trees and shrubs. Presenters primarily consisted of the CD wildlife biologist and forester and a wetland specialist fi'om the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, although several of the workshops were taught by only the CD biologist. Numerous educational handouts were available for participants. Site-visits Private landowners could request a wildlife biologist to evaluate their property, which is termed a “site-visit”. Prior to the visit, landowners were sent questionnaires to be answered and returned before the biologist arrived. The purpose of the questionnaire was to identify the landowner’s needs or ideas for the property. The site-visit consisted of the biologist and landowner assessing the condition of the property, usually by both individuals walking the entire property and identifying the different vegetation types that currently exist. The landowner was then provided suggestions on how they should modify their property to benefit wildlife. Land use evaluation results and suggestions were usually distributed in a written, formal “management plan”. The plan stated the landowner goals, the biologist’s recommendations, and a timeline for implementing the proposed modifications. The goal of this research The main goals of this research project were to compare the effectiveness of workshops and personal landowner site-visits as strategies for influencing private land management for wildlife; to evaluate the training currently in use; and to identify strengths and opportunities within each training program. Study Objectives To accomplish the above goals, my efforts focused on five objectives, which are listed below: 1. Complete a literature review in outreach training; synthesize a set of principles that can be used to analyze the existing training and make recommendations for improvement. Survey 1998 workshop attendees and personal site-visit landowners in order to compare impacts on knowledge, attitude, and application of management strategies. Survey past 1996 or 1997 workshop attendees and personal site-visit landowners to determine the program success in these areas. . Prepare an index model concerning wildlife habitat implementation that may be used to quantify wildlife benefits resulting fi'om improved management. . Use the above model to evaluate randomly selected 1996 or 1997 workshop attendees and personal site-visit properties. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview The following chapter is divided into five major sections. In the first section, I illustrate that private lands wildlife programs are vital to the fiiture of wildlife species. In addition, I outline the types of private lands programs that currently exist throughout the nation. The latter portion of this section is important in order to establish the differences between the Michigan private lands programs and other programs. In the next section, I elucidate why evaluation is such an imperative element within any training program. I also summarize the specific evaluation techniques, which helped to serve as an overall framework for this research project. The significance of training programs is examined in the third section of this chapter. I discuss two different types of training programs and scrutinize which of these programs is most effective. Since the training models utilized for this research were created prior to the project, I could not manipulate the model for this evaluation. However, the review provides a context for assessing the appropriateness of the training models selected by the Agency. In the fourth section, I discuss adult learning styles and contend that every training program must encompass these diverse styles. The final section discusses additional attributes that can influence the effectiveness of any training program. This information provides a basis for formulating what areas of the program need to be changed or be manipulated (if possible) in order to achieve the highest level of effectiveness. Private Lands Programs Throughout Michigan and the nation, wildlife habitat is quickly disappearing. Annually more than 2 million acres of wildlife habitat is lost throughout the United States (Hoover 1976, Deknatel 1979). In Michigan, farmland is disappearing at a rate of 850,000 acres per year (Sargent and Carter 1999). Therefore, with greater than 60% of the land in the United States privately owned wildlife is forced to depend on these lands for habitat (Langner 1987, Wigley and Melchoirs 1987, Gerard 1995, Messmer et a1. 1998). According to Arha (1996), “with the rising human population and development that occurs with this rise, wildlife and its habitat increasingly coexist in close proximity to human activities. Therefore, diminishing habitats accentuates the need to maintain good productive wildlife habitat on private lands To be successful, wildlife managers must balance landowner concerns, the public’s interest in wildlife production, ecosystem needs, and biological requirements of wildlife populations (Ramsey and Shult 1981,- Noonan and Zagata 1982, Wade 1987, Hewitt and Messmer 1997, Messmer et al. 1998). There is also the constant problem with state employee staffing. Wigley and Melchoirs (1987) estimated that one state wildlife employee per year is available to assist with every 3.6 million acres of private land. Given fewer staff and smaller budgets, wildlife agencies now have less time and firnds available to establish and maintain personal contacts (Messmer et a1. 1996). Some authors believe the profession of wildlife management is not rising to the challenge and opportunity for providing wildlife planning and management guidance to private landowners (Svoboda 1980); they simply do not have the time or resources available to do so. It is essential to state and national wildlife goals that private landowners be involved in an active wildlife program. Without their participation, the future of many wildlife species may be at risk (Svoboda 1980). Participation ranges from simply increasing their knowledge about wildlife to inspiring landowners to actively manage their property in the best interest of wildlife populations. Both are critical and necessary. Therefore, private lands programs throughout the nation must encompass a plethora of curricula that motivate, teach, and empower landowners to be the finest stewards of their land. Private Lands Programs across the Nation Throughout the United States there are a variety of private lands programs. However, most wildlife habitat programs on private lands are voluntary and small in scale (Deknatel 1979). In 1987, a survey by Wigley and Melchoirs determined that 43 State agencies offered programs to promote private lands management. Forty of these agencies offered technical services and 27 provided wildlife management materials. Outlined below are three private lands programs that were explained within the literature. Cooperative Wildlife Mgrggement Units Program Since 72% of Utah is publicly owned, many of the big game populations depend on private lands (Messmer et a1. 1998). Accordingly, the C00perative Wildlife Management Units (CWMU) program was created in 1994. The goals of the program are to: provide income for landowners create satisfying hunting opportunities increase wildlife habitat provide adequate trespass protection for landowners who open their lands for hunting, and 5. increase access to private lands for hunting big game 999393“ To participate in the program, private landowners meet with a biologist from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources who assists the landowner with an application. The application must incltrde the game to be managed, the number of hunting permits requested, and a management plan for the property. The plan must outline population objectives, habitat use, and habitat management activities. Each CWMU must contain at least 4,000 ha of continuous private land of which 75% must be open to hunting. Small parceled landowners may apply together to reach the required hectare amount. The Utah Wildlife board reviews applications annually. Approved CWMU’s are issued a certificate of registration, which also defines the management guidelines for that area. Landowners are compensated for their efforts by charging hunters to use their property - A survey of CWMU participants was distributed in 1996 to determine what habitat improvements had been implemented. Landowners reported that greater than 4,600 ha of rangeland habitat had been improved at a cost of $5 1,400 (Messmer et al. 1998) and that 10,330 ha of grazing systems were created and 151 water developments occurred. The authors concluded that this fee-access program was not only beneficial to the hunter and landowner but also the natural resources. It was also stated that this type of program should be utilized by other wildlife agencies. Pnfirte Lands Public Wildlife Program The Private Lands Public Wildlife Program (PLPW) was also established to enhance wildlife management on private lands. This program has been available in most western state agencies since approximately 1980, with the exception of New Mexico who started their program in the 19205. The number of acres enrolled in these programs range from 150,000 acres in Washington to 4.3 million acres in Montana. This program is remarkably similar to the CWMU program described above. The landowner must meet with a biologist and prepare an application and this program also allows hunting on the approved properties. According to Arha (1996), the PLPW programs “are a step in the right direction, but a small step.” At time of publication, only five percent of private lands were involved. There are numerous opposing views, which state that this type of program allows the local sportsmen to privatize state wildlife resources and encroach on other individual’s hunting opportunities. An evaluation of this program’s effectiveness on private lands management has not been undertaken. Acres for Wildlife Prom “The Acres for Wildlife Program” involved seven states in 1979: Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This program is on a smaller scale in regards to acreage and does not include cost-sharing practices. Participants enroll at least one acre for a minimum of one year, which must be managed according to the agreement. In exchange, local soil conservation technicians and state district wildlife managers may provide technical assistance and free plantings (Deknatel 1979). Again, no results were provided to indicate the success of the program. Section summary It has been well documented that private lands programs are vital for the firture of wildlife in the United States. However, most programs that currently exist have not been thoroughly evaluated, which questions their effectiveness and true impacts. Another notable impediment within private lands programs is the lack of explicit goals. As with the three described above, program goals that are defined are usually geared towards recreational opportunities and personal landowner satisfaction as opposed to ecosystem management and biodiversity, which are necessary to sustain wildlife populations. Importance of Evaluation Without an evaluation, it is nearly impossible to adequately assess the impact that the Michigan private lands program has on wildlife. Moreover, within various wildlife articles, the use of evaluation was cited as an overwhelming necessity within any “successful” private lands program (Svoboda 1980, Jacobson 1987, Pomerantz et al. 1992, Covell et al. 1997). As Jacobson (1987) stated, “The key to successfiil conservation lies in chronic effective evaluation.” Numerous authors provide rationale as to why they believe evaluations should be conducted. Vella et al. (1998) contend that evaluations are necessary in order to obtain information about the program; to determine how the program can be improved; and to increase confidence in the program. Birkenholz (1999) states that there are two primary purposes to be served in conducting a program evaluation - accountability and decision- making. 10 The Evaluation Process Throughout the literature, a variety of evaluation processes were identified. However, within these processes there was substantial variability between authors on what constituted an effective evaluation and the components that were necessary for completing this evaluation. For instance, Passineau (1975) believes that evaluation is a process of collecting, weighing, and using information that is pertinent when making decisions about the value of a program (Jacobson 1987). Birkenholz (1999) contends “program evaluation involves the process of collecting and interpreting information that can be used to judge the quality and effectiveness of the program in order to make informed decisions.” He feels that there are six steps within an effective evaluation: define objectives, develop criterion questions, identify acceptable evidence, analyze and interpret the information, formulate recommendations, and report to decision makers. Vella et al. (1998) asserts that in order to evaluate program effectiveness, two types of information are needed: learner change and program design. Learner change is determined by increased knowledge and understanding, improved skills and performance, or changed attitudes in line with the program’s objectives. Program design effectiveness is identified through the effective characteristics of instructional activities, resources, and personnel. The most expansive and notorious evaluation process discussed within the literature is the four levels of evaluation created by Kirkpatrick (197 5). The four levels of evaluation are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Level one (reaction) determines if the participant liked the training program and examines the participant’s ll reactions and feelings about the program. This level may be achieved through the use of evaluation forms, which should be tailored to include quantitative and qualitative information. Kirkpatrick also feels that to achieve this level, the form must be able to be completed within five or ten minutes. He also suggests that participant feedback should be obtained at most one or two weeks after the program. The second level is learning, which is meant to determine whether the training material has been understood and to what degree. This level seeks to understand participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. ' To achieve this level, Kirkpatrick suggests giving participants a quiz to assess their understanding of key concepts, which include before and after tests. The third level assesses behavior, which may be revealed by a participant demonstrating a task or skill, or having a participant’s immediate supervisor evaluate their behavior along specific parameters both before and alter the training program. The fourth and most complex level measures results, which focuses on how the program has benefited the organization. Results are often more associative than casual, but do provide a level of confidence when major decisions are needed such as revising, cutting back, or expanding training in an organization. Achieving levels three and four are the most difficult and can sometimes be achieved with before and alter measurements and control groups, seeking out additional information about the work environment and interviewing participants. To obtain these levels it is also important to protect the participant’s identity. 12 Section summary As stated throughout this chapter, evaluation is a necessary component currently missing within most private lands wildlife programs. However, when designing this project I did not set forth to determine if one particular evaluation process was more effective than another. It was my intent to examine various evaluation programs and utilize segments of these programs within our own evaluation process. Training Programs Advantages and Disadvantages Training and development, according to Davis and Davis (1998), “focuses on identifying, assuring, and helping develop, through planned learning, the key competencies that enable individuals to perform current or future jobs.” These results can be achieved through a variety of training programs. For the purpose of this research, only workshops and one-on-one training (site- visits) were evaluated. The lecture/workshop style teaching method is usually conducted in an oral presentation to the group; provides a large amount of information in a limited amount of time (Birkenholz 1999); and focuses on organizational change (Klatt 1999). One-on-one training provides knowledge and experience to the trainee from a recognized expert on the subject (Birkenholz 1999) and focuses on individual change and behavior (Klatt 1999). According to Klatt (1999), there are certain advantages and disadvantages to using either outreach program: Workshops are suitable for any size group. Presenting this type of program is a relatively easy skill to learn and is usually cost effective. However, this type of program 13 does not allow for participation by participants, individual contact with instructor, and it may be difficult for accurate notes to be taken. Site-visit learning is sharply focused and individualized with feedback and support immediate and specific. This type of process is active, engaging, and challenging. A couple disadvantages with this type of program are that site-visits are time consuming and require the right chemistry between participant and teacher (Klatt 1999). Examining two other private lands outreach programs To expand the scope of this project, I felt it was necessary to examine other workshop and site-visit programs across the nation. Two programs are explained in detail below. Although the programs have not been extensively evaluated, they provided a context for assessing the appropriateness of the training models utilized by the DNR and also provided direction when designing our research questions. Workglrop Model The Coverts Project was originally created in 1984 as a cooperative effort between The Ruffed Grouse Society and the Cooperative Extension Services of Vermont and Connecticut (Covell et al. 1997). The workshop is an ongoing private lands management tool that gives fiill decision-making responsibility to the landowner. There are five components of the project: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. The purpose of this project is to integrate wildlife and forestry goals through woodland management. This 3-day workshop is designed to train community leaders and forest owners to manage their land for wildlife. Participants must submit applications and are selected on 14 their primary interests, forest management experience, community involvement, communication skills, and access to the media. The individuals taught at these workshops are expected to teach others and earn the title of “Coverts Cooperator” once they have received the training. The workshop outlines the participants’ visions and the forest stewardship goals. There are both indoor and outdoor sessions where participants are taught about philosophies and wildlife and forest management practices. Participants receive binders that outline resource professional contacts and a variety of publications on resource management practices and outreach methodologies. Project sponsors pay participant expenses. After the workshop, instructors provide newsletters, announcements on more training opportunities, phone calls, and site visits to maintain cooperative energy and enthusiasm. These types of ongoing educational components are intended to prevent the program from being eventually disregarded (W amer 1983). There are 11 states that promote The Coverts Project. Some have had the program for as long as 14 years. Combining all state information, there have been 1,770 Covert Cooperators trained since the program inception. On average, 23 cooperators are trained each year with an average ownership of 1,348 acres. In addition, these 1,770 cooperators have reached more than 110,000 other individuals. 15 Site-Visit Model Svoboda (1980) presents a planning process that he states can be used in order to successfully manage private lands. The planning process involves nine steps: establishing a management goal, completing an inventory, analyzing the inventory data, establishing measurable objectives, preparing management recommendations, analyzing economic implications, producing a management plan, implementing the plan, and monitoring the results. Svoboda states that the process above evolved as a result of working with four landowners over two years. The landownershad property sizes ranging from 16 to 340 ha. At the point of publishing, the landowners were in the process of implementing the recommendations. Additional research has not been found concerning these individuals or this process. Both the landowner and the wildlife planner create the management goal for the property, which may take many years to achieve. The next step is to complete an inventory. Again, this involves both the landowner and the planner. The two individuals walk the private property inventorying as many details as possible or as necessary depending on the management goals. The inventory may also include examining aerial photographs, past land use practices, and a soils map. Additional information such as surrounding land uses, market value of forest products, agricultural production, and land ownership patterns should be collected. Data analysis is identified as the next component of this planning process. During this phase, the planner must look for possible limitations and economic returns to the 16 property. It should be noted that there may be local and state statutes and regulations that may apply to the area. Once the analysis is completed, the planner and landowner will again meet to discuss objectives for the property. It may be necessary to revisit the management goals before outlining these objectives. Objectives are short-term and have measurable results; once these are outlined, management recommendations can be prescribed. The management recommendations provide step-by-step guidelines for the landowner to reach the stated objectives. The level of detail depends on the interest and knowledge of the landowner. Implementation cost estimates should be included within the economic impacts analysis. In addition, economic returns should be provided. At this time, the planner may suggest governmentcost-sharing programs, which may defray some of the costs. A written management plan is provided to the landowner that outlines the long- range goals, objectives, and recommendations. This document should be professionally prepared by the planner and reviewed with the landowner. Changes should be made over time if necessary. Implementation is the most critical phase in this planning process. Without implementation of the plan, wildlife benefits will not occur and many hours and dollars will be wasted. Lastly, there should be constant monitoring of the results. Photographs and written documentation are important to this phase. The wildlife planner should monitor more subtle changes, such as vegetation occurrences. 17 Learning principles When examining a training program, it is important to understand how certain training styles affect an individual’s ability to learn. Although, as I have mentioned in the past, the training models in this project were already in place before the evaluation began, we can still use the information below to provide recommendations on how the two outreach programs may be changed given the data we collected and the observations that were made. Birkenholz (1999) contends that there are eight principles within adult learning. However, he also contends that these are not hard and fast laws but guiding principles, which should be examined when planning training sessions. Learning is change, which is explained through a change in behavior. Adults must want to learn. Adults learn by doing. Learning should focus on realistic problems. Experience affects adults learning Adults learn best in informal environments. Use variety in teaching adults. Adults want guidance, not grades. “999993.“? Rose (1987) states that there are three adult learning styles: visual, auditory and kinesthetic, which should be incorporated within each training program. In firture, learning styles should be considered when designing and presenting training. Additional attributes that affect training program effectiveness Throughout the literature, there were additional underlying attributes that I felt were important to investigate and include within this research project. These attributes are described below. 18 Goal Setting According to the literature, another critical component within a private lands program is identifying and setting goals (Covell et al. 1997). Within private lands management, these goals can range from landowner to overall program goals. Jacobson (1987) describes goal setting as providing an opportunity to determine whether the program meets identified needs or objectives. Evaluating a program is severely restricted when goals for that program have not been identified. Economic, Social and Personal Incentives There has been disagreement concerning the impact incentives have on private lands programs. Some authors believe that landowners are less motivated to manage their land if economic incentives are not provided (Noonan and Zagata 1982, McDivitt 1987, Morrill 1987, Messmer et al. 1998). McConnell (1981) states that successful programs are acceptable to landowners due to a variety of incentives: economic, personal or social. Therefore, it may be important to know the economic, social and personal status of a landowner and organize recommendations and management plans around these factors (Svoboda, 1981). Warner (1983) states that if the landowner does not feel appreciated for their efforts, then they will most likely put forth less conservation effort (Pease, 1992). Social incentives include community recognition, peer-group acceptance, and leadership roles (Svoboda 1981). 19 Another incentive may be empowerment. Leopold (1949) felt that “by providing training, resources and encouragement, resource managers can empower landowners who have expressed appreciation of land stewardship.” Values According to Svoboda (1981), a person must needs to value and have a concern for wildlife before they can manage for them. This concern will lead them to seek knowledge about wildlife species and ask what can be done to ensure their survival. Therefore, it is important to determine if individuals do “value” wildlife. “Values are inescapable elements of any rational decision-making process” (Davidoff and Reiner 1973, Manfiedo et al. 1998). Chapter summary This chapter provided an overview of the research findings related to private lands wildlife management. Overall, it is clear that various state agencies have private lands programs in place, but few have documented the success of their programs. Most notable is the lack of actual physical assessment; there is no evidence that landowners actually make changes to their property to benefit wildlife as a function of private lands programs. In addition, this chapter outlined various evaluation processes, the advantages and disadvantages of two training programs, and the importance of understanding learning styles. 20 CHAPTER THREE METHODS Two evaluation techniques were utilized in this research project: mail surveys and a field assessment. Surveys assessed knowledge levels, attitudes, behaviors, perceptions, and demographics. In 1998 and _1999, 524 workshop and site-visit participants were surveyed. Field evaluations of a selected group of landowners that had received training were conducted using a Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) that was created solely for this project. The HEI was adapted from two techniques presently in use by state agencies, which is discussed in more length later in this chapter. This evaluation tool was used to document whether manipulations to the landscape had occurred on private lands and evaluate whether those changes were beneficial to wildlife. In August 1999, thirty site evaluations were conducted on private lands across southern Lower Michigan. Although the RBI was found to be reliable when used by a panel of trained experts, it is the Opinion of the authors that further adjustments and testing of the instrument should be conducted before recommended for use in the field by wildlife professionals. Population Selection and Study Area Twenty—six southern Lower Michigan counties were selected to evaluate the private lands training program because they had participated in the Wildlife Habitat Grant Program since its inception. 21 Evaluation of 1998 Workshop and Site-visit Training Six CD workshops were surveyed in 1998 (Newaygo, Jackson A, Jackson B, Montcalm, Genessee, and St. Clair). Each individual who attended one of these workshops was asked to participate in the survey process. Prior to the examination of their property, landowners that received training through a site-visit received a survey from the CD biologist within the study area. Evaluation of 1999 Workshop and Site-visit Training Due to the low number of site-visit surveys received in 1998, both groups (workshops and site-visit) were surveyed again in spring 1999. Evaluation of 1996 and 1997 Training A letter was mailed to the 26 CD’s requesting the names and addresses of 1996 ~ and 1997 workshop and site-visit participants. Once names and addresses were compiled, a pilot survey (Appendix D) was mailed to 20 randomly selected individuals fi’om this group. This pilot was used to determine the effectiveness of the open-ended questions. The other 120 individuals were mailed a revised version of the survey. Habitat Evaluation Participants Participants from 1996 and 1997 (N=120) were asked if they would agree to a habitat evaluation of their property to determine whether modifications were being made to their property to benefit wildlife. Ninety-four landowners were agreeable and called to 22 make an appointment. Final selection of participants for field evaluation was stratified to reflect combinations of specific site features. For both workshop and site-visit training landowners, it was intended that the samples represent sites with and without reported habitat changes, a range of acreage being managed, and a distribution throughout the study counties. Sites for field evaluation were selected to fit these criteria rather than via a random selection (Appendix B). Study Design To assess the impacts of the two treatments over time (workshop training and site- visit training), a study design (Figure 3.1) was created that included a pre-, immediate- post, and post survey. A pre-survey was administered before assistance or impact occurred. An immediate post survey evaluated the influence of the training on participant knowledge and attitudes as soon as it was concluded. A post survey was sent approximately one year after participants received training. The 1996 and 1997 participants did not receive the first two surveys but were sent a post survey two or three years afier their training (Figure 3.2). The Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) approved all methodology (Appendix A). 23 1998 1999 Workshop Workshop Participants 1' _ . .1 Participants 3 0R 5' '3 OR I i 1998 Individual site- i ; 1999 Individual site- visit planning session j ' " " visit planning session V . Pre-survey l T 4— ~ 10 minutes V Session Occurred l l * ~2 weeks Immediate Post Survey 1 ‘7 ~1 year Post Survey Figure 3.1: F low chart outlining the 1998 and 1999 study groups, data collection instruments, and time frame between surveys. 24 1996/97 Workshop Individual site-visit Participants OR planning session i Session Occurred l .‘__l 2to3years Post Survey i ‘__, 2 to 3 months On-site review of implementation Figure 3.2: Flow chart outlining the 1996/7 past participant study group, data collection instruments, and time fiame. Mail Surveys Due to the fiscal and time constraints of the project, mail surveys were utilized for data collection. Advantages to using mail surveys are that the cost is low compared to some other methods (i.e., telephone surveys); that a participant’s confidentiality can be maintained; and that participants have time to ponder their answer. However, some shortcomings of mail surveys are that the questions may not be understandable to everyone; that the surveys may be hard to follow; and that it is difficult to know if the correct person filled out the survey (F rankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and Nachmias, 1996). 25 Survey Development The questions posed within each of the surveys were written to answer research questions, which are listed at the end of this chapter. These research questions are also outlined in Appendix C with a detailed account of the survey item(s) that were written to answer those questions. A variety of item formats were utilized, i.e., Likert-type scales, semantic differentials, and closed and opened questions. Surveys are available for review in Appendices D-K. Survey Distribution 1998333} 1999 Workshop and Site-visit Surveys In the spring of 1998, pre-surveys were distributed prior to an individual’s participation in either of the outreach programs. In addition, participants were asked whether they would be willing to partake in two additional mail surveys. For those who agreed, an immediate post survey was mailed approximately two weeks after the training occurred. Afier receiving an individual’s second survey, a final post survey was sent one year later. Individuals that participated in a 1999workshop or site-visit were also asked to complete only a pre- and an immediate post survey. They were not surveyed again because the evaluation project terminated in 1999. Past Participant Surveys A pilot survey was mailed in early spring of 1999 to a random sample of past ‘ participants within the study area that had previously received assistance in either the 26 form of a workshop or a site-visit in 1996 or 1997. The survey was then revised and mailed to the remaining past participants. Survey Administration The immediate post survey, post survey, and surveys of 1996 and 97 participants were mailed to both workshop and site-visit participants. Mailing procedures for the survey were adapted fi'om the Total Design Method (Dillman 1978). The immediate post survey was mailed to the landowner approximately two weeks after they received assistance. The post survey was mailed one year alter the immediate post was initially mailed. Both survey packets included a cover letter, a questionnaire, and a stamped return envelope. A second and third mailing were conducted if a completed survey was not returned. The second mailing to non-respondents was a repeat of the first with slightly different cover letters and the third mailing was sent to those who had still not responded by certified mail. The second mailing was sent out approximately three weeks after the first and the third mailing was sent out approximately three weeks after the second. Table 3.1 lists the response rate for 1996/7, 1998, and 1999 workshop and site- visit participants. Due to the high response rate achieved in each of these groups, a non- response follow-up was not conducted. Survey Analysis Data were entered and analyzed within the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 9.0 (SPSS, 1998). The analysis was conducted using cross- tabs, and Pearson Chi-square tests for percent differences across segments and within the 27 entire sample. T-tests were used to test equality of means of variables with two values. In addition, summary statistics and scale scores were calculated. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine scale reliability. Cronbach scores of at least 0.70 were considered acceptably reliable. Throughout the entire survey missing values were considered “system missing values.” Regressions were conducted to determine if a certain variable influenced one or more variables. Table 3.1. Response rates of survey participants. Total number Total number Response Rate of participants of useable (%) surveys received Workshop surveys 1998 _ Pre- 1591 126 Immediate-post 1262 103 81.75 Post 1033 77 74.76 1999 Pre- 83‘ 49 Post 492 39 79.59 1996/7 Past Participants 32‘ 22 68.75 Site-visit surveys 1998 Pre- 28‘ 26 Immediate-post 262 23 88.46 Post 233 18 78.26 1999 Pre- 741 63 Immediate-Post 632 56 88.89 Past Participants 148‘ 120 81.08 ‘Individuals who attended the workshop or site-visit and turned in a survey. 2Individuals who attended the workshop or site-visit and stated they would participate in further surveys. 3 Individuals who returned the immediate-post survey. 4Individuals who received only a mailed post survey. 28 Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) One aspect of the research project was to determine if landowners were manipulating their property to benefit wildlife. Another was to determine if the manipulation was positively benefiting wildlife and if so, to what degree. Therefore, an evaluation tool was needed that could assess both of these components. HEI Development The HEI is an adaptation of two current evaluation procedures: the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) (1977) and the Michigan Conservation District Wildlife Habitat Inventory Worksheet (WHIW) (1991). The HEP calculates an area’s suitability for a featured wildlife species. WHIW, however, focuses on wildlife diversity. For this project, wildlife diversity was used to indicate whether a property was being managed so as to provide benefits for wildlife. Although the WHIW is also based on wildlife diversity, it only slightly touches upon the vegetation types that can support numerous species. The HEI, which was created for this project, consists of four wildlife cover types: grasslands, woodlands, croplands, and wetlands. Within each type specific variables were identified as necessary components to achieve a high level of wildlife diversity (Appendix L). Scoring and Analysis To quantify wildlife benefits, point values were assigned to each variable on the HEI (Appendix L). Within each cover area (grasslands, woodlands, croplands and wetlands), a choice of items was available under each variable (Appendix L). For example, one woodland variable was stem density. The evaluator identified whether the 29 stand was predominantly sawtimber, poles, or saplings and assigned a different point value for each. Certain variables were given higher point values than others due to their importance to wildlife. Once the variables within a cover type were scored, all separate scores (per variable) within that cover type were added together and the total value was multiplied by the number of acres within that cover type. Next, all the cover type values were added together. Both the past cover condition and the present cover condition were scored. To determine the percent change to benefit wildlife on that prOperty, the present cover type calculation was divided by the past cover type calculation. Instrument Usability and Reliability On two occasions a field test was conducted with a panel of experts to determine HEI usability. After each instance, the HEI was altered to eliminate identified problems such as ambiguous items or form confusion. To test the reliability of the index, three MDNR employees, who were familiar with wildlife habitat management plans, were asked to use the instrument as it was intended. A field evaluation was conducted to determine if evaluators would obtain similar scores when examining the same parcel. Due to its proximity to the evaluator’s daily work site and expansive diverse cover types, Rose Lake Research Center was chosen as the evaluation site. When a discrepancy occurred between evaluators, scores and interpretations were discussed and consensus was reached. Four new cover types were then evaluated to confirm instrument reliability, at which time evaluators had similar scores on over 80% of the items. 30 Evaluation Procedure Upon arrival to the site, the landowner was asked to map their property separating the different cover types and estimating the acreage within these types. Subsequently, the evaluator and landowner toured the property. If management manipulations had occurred, the landowner was asked to describe the previous state of the area for scoring purposes. In addition to the habitat evaluation, landowners were asked to identify what they did or did not like about the assistance they had received fi'om the conservation district. Also they were asked to suggest changes to the training. Analysis of the evaluation form (as described previously) was conducted after the investigator left the property. A thank you letter was sent to all participants once site-visits were completed; additional information was also sent to certain participants if requested. Research Questions Q: What is the demographic make-up of participants in the program? Is there a relationship between a participant ’s demographics and program efi'ectiveness; e. g., their decision to modifiz their property for wildlife .7 Do workshop and site-visit participants have diflerent demographics? Q: Does a participant ’5 opinion about the Michigan Department of Natural Resources change after attending a workshop or receiving a site-visit? Do workshop and site-visit participants have different opinions about the DNR? Q: Are participants satisfied with the instructor and the workshop or site-visit? Is there a relationship between a participant’s satisfaction with the training and their decision to modify their property for wildlife? Are there diflerent satisfaction levels between workshop and site-visit participants? Q: Does a participant ’s intentions to modijy their property to benefit wildlife shift titer they have attended a workshop or received a site-visit? Do workshop and site—visit participants have a diflerence in their intentions? Q: Mat percent of survey participants altered their property for the purpose of benefiting wildlife ? What modifications did they make to their property? Were the modifications recommended from the Conservation District? 31 Q: Do participants actually modtjy their property to assist wildlife? If alterations do occur, is the changed area more beneficial to wildlife? Q: Do site-visit participants receive management plans? Are participants who receive management plans more likely to modify their property? Q: Does training influence a participant ’s decision to set goals? How well does the treatment improve a participant ’s goals? What are the goals of treatment participants? Are participants who set goals more likely to modifi» their property? Q: Why do participants contact the Conservation District? Q: Are there any perceived obstacles that could keep participants fiom modifying their property for wildlife? Does a participant ’s perceived barriers of cost, time, effort, the need for additional information, and low benefits influence their decision to modify their property? Do workshop and site-visit participants have diflerent responses concerning perceived barriers? Q: Is there a diflerence between workshop and site-visit participants ’ opinion of the information that is discussed during the treatment? Is there a relationship between the items that are discussed within the workshop or the site-visit and a participant’s decision to modify their property for wildlife. Q: Does training improve a participant ’s lmowledge about “succession ”? Is there a diflerence between workshop and site-visit participants’ increase in Imowledge after the treatment? Q: Do participants receive additional training before and after the workshop or site- visit? Q: Were there additional topics the participants would have liked to be discussed during the workshop or site-visit? Q: Were handouts available at the treatment? If so, were participants satisfied with the handouts? Q: Would participants like the treatment to change in any way? If so, what changes would they like? Q: Does a participant ’s values change after attending a workshop or receiving a site- visit? What are participant’s values toward wildlife and wildlife management? Is there a relationship between a participant ’s values toward wildlife and wildlife management and their decision to modify their property? Do workshop and site-visit participants have diflerent values? Q: How do participants learn about the treatment? 32 Q: What is the primary and secondary reason for participants to own their property? Is there a relationship between the reason why landowners own their property and their decision to modifiz their property to benefit wildlife? 33 RESULTS The research questions that were created for this project are stated below as are the findings related to those questions. Demographics Q: What is the demographic make-up of participants in the program? Is there a relationship between a participant ’s demographics and program effectiveness; e. g., their decision to modify their property for wildlife ? D0 workshop and site-visit participants have ditferent demographics? Participants tend to live in rural-farm areas and were approximately 50 years of age. The majority of participants had some college education. The average annual household income is between $35,000 and $75,000. Most participants did not receive an income from farming (Appendix M, Tables 1'- 2). There was no significant relationship between a participant’s demographic make— up and their decision to modify their property. There were demographics differences between workshop and site-visit participants on two variables: land size and gender (Appendix M, Table 3). Workshop participants usually managed approximately 38 acres for wildlife whereas site-visit participants managed 72 (F=11.023, p=0.001). Workshop participants had more of a mix of men and women; site-visits consisted of mostly men (x2: 3.81, p=0.05). 34 Opinion of the DNR Q: Does a participant ’s opinion about the DNR change (y‘ter attending a workshOp or receiving a site-visit? Do workshop and site-visit participants have drflerent opinions about the DNR? Participants’ opinion of the DNR did not change after they attended or received the treatment. In addition, there was no significant difference between the workshop and site-visit participants’ opinion of the DNR (Appendix M, Table 4). Results indicate that participants had alfavorable opinion of the DNR (Appendix M, Table 4). On a scale of one to seven with one being more favorable, workshop participants rated the DNR a i=2.71 and site-visit participants rated the DNR a i=2.93. Opinion of Instructor and Treatment Q: Are participant’s satisfied with the instructor and the treatment? Is there a relationship between a participant’s satisfaction with the training and their decision to modtjy their property for wildlife ? Are there difierent satisfaction levels between workshop and site-visit participants? Participants were satisfied with the treatment and the instructors (Appendix M, Tables 5 and 6). On a scale from one to seven with one being high, workshop participants rated the instructor a i=1.97 and the treatment a ft= 2.29. Site visit participants rated the instructor a i=2.12 and the treatment a i=2.34. There was no significant difference in the satisfaction levels of the two treatment groups. There was also no relationship discovered between a participant’s satisfaction with the treatment or instructor and their decision to modify their property (Appendix M, Tables 5 and 6). Figures 4.1 and 4.2 portray the participants’ response to each adjective independently. 35 Figure 4.1. Participants’ response on each item about the instructor. Scale ranged from 1 to 7 with the most positive response marked as a 1 and most negative response marked as a 7. All items were averaged together to produce one mean, which is discussed on the previous page. 2.6 [:1 professional - unprofessional m organized - unorganized - effective - ineffective - clear - confusing Mean score per item satisfactory . unsatisfactory Site-visit Workshop Figure 4.2. Participants” response on each item about the treatment. Scale ranged from 1 to 7 with the most positive response marked as a l and most negative response marked as a 7. Note: Too long — too short was dropped when the items were averaged together to produce one mean, which is discussed on the previous Page‘ 5.0 4.5 - 4.0 " 3.5 - Dwelong-tooshon m organized - unorganized - convenient - inconvenient - exciting - boring Mean score per item I Satisfactory - unsatisfactory sitevisit workshop 36 Intentions to modify their property Q: Does a participant ’s intentions to modify their property to benefit wildlife shtfi after they have attended a workshop or received a site-visit? Do workshop and site-visit participants have a difference in their intentions? As outlined in Table 4.1, both workshop and site-visit participants had a significant shift in intentions. After the treatment, participants had lower intentions to modify their property than before. There was no difference between the two treatment groups. Table 4.1. Participant’s Intentions Q: How likely is it that you will increase your management eflort on your land for wildlife in the next two years? * Workshops Site-visits Mean Before Mean After Mean Before Mean After 1.71 (N= 136) 2.08 (N=136) 1.76 (N= 78) 2.12 (N=78) Test Statistic ** Test Statistic ** T=-3.38 df= 135 p=0.001 T=-2.50 df=77 p=0.015 Test Statistic *** F = 0.024 p = 0.876 ‘Respondents had to choose a number on a scale fi'om 1 to 9 to indicate their intentions with 1 being very likely and 9 being very unlikely. “ Statistical significance alpha_ < 0.05. I""Arrova conducted to determine if there 1s a significant difference between workshops and site-visit. Habitat Modifications Q: What percent of survey participants altered their property for the purpose of benefiting wildlife ? What modifications did they make to their property? Were the modifications recommended from the CD or RC &D? Of the 126 site—visit participants surveyed, 76% stated that they had made changes to their property to benefit wildlife after receiving assistance. Seventy percent of those participants stated that they had made recommended changes. In addition, 70% of workshop participants (N= 94) stated that they had made changes to their property to benefit wildlife afier receiving assistance. Eighty-two percent of those individuals reported that those were recommended changes. 37 Overall the most substantial change landowners made to their property was the planting of trees. Site-visit (1996/7) participants combined planted 7,060 conifers, 251 deciduous trees, and 2,710 shrubs (N=88) as recommended. Participants with site-visits in 1998 (N=16) planted 120 conifers, 250 deciduous trees, and 550 shrubs, which were also recommended. Workshop participants in 1996/97 (N=13) planted 500 conifers and 100 autumn olive. And, 1998 workshop participants (N=75) planted approximately 6,987 conifers, 170 oaks, and 1,560 shrubs also recommended. Other changes included planting grasslands and food plots, restoring wetlands, and creating and erecting nest structures. This information is outlined in Appendix M, Tables 7-14. Site Evaluations Q: Do participants actually modify their property to assist wildlife? If alterations to the properly do occur, is the changed area more beneficial to wildlife ? Thirty field evaluations were conducted to determine if private landowners were actually making changes to their property. Eighteen of the thirty were on properties where participants declared that they had made change to benefit wildlife whereas twelve were on sites where change had supposedly not occurred. Of the 18 apparently changed properties, sixteen had actually made a modification (Appendix M, Table 15). Out of a possible 989 acres that landowners stated were available, 180 acres were altered to benefit wildlife. Those altered acres had an increased benefit to wildlife that ranged from four to 400% (Appendix M, Table 15). We did find that when additional assistance, such as attending a second workshop, there was a higher increased benefit to wildlife. In fact, the individuals who participated 38 in both workshops and site-visits had the largest increased benefit. Participants who received additional assistance from other conservation organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited, also had the considerable increases on their property to benefit wildlife (Appendix M, Table 15). These findings may be due to the strong interest in such participants as well as rather than the increased understanding gleaned from the extra training. Management Plans Q: Do site-visit participants receive management plans? Are participants who receive management plans more likely to modifiz their property? As outlined in Table 4.2, almost all site-visit participants received a management plan. Although our sample size was inadequate to statistically answer part two of the question above, trends indicate that participants who had received a management plan were more likely to modify their property. Table 4.2. Number of management plans received b sitevisit participgpts Question: Did the Conservation District and/or Resource Conservation & Development write a management Ian for your property? Resmnse Frequency % Yes 103 90% No 12 10% Total 1 15 Goal Setting Q: Does training influence a participant ’s decision to set goals? How well does the treatment improve a participant ’5 goals? What we the goals of treatment participants? Are participant’s who set goals more likely to modify their property? Results indicate that more than two-thirds of participants had set goals for their property (Appendix M, Table 16). However, more participants set goals after the 39 treatment than before. The number of workshOp participants who set goals increased by 11% after they attended the workshop. Site-visit participants increased by 8%. The most prevalent goal stated by participants was to “attract wildlife” to their property. Other goals included planting trees and food plots, creating a wetland, and improving viewing opportunities (Appendix M, Tables 17 and 18) Statistical analysis indicates that those workshop participants who set goals were more likely to modify their property (X2 = 3.970, p = 0.046). Reasons for Assistance Q: Why do participants contact the Conservation District? Most often participants contacted the CD to learn about attracting wildlife to their property (Appendix M, Table 19). Other reasons included wetland restorations, forest and grassland management, and information about financial assistance and soil erosion. Perceived Barriers Q: Are there any perceived obstacles that could keep participants from modifying their property for wildlife? Does a participant ’s perceived barriers of cost, time, eflort, the need for additional information, and low benefits influence their decision to modifl their property? Do workshOp and site-visit participants have diflerent responses concerning perceived barriers? Money and time were most commonly reported by both workshop and site-visits participants as barriers that they felt may prevent them fi'om making modifications to their property (Appendix M, Table 20). Other. barriers included effort, weather, equipment, and the need for additional assistance. There was no statistical relationship discovered between a participant’s perceived barriers and their decision to modify their property. In addition, there was no difference 40 in workshop and site-visit participants’ responses concerning perceived barriers (Appendix M, Table 21). Items discussed within the Treatment Q: Is there a diflerence between workshop and site-visit participants ’ opinion of the information that is discussed during the treatment? Is there a relationship between the items that are discussed within the workshop or the site-visit and a participant ’s decision to modify their property for wildlife. Workshop and site-visit participants were asked how thoroughly specific items were covered within the program they attended. A significant difference was found between the two groups on four of six items: goal setting, successional stages, limiting factors, and carrying capacity (Table 4.3). Workshop and site-visit participants were also asked to rate how effectively certain items were covered within the program they attended. A significant difference was found between the two groups on three of five items: resource inventory, government program availability, and the availability of informational and technical support (Table 4.4). 41 $588.... 8.9.5.. Egon... .05.. 35. .... 9:... .9. on ...... mod w... a 5.? 9:8. 82.. .802 32.2.6.8 0... Be... 39.8.. 83 2:25. .5523. a mic—.... .3 355.80.. 8.5 5:...» 6.9.5.. mi. 5.3 3082:. 8... 9380.332. xom. .36 .v. 3...... 5.3 9...... 3... ...... 328.83 :8339 358...... 23555 n .... 2. mm. .38. . ins. n .. mm..." :82 >m .8. .8. . n 2:25 68: 88.. on. m 38:8... .02 .8... 8n. ... ... 2...»... 5.85.8... 5.85.9 $88969 wed u ... o.~ u 5.0.2 m? .83 ...... ... 8 88>... .2365... .82 8am .. a. 8.38 35:22:. E. an. .80... ......ooo. u a and u :82 >m .8. .8. m n 23.5 A.... a .8... w. n e333... .cZ o\oc~ o8... n. n. .223.» coéosoac... 95.99% M:.....=....~ and. u ... 3.. n :82 m3 .82 .83 E 8 8.38 33.58 .8. a .8. n a. ... 8.98 ransacofi an an. ...—o... .25. M Q ON u Ewe—2 >m ...... . 2:35 .8... m 8888:. .62 week... ...... ...esco <29: .8... .88 .. a 2...»... 5.888.. .35... ..a.=e=c&.:eo .852. . u . u :8 .8... .88 an .... 8.28 .2888 . we ... ... mm . S. m? .82 .83 ..u n. 8.28 35:22: .565»... 3.2.... REESBEK . . as on. .80... . ......coo. n a OWN n Gnu—2 >m a8... a 9.3.5 .8... .8~ ... a 828.... .62 88.86.... .82 .8. a. . c. 2...»... 5.88.8... ...... news... .....oEeoozm vw. .... n ... an. n 5.0.). m? .82. .82 an a. 8.38 Essa—com .82 .83 .N e.. 8.38 28:22: 3. mm. ...—c... .25. u A. mg. u :32 >m .8. ....N . N 23:: .8“ .8" v N 88:8... .62 3&8. .33.... ...»..th .82 .86 N. m 3...»... ..98833 .65...ch .zo.=oMc=e... . n . n =3 .8... .86.. an .e 8.38 .2358 . woo a ... we . 3. m3 .8: .83 a 8 8.38 8.3.5.3.. gatesxe 3.28.3.4 wk. mm. ....o... ......ooo. n n. o. .~ .1. =33. >m .8. . .235 ....e...ewc§.= o\ a page... 82 ohm” a8n m e .22.»... :o-..o...w:o... gfiti ..o\um m3 >m m3 30,—. 39.3.35 a\e .3525...— oneeaaol 2:2. «€9.96.» epic. M:.a.c=e.\e<. 9.9: - v.8. . 3...... 8.0% .68 3.5.3.2... e... .3 Eugen... 2.8... manage «one 2..... 833.98... 29. .eo..c...........c 33.39.... .58 22:. ”O 99 8.2.3.5 8. as». 828......» as. 8. ...... ... 8.2. 52.8 Emacs... 32. 8:: ceasedfl .6: .3 as: 42 .3... w 9...... .....s «...... o... :5. agate... 50.5.2. 85.0%.. .Eocuaa n .. 2. mm. .80... mm... H a 2.. u :32 >m .38.... ... ...... .8. .8. m . 3...... ..2 $3.... 3b.... e 3...... .8: .82 2 a 3:8,... 2...... ...... ...... 8.28.88... ...... So. u ... w: u :82 m3 .8...“ 8.. ... ... 3.8.... 32.5.: .82. .83. .... 8 3.8.... ...5 ms an. .30... Ono. H Q o. .N H :82 >m 383...: .0: 05°... .8: .8: c w 9380...... .02 ......n .82 w. on 03.3.... 8.238 «5.3.3. ..c\.§=c\ .56... mMczu... ova n .... 3.. u :33. m3 .8? .89. ..m .... 3...»... .23....qu c. an»... 3.8.2....«8. a... ...: .8... .8... ... S 2.5.... to.» e.. 2. ...ob 1.600. M Q NVN H :32 >m wagon... .o: 030... QEEFE. x°\§=u\ .368. .8.u .8.” o. c 03.8.... .oz wwuza... ... .853... 39.5.3. .8." .82 .... 8. 03.8.... ......35 ...... .....o...:.....e.\=..\c .3938. Snow .1. .... mm... H :33. m3 .8? .83 um .... 3:8,... 29.2032 ESPN: 5:33.96 2: .82 .88 N. ..n 3...»... ...... . on an. ....o... ......moo M Q hm N H :82 >m .8. . 333...... .o: 030... ~33}... .82 .8. ... ... 94.8,... .oz ..o\~.§. ......8 mM:..:... c. .88 .8.” .88 on on 03...... 3:35 8 m 8... n h. m. NH :32 m3 .8? .83. 2 .... 3:8»... 30.30.62 ......ad ..u..u..:...Ne. 2...... 9... .8: .... 2 m .35.... a... ......cx. 8:53.... 2.. c8 .2 .....F ......Nco. u a me... u :82 >m Bags... .2. 0...... .8: .8. 2 .. ......t. ..z .28. .888 ..o .88 .8: 8 an 3...»... 3.5.6 8938...... 8... 8.2.6.... o. .6: :68 n h. o.~ u :82 m3 .8... .88 a. 8 3:3... 8.23%.: .8... .88" .. 2 2...... .....5 >m _ m3 >m _ m3 3 3. ... a 3:2...» 2:9 . h. . .. .. .m .\e .3553...— m .— N. ... 3831.33... u... 1 m8. V «qua... w.....6=:\2... c ......» Q8296: 3.4.8....2... ...... «...... 2% a... 388......NNm .82 “O 9m. 2.3., .85 :5. 63. 2.2.9.3? 3m. ..5. m3. :. 3.5.69 :02. 2:... >5: ...... 2:8. 53.3 3:... 8.5332... 3....— .v... 93:... 43 There was a statistical relationship found between the thoroughness and/or effectiveness of items covered within the treatment and a landowner’s decision to modify their property depending on the items being covered. A workshop participant who indicated that carrying capacity was thoroughly or somewhat covered was more likely to make recommended changes on their property (X2 = 5.135, p = 0.023). Trends also indicate that the if the following topics are thought to be thoroughly or somewhat covered by workshop participants, the landowner may make changes to their property: habitat components and successional stages. In addition, a relationship was found between a workshop participant’s indication that “inventorying the resource” was very or moderately effectively covered and their decision to make recommended changes (X2=4.93 7, p=0.026). The same occurred for coverage of “government programs” (X2=16.94, p=0.000). A relationship was also found between a site-visit participant’s decision to make recommended changes when they felt “the appropriate trees and shrubs” was very or moderately effectively covered (X2=6.84, p=0.009). It is important to note that this research did not determine if these relationships were independent of the instructors. Knowledge Improvement Q: Does training improve a participant’s knowledge about “succession ”.7 Is there a diflerence between workshop and site-visit participants ’ increase in knowledge after the treatment? When asked to indicate what the succession diagram demonstrated within the survey, 63% of workshop participants answered the item correctly before the treatment and 92% answering it correctly afier (Appendix M, Table 22). In contrast, 69% of site- 44 visit participants answered the item correctly before and 78% after (Appendix M, Table 23). Participant knowledge levels were also assessed before and after the treatments. On question one, 52% of workshop participants answered correctly before and 71% after (Appendix M, Table 22) whereas 67% of site-visit participants answered correctly before and 65% after (Appendix M, Table 23). Seventy-percent of workshop participants answered question two correctly on the pre-survey whereas 94% answered correctly after the treatment. The site-visit participants answered the item correctly 76% of the time before and 82% of the time afier treatment. Lastly, 61% of workshop participants before the treatment and 79% afier correctly answered question three. In addition, 76% of site-visit participants before the treatment and 82% after answered the question correctly. Although a statistical test could not be conducted, trends seem to indicate that workshop participant’s knowledge tends to be increasing more than site-visit participants. Additional Training Q: Do participants receive additional training before and after the workshop or site- visit? Is there a relationship between the further training participants receive and their decision to modify their property? When asked if they had previously received training, 28% of workshop participants and 20% of site-visit participants stated that they had (Appendix M, Table 24). The type of training ranged from other workshops to seminars to wildlife-related literature. 45 Since receiving assistance, 39% of workshop and 25% of site-visit participants had received further training (Appendix M, Table 25). Site visits, seminars, and additional workshops are some of the additional training that was received. There was no relationship between a participant receiving further assistance and their decision to modify their property. Additional Topics within Treatment Q: Were there additional topics the partiapants would have liked to be discussed during the workshop or site-visit? Appendix M, Table 26 outlines that 39% of workshop and 11% of site-visit participants would like additional topics discussed within the treatments. Workshop participants are interested in topics such as planting techniques and wildlife diversity. Site-visit participants are interested in topics such as timelines and crops for deer. Additional Handouts Availability Q: Were handouts available at the treatment? If so, were participants satisfied with the handouts? Miss Handouts were available at workshops (97%) and site-visits (49%). A large percentage of both workshop (91%) and site-visit participants (81%) were very or moderately satisfied with the handouts received. In fact, only 2% of workshop participants were unsatisfied (Appendix M, Table 27). 46 Requested Changes to the Treatment Q: Would part1c1pants like the treatment to change in any way? If so what changes would they like 7 Almost half of workshop (46%) and site-visit (40%) participants wanted to change the treatment. Workshop changes included the following: would like it to be more specific, not so many speakers, provide time to assess individual properties, and include follow-up. Site-visit participants suggested that they would have liked more time and information from the biologist and were also interested in follow-up (Appendix M, Tables 28 and 29). Values Q: Does a participant’s values change after attending a workshop or receiving a site- visit? What are participants values toward wildlife and wildlife management? Is there a relationship between a participant’ s values toward wildlife and wildlife management and their decision to mod 3 their property? Do workshop and site-visit participants have different values? There was no statistical change in measured participant values after attending the workshop (Appendix M, Tables 30-1 and 30-2). However, there was a significant change in two values with site-visit participants (Appendix M, Tables 31-1 and 31-2). When asked how important it was to site-visit participants that their property “produce wildlife viewing opportunities”, the treatment had a significant impact on this change (t=-2.40, p=0.019) with a mean of i=1 .24 before and i=1.42 afier. Before the treatment, site-visit participants reported they would prefer to use native to exotics with a mean of i=1 .86 compared to a mean of i=1 .67 after. There was a significant difference in this change (t=2.41, p=0.018). 47 There was also a significant difference between workshop and site-visit participants on two value types: the importance of having wildlife available to hunt and preferring to create habitat for a diversity of wildlife rather than for one or a few. Concerning if it is important “that wildlife are available to hunt” on their property, workshop participants had a mean of 2:273 and site-visit participants had a mean of i=2.10 (F=12.66, p=0.0001). When asked if they prefer “ to create habitat for a diversity of wildlife rather than for one or a primary few”, workshop participants had a mean of 2:269 compared to one-third of site-visit participants who had a mean of i=3.84 (F=71.72, p=0.0001). When asked how important it was to the participant that “the land managed for wildlife produce income”, a very small percent stated very to moderately. Almost all felt it was very to moderately important to produce wildlife viewing opportunities” on their property. Similarly, they felt that it was important “to create /maintain a pleasing natural landscape” on their property. Lastly, almost all participants stated that is was important “that wildlife exist even if you never see them” very high. Participants were also asked their land management preferences. A high percent of participants agreed they would use native plants over exotic plants. In addition, participants agreed they would prefer to “create natural habitat for food for wildlife rather than plant agricultural crops”. 48 Marketing Q: How do participants learn about the treatment? Participants most often learned about workshops through fliers (3 8%) and newspapers (25%). The majority of site-visit participants learned about the program through a CD employee (31%) or from a flier or newspaper (each 21%) (Appendix M, Table 32). Reasons for owning their property Q: What is the primary and secondary reason for participants to own their property? Is there a relationship between the reason why landowners own their property and their decision to modifiz their property to benefit wildlife ? As outlined in Appendix M, Table 33, workshop (66%) and site-visit (71%) respondents overwhelming stated that income was not a reason for owning their property. When asked if residence was the reason for owning their property, a majority of both site- visit (71%) and workshop participants (76%) istated this was the primary reason. Recreation was also a primary reason for a majority of both workshop (56%) and site- visit (55%) respondents. There is no relationship between a participant’s reason for owning their property and their decision to modify their property. 49 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION This chapter begins with a look at the limitations of this study. I next discuss the impacts that these two outreach programs had on Michigan wildlife. Then, the effectiveness and differences of the workshops and the site-visits are outlined. A section that discusses the impacts of certain attributes on these programs follows. I revisit the importance of evaluation and then consider the demographic implications. Lastly, the recommendations for this project are outlined. Limitations Within each outreach program, there was no consistency of the instructors or treatment formats. Some instructors provided quite different presentations, both in style and excitement - which was observed. Workshops were not conducted completely alike and site-visits had no guidelines to follow. However, due to the small population sizes that were available for this study, it was necessary to combine evaluations of all workshops and similarly, all site-visits. I cannot make inferences in regards to the relative value of the instructional methods and overall program designs based on the variability among both. It would be useful to conduct additional research that examines difference between workshops attributable to differences among instructors. Due to the timefrarne of this study, the habitat evaluation index (HEI) had a limited field trial. The HEI should be considered a pilot program at this time. The distribution of the pre-survey to site-visit participants was to occur by the CD—however, they did not always distribute them to landowners. Therefore, the site-visit study group was smaller than expected and caused me to examine only trends in some instances not significant findings. The lack of stated goals by both the DNR and CD prevented the researchers from designing an evaluation to determine whether specifically intended outcomes of the program were being met. The study was necessarily restricted in length, which did not allow for the influence of time on landowner responses. Over time, landowners might have conducted additional modifications to their lands. Of course, interest and therefore maintenance might have waned as well. 50 0 The measures of attitude, values and knowledge were limited by format of the survey questionnaires and necessarily limited the inferences which can be drawn. Program impacts on Michigan wildlife In an attempt to assist wildlife populations on Michigan private lands, the DNR Wildlife Division provided funds to the CD for the sole purpose of educating private landowners about wildlife management. It was of paramount importance for the DNR to determine if the two outreach programs were impacting wildlife and ascertain if their funding was being effectively utilized. According to the results, almost all survey participants stated that they made changes to their property to assist wildlife. However, since the changes relating to habitat modification and listed in the Tables 7-14 within Appendix M were self-reported survey results, I have no definitive proof that all these changes actually. occurred as reported or if wildlife communities responded positively. It was not unexpected that tree planting would be the most common change landowners made to their property. The CD’S heavily promote tree planting during their annual tree sale, which provides major fimding to the districts. In addition, tree planting was an area that many survey respondents indicated they could do on their own without additional assistance. Nevertheless, the field evaluations I conducted revealed that most tree plantings were unsuccessful due to poor planting techniques and maintenance. If tree planting is the major goal of the outreach. programs, then some progress towards that goal is being made. But, additional training should occur in order to further teach tree 51 survival techniques. Ifother landscape manipulations, in addition to tree planting, are also important, the CD may wish to increase their emphases into other areas. As mentioned in the results, other habitat modifications conducted by landowners included planting grasses and food plots, restoring wetlands, and creating and erecting nest structures. Again, field evaluation determined that in most cases the grasses and foodplots were planted incorrectly and therefore unsuccessful. For instance, one landowner I visited had received switchgrass seed from the CD. However, uneducated about the necessary site preparation and planting techniques, the landowner simply walked a five acre thick reed canary area and “threw” seed around. She asked me to tell her if I could see any switchgrass growing. Obviously, none was found. Additional hands-on assistance is critical within a situation like this. This is not to say that all landowner modifications were unsuccessful. One landowner made a 400% increase to his property to benefit wildlife, which included a wetland creation and successful grass and food plot plantings. However, this landowner had a detailed management plan and also worked with outside organizations (Duck Unlimited and Pheasants Forever) to assist with the firnding of this large project and implementation. Results also indicate that modifications occur to landowner properties when certain items are thoroughly or effectively covered within the programs. Understanding key wildlife habitat principles, such as carrying capacity, wildlife habitat components, successional stages, the importance of inventorying the resource, and planting the appropriate trees and shrubs, influenced landowners to make changes to their property. 52 This information provides a great training basis for organizing a workshop or site-visit v and also indicates that landowners need basic wildlife management tools to be successful. Workshops versus Site-visits There are certain advantages and disadvantages to both workshops and site-visits, which were outlined in Chapter two. When examining these two outreach programs, participants were very satisfied with both the instructors and the workshop treatment they experienced. This is noteworthy since each treatment is independent of the others across the state. The diversity among instructors appears not to have influenced participant satisfaction on the outcomes I measured. However, future research may be useful to compare the effectiveness of instructors on this and other outcomes to determine whether instructor training is necessary. Participant intentions changed after participating in either of the outreach programs. The results from this study suggest that some aspect of the treatment lowered some participants' intentions to modify their property. It is feasible that participants might be overwhelmed afier they complete the treatment. Or, participants may be more realistic about the effort that may be undertaken to modify their property as they wish. In addition, it could be an artifact of the strong intentions held by most participants at the beginning of the training, i.e., the restricted variance did not leave room for intention scores to be improved. The slight decrease does not appear to be of substantial importance. 53 Differences found between workshops and site-visits How well items are covered The results demonstrate that workshops seem to provide a more effective arena than site visits for teaching landowners about wildlife management. There was a significant difference between these two groups on 8 of 11 items that should have been covered within each program, such as the importance of setting goals for wildlife management, understanding limiting factors, and how to inventory the resources on your land. The difference in each of these cases was that workshops covered these items more effectively than site-visits. Therefore, if the DNR feels that these are important items that should be included within the programs, they may wish to have all participants involved in a workshop before receiving a site-visit. This would ensure that all the necessary wildlife habitat principles were taught before receiving personal attention. Also, it would be difficult to make sure that all site-visit participants were being taught this information during their one-on-one contact. Knowledge Improvement One purpose of these two outreach programs was to increase the knowledge of private landowners about wildlife management. As stated in the results, these two programs did just that? However, it was not unexpected that the workshOp, a classroom type setting, should increase knowledge levels more than a more informal site-visit. Opportunities might be sought for site-visit instructors to spend more time discussing important concepts in order to have a larger increase in their participants’ knowledge levels. 54 Requested Changes to the Programs Even though participants are satisfied with the programs, they provided suggestions to improve the programs. Results imply that workshop participants would enjoy longer, more specific sessions that also provide an opportunity for the instructor and the participant individual time. In addition, both programs would like follow-up to be included. F ollow-up may allow an opportunity for the instructor to check on the participant’s progress while also checking the effectiveness of the program. This is currently a major lacking component within these programs and most programs nationwide. The Impacts of Certain Attributes Goal Setting Goal setting was identified by the DNR as a critical part of both outreach programs. The results suggest that both workshops and site-visits positively influenced a participant’s decision to set goals for their property. In fact, goal setting may have a direct impact on private lands management since the individuals who set goals were more likely to make changes to their property. Landowner goals varied widely from vague goals such as “attract wildlife” to “create wetlands”. More attention may be needed regarding the structure and dynamics of goal setting both in the curriculum and in instructor training to improve the influence of this skill. In addition, the DNR may have an opportunity to influence landowner goals. Therefore, it is critical that the DNR outline their own goals for the program on both a landscape and county level, which presently they have not done. 55 Perceived Barriers Since money and time were most commonly reported by both workshop and site- visits participants as barriers that they felt may prevent them fiom making modifications to their property, additional research should be conducted that specifically examines these items. The literature outlined that some authors believe landowners will not be motivated to improve their property without monetary compensation. This project was not designed to determine that event but it is importantto consider in future evaluations. Values A participant’s values are difficult to change. However, site-visit participants did alter the importance placed on two benefits: producing wildlife viewing opportunities and using native plant species rather than exotics. Site-visit instructors may have had numerous opportunities to discuss this problem with the participant, i.e, identifying and pointing out exotics on the property. In addition, the instructor may have stated specific modifications that the landowner might employ to create wildlife viewing opportunities. Another important result was that workshop participants were less likely to manage their land to hunt and/or create habitat for a featured species. This may suggest that workshop participants are not in the program to increase recreation opportunities on their property. This is an interesting side-note since most of the private lands programs across the nation focused on increasing recreation opportunities on private lands. 56 Management Plans According to the results, wildlife management plans may have a positive effect on private land management. Management plans usually provide landowners with a step-by- step too] that will guide them in managing their property for wildlife. This tool provides recommendations aimed at reaching landowner goals and a timetable that suggests when modifications should occur throughout the year. Svoboda (1980) discussed in his nine step process that management plans were critical part of his planning process. The Evaluation Process Throughout the literature, evaluation was discussed as one of the most critical portions of any training program. The DNR is commended for their insight to conduct an evaluation of these two outreach programs. It is important to reiterate that effective evaluation must be ongoing and a structured component within every training program. The evaluation process that was utilized provided substantial feedback for the DNR. However, an extended evaluation over many years would provide a more substantial basis for determining the impacts of the program on wildlife. It is critical that the DNR outline program goals before a new evaluation is conducted. Demographics Past private lands research tended to focus on farmer related programs. It is important to recognize that most individuals partaking in these programs were not farmers. This could have been due to promotional strategies being ineffective in reaching farmers or that farmers were simply not interested in the experience. The program may 57 benefit from increasing participation to farmers, since farmers historically have large parcels of land that may benefit wildlife as well as the skills and the resources to conduct the necessary changes (i.e., planting crops) to their property. More men than women were involved in the site-visits, perhaps because more men recreate on their property or manipulate their property. It is possible that only male members of the family answered the survey but their female counterpart was still actively involved. Additional research should be conducted to filter gender roles in private land wildlife management. Recommendations Based on the evaluation results and the literature search, the following are recommendations for the DNR and CD: 0 The DNR should refine and articulate the agency goals for wildlife habitat management on private lands. This would provide guidance for MDNR training programs and development of educational materials and provide more direction to the CD when they are organizing workshops or making suggestions/recommendations to landowners during site-visits. The goals would also provide a solid basis for future evaluations, which was not available for the current study. 0 The DNR should create a train the trainer program, which teaches CD biologists the curriculum that the DNR staff is most interested in private landowners learning. 0 All landowners should set goals for their property. CD should continue to place attention on the structure (i.e., nature of goals, wording of goals, levels of goals) and process of goal setting when creating the curriculum for both workshops and site— visits. 0 Additional care should be given to raise the success rates of tree plantings on private lands. Tree planting demonstrations might be in order as part of the training. 0 Landowners that received management plans were more likely to alter their property to benefit wildlife. Although it cannot be determined whether this is due to the existence of the plan and/or the landowner’s involvement in the process of producing it, it seems prudent to ensure that all site-visit participants receive a management plan. 58 Additional research should be conducted to determine whether financial assistance would be effective in increasing the likelihood that landowners would alter their property to benefit wildlife. We recommend that participants first be involved in a workshop before receiving a site-visit. Results indicate that workshop participants had a larger increase in knowledge than site-visit participants. Workshops are a good forum for discussing concepts and general goal options. Site-visits can be used to address specific application of techniques and selection of goals and strategies for the area in question. Landowner participants seem motivated to learn about wildlife. Additional workshops or a series of workshops should be created that teach more detailed information about wildlife habitat management. In addition, the workshop may wish to address both backyard management and management for recreation opportunities. Participants seemed to appreciate the availability of handouts. However, it is recommended that the CD continually assess the usefulness of these materials both as teaching tools and in the context of program goals. Participants commented that a follow-up via phone or personal site-visit would help them move to the next step of implementing their management plans. This would also allow the CD instructor to check the progress of both the participants and the program. Farmers were not well represented among the participants. CD should expand the types of marketing tools they employ to ensure they are serving all segments of landowners about the technical assistance they provide, i.e., newspapers and radio. If new educational programs are developed, they should integrate the use of existing knowledge about adult education and educational research and principles. Curricula frameworks that specify goals and means of attainment would enhance consistency and perhaps broaden the benefits of training. Constant evaluation of the DNR private lands program and two outreach programs should occur. A process should be created that outlines short and long-term evaluation goals. The Habitat Evaluation Index that was used for field evaluations within this study should be re-evaluated and corrected accordingly before being used by field staff. During workshops and at site-visits, the DNR should be acknowledged for their roles in the private lands program, including fimding, materials and professional assistance they provide to the CD in order to nurture positive relationships between Michigan landowners and the Michigan resource agency. 59 LIST OF REFERENCES Arha, K. 1996. Sustaining wildlife values on private lands: A survey of state programs for wildlife management on private alnds in California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Trans. 61St North American Vlfrldlife and Natural Resource Conference. 267-273. Birkenholz, RJ. 1999. Effective Adult Learning. Interstate Publisher, Inc. Danville, IL. l9lpp. Covell, D.F., R.L. Ruff and SR. Craven. 1997. Private lands management: Adapting a premier woodland cooperator program to restore and manage wetlands. Trans. 62“d North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Davidoff, P. and TA. Reiner. 1973. A choice theory of planning. In A reader in planning theory. A. Faludi, ed. Pergammon Press. Oxford. 11-39. Davis, IR. and AB. Davis. 1998. Effective training strategies: A comprehensive guide to Maximizing learning in organizations. Berret-Kohler Pub. Inc, San Francisco, CA. 521pp. Deknatal, C. 1979. Wildlife habitat development on private lands: A planning approach to rural land use. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 260-263. Dillman, DA. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The total design method. John Wiley and Sons. New York. NY. 325 pp. Duda, MD. 1986. Wildlife Management: The human element. Florida Wildlife. 1—4. Flood, B., M. Sangster, R. Sparrowe, and T. Baskett. 1978. A Handbook for Habitat Evaluation Procedures, Resource Publication 132. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC. 77pp. Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in social sciences. St. Martin’s Press. New York, NY. Gerard, PW. 1995. Agricultural Practices, farm policy, and the conservation of biological diversity. Biological Science Report Number 4. US. Deparment of the Interior National Biological Service. Washington DC. Hewitt, D.G., and TA. Messmer. 1997. Responsiveness of agencies and organizations to wildlife damage: policy process implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:418-423. Hoover, KL. 1976. Incorporating fish and wildlife values in land use planning. Trans. 41St North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 279-289. 60 Jacobson, SK. 1987. Conservation education Programmes: Evaluate and improve them. Environmental Conservation. 14(3): 201-216. Kirkpatrick, D.L. 1975. Evaluating training programs. American Society for Training and Development, Washington, DC. Klatt, B. 1999. The ultimate training workshop handbook: A comprehensive guide to leading successful workshops and training programs. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 606pp. Langner, IL. 1987. Hunter participation in fee access hunting. Trans. of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. 52:475-481. Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford Press. London, New York, NY. 226pp. Manfredo, M.J., J .J . Vaske, and L. Sikorowski. 1996. Human dimensions of wildlife management. In Natural resource management: The human dimension. A.W. Ewert, ed. Westerview Press. Boulder, CO. 53-72. McConnell, C. 1981. Common threads in successfirl program in benefiting wildlife on private lands. Wildlife Management on Private Lands - symposium May 3-6. Milwaukee, WI. 279-287. McDivitt, J .H. 1987. Price and value alternatives for wildlife. In Valuing Wildlife: economic and social perspectives. D]. Decker and GR. Goff, ed. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. 101-108. Messmer, T.A., C.A. Lively, D.D. MacDonald and SA. Schroeder. 1996. Motivating landowners to implement wildlife conservation practices using calendars. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(4):757-763. Messmer, T.A., C.E. Dixon, W. Shields, S. C. Barras, and SA. Schroeder. 1998. Cooperative Wildlife Management Units: Achieving hunter, landowner, and wildlife management agency objectives. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(2):325-332 Michigan Conservation District Wildlife Habitat Inventory. 1991. Adapted from Missouri Department of Conservation, USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Guide. 102pp. Morrill, WI. 1987. Fee Access views of a private wildlife management consultant. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 52:530-543. Noonan, PF. and MD. Zagata. 1982. Wildlife in the marketplace: Using the profit Motive to maintain wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 10:46-49. 61 Sargent and Carter. 1999. Managing Michigan’s Wildlife: A landowner’s guide. Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 173pp. Svoboda, F .J . 1980. Professionalism and wildlife management on private lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 8(2): 96-97. Svoboda, F]. 1981. A look at incentives for wildlife management on private lands. In Wildlife management on private lands - symposium May 3-6. Milwaukee, WI. 384-394. SPSS for Windows, Version 9.0. 1998. Chicago, Illinois. Passineau, J .P. 1975. Walking the ‘tight rope’ of environmental education evaluation. In What make evaluation education environmental. N. McInnes and D. Albrech, eds. Environmental Educators, Inc. and Data Courier, Inc., Louisville, KY. 371-414 Pease, J .L. 1992. Attitudes and behaviors of Iowa farmers toward wildlife. Ph.D. Dissertation. Iowa State University. Ames, IA. 53 pp. Pomerantz, GA, and K.A. Blanchard. 1992. Successful communication and education strategies for wildlife conservation. Trans. of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 156-163. Ramsey, C .W. and M]. Shult. 1981. Educational approaches to wildlife management on private lands. In wildlife management on private lands. R.T. Sumke, G.V. Burger and J .R. Marsh, ed. Wisconsin Dept. of Nat. Res. Madison, WI. Vella, J ., P. Berardinelli, and J. Burrow. 1998. How do they know they know? Evaluating adult learning. Jossey-Bass Pub., San Francisco. CA. 156pp. Wade, DA. 1987. Econonrics of wildlife production and damage control on private lands. In Valuing Wildlife: Economic and social perspectives. D]. Decker and GR. Goff, ed. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. 154-163. Warner, RE. 1983. An adoption model for roadside habitat management by Illinois farmers. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 11:238-249. Wigley, TB, and MA. Melchoirs. 1987. State wildlife management programs for Private land. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:580-584. 62 APPENDIX A UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER 63 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee on Bunnflflmmkhg Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Michigan State University 246 Administration Building East Lansing. Michigan Manama 517/355-2180 FAX: 517/432-1171 ”18 Michigan Stale may I064 15 Wiruhoml 0mm bmwn2MNMM AfiWcmdemammr equal-opportunity instmnon MICHIGAN STATE R UNIVE SITY May 21, 1998 TO: R. B. Peyton 13 Natural Resources Bldg. RE: IRB#: 97-807 TITLE: EVALUATING THE WORKSHOP AND INDIVIDUAL SITE VISIT TRAINING STRATEGIES OF THE PRIVATE LANDS PROGRAM REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: 1-C APPROVAL DATE: 05/20/98 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to adVise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain'infcrmed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this progect and any reViSions listed above. RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a progect is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a maXimum of four such expedite renewals pOSSible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again or complete reView. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human ‘subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at an other time during the year, send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair, requesting reVised approval and referenCing the progect's IRB # and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. Pnosmms/ , CHANGES: Should_either of the followin arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems (unexpected Side effects, comp aints, etc.) involving uman subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than eXisted when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us at (517)355—2180 or FAX (51714 2-1171. 0 Si Da id 3. Wright, Ph.D. UCRIHS Chair DEW:bed cc: [élly Carter OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Michigan State Uni 246 Administration Build: East Lansing, MichiganN 48824-1046 517/355-2180 FAX: 517/353-2976 the Michigan State Universrty 105.: :s institutional Diveisny Excellence m Action MSU is an attirmalive-action. SCL'aI-ODDOIIUfltty institution STATE 5 l T Y MICHIGAN u N I v E R May 27, 1999 TO: Dr. Ben PEYTON 13 Natural Resources Bldg. MSU RE: IRB #97807 CATEGORYI‘I-C RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: TITLE: EVALUATING THE WORKSHOP AND INDIVIDUAL SITE VISIT-TRAINING STRATEGIES OF THE PRIVATE LANDS PROGRAM The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT'S RENEWAL. RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email: UCRIHS@piIot. msu. edu. avid E. Wright, Ph. CRIHS Chair DEW: cc: Kelly Carter All UCRIHS forms are located on the web: http://wwwmsu.edulunivargs/UCRIHS/ 65 APPENDIX B SITE EVALUATION MAP 66 26mm” 0 Eu 0 Stag Sue 2.8.? o cog—OE. o2 u o 5556 v u e fie." o cone—=23— : u 0 Eu E 8.? o comma—SIS S .v .om .2 u. 2: ._ 62 n O booms S ease" e 3.8" o oommemEm mobs on" O «.32 Si 0 8.2:" 0 838—82 «mute \e E $530 AA ne‘esaam $54 3.5qu :05 2 mowfifio BEE Ho: Ev as? magmmofam n . 5.5ng :05 8 8985 038 as? mwfimmomgm n O Asgeefie 35:0 25389 no 3235 can mess: BEEE “m5 8::on n Maw 33296 83¢. firm? I. SEE 0* 0m 2 m=mn an}; moD 20 220 mono he - i i 3mE OEEOo man. not i i BEER @0320 m_m_ cum - 303:0 omvn O 30" O 67 APPENDIX C RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SURVEY ITEMS 68 Research Questions Q: What is the demographic make-up of participants in the program? Is there a relationship between a participant ’s demographics and program efi'ectiveness; e. g., their decision to modify their property for wildlife? Do workshop and site-visit participants have different demographics? In order to examine if demographics were associated with the participant’s behavior, numerous questions ranging from gender to education to income were created (Appendix D, Items 21-28; also in Appendices G and J). These questions were asked on the 1998 and 1999 pre-survey and the past participant survey. Q: Does a participant’s opinion about the Michigan Department of Natural Resources change afier attending a workshop or receiving a site-visit? Do workshop and site-visit participants have different opinions about the DNR? To measure a participant’s attitude about the DNR, a six item semantic differential scale was produced; this type of scale was created by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (195 7). In this procedure, respondents rate the object (MDNR) on a number of seven point bi- polar scales that are anchored on each end by a pair of adjectives (O’Keefe 1990) (Appendix D, item 8; this set of questions repeated in every survey). The option of “no opinion” was available. In order to determine if a participant’s attitude toward the DNR changed over time, the semantic differential scale was repeated in each survey. Each item within the scale was examined independent of one another and then summed together and averaged in order to create a total score for each participant, which could be compared over time. Q: Are participants satisfied with the instructor and the treatment? Is there a relationship between a participant ’s satisfaction with the training and their decision to modzjji their property for wildlife? Are there different satisfaction levels between workshop and site-visit participants? Participant satisfaction was assessed using semantic differentials. The instructor scale contained five bi-polar adjectives: professional-unprofessional, unorganized-organized, effective-ineffective, confusing-clear, unsatisfactory-satisfactory (Appendix E, item 15; also in Appendices H and J). The treatment scale also contained five bi-polar adjectives: too long-too short, organized-unorganized, inconvenient-convenient, exciting-boring, and satisfactory-unsatisfactory (Appendix E, item 16; also in Appendix H and J). four adjectives for each item were summed together and averaged in order to create one score per participant. Note: too long-too short was dropped because the scale direction did not allow it to be added with the other adjectives. 69 Q: Does a participant ’s intentions to modify their property to benefit wildlife shifi afier they have attended a workshop or received a site-visit? Do workshop and site-visit participants have a diflerence in their intentions? One nine-point item measured a participant’s likelihood of increasing management efforts on their property (Appendix D, item 4; this set of questions repeated in every survey). This question was included in the pre-, immediate-post, and post to determine if management intentions were altered over time. Q: What percent of survey participants altered their property for the purpose of benefiting wildlife? What modifications did they make to their property? Were the modifications recommended fiom the Conservation? Open-ended questions asked the participant to state the changes they had implemented on their property (Appendix C; items 7-8; also in Appendices F and H). Participants reported whether the changes they made on their property were due to the recommendations from the workshop. Q: Do participants actually modify their property to assist wildlife? If alterations do occur, is the changed area more beneficial to wildlife? A habitat evaluation index was created to answer this question (Appendix K). Q: Do site-visit participants receive management plans? Are participants who receive management plans more likely to modify their property? Site-visit participants were asked “yes or no” did they receive a management plan (Appendix J, item 3). Q: Does training influence a participant ’s decision to set goals? How well does the treatment improve a participant ’s goals? What are the goals of treatment participants? Are participants who set goals more likely to modifil their property? Goal setting was also identified as a critical wildlife habitat management component by the MDNR. Participants were asked on the immediate-post survey to indicate if they had set goals prior to the outreach program and if so, describe those goals. In addition, participants were asked if the outreach program helped them to create new goals or alter the ones they had previously set (Appendix E, items 17-19; also in Appendices H and J). Q: Why do participants contact the Conservation District or RC &D? Asked as an open-ended question, participants were given space to describe what their reason was for contacting the Conservation District or Resource Conservation and Development (Appendix F, item 1; also in Appendices I and J). Q: Are there any perceived obstacles that could keep participants fiom modijfving their property for wildlife? Does a participant ’s perceived barriers of cost, time, eflort, the need for additional information, and low benefits influence their decision to modify their 70 property? Do workshop and site-visit participants have diflerent responses concerning perceived barriers? Participants were presented with two questions that would evaluate perceived barriers. In the immediate-post survey an open-ended question was formed in order to elicit a variety of responses (Appendix E, item 30; also in Appendix H). Time and money were the most common perceived constraints. In the post survey a closed-ended Likert-style question identified which additional barriers (Appendix F, items 17-19; also in Appendices I and I) were perceived by respondents. Q: Is there a dijj‘erence between workshop and site-visit participants ’ opinion of the information that is discussed during the treatment? Is there a relationship between the items that are discussed within the workshop or the site-visit and a participant ’s decision to modify their property for wildlife. A Likert-type scale was created that asked participants if certain items were ‘thoroughly covered’ or were certain items ‘taught effectively’ (Appendix E, items 1-6 and items 8- 12; also in Appendices H and J. These items were deemed important components of wildlife management by the DNR. However, not every workshop or site visit discussed every item with landowners. Therefore, it was significant to identify if certain items impacted the program more than the others. Q: Does training improve a participant ’s knowledge about “succession "? Is there a difference between workshop and site-visit participants ’ increase in knowledge after the treatment? ‘ The DNR identified “succession” as an essential component of the wildlife habitat management training being provided. A diagram demonstrating “succession” was presented and participants were asked to select the term which best described the process (Appendix D, item 17; also in Appendices E, G and H). In addition, three Likert items checked participant’s comprehension of the term (Appendix D, items 18-20, and also in Appendices E, G and H). The diagram and scale were within both the pre and immediate-post survey as an indication of whether the outreach program had taught participants about “succession”. Q: Do participants receive additional training before and after the workshop or site-visit wildlife training? Appendix D, item 7 (Also in Appendix G) asks if participants had ever received any previous wildlife training. If so, a space below was available to indicate the training they received. Participants were also asked if they received any additional training afier the workshop or site visit. If they had, they were asked to describe the training (Appendix F, item 3; also in Appendix I). 71 Q: Were there additional topics the participants would have liked to be discussed during the workshOp or site-visit? An Open-ended question asked landowners if they would have liked other information to be presented during their outreach program (Appendix E, item 7; also in Appendices H and J). Q: Were handouts available at the treatment? If so, were participants satisfied with the handouts? Participants were asked to indicate if handout were available. If so, five options were available to indicate how satisfied they were the handouts (Appendix E, item13; also in Appendix H. Q: Would participants like the treatment to change in any way? If so, what changes would they like? As seen in Appendix E, item 20 (Alsoin Appendices H and J), participants were asked if they would the treatment to be changed, and were provided a space to describe those changes. Q: Does a participant ’5 values change afier attending a workshop or receiving a site- visit? What are participants values toward wildlife and wildlife management? Is there a relationship between a participant ’s values toward wildlife and wildlife management and their decision to modifi/ their property? Do workshOp and site-visit participants have diflerent values? Values were assessed using two Likert-type scales. Likert scales draw inferences about a respondent’s values from their agreement or disagreement with value-relevant statements. Participants were asked five questions pertaining to ‘how important’ certain wildlife uses were to them (Appendix D, items 9-16; this set of questions repeated in every survey) and three questions regarding what wildlife uses they would ‘prefer’. These questions were asked in the pre-, immediate-post, and post surveys in order to determine how stable a participant’s values are over time. Q: How do participants learn about the treatment? Participants were asked to indicate from a list of options how they learned about the treatment (Appendix D, item 2; also in Appendix G). Q: What is the primary and secondary reason for participants to own their property? Is there a relationship between the reason why landowners own their property and their decision to modify their property to benefit wildlife? Three reasons were given to landowners as to why they might own their land: recreation, residence, or income (Appendix D, item 3; Also in Appendix G). For each reason, landowners were asked to indicate if it was a ‘primary’, ‘secondary’, or ‘not a reason’. 72 APPENDIX D 1998 WORKSHOP PILOT SURVEY 73 500000000 500000000 500000000 500000000 000.0002: . 000:0: . 50.002 . 2:30:02 . >050: . 00.020 50> 0.00:0 0000.0 000.000 00> 8:20.000 0:. 5.3 00> 05030.0 :_ .0505 5:028:00 0:. 00; 5.0000000 30... .Am ...: m..m.mwOm m< 0......0mmm m< mm .3200 50.98 0000.0 000:0.0000 :0. 0:200 0:0 .00.05 5:028:00 0:. 9:02:00 :0. 0.5000: 50.: 50> 003 .0:>> A: A v 02 A .00> $000000 50> :0. :20 .:0an0:0_.: .0000: 0 0.05 .0305 :0:0>:00:00 0:. 0B A... 000:0.2000 02000: 00> 0:0 00> 0:0 5:05 .0:>> AN A0000000 0000.0. .050 A V 029:0; 002.; 0 0022.0 A . .00 0.0 0 00282 A 0 $300 .05 ...0 0.02.0 000.05 :0:0>:00:00 >.:000 0 ES. 002002 0>0: 00> 3:50.000 .0 00>. 0:. 0.0305 0000?. A... 0000 .082 :O Econ 5.320 050...... 60000000.. .2302 .0 2.08.3000 5030.2 0:. ..0. 3202:: 0.0.0 c0030.: >0 00.00050 >020» 3230 :< MEAD-=2. m0”. moz<.._ mh<>_mn_ OZAO 02800002. > CNN—285 h 0000 450.009.0523 F O F F >¢Oh0<0wrr<023 02.03.0200 ghomumw 03.23623 ..(20.mmmmo¢n_ 000:5: 0.0002000 00. 0002.0 >0 00> 020.000 .2. 00030:. 05 0.0220 003.: ..N. 0888.0 . 0.3.3 a. .5: a. £3... .02 0.08 04040 ”3000005300 >“0020. .080... wzneounem 0:0 000... 0.0002000 00... AS. 3338 .20.: a. 0:0. 50> 0005:. o. ...... .0... ......00 sit... 2.0.... ...... e..... .. .... .... .s 008000.: 650:3 .0. 0:0. 50> .0: 030000 9.80:0 028200 025020 000:9: 0. 000000 .3250. 0.08 8: 2:80 0.00208: 03> 0:0 .0:0..0::0.:. .0 002000 .050 .0 00.0303 00... .8. 3.0.? a. 0:0. 50> 00000.: 0. 00> .2000 2.0.0005. 32 im gouuuw Em East” 2 gag ~§EO>OO as. .2. 2.20 55.80: as .0 2.52.20 2c .0. 0838.0 . 0:0. 50> :0 0020000. .0. 2..... 30...... ......n... .....it .... Essie... 00.000 0.0002000 0... 0.2.0 0000.0 0.00. 0552.0. 00. .0 0000 02260 000.200. 00. 0.50. 00> 00 >.0>:00..0 30... 205000.202: .. 0 0 v n N . $0550.20 02.000 > 0 0 v n u . 02:00:05. pz<>3005 .. 0 0 v n m . 5.5000: 000.00: > 0 0 v n m P .5000: 000.2 00.. > 0 0 v o a A 0E... 00... 000:5: 0.0002000 00. 05.2.0 >0 002000. 00> 0.0.35 00. 200.05 0000.0 .8. > 0.Ao._.0=3 00:00“ o. .00 8 £0.32 0.. 000030.: 5503 0000.60 0000.60 . 000020 52 0900096.. 0.250000 5.000005. 5.30000 9.3000. A: .A0:0..0.0000 050:3 ..E: .0... 0.0.000 . 00880.0 55000 000260 000050 . 000020 8:. 20.000000... 52010... 560000.... .8080”. 05.003.. AA... .8000 .530 00.03 .000. ”0.0000028 .836... .50. on. 00000020 5.0.000 0000.60 000050 . 000020 82 20.000000» 5.50100 580000.; 002:0 00.02.2501 8 0008005 50800 0000.60 000080 00000090 0:0 000020 .02 20.00003» 306300 520300.... 0000.0 35.000800 .8 03>. .302 .830... 0008000 55000 00.0.60 8.0.60 .0. 0.00: 5020005.: 000020 .02 2909000.. 326300 5000000..» 00000.. .0 5502.00 .A.. ..:0Eou0:0E 0000000.: 55000 0000000 000030 e..—0...... .0. 0.000 95.00 0000:: 52 29002000... .33 3.000002... .0 02.5595 0.: .8 00.000 0.0002000 00. 0.00.0 0000.0 05.3 00.000 00> 000.205 0:. >0 0000000.0 020.. 000:. .0 0000 00; 0000200. 300 .00:0.0_000 002002 00> :00>> 75 0:. >0 000300 .0 000560.80. .0... :0... .050 >:0020 50.. :0. 00.205 8:98:00 0:00 2.0: :2. 20200205 00.0.0. 2.0....) >:0 0000000 0000.0 $6.00 00000 0:. :_ 0:0..0... 200.0 0 00.0.00... .0 S 2:00 032.000 0:00.22. .0 0.52 9.... 0020.0 .. 0.0.00.6 00.1300 fictflutcgas E. 0.0.0 0|.0..E|..x.0|..mm.<_. .>00020 50> 0. 00.00.0202. 0.0.. :2. 05:00:02,500. 00.0000 0.... 0...... 0000.0 .wm> ._ .Oz . . mm; . . 00:0. 50> o. «00:05 000300 .0. 00058880. 0... .o >:0 00.:0E0.0:.. 00> 02.... 3:03.80 052000. 0050 ..0. 76 >§O >3... 0000.0 53% .5... =0... .052 03.2.; .0. 000. .0. .850: 3.3.0.. 0.00.0 . . .60 >5». >§ 00...“...3 .o 0.22... a .o. :0... .050. 3.00002... .0 .000 6.0. 00.00% >55... .30. 0 .0 000 .o. .532 0.8.0 . . .au >28 >5; 2595.: 59. 2.00.9.0 .0: 0.00.0 ..0... 0.00.0 2.9.0 .03 2:0... 02.2 83 . . .8 . . . 0. .03... 0.30.3 . 03.2.? .0. 0:0. >E 9.5000... 00.53 g»; g..; P; g; >E<¢0§ .505 000 .03: 30> .. 0030 .0.x0 2.2.; a... . . ...u 085093 523.83 2..; .33 5; >5»; 5»; 00000000. .220: 00.000... 0 50.508.2090 0. . . ..ow 550...: ..oz PIS—g his” 5»: ramp; Eng 60.35....0 o 8.30.) 9.2.; 00300.0 0. . . ..mw 08682: 5509!. 52 sh; h5g3“ B‘s—g >40»; 5»; >¢u> .0500... 000300. 0......) .o. 8022. 35. o... .2. . . ..vm 03.05... ghg g..; #3; sh; >4mh<¢m83 ghg >¢w> .33... 0. 039.95 20 2.2.; .2. . . ..nm . . .30) On = w. «CNtOQ—hz 3°...— .>~._0QOhQ LDO> CO 00.3000 0.0.3230 05 0.0..0 0000K .0...0...s .0. 9.3000... 05.00.0000 0.0 30> .0... 0:0. 0.... 0. .0.0. «0.0" 0:0..0030 0.. ...zwhmazooz. 0: ES... 0.. hmwzox 0.. 305.512: 0.. mug. mmmawma N .‘ 505.200 N p «2.23 N _. 5020305 N . 0.05.0: a P 0950.30. 0 P 33.003 a. «20 50.5.3. 2: .0083: 0.0.3.9000 0... 05.8.0 >0 000.3000”. .8202 .0 3.05.0000 000.50.: 0... .3000 .00. 30> .30... 0.00.0... 0000... ..ww 02.2.3 .0. 3.000... .30.. :0 009.000 >:0 05.00.0035. 50.. 30> .:0>0.0 ....s .0 030.. .05 000000. >00 .2. 0000... .3... m o n 3-352.039» _ Kiwi-awe . 5.0.0.323 m N P 59.2.30 .0053: 0.0....qu .008 0... 0.0..0 0000.1 00.00> 0.5. 08.. 0.... c. 02.0....) .0. 0:0. .30> :0 0:0..0 .coEooucmE .30> 035.000 .0 0000.0... ...; 30> .0... .. 0. >.0x._ 301 .SN 77 800-800.. .2 8.2.3 .000 8.0.50 08.50005 .2202 0. 0.0.0205 0.0.0 500.50.: 055.5 0:0 0052.0... .0 0000 50.0.02 5.008.. 02.00 20.5.0 5.8. .0. 5.5.0. 550 50550.0 000.350 5.00 000.000 05. 5. >053 05. 000.0 0000.0 .>0>50 50> 0055.058 0.5... ... 8.8.0 550 0.5.. 50> .0. 50> 0.505» 505555 05050 ”000.52 “05.02 ..50€.5.0000 50 00.05. 0. 50> .0058 500 . 00 30.05 50505525. 05. 05.3.0 0000.0 :8: 20A. _EA. 055:. 003A. 005:. 202A. .>..000.0 50> ..0.> 0. 0.5 .0. 05... .00.. 0... on 0.8; .00; 05. .0 A0500 .0.; 0.8.0:. 0000.0 .02 A . 00> A . 0.8.. x 530 .0. 05... .0... .0 0.5 5...; >5000.0 50> 00500.5 0. 05...? 05 50> 5.503 .mw> ._ .05... .0. 50> 5505... ...05. 550 50530.0 000.0>50 2.. ... >25... 2.. 80.0 300.0 .02 .. 02 A . 00> A . 0>5000.0 50> 50 .0..505 05.5.5... 05. 0.0205 550 5.03 0. .505..5.0000 50 00.05. 05. .0. 0. 05......) 05 50> 5.50>> .>5000.0 05. .0 00.0 05. 50 05.550005 0.505 00.5. 0. 050 20.05.58.000 9.0. ....s 50..0..0.> 05.. 05.5....) 05.00505. .0. 00...:550000 >5000.0 0.02.0 005000.00 0. .05.0 5. .00> 0.5. .0 055.. 5. 00.50020 .0530550. 0.02.0 05...0.> 05 ....s . 00000.0 50..05.0>0 0.5. .0 ..00 0< ......SsoaeA. ..255803 29:. 005.550. 5.0.. 005.00 0.5005. 50> .0 50.500 .053 80 58.8.2 . 800080.000. . 808780.32 . 000.00.08.03. . 08.3.8980. . 80.3.0892 . 08.00.08.002 . 08.0.0 :05 002A . ...00. .0. 0.5005. 5.0500505 50> 0530.0 0000.0 80 50.0.0600 0>05 50> 52.00550 .0 .30. 50050.5 05. 0.0.0 0000.0 A...” 2A . .A . 5.8.8.0205. A00 II 0. 05.05 50> 0.03 .00> .053 5. Ann .... 50.08. 80. o... 0. 32.588 50.52. A00 00.00 0055...: .0. 000505. >05. 50> 00.0 05. 0. 00.0. 30... 80 800.00 505. 0.0.5. 00.0 5055A . E.0.-505-.05.A . . A8000 :0... 000.. 23:05.1 . 5.0-0.3 . 002.5..3 .0. 000505. 0. 05.55.0500 0.0 50> 50.53 550. 05. .0 505000. 05. 0550005 50> 5.503 30... AN” 50.05 0005050 0005. 0.0.0 0000.0 .00.. .. 292.00 02 A . 02A . 00>A . «00500.0; .0 ..0.> 2.0 05. 005050 5.50.... 50> .05. 0>03 >50 0.05. 0.< .30 78 APPENDIX E 1998/9 WORKSHOP PRE-SURVEY 79 g mug >2». Inga 030095 unis >2»- ...50E000505. 0.._5_..s 550 0...5_..s .5050 05.5.00. >250 >_.0.50.500 .. ..50E0.0.0 0532.0. 05. .5050 .00. 50> 2.05 0.00.55. 0. 00.050 0.0502000 05. 0.05.0 0000.0 An 0 n v n (D h . . . . . . . . N .....n... ...Oz 555 >493; 39... >49... ...!S >490:qu .0200 >._w.:2.mu0 5005.5: 0.05.2110 .005. 0... 0.0.50 0000.... 00.00> 03. 5A0: 05. 5. 05.5.55 .0. 550. 50> 50 052.0 50.500050... 50> 0000.05. ...2. 50> .05. .. 0. >.0.... 30.... Av 200005 :02 2032 2320000 < , 209.05 >535... < 20520..qu .0 20005 .202 . 209052320000 < 2005.. >525... < 00200.00”. .m. >Enw¢00 203: < .502 2005 >§uwn < gm: >353 < .Oz_!¢0E 50> 550. 05. 05.550 .0. 050000. 05.2.2.0. 05. .0 :03. 0.0 .505002. 30... Am 00.60020 0050 .6232. A v 8.2.0.0 20.53.0020": . 0056.020 020 A . 500<00502A . 50...... A . 0025225001 . 085 050 «0050 >.50 00500.52. 0.5. .5050 505.00. .0.... 50> .505 0.00.55. 0000.0 Am 00505.02. 0.5. 05.55020 0.0 5.0500505 50> .0 0.05505. >505. 2.05 0.0.0 0000.0 A. § 00.00 0>50020 0.5. 0. 00.0. 30... ANN A8000 505. 0.02 00.0 505.5 A . A8000 :0... 002. 5.6. =20 A . .0..505.00...0.5. A . 00.0 E.0.-.05. A . 02.5.3. .0. 000505. 0. 05.05.0500 0.0 50> 50.53 550. 05. .0 505000. 05. 0550005 50> 5.503 25... A . N 02.5.55 .0. 50 050E 0. 550. 5053 05000 >.50 50.53 000020 0 0. 50.000005 80 50.020. 0E805 5050 ...; 500.50.: 5. 5.0.. 505055050 50 >..05.50>0 50230.55: ..0. ._ A0. .00 0.0 .005. 5.0 00552 05.05 0.05 0. 0. 502000502 0:5...» 0.0502000 .095 05 b A0. 030;. uwxo .0505... 0.00.55. 0. 00.050 0.0502000 05. 0.8.0 0000.0 002.50 00005 522000.. .\ @0550“... . was»? ...Om wz> . .205. ......2 2...... 00...... .200. 2...”... a. ._ .058 0%.... .0... . . An. 22.2002. 2320...- 5320.3. 532023 00000550. 00900025 .02 .3203» 50220002 .20.. .2205 05000.0 0 5.85.02.20.20 0. . . AMP .00....550000 05.30... 333.... 5.04... fin...» fig J.H.. 0...... 8:8... 2 . . .5. .0200... 0005520 Eng 02:; g»; g..; 03.0; ~02 833530» 252252 >2! OkfldhaOflflfldumcm—fl 22.2022. 22.2022. 5320.20 5320.3. ....55 o. 0.52.0.6 00900025 002 02.3.0200 50.22000: .20.. 0.0 0.52.? .0... . . .Am . . .50 .. 0... 0. .505002. 2.05 5.50020 .50.. 50 ...sz02002. N o m V n N w 0.25.9020”. «=5. 5 m m V n N _. p.212... hmuzoz h 0 m v n N w ...mmZOIma 3:49.23 N 0 m e. n N w “55.52 2&3; N o n V n N —. ”325.301 0.03me s o n v n N P .50me , a. 220 500.50.... 05.. 5055.55 0.0502000 05. 0.2.02.0 ..5 08.50000 .2202 .0 20250000 500.50.... 05. .5050 .00. 50.. 2.05 0.00.55. 0000.0 A0 ”502000. 50.. 05.5.2. .0 00... 0.... 0550005 0000.0 .mm> .. 02 A . 00> A . 005.50.. 0.55.... .0 00... 0200 .0 00502.02. .502000502 0...5...s 0 5055050 ...050.>0.0 50.. 2.0... A» . 2020922... 52022 00505.... 20. 0022520550 022 00002 0200003 . . A.0..0 62.2250 .5022: 2002: .02....02. 020.220.0020 20.200222... 02.550200 A . 02.250 0056 A . 02.250 00.: A . .05 20.0 .26.... 2025.500 .22... 02.05 A . 202.050 0.0512000 0.... 0.00.0 0000.1 .0...5..2. .0. 05.00505. 05.05.0500 0.0 50.. .05. 550. 05. 0. .0.0. o. - 0 05050050 05.5.2. .0555. .505... 05.502202. 0.5052200 05 5.50... 50.. 020.. 05. ..0 ..0050 0000... 5.0.05 .0.. 05. 20.0 A0 81 : mhmOuEm DZ< was... man; m0“. 30> ¥zo>.am 38:63 0:. 9.8 >wE ao> do? gang—Huang 953 .3093 .050 >5» .0. now: .0: 6.0.35 .:o> 53> 9.39083 8 .90: =3, .25 ammonia 9.55: .0. 2m $0.8m new mEmc 50> V ..mzcouccou mg =25 m>m>5m 2:. 53> 96 Scam 5 .052... new «x83 25 Soon 5 >033 :05 a 0208. =. :0> .323 322.5 new 95: 50> So a. 3mm... .m>m>.:m 965 E :3 9.2 2 95:3 2m 30> = .m>o>.:m a:-30=2 92 «039.8 5; m3 .mEEmoa mafia... 3:2? 085 2335 2 EEO E :9. :2. 29... A v =2 :9..me A V 2.9; V 358.9 ES. 358 058:. 50> .o 5:63... .23 SN $8622 . m8.vn-ooo.m~2 . 89838.82 . 8338.32 . 88.3-3282 . 88.3823. . 88.8.8982 . .8932381 . .39 .0. 088:. 29.332. .:o> 2.305 333 AR .umEEEou 95: 30> 5.5025 .o .92 39.9.. on. 23m 32...... 8w .2 A v n. A V tam 5: m. .22, an 3 «Eon 20> v.95 .mo> .23 c_ Avw E 8.82 Em. 9.. 2 32588 5.55 am «mum :82 co ...qu = 30> xz donate; .coEoumcmE ”new. 29.... £5 233.6 a: 99. 30> .30283 9.3.2.0. 05 actosacm >3 .3526: donate; 35 .0 tan 3 3.53. .9. a. van >.Sc:_o> m. >95» 25. .5330 2:355 63.303”. .8332 .o 2.25.2.8 53.5.5. 05 .2 33.32: 38m 5552:. >a 383550 .323 :25: ..< union—S) ”an mozs mh<>_mn_ 02.0§<fiooiv >¢m>C 3532.2 05 3 one 333:... . . . 26 o Em m 8o 83 a 3.2333,: 05 5.3 so; so» 3%.?» 30: 28.2.. 88.“. nm> = _ n 5 a: u _ mm; = . oz A V mm: V «829:0; on. c. 3.28 .0: 02 A v mm: V $3235 «Sousa... 5.683.... 35225 9.25 .9 2m; 65 5 3.3.2:. 22> 30> 35 832 35:63 805 2o>> C 2 LEE? 839m 2 .2. 8 9.232. 2. 2.3.5 8: L093... u; larger .33300 9.280. .8 . £2; a. .53 o. 3.5.. m g..—02a 5%“ E5 . .ofic 5:83 rag >fi> v:- 32. 3232.3» 2.... “up Ago—3.2.2. 02.2.3 :6: .2: 280-“. v on; >§ 81260 dug->00 . 2.3.3 2585 9:85 5 .0533 3. 23. .50» cone-E .595 8: sob-.63» :33; 5.889.» .223“. 95.83. 8 82 5:33 5:38: 95$. 2 88¢ 3.533 3 on: 2; A: .33. :38 can; .32 . 9:8 652.! .3 32.9.: a. .255 ...-=2.- e. :83. 35.8. B. .. 8333 Ea... 85,8 95,8 .232. so. we SW25 nag >§ fin .2825...- 3 .858 .850 .6— flux... 52 5858» 33:8 3.898.: 3.9:. $222.23 ? . . a use ...-2.3 .6. 32.2: 38:85 5:83 3550 8550 .0839 . 2585 .585 am 9:85 8 so» .28- »..ouaocc 0. 032.26 23.5 82 29388» 39628.. >§ «one. Eco-8805 8 82 2.83 599 5:. 23> 2.. 2.235 32.638 2:. .8 _ .82 .u._%,_ Emacs: .93. 50> co 8.385 . 5.3:. o 8:30 .8 23 22.3 «SE 2585 5.85 9:85. 9:85 . . . 2.2.8 ...:o 3 o a a . 3: :53 33.89.. :2, «8382 .2. >323... 8 so... 6 . .525 . 82 .5888» 32:8 3.385: t . 2..... = m a ..coEooacaE . 8:2? .2 23¢ 95...... 6033 £92383? 2: 29:0 33E $222 . . 3.8%.... has?» page . 8560» _o 88:85. 2: .2 0532.8 05 .0 some 29:3 cosmic; on. x55 30> cu 302.083 26: . __ __ 603:0 sthEQmu ms 29:... 33E $238 832 336:8 on. 203 3:95.05 26... .3323 30> 359.33 2: .4. 84 $6.3 39.2.0 82.. 2% $3... .3» V. 02 A V mm: V 39.8.33 2.. oocwco 2:03 :2. 283 ...... 0.2.. o.< .SN N35555: 3.6.32. 3.65:. 88E... 89893. V 02. V 5:632 V 32628. V .96on V .835 23.35% 2.. «3:... 885 Nmfiom 32.. 96.9... negate; 2.. 20 .9 .ON 22.32.. 2 a...» 83.“. .02 V. oz A V mm: V 32.9.32. 2.. 9.9.23 223 ”_mom .0... so» 20 .SN ..9 c2626 2 a...» 83... .02 V. .. oz V V 26.0.. «.moa 305 2an 33... am» V. 8 m9; V $5.2...» .oV caucus .3... :2. new. 2.. .8 23m .8 30> 9m... .5. 3085.362: N c n v m N F 5085.936 0228 N . o n v n N N 02.56 592928 N o n v n N V sz_zm>zooz. 852352: N o u v n N N 852..on 505 oo... N o n v n N N 020.. ca... .382. 03.32%... 2.. ucVVEVo .3 33.9... on. 23.86 38?. .8— Nzohofimzfi. N o n v n N F €055.92sz «<30 N o n v n N F 02.3.on 3.83.52. N o . u v n . N V m>...om&m 852610 N o n v n N V om~.zo 38E am. mucog . . um¢o< 5020:...» M9355 Duo—Owes mu¢0< 50205.» ...cmEouacaE 8.6....) ucu 02.2.3 .aona 9.....3. .6ch b.2325“. ... .558...» 3.32.8 on. Soon .mo. 30.. 26... 88.9.. a. 8.05 23.35% 2.. 22V". 83E .9; 8S \ «amen .2333? .228 .53 =2. 358 £2; ,3... is... .33.... ...: fin... 3.3.2.232 .832. 283 . . .3« g..-3.3 _o 5.20% a 8. :05 .052 35323 .23.! as! .8 33 .53 3.009 50802: In; 038.5 g 59.08—- 55th 30. G 50 8° 3. .232. 233 . . .CN 2895.: 52. 3.98 as: . 3.2.93 .0: 85... >855. .3938 838.3 :5! 539.: .0.: 353 0:98 .96 253 05a: 8: . . .SN . . . o. 335 2:03 _ .0523 8. 9:2 >5 acamcmE coc>> :2: 5505.- .Emfi 00w 83.95 ads; 33:8. hung can”... .26: 30> = :26 Exo Ems . . .8“ - - _ .3835— ..ng 5.8!. .832. 9.333 .882. 8.. 2.2.6.8 >fiufiua can“: a 55cfiEBfiABo . 2 . . . «a :3 63.5.3an 98.893 8...“... “:13 Rug 3%... 3.32: 032? 838a 2 . . Ann 33:23 :33...- Efig .0585 moon—x: g..; .53 52535:. 3%.? 50> 3:52.038. guns: 8: 3:98 5558.. E: unnfiflowmfimmflwfi E8. 20> E265 ESE 35 338. .85 E. 83E .8.” 5:53. :35...- =2 3&- .25: 2 035.95 :32 5.. 22.3 3&3 3...”... 225233 . . .2“ a mom 5 Womnmv.n mm. h2g.>._§§ ...m.:.:.m ....... mania: ..... 53.2.3 51200 53.330 .3955 SuthQQm .85 as 28‘... 38E «83> 93 :6: on. c. 8.6:; ..2 new. 5% co 3.2.6 EoEoumcmE 52. 338:. 53 30> .9: z m. :9... so... .8“ . . so» 2 g m. Eatoaé 26: 5.303 5% c0 <9:QO ~3thqu as 39:... 83E 95.3 8. 9.332: 95228 96 30> 35 new. 05 o. .32 3.5 «cacao—5 86 .33 :23 2: ca 9.2:: 2.5.50 .263: 2 Swan 20E F. .3285; 20:52:58 mug. 235 238 so: ...; 35255:..88 3%. .2022; >5 339a 335 .80 32“.... Emmazooz F o n v n N F Fzmfimzoo __e....o..u .55. N o m . v n N F 55.2: 52% 520: F o n F. n N F 52965 2028 2 833sz F m n F. n N F magma 20.2.8 2 395.: N m n F. N N F . $39.6... 52% mwmsmm: N m n v m N F Sham: a. mzu 59:22 9: ...onEac 2.25053 2: 553%.. 3 mmuwsomom .2332 .o FcoEtmamo 59:25. as. Scan 33 20> so: 235:. 83:. .an 652.3 8F to acne a. new. :23 8:80 2:0 :02; 3803 a a. 8388.6 Ava 2.332. 63.222: co... ..8 gong mug g awn-ones 31033 as 38323 wmsg aux: 3:3? ssaoaaa .35 of. ANN was“ 52 3: F v my \KFN .3. u. .2. Na ~v..1 ..O . . - 623.6. 0833 Sea ...; c3222 5 2o: nocoucanu ca . do a.» .33. 2o 82.2 22!. as: o. a. .coEoumcmE .ecoEoFSm 8.32.2 22 Fe :03 5.; 02mm 30> 359.3 285:. 2 8.20 22.32%» 2: £2? owner... “ we... « §fi 2955591.. F . 4.0% mg $50; 293302: . 2920:0531 v ouSEF v .3226 89:8 2: «3:... 83¢ «3305 F23 9:25;» a. 26.3 E38? 2:. .FFm S7 APPENDIX G 1998 WORKSHOP POST SURVEY 88 a0? 00:6...) .0. 00000.: 00 .0 >05 30.. 020 05 0. 00.0. 30: .6 a 5 0 § N o ‘ n 0. K 0 ~ ~ F 52 .....s . . buss... . 302x _ . 500... _ _ ...; >3:ng rzoo 59.3.08 0005:: 0.0.5033 .02: 05 0.2.0 0000». 00.00.. 03. 06: 05 c. 050...... .0. 0:0. 50.. :0 0:0...0 .008000008 50.. 005.000 ..0 00020:. ....s 00.. .05 F. 0. 20.... .50... .0 0000 «x02 :0 0.000 .5298 0000... .00; ._ . . oz . .0."; 03:50.80 .059. . >:0 002000.. 30.. 03: 60:00:03 02.2.3 05 00.00030 80% A.” c2035 02.0.5) 0005000». .2302 .5 0 2.0.5.0000 000.50.: 05 .8 3.20... scum 002:2: >0 0000:0000 >033 00.0.00 c< 00.00.5006 00.00.2005 00.0050 00:050. mush—fl; KO“— >xu>. . 055.300. . 3.502. . 3.30200. . >55. . mn—ZS MP<>_KQ @Z_G .. .0 00:00.5 0. 0.0.0 0000.0 .02.. ..02 A V we; 0 «00000000000000. 0... .0 0.00 a: 0.03 .05 2.0020 .00.. 0. 0000000 >00 0000. 00.. 02.0 8080.000 00.2000. 000.0 .6 000:0; 0.00-0 0 00.0.00". .0 0003000 000030.. .0 030. 03. 0800.0 .F 00 00.00 00.00.05 Hung 0.00.9 £6.00 .80 00. 0. 0000000 0000. 0000000 0000.0 .wm> .. .0 00:00.5 0. 00.0 0000.0 .02 0 .02 A . ww> A V 0 o .0 o m .0 no 00. .0. 00000000000. 0.03 .05 3.0020 50> 0. 0000000 0000. 00.. 0.0 .C. .0 0000000 0. 00.0 .oz 0 .Oz . . 091 V «00.0.3 300000.00100020 .00.. 0. 0000000 0.0 0000. :0» 0>00 6000.0.000 00.2000. 000.0 .8 90 : 95.0003 DZ< NEE. «30> 000 :C> x2500 91 30.0 00004000.. .2 00.00.... 00m 3.2.300” .00.0 00.0.50 08.380 2.002 0. ...... .050. 2.0.... 0.0.2.0... 0.0.0 000.00.: 0.98 08.. .0 0 .0 0 0 030.02 00.00000 .0000 000.30 0.0.. 00.0.... .0 0.0.0.... .0. 20.0. 0 .0. 00... .050. 000 000.020 000.220 0.00 000.000 00. 0. 00.000 00. 000.0 0000.0 .. «0.0000000 .0 .000 00.0.0200 20 000 .0..< $02.00 0.0. .0 0.000 00.00 .000. 0...: 0. .00. g 38.8 8885 3...! 0M“: 0 0V “wflwwNWfi 000 . .0200 .0 >00 0 . 0.0 0.00 0.0 02.0 ..0 .. >023 .000 0000.008 0.0.0 .00000 0.00.0 . . .0... 0820 200900.: 2 50.00.2002. 0 0 0 v 0 N .. 5020.200 .00.. 0.00.000 :25 .0.. 0.00.0 .0... 0.00.0 9. 020 0 o m 0 m N w 0202: M0090." 0 00.9. .fi. 000.8 .26 0.00.0 g..... 02.0.. 00: . . .3 oz 5020: 0 o m 0 n N .. 5020106 . . . 0. .220 0.30.5. .0...0...s .0. 000. .00 00.00002 0002. 0.. m..m<3w~.23 h o m 0 m N _. 305.00 . 20008 .505 can 0: awn—(m. h o m 0 m N _. 0950.300 .o>00 no» .. 00>0 .02- 3 . . . in; in; .25; 021.80.!- 02 mmwdwma B 0 m V G N P AauwwD 88093 52 pin 50.5.39. Em) «ma—““~0.~.=HM.MH . 00000000. .0. 020 0.00.5.5. 00... .2200 00.0020 .25.; g..; 02¢»; .02.; a C G C 0.5 000200 0.0002000 00. 0000.00 >0 00200000 .2202 .0 68095 a: 5:050 .0508. 0.9 . . .0........0......~. 20200000 000.00.: 00. .0000 .00. 00> 0.00 0.00.00. 0000.0 .80 000.03.00.00 sh; hing in? bi»; 0.5%.) 0h=2§ 000.0002: .02 5.30.8» 503.000: Eu; . . . 0000000 0000. 000.02 00:00.0 0. A: 22. 002000. 00 ...z. .0280. .st ..ssiag 8%... 33985.. H». .0... 0.00000 2: .0. 000000... 00.2.; 03.....on ”5.02... muse! 020.0%... .0. 0000002 000. 00. .00.. . .6. 0000000 9.02 o. 0.00.0.6 0000.220. ..00... .40»: bliss soda 2...”... H». .o .8. 2: .2 o. 0.02.2.0 0... 98.2 5%.... $335.... ......nwfi 3...”... 0.0.; .2... . .... 0000000 2020.02. 0. 9.0. ...; .. to... . . .00.. 0... 0. .000002. 2.00 0.00020 .00.. 00 EN“... .0932... 00“....0 . 59......; an”. .0 .00020 00... ..0. 00.000 0.0002000 00. 0.00.0 0000.0 00.00.00 0.0000 .00. 00000.0 .00.. 00 0000000 000.02 22. 00.. .00>0.0 00.0.. 00.2.2.0. 00. ....s 0.0.... .500 000.00 00 0.0 0.0.. 000 00002 00.2002 00.0000 0.0002000 00. 0.00.0 0000.0 .0...0...s .0. 00.00002 05.00.0000 0.0 00.. .00. 000. 00. 0. .0.0. 3-0 002.0000 APPENDIX H 1998/99 SITE-VISIT PRE-SURVEY 92 502002252 . 220$. 20“. 00.223288 02< 00002 02.00009... V .90 .0z.t:02 02.0.. 02. ..0 20020 0000... £6.02 .0.. 0... .20.“. .2 0 _ 0 _ .. _ 0 _ 0 _ v _ n 0 _ P .0.. .48. . _ dung . . 2g . . >402. . . 1.2.0.5--.- >a§kw0 #2200 >§m8 200252 0.0.2.0300 .002. 05 0.0.20 0000.1 00.00> 03. .x02 02. 2. 02.2.2. .0. .20. 50> 20 022.0 208000202. ...0> 0000.02. ....s 00> .02. .. 0. 20.... 2.0: .0 28.202 (.02 285222020000 28622222.. 20.202002 2862 < .02 28.02 2320000 20902 $22.22 0020ng $25020. 2852 <82 2852 2320000 882 >232. 62.225. 0.0V 0.2002. 00202002.. 200002 20000.. 240.000. 00.020 0 0.02.0 0000... «02.2.2. .0. 000202. >02. 00> 220. 02. 02.226 .0. 02800. 02.2.2.0. 02. .0 2000 0.0 .202008. 2.0... .N 005.220 028 52 ....<. A V 8.2.5.0 205500200. V 00.62.20 2202 . V 20250302. V 20.... . V 0055.500: V .xon 020 20020 >.2O .020. 50> 20 0020.0.000 02.2.2. .00 o. 3.23.0220 0.2. .2020 202.00. .0... 30> 2.02 0.00.02. 0000... A. 000.. .202 20 2.200 .. 30> 22$... ..0..20....200 2.0.20. ....s 0.02.020 50> 00.0..0 02.00 >..20..=0 0.20.00... 0020.0.000 20.200020... 0020. 0.02.0 02. 0.0:.0>0 0: 2.02 20> .020..00:0 02.2.2.0. 02. 02202620 >2 2052.0... 2.0.00.0 0020.0.000 0.... .0 ..00 00 00.300. .02 0. 220 >.0.2:.0> 0. >028 0.2... 20.0.20 0.22.2. 600.2003. .0....02 .0 .205t000a 20220.5. 02. .0. 3.0.0223 0.8m 20920.2 >2 00.022200 >0>.=0 20.2.00 2< mn._.._o.=>> mo... mozj m._.<>_mn_ 02_052“ .20... 20... .050. 0.30.3. .0. 000. .0. .0....02 .2202 0.00.0 . . .6. >5” >§ 02...... .o 0.23... 0 .0. 20... .02.! 32000020 .0 .000 0.3 00.0000 202.20 2.0. 0 .0 020 .0. .83.... 0.00.0 . . ...; >3... >§ €00.20... 50.. 2.2.0.... .0.. 0.20.0. 0.20.0 02020 .26 0.20.0 03.02 000 . . ..inwL . . . 0. .220 0.002.. .0...0..2. .0. 020. >2. 02.00202. 2055 02.2001 boz .22.!!! 0.0.2.028 i<§ raw—g 2.0... 000 .262 00> .. 22.0 ...x0 020.... .0... . . ..u. 02.5.0.3. .02 5»; ~33 Pas—g >th§ gr; >¢w> 00000020. .0220: 05000.0 0 0.0.2.2500... 0. . . .... gr; 52 Eng his 5; tabs—g- g..; 00...:020000 02.2.0... 00.0.... 8:02.. o. . . .8. sug— hing bi 33.—g >§<¢§ .52»: >5) 02.002. 08000.0 2.0.... a. 0830... 0.0. 0... .0... . . ..0 3.20.3. .02 22.209... .3528 30.83 >4Wh<¢m§ .....(bg >¢w> .20.. 0. 0.03.2.0 0.0 052.2. .0... . . .3 . . 50> O. z m. acutOn—F: .50: 5.00003 .:O> :0 200.020 0.0.2.0208 0... 0.2.0 0000.... .0...0...<. .0. 02.0020... 02200.0200 0.0 00> .0... 020. 0... 0. .0.0. m. . 0 022.0000 mugs mw¢0< >§ mug 030mg... mmg< >.OZOEw 00.020 0.0.2.2000 0... 0.2.0 0000... ..20800020... 0.0.... 0.... 2.0.... .030 0558. 00.5 0.0.8.22. _ .. 82%. 50.02.2002. .. 0 0 v 0 N . 50.00200 52%. 2.... n 0 0 v 0 N . 22.20 as.” .0020: s 0 0 v 0 N . 502020... 82%. 0002:0220 N 0 0 v 0 N . 0.0.302 5...... .0... . 0 0 v 0 N . 2.30 3......“ 000.000 . 0 0 v 0 N . 00.000 200.202 0.0202000 0... 05.2.0 >0 000.0800 .0.0.02 .0 .20820000 200.20.... 0... .0000 .00. 00> 2.0.. 0.00.02. 0000.0 8 002000. 00> 02.50.. .0 00>. 0... 0020000 0000.0 .mm> ._ 02. V 00... V 002.50.. 0...0..2. .0 00>. 0.200 .0 00202.02. 20.200020... 0...0_..s 0 0002020 >.000.>0.0 00> 0>0.. ...0.> 3.0 0.... 0.0.8 .0 94 00.0 8.08... .2302 0. 2.22.2: 0.0.0 200.20... 0.30.03 22...... ......0 2.0.20.0 ...-x .0. 0200 020 00026.0 000.0..20 2. >0...00 000.0 0000.0 .. 8.00.0 020 02... ..00> .0. 00> 2202... ”000.090 .0802. ..0>0>.00 3200.000 02. 0200 >02. 00> .00? 0000.00 .050 >20 .0. 0000 .02 .203020 .00> 2...... 00.0.0300 00 .962 ...... .>.20 00000.00 02502. .0. 0.0 000.000 020 0.202 .00> ..022002200 00 ...... 0>0>.00 02 b 00.00; 0.... .0000 2. >023 202.... 020000 0 02000. ...... 00> 0.0.00 000.000 020 0.202 .00> .00 .... 0000.0 .0>0>.00 0002. 2. 200 9.0. 0. 02....) 0.0 00> .. .0>0>.00 00.3.0. 0.... .000200 ...... 03 6.20.020 0020.0.000 e..—...... 000... 0.00.0.6 0. .00.0 2. ...... :0... 0.8.. . ...... 202.80.. . 08... . 002.220. 2.0... 00.200 02.002. .00> .0 20.200 .02.... ...N +898... . 000.00-08.80. . 08.8.0803. . 0005.08.30. . 08.0.0880. . 80.3-0803. . 08.00.80.000. . 08.0.0 .0... 08.. . ...00. .0. 02.002. 0.0200002 .00> 0030.0 0000.0 EN 00.0.0500 2.0... 00> 20000000 .0 .26. .0020... 0... 0.0.0 0000.0 .mN .... . u: . $023.20.... 0.... . .... 0.. 02.00 00> 0.0.5 .00> .02.... 2. SN 02. 00.000. 020. 02. 0. “00.52000 20...; ANN 00.00 ..>2000.0 0.... 0. 00.0. 2.0.. ..N 88.3 202. 0.02.. 00.0 200.0 . . 2200202005.. . .8000. .0... $0.. 2.6. =05... . 6.0.5.... . 002.0...» .0. 000202 2 8822.8 0.0 no. 5...... 20. m.... .o 22.82 o... 2.280.. 8.. 0.3; .3: SN 02.0.... .0. 0000202. 0. 020. 202.... 0.0000 >.20 20.2.... 00000.0 0 0. 20.000800 .0. 00.020. 0.20000 2020 ...... 28.20.... ... 00.. 8883.. .... 0.3.56 03.2%.... ..o. .. .0. 035g. mg .0000.» .003. 0.0 00000.0 0.0.0.2 0.02 0. 0. 20.200020... 20...... 0.0.8.8.. .8... 9.. ... 02050.0... 8.3.0. o... .o .000 2...... 00.00 00> .0502... 0.00.02. 0. 00.020 0.0202000 02. 0.0.20 0000.0 zocfizmzoéi . 20.800000. . 0202092.... 20:52:02.0... . 00.00.23. . (Gin-n“ .0920“ 0... ..0020 0000.... «00000.0 .02.... 02.2620 0. 2.0.00 2.0.00.0 02 h .0. 95 APPENDIX I 1998/99 SITE-VISIT INIMEDIATE-POST SURVEY 96 3.35m 5?. 2 855m 553% v Our—9.2m 898022 V 3:35.22 V 535.3032 2 «9.36:2 05 20 ago 55235 .323 :55 3:83 333 .mm> = E «3:29: 05 5:5 203 30> 3233 so: 23%.... 333 .mm> = 97 02 A . mm» A v 2. .8 2o .3 .2865 02 A v m; A v 2.295.226 3:85... cozmctes _mcoEuum 23> .22 05 5.3 38% 2 32cm; 30> 35 no.3. .2863 965 29$ 3. .3533 832a 2 2338 £832 2E Ouggfi >§ owxm>00 oucw>00 . 9.82: 82 20.8233 2.36:3 5:39.02.— .bflnauo ocitao. 6 . a a E 92W Shaun” gatw WZ-hkuuw 2Q “fififiafirflor” AFN.” .AwszO—aa 5: 253 >338: §> . 83:85 253 0:98 9228 9.6:; :5: .2. count 9395 52 20.8.83» 2.5.2.38 5.6329.» .2909. 05:83. .6 2685 9.895 9526 .052? .2 95. 50> caucus . 82 >§ ydpsaoo: >2») 2 83a ass—Ea *0 3: of. A: .003a .2960 .2295 602 “85:869. .50 o 62.3.3 .2 caucus. 0. 83:85 »§ 3558 3528 9.36m Lflfifififlom .M.“ 2... film 3895 2:8 _ _m 2.695 0.92.26 80 €233 .8352 new wanna: 52 20.353... psspuaow 5.39.02... . . 82 >§3m Suciuoo: >5) .acoagfi .0 000500 2050 .6— .o > am 8 .3380... new .052? .2 36:9: 9595 52 20.0963... pseswaom 29638:... acumen _acofiaoooam Am 2535 «259.5 gcuwuuw w>=uutm O. 30> ~3an 2.30:2: 2 0323‘ [l 82 5:63 hrs. >5> 2550:“ E05533 on... 6 .39: .232 .5525 8888 > 8550 3550 .2 23a EoanucaE w w>p m mm u> w qum m 6:“. 50» ca 9.82: 52 20.99.33 32638 $6303.... 25:9, .0 359325 .AN :80: o u Fowuu um . 82 5:68 >963! >¢m> «8582 05 €2.32: 2 :61 8 ..coEwomcaE . 2.3.; a. «.25 828 5.82: o 82 $3.63... 2% >§h *0 8cmt0a§ 2:. .3 60.65 thqofiqm «.5 29:0 @321 $33 2.» 05 .m 82.2 @5326. 2.: 20 some Ewan. $60.03 on. xcE. 30> on 295820 32.. 60.65 Smtqouqqm 22 29:0 2..me $3386 95: 305 _o comm 203 2203205 26: .05. 50> co $60.05 05 5.3 gm; can on. 05.50 .3200 0000000 000... 0.0.0 0000.0 .00» V. oz A V 00>. V 00:03 2.0 05 000020 0.00; 00.. 2.03 >:0 0.0.... 0.< .SN 50.20.6002. 00500:. 00500:. 00.6002. 000.0002... V 02. V 550:0. V 3.30200. V 52000. V 00.9.0 0.0009000 05 «00:0 0000.0 00.0.00 0005.05.08. :03 2.0 05 0.0 .2 .00. 02.0000 0. 00.0 0000.0 .02 .. oz A V 00>. V 00:0. 50.. 00:03 5.00.0.0 05 0.0.00 0.000 .00 30.. 0.0 ..2 .9 02.0030 0. 0.0.0 0000.0 .02 V. .. 02. V .3200 0.000 0005 0.0.0 0000.0 .00.. = .. 00> A V _ 000.23. ..0. 000008 >08 30.. 0:0. 0.... .0. 0.000 .00 30> 0>0I .5. €055.05sz n 0 n v 0 m « >005<00Fm0h04020¢hm wmzoga omoawoza mw¢0< >4020¢hm ...:08000008 00.2.; 000 00.2.2. .0000 00.500. >030 €030.50 .. 00050.0...” 00.2.2.2 05 .3000 .00. 20.. 39. 0.00.00. 0. 00.2.0 0.0009000 05 0.2.0 0000.0 ...: 98 00.0 .008000000. 02.2.3 .00.. 000000.200... .00.. :0. .00>0.0 .090. .00. 000000. .00 .0.. 0000.0 .60 0 0 0. 0 n v n w r 102.0; . . 500%.: . . 300.: _ . $00,... . . 02.3-. )..wtzumo rzoo Empitwo 0000.00 0.0002000 .000. 00. 0.0.00 0000.0 00.00.. 03. 0.00 00. 0. 020...: .0. 000. .30.. 00 00000 .008000008 .50.. 0000.00. ....s :0. .00. .. 0. ...00... 30... .80 0000.0 0.3.3.. 0 3.3: as: .5... :0... .050. 0083 50000.0 0055... 08.08:: 00000 502005 .2 too. .0. .339. .2300 0.00.0 . . ..0« 0050...; .0 0.0.2,... 0 .0. 00... .050. 3.0000000 38:... 88.. .0 .000 ..u.0V 00.0000 598:..- g g g >25 bah—a 30. 0 .0 0:0 .0. .93.... 0.020 . . ..R 050.022 22. 2.00.9.0 .00 0.00.0 ”8.60.0003." 00006.0 000.0095 09.3 ...—0.00%.... to... 8:20 2.9.0 .02. 0.00.0 03.00 00: . . .80 . . . 0. .0.0.0 0.003. 650...: .0. 000. .0. 00.00000. 0055 0.05 000 5.83 :38... 5.02: 5.8.... .260 30> .. 00>0 .0.x0 eases 5: 2.5.3. .0332 . 5, E; .0... . . .00 00000000. .2200 00.0020 0868.3 :28: g >Mzfi; a c.8c.o%\.owu.acv.m 000.02. 0 g; 525... .2052: 5»; @5303 050:3 0088.5 3: 2.1033 503.08: .80.. 0038.0 0. . . .AMN 00.000. 00030. 2; Eng g..; g»; O==v=3 8* gnu—50E 000.0093 52 535180 50.3.08: >000 new. 05 .9: . . ANN ..02. 0. 0.00..0>0 000.0002: .3.”qu ‘35:! “20.0300“: Sufi... 9m 0.29.3 an... . . .CN . . .00.. 0. .. 0. E00005. 30: 50000.0 .00.. 00 000.000 0.0008000 0... 0.0.00 0000.0 00.2.3 .0. 00.00000. 000020000 0.0 00.. .0... 000. 0... 0. .0.0. 00..." 002.0000 99 .0000 .000 0... 00 00...... 005.08 000000 0. 00000 0.0... ._ 00000000.... .00E00000E 0000. 0.02.0 0.0.... 0.0... ...... .00. 0.008.000 .0 0000. 0000.000 .00 0030.0 0000.0 .60 6.2“” 50.002002. 0 0 0 v m N . 02050200 52% 0...”. .. 0 0 v 0 N . 0.5.2.. 5.2% .0020: .. 0 m 0 0 N . 5020005 6.2% 0005.002: 0 0 0 v m N . 0.05.00 82% 009...... 0 0 0 v 0 N . 00.50.30. 62% 000.00.. 0 0 0 v m N F .5000: 0. 020 000.5... 0.0. ..00E00 0.0008000 0... 0.....0...0 .3 00050000 .0....02 .0 .00E00000 000.00.... 0... .3000 .00. 30.. 2.0... 0.00.00. 0000.0 .80 00.0.? .0. 00 000... 0. 000. 000... 0.0000 >.00 00...... 00000.0 0 0. 00.00.0005 .00 Duoawg wu¢o .0500... 0.00.00. 0. 00.000 0.0008000 0... 0.0...0 0000.0 000%....“ QNE; 0...: We... g \m. 00...... 00:0 .52 02020055.. .2... A . 200.520.0900 . . 290000000. . 2052:3050. . 00:95... . ..03000 .00000 0... «02.0 0000.0 0000090 .00.... @5300... 0. 2.0.0.. 80.0.0.0 0... ... .Cm 100 APPENDIX J 1998 SITE-VISIT POST SURVEY 101 $080 «2.6:; .0. 30:08 on .6 >06 30> 020 05 a. 09m. 30: .Am a n h M o N p _ EWCZEwO r200 Ewtzfimo 0008:: 80.3830 E05 05 20:0 8an 0200» 02 «x0: 05 0. 3:2.) .2 new. 50> co «taco EoEomucaE 50> 025:8 .0 9.0905 :5, 00> .05 g a_ 29.: 30: .¢ .5».on 88:. .8: A V 02 A me> oScsmamflcso >:0 00282 30> 90; 5.0090 50> 0233 $60.03 05 0005 an. 3.8.23.0 0233.90 0333 Scuba >55: .5233»: 3.502: 2139.01. 5.0:. .0205 50> «00:0 0000.0 0 o a 0m .0 no 05 Eat 002002 30> 000907.00 05 5.3 30> 20 00:33 26... .AN : magmmOm m< 9&0me m< mm £6.00 50.98 0000.0 03.0090 50> :03 0. $60.20 02.2.; 0 00:00:02 xll__mc|ul_ to. .2 @0032 £08 50» m0; 09.3 .9 0000 «x02 so 0300 00.035 3:035 £09503: .2302 *0 2.8.5502. 002:3: 05 .8 3.0.8203 38m 00520.2 >0 02000000 >25.» 00.0.00 :< 9:40.55 10.... mozj m._.<>_mn_ 02_0 A . «0003000058002 05 .0 :00 a: 00.... .05 €2.80 .00.. 0. 39.2.0 >:0 000:. 00.. 022. .00—.0530 9.3.000. 00:.» An 103 22...; 20...... a 8.23m .~ 3 9.30 8260.. 2:28.. .o 2.2 oz. 8.5.“. .. ..0EEuxm 3% as .3200 x00 2.. ... 89.2.0 085 00:000.. 33.0 .mm> .. .0 02.025 0. 0...... 800.0 .02 .. .02 A . wm> A . .. o a o m ..o oo o... .... 0000055009. 20.... .05 3.0020 .00.. 0. 39.2.0 9.0:. 00.. 0.0 .A... .0 00:00.5 0. 0.0.0 .02 = .02 A . mm> A . «02.3.3 050003215080 50> 0. 39.2.0 ....0 000:. 00.. 0.6.. .000-30.000 9.3.002 00:.» An .. IUIPOCUUU C-4< “(...—u a. .c> OCH ..c> 5.4 <1...- 104 «000.3000 :2 00.000. .00m 0000.0 00.2.00 002000013202 2 .80....0000 0.0.0 33.0203 206 000.00.: 0009 000. .050. 00.0....» 0...0...<. 000 000000.". .0 ..000 ,flad__u..8__. mu _. _ 0 u: u: .08.. :28: .0. 000. .0. 00.00.. .0802 00.00.03. ..0000 0000.06 2.00. .8300 0.00.0 . . Am. 02:00.... .0 5.0.020 .0. 0.0.0. 0 .0. 000. .050. .000 00030.0 0022.00 0.00 008000 0...... ..0200 0... 000.0 0000.0 3.0000000 .0 .000 00.0.0010 0.0 00» .0.? $0.00.. 0.... .0 0.000 00. 00 0.0... 0...; 0. .00. 0835 mix :00. 00.0000 000.00 0000.0 0.00.0060 .050 ..00 0.6.. 00.. .. $0.00.... .00. 0000.008 0...... 329.; 008.2 80895 00.9 329.: .50. 0 .0 000 .0. 5. 00.00.. 0.00.0 . . ...... 9. HZWPwQIOUV= N D m V m N P PZMPWQEOO fiAcauEg: 202.8 0.0.. ....00.0...0 0 :0... 0.00.0 a. 02. 0 0 m 0 0 N F 02.20 0300 .0.. .000. . 3...... as... sea... ...... has ””3500...” 9. 00020.. n 0 m 0 m N r 00020006 8:8 . . . 0 .0 0.0 00.5 .0 ......0 00 >0. 00.00000. 00 oz 000(50sz n m m 0 m N .. 0.0.0.000 . . 0. . ...0.. .0 . . 02. g a: 009m... 0 m m 0 m N F 00.50.00”. 0.0... 000 .260 00.. .. 00.6 9 000.000 0 . 0 m 0 0 N F 00.000 8835 5%.... ”.2383... $3.83 3.8.: .0..“m.m.._.0..._u,n .0. 000. . 0 00000000. «20 .00.... ...r 0.0.00 05000.0 0.00.00m. 0.0008000 00. 00:00.... ..0 000.0000”. .0.0.02 .0 88095 3......221 ”353.83 05%.; 033...... 0 0.850%. .0 EM... E0500 0 00 . . 0 . 0 .60. 5 .0000 .8. 00.. 30.. 0.8.0:. 0000.0 .00 80.0.0800 .8055 .8... 0.02. a 8:020 o. . . .2 >5 >3 .28 >9 >§ gun 2‘85 3 =§ .058..: 00.. 3:030 02 33.60 00> .0... 0.00000 0.0. .0. 0.000020 00.0....» . 0... .0... . . .6. 0000000 00.00. 0. 0.08.90 00:0 0.00.0. . 5602... 590.05 20.2.00 59... 593 . «:3: 00> .1598 02 32080 00> .0 ..00. 0.: .0. 0. 0.00:0...0 0.0 033.... 5%.... ”fig. firing. 3%.... 00.2.; .2... . .0 0000000 200.200.. 0. 9.0. ....s .. to... . . . . 3:5 .53 32:0 . 00.. 0 . 0. 0 006. 26 0.0 .00.. 0 00> 3:008 02 .0”? "Wu .0 .0000.- 00... .At ... .. .0... . 0 >000 0 00.000 0.0002000 00. 0.00.0 0000.0 0050...... .00000 .00. .6000... .00.. 00 0000000 000.00. 0.0... 00. .00>0..0 00.0.. 00.2.2.0. 00. ....s ...00... .50.. ..00.00 00 0.0 00... 000 ..0000. 00.0.0000. 00.0000 0.0002000 00. 0.00.0 0000.0. 00.0.5. .0. 00.0000... 05.00.0000 0.0 00.. .00. 000. 0.... 0. .0.0. 0.30 00030000 APPENDIX K 1996/97 POST SURVEY 105 0000000000 0000000000 5.0000000 5.0000000 00900020. . 00:082. . 50.000. . 2:20:00. . >015... . 00.000 .00> «0000 0000.0 .00..000 00> 0000.0.000 00. 0...... 00> 00.0.3.0 0. o .0 om .0 no 00. 00.5 3.0000000 .50... ..m 0000 ...02 00 0.00m 00.0.5.0 0.00.05 000.0000... _0.0.0z ...: 000.000.. 0.. 00.0000 00 00 .0 .02....0000 000.00.... 0.0 .0. 03.2.0.0 050.00 0.0.0.6 0000.0 000020.000 .0. 00.0.00 000 o .0 oz 305 000.00.: >0 00.00.0000 >0>.:0 00.0.00 :4 .0 oo 00. 00000.08 .0. 300000. 0.00. .00> 00.5 .055 .... mu._..o.=>> mo“. . . 02 . .00.. 0.0.2.9. 0020... m._.<>_~.0 oz.0 .0. 00.0 .00E000000. .0....00 0 0...... 0 .0 oz .0 no 00. 0.0 ..m 000020.000 02000. 00> 0.0 .00> 000 0.00... .00>> ..N 60.00000 0000.0. .050 A . 09.909... 2.0.... 0 0022.0 . . ...... o... 0 00280. . . $030 .0... 0d. 0000... .6 .0 0.... 02.00.0003 000.0298 000 0000200000 00.00000. .0 .00. 0.0.0.0 0000200000 >.0000 00. 0.0.. 002000. 0>00 00> 0000.0.000 .0 00>. 0.... 0.00.00. 0000.0 .... 106 >¢Oh0<02h.00. 00. 0.00.0>0 0000.0 .0. 02.0.05 ‘ .02 ‘ 02.00.00 ‘ 02.00.00 V 02.00.00 02.00.00 .0. .00... 0. 000.00 000 22 32 3.80 .9388. E5 08.. 03.02.00 2.. ...: .0...0...5 .0. 000. 00000090 02 . 02.00.... .00» 0000!: 0. 000.0 0””... 02%."...u 0%...“ 50.5.0000! 50> 0 00.00.... .0 000 2.... A: 3:205 .0. 000. .00.. 000000. 00038.0 0. 000000 30.0000. .02 0280.0 0250.0 0280.0 02.00.00 000 .000..0E.0.0. 900... .02 >350” 500% >¢u> B 000.:Ou .053 .0 3:30:00 000 .8. .0...0...5 .0. 000. .00.. 000000. 0. 00.. .0000 0.0.0000: us. E05300 H.503.” £38000 Shogun Oe QEEEQ «605505 0.00.. .02 5.0000 50.5.0003 >00) .0 3:30:90 00... ..m— ..02 02.00.00 02.00.00 0500.00 02.00..» .000. .00» 00 009.0000. 03. a: 3.80 .0382 .0., 2.. 00.5.0. 0. so... ..3 >¢Oho<0wFmaw¢~= 003mm: :03: 09—. 00.000 0.0002000 0... 0.2.0 0000.... 000.00. 0552.0. 00. .0 0000 00.0>00 .000.>.00. 00. 0.0.0. 00.. 00 002.0000 .50... hhhh 0000300: 0 n m 0 VVVVV' t9 NNNNN F .. p F F >¢Oho<0wrru0wm .50me 3.5.4 00.? 0000.00 0.0002000 00. 05.0.00 .3 00>.000. 00.. .0..l0....fl...0 0. ...0. 00. 0.00.0>0 0000.0 .8. . 00....0........s 8:00..“ 0. .. 00 0.0.300 00.. 00002.. .02 g.. .§ ...”.00030 .....00000 00.3.00. .. 3 ..0..0..0.a.o.. 050...... :0... .00. 0.0.000 . 0% >500 023.48 303.50 . 0.502.. .02 2003000.. 5050000 3.000002... .8900“. 00.0.5... .3 00000 ..0>00 ..0.0.5 .000. ”0.0000028 _. 0.30.. .3. 2.. uses 82 hug“. mug .358... 030.0 2.222.000 ..0 among 5.3.9..» 09.950 00; .nfimaOOOKu “...—N 000020 .02 20.002000... 3.2.0000 5000000..» 0000.0 .002000000m .8 .02.... 0.00.. .55.... 000008... 00.00. 00 00 .0. 0.000 20.000000... 00002.. .02 29000000.. 3000000 3.000002... 009.9 .0 3:33.20. .0 0005000000. 0030090 5.2000 0000000 0000.60 050...... .0. 0.000 00.000 000020 .02 20.002000... 320000 5.800002» .0 000000000. 00... .8 00.000 0.0002000 0... 0.00.0 0000.0 00...... 00.000 00.. .000.>.00. 00. .3 0000000.0 00.0.. 0000. .0 0000 00.5 00000.00. .500 .0000.0.000 00>.000. 00.. 0.00>> 107 Mung 38$ .323 .25 on. s 3935 one: 5298 83:. .mm> V. .NN 8.330 2 9.7. 9.8... .02 V. .02 A V mm> A V mucoauuanEOue 05 3 :2. ”mm 225 .2: >525 59. 2 «69.20 >5 35: ac» 32 .857..me 9.3.32 35m .AFN 05:95 9.344. a 3.23”. .N 3 octam noozuou 3.526: B 959 03. 025E .P ..oVQmem :99» .328 .25 c5 5 $955 805 3:0on 83E .mm> V. .E 5.630 2 aim 0803 .02 V. .02 A V ww> A V A. o a o m 8 oo .2: 3 332.882 9.2: 35 €808 5o» 2 8955 83E :0» Ho Adm . - 5:320 2 gm .02 V. .02 A V mm> A V $2.33 Eocon Vac. Atoaoa So» 2 8965 En 03:. :0> 262 .85Ewmm 9:238 3:8 A? 108 $5 > g: mug mug > g; «gob .833th Eng. :2: .352 2:33 8. woo. 8. .232 .822. 238 . . .Avn wwgfi >5; mug A3882: mug >g~=a «2:33 .0 37.32.. a .8 can. 558 Assam—88 8 .68 ..a.oV «200% >363 38 a 3 one .6. 3.32 225 . . Ann mug >3; 08.0823 >2». 2595:). 82. 2.2.23 .9. $53 ..o._V 3:24 0:96 .63 353 3.5: cm: . . .Awn . . . 2 .203 2:03. 62.23 ..2 can. AE @5858 cmc>> own-082: hihcg. >02 53.5.3. 5:333 32.—g Sm»; 3h; EN) .805 com .26: .5» V. co>o Ex» 3:33 .2. . . A; wince!- ~02 525.23. hi" bis—(COG! >.—w>(§ in; damages .822. 9.7.3:. a ESEaEEEEo 2. . .8... hsbcg .52 :2»; him 2»; )3»? Eng .moaczuoaao 23> 2:25 8:85 2 . . .Aom Owe-08.3 5:53. 82 g»; h5g3” g..; >db<¢w§ g..; .0585 «.8385 2:3; .8 “.332: new. 2. as. . .Amm Owonvwoza 53:93. 82 Eng h3g8” gun—013. >4wh§ g»; >¢N> ..EE 2 «32.96 as 3%.? as . . AR . . .30» 9 g m_ E3595 26: (€305 30> c0 .3223 othQEQQm 2: 29:0 83E 62.23, .2 9.529: accouficou 2a no» 55 new. 05 2 .82 3.3 303330 o: kthwQEOUZV w4m<3w123 m2“. ...mmZOI ”mg... mmemMD N A 532.200 N P «.52: m P pmmzoxma N F mqmfigwm N F mw>>O.V.VOu N F .VDume ”a «20 596.5. 9: .8983: $3295 2: unit? .3 30.583. .8362 .0 295330 595:2 05 Scan 62 30> 26; 2365 335 Ag .8955 $05 95.9: 93 ES. 3282 3 =5 59-3 59:; g >493 > . Eu> 2226.6» 02 #2633 >¢u> «05 3.50:!- usk AmN 9 .3955 9.9: o. MU: 33.9w :03. ESE. 53.3 3313 zoo-so :93 595 . Eu) 326:0..." oz 2126.6» Em) .0 soc. 9:. Ava .3935 20:83:... 49.1: 9. .2: 292.8 :95 :93 8 8.8 =3) : tote > > _ . Eu> 3.2633 02 3.2623 Em) 3 «.5080 2:. Ann 865 Sana—05am 05 223 33.1 63:25, Eocmn 65 3.30.5 50> cc 3965 9:me Ea: 30> «c053 v.82. 936:2 05 =3, 29:. 26... .8930 0: 2m 2:: can xocoE @5633 m >uw:2_u_w0 “H-.. ..., .. A V V V m u m U) ...—4...“..- v m V M m V w ...... 2....-- ..-........._....... >.thzrmo 39:3: 0332qu Von 05 £87.. ommoi $.53 92 68: on. E 2:25, .2 new. 50> co mtoto EoEmuucuE 50> 35.50 8 $385 =3, 30> «as g m_ 29... 26: .A- «08-608. _s. .0523 .30 05.5 32:80: .2302 2 2.32:: 0.0.0 895.5. 2.6.? 2.. 8:05.“. 3 ....00 60.0.02 5:003". .550 05:65 2.3. .0. E22 9:0 3022:: 0:235 20: 0:500: 0... :_ 62:0 05 000.: 030.: $0.50 50> 003.050 0.5. ... 0:85 .05 05.. .50: 5V :0: 0.55. awn—:3: mecca ”035—3 ”0.52 45.55050 :0 9.0.: 0. 30> «00.50 :00 _ 00 26.00 55:55. 05 0032: 030.: 32.20%: V m><0A V 2:0: 20: 8...: 05:: V 003A V 3:: V 202A V 55:2: 50: :03 0V 0.: 5.. 0:... .3: 05 0: 2:02. x003 05 :0 AmVVAuu 6:3 2006:. 030.: .02 A V 00> A V t8: «x. 520 a. on: .2. a 0.: 5.3 >555 50> 00:00.0 0. :55; 0: :0» 2:0; .mw> = .08.. .6. :0» x55. ...2: :5 5:32: 0:0.0>:0 2.. c. >023 2: 8...: 83... .02 ._ 02 A V 00> A V 0:55.: 50> :0 .230: 0.5....) 05 0.03.06 05 0:03 0. 6056.050 :0 00.0.: 0:. .0. 0. 55...; 0: :0» 2303 55:2: 05 :0 0:0 05 :0 9:50:00 3:0: 00...: 0. 0:0 20.0.5855 00.0. ...: 55:03 0:... 9:23. 5605:: :0: 3...:3550 33:9: 0.02:: 0555200 0. .005 :. 50> 0.5 6 3:3: 0:0 .23... .05.. :. 3:555 5:355. 0V0>5 5203 0: ...3 . .0309: 5.6206 0.5 .0 :0: 0< f =2. EzVeoEA V :2. 8580: V 88A V 3558 .5: 3:60 0.50:. :6» V0 5.5: .023 A9. 68.8.2 V 08.3-80.m~2 V 80.02.000.32 V 0860.08.32 V 083000.82 V 8:30:92: V 0350-08.32 V 08.03 8:28: V .52 :0. 0500:. 0.9.00.6: 50> 02.6.: 030.: Am: 60.06.50 06: :0» 5:850 V0 .06. .35.: 05 0.0.0 030.: A; s. A V n. A V :50 50> 0. 6.3: A0: I 0. t5: :0> 0:03 50» 6:3 :_ A00 E 8.08. 0:... 2.. .... 32:58 6...; A8 3:00 «02.2.3 .0. 0005:. >2: :0» 00:0 05 m. 090. 30... AS , A056: :05 0.6:: 005 :55 A V 52-59.05 A V 88.0.0. 553% :32 .351 V 5.3.53 V A5.5.3.. .6. 0:05.: 0. 3:00.050 20 :0> 523 :5. 05 :0 5:000. 05 09:03: 30> 0:6; 26... A00 .266: 3:55 035 0.80 030.: .3» = 20.2.5 02 A V 02 A V 00> A V 80:30; 5 :03 0V.» 0:. 0:55 2:03 :9. .05 0.63 >:0 0:05 0:: Ann 110 APPENDIX L HABITAT EVALUATION INDEX VARIABLES 111 a . ~ a 80:3 02 III. nll ~ 0.0:. .0 ... . . e . ~ 0 0 0 ~ I 0A.. I: 8.2 I: 8.00 I 8.0. II 8.8. 923.9... .93 .539. l 9.0!? £8... . 0 a 0. .ll 58... Z Ilésc. E .II 3.8... 0A 3. _ . x Ila... .o a :8: A Ila... .o a .0.... A022 .95.. .... 83.2. 52 8. ...m 9.55... A. . A A . 0 lo I.. ..I~ ..IA I... 1:0 .8 2...; 8 . . ...:z . ~ A 0 l 09.38 I 00.0: .|.l .8653 ll 00.... 3.0 2.8.5.. oz a II .a 2 .02 1.4.29... 1.53.. Ire: “aqua A. . ~ A 30:3 02'. III N 0.0:..0m . A. . . E A. ..A A. ~ . ~ II :0 ... .02 II 2.29.0. II 5.5... II: >50: flag 0:88.00: 08.0.8. . ...... .0 a ”5:. lasio .. .0.: ll..._m 2.5.8; . . A A A 8A mmfiv oYmN o~.o. $9: .mV 9.5.: .oA 9.5.: 950 IAIN? 9.3.: .|.I.A.A :52: .0. LEV 55.: ImlkA 9.5.: .0550 |~.| 9.5... 9.50 |.II 9.5... .3 [0| 9.5:. .0550 A. .. ~ _ A III .55. 02 I. I N Ill 80... .0 n .II- 9.20.9.0... III .50: ..II. .5... . . 5030 .00. 5030 :53 www. 6.5104.qu 0w... .0 ... ”.8: . 0...! .0 .. “...: ...m .2530 o a 80.8. $02. A a Ilsa: 50.2 26.0.... .8? "9.80 . A. 08.8. $3.: 8.0.3. $00.3 05.00. nsow." "=0: > E . . F o A 0: Ill 0.... ”0:2... .0: 5.3 . ll. 5.: :50 .0 :8... 5.. A A III 5.: ..men.:0.0 30.. III. 05m0<00em-:.~.o :23 553% .< u .0 m .0 < .0305 IAWSAS: :8... I88... 9.: 35 ozfiEIszgxu 112 APPENDIX M TABLES OF RESULTS 113 .mm .80... ..\..N n ......— 005 0.02 $2 mm :0: :0... 000.— ..M:.E..0\E0§a0£00 0.000.... .59Q0 20.00283 .05: .mmO Ax...” m2 . 0:02 :2 .20.: .0.: 5 +0850 .00.. . _ _ 80.20.000.20 «00003.. $028.... 0.3032. :5: 00.8.0 0.80... :8 $0.0. ov :::.0mu-oh :mm .50.: X: _ Nm .DAE 50.002 .m.m\<.m .0003. {can 02 awe—.00 050m 00.03500 0:0: 00% 00.008000 3:0. .00.}... 0.x. 0.0... 00003 6N0 :8 S .85. ...... :mN .80... $3. 0... 0.22 .0.. 08: .. .20.. «00 $2“ :5 0.500.. . 2H .20.: x...— cv 2:-8 Ax. _ 0 :2 :92. «5:05. 309% 03... 0.0.00 00% 0.0.: 000:. .0.? 5 3&0 .XRN mm :3: new 30.: Ax: _v + _ w {am— am 8. _ n AXE: N: am; _ 0.05.02: ..0\0M0A.0E 0. «0...: 00A 5.0%..Q 05 0.. 0MB. :02 .NNO $3“ N» 00.00 c. -. :3 =20... A.\A.N n 00.0 55.: £0: 0 :30. :25 . 0.05.3.2: ..0.\M:..M0:0E 3.1030200 .33 on _0_.:0_._mo.-_0.=x 0.0 00% .0... 0:0. 0S\0 00:000. 05 00.20000 00:030.: :0: ”$0 $2. 00. 00.0 :00..-_A..3_ ..\.. 50:0..on 00:0000m 2.0.30.5 80050.20.— ..0:9...0>> .0 0030...; 2.303050: .— 030,—. 114 1‘. m . m .50... $. N ...... :0... 0.0.). $0. 3. ...... :0... 000.. mM2.2..0\.20.\00.200 0.2002. ...0A\0 20....0Q0.Q .0.... ”:0 $2. 00. 2.02 n... .80... $0.. on +08.an ...? ... 805-80....» .03... .... 0.028... 0.0.2.8.. .59. 00.8... 0.00.. ...8 $0. . m 03.03-..” mom .80... $N. on .0.... .3882 .m.m.<.m ..00mm< $3 mm. .0w0..00 0.00m 00.0.3200 0.8.. 00.. 202000003 .00. .003... 0... 0.0.... 0000... 6mm. ...... a. .020. .0.: n _ N .80... ...... a: 2.2 00.. as. .. .2... ”20 $0. on 0.050.. m . N .50... $2 mm 8. .8 $3 a. . 3.6.. «20.0.... 323m 0%... «2.0. 00.. 0.0.: .00A .0...: 2. ”0N0 $3 we 1 mm-.. ... m .80... $w. mm + . a $0. ... 0.... n $2. 8 en. . «033...: .0\0M0202. 0. ......3 00.. 5.2.03 0... .... 030. 30$. ”NNO $8 N0 00.00 c . -. o . m .20... $. m so... :35 $5 0. =30. ..0Em «02.3.2: .0\M2..M0202. m2...030200 $0M ... 3.200.02483. 0.0 00... .0... 3.0. 0...\0 20.0000. 0... 0....0000 003300.: :0... .NO $mm m: 00.0 5.0..-.83. $ .3530... 02.0000: 2.0....00U 0.5.0.033.— ..m.>-0..w ..0 0030...; 02.003052. .N 0.00... 115 nodWQ nan—a 8:85ch _auzmtsm: 233.8 2 :55 8. 2.8 E :58 3.830... 25:... «522 €3.89 33:: 292.28 £385. and "a .2 .N u Nx sz.§.6\ SoKamEou MESS .SQQQ zezaomoi B5: ”:0 23 "q._m.~u~x RES in a N .6\m£8£ 323.33 .53 which 2.33 u 50 83 "a a? n Nx \EBNQES mag 30% =o=au§m\o ESN 33$: 2: 28m $.83 6N0 :83 "a £2“ u Nx Rama 35>. .n 35: ”mmo among .8: T“. _n u :32 >m av n 53.2 m3 «3:2? 339% va¢ «.53 30A 933 Ema ES: 5 memo .... 53$ .83 E Q: n 522 >m 06m u :82 m3 «mmS‘hmi 3\mwa§fi S 5.3. 3% A2283 mi fl ~33 is: ”NNO S 2. no. .33 u Nx RMKQEE LQMEMEEE MELmEnzou Eu 3% BS 323 m£\o 29:33 2: 329.4% 33:39: :8: ”_NO 93335 «3% 233.25 835...; 923528: 3:36:52. 53.85 ...—a 3:333 gran—=3 9.28. 358555 .n 93:... 116 Table 4. Opinion of the DNR before and after treatment (1998 and 1999) Question: Please indicate how you feel about the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by circling the appropriate number. * Workshops Site Visits Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha = .80 Cronbach’s Alpha = .83 Cronbach’s Alpha = .74 Cronbach's Alpha = .72 Nofitem=6 Nofitem=6 Nofitem=6 Nofitem=6 Mean Before Mean After Mean Before Mean After 2.67 (N=85) 2.75 (N=85) 2.90 (N=39) 2.95 (N=39) Test Statistic“ " Test Statistic‘ “ t= -.897 df= 84 p= .372 t= -.36l df=38 p= .720 Test Statistic" ‘ Before: F= .002 p=.966 Afler: F= .239 p=.626 ‘A semantic dfierential scale was created with the following bipolar adjectives: useful/useless, leader/follower, reliable/unreliable, honest/dishonest, fair/unfair, competent/incompetent. Participants chose a number between 1 and 7 to indicate their opinion. ”Statistical significance alpha 5 0.05. "*Anova conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between workshops and site-visit. Table 5. Opinion of the treatment and instructor (1998 and 1999) Question: Please indicate how you feel about the treatment (instructor) by circling the appropriate number. * Treatment Instructor Workshops Site- Visits Workshops S ite-visits Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha = .78 Cronbach’s Alpha = .76 Cronbach’s Alpha = .74 Cronbach’s Alpha = .85 Nofitem=4 Nofitcm=4 Nofitem=5 Nofitem=5 Mean Mean Mean Mean 2.26 (N=85) 2.34 (N=76) 1.99 (N=136) 2.20 (N=76) Test Statistic "' “ “ Test Statistic " " * F= .355 p= .552 F= 2.49 p= .ll6 ’A semantic differential scale was created with the following bipolar adjectives: useful/useless, leader/follower, reliable/unreliable, honest/dishonest. fair/unfair, competent/incompetent. Participants chose a number between I and 7 to indicate their opinion. Statistical significance alpha 5 0.05. *"Anova conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between workshops and site-visit. 117 Table 6. Opinion of the treatment and instructor (1996/97) Question: Please indicate how you feel about the treatment (instructor) by circling the appropriate number. * Treatment Instructor Workshops Site- Visits Workshops Site-visits Scale Reliability Scale Reliability Scale Reliability . Scale Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha = .79 Cronbach’s Alpha = .89 Cronbach’s Alpha = .76 Cronbach’s Alpha = .74 Nofitem=4 Nofitem=4 Nofitem=5 Nofitem=5 Mean Mean Mean Mean 2.31 (N=98) 2.33 (N=118) 1.95 (N=99) 2.04 (N=122) Test Statistic ‘ * "‘ Test Statistic " " F= .027 p= .869 F= .378 p= .539 ‘A semantic differential scale was created with the following bipolar adjectives: useful/useless, leader/follower. reliable/unreliable, honest/dishonest, fair/unfair, competent/incompetent. Participants chose a number between 1 and 7 to indicate their opinion. Statistical significance alpha 5 0.05. "*Anova conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between workshops and site-visit. 118 8.5m m:...:..$ :. 82.. 832: . 8.8 8:... :28... . 2:228 e.....E 3.5... 883 :2. .8262 m:.:2.o 2.2.3 8.5... . m8... .8: 8.8.: . “Hm—PO 5.0 2:. 3.2.2.. 888m. . mzéuczm EZHEZMH>OU w - 8.2.2:: 8.8.0 . .232 82.2. 232.... 8:88. . 8:85.... a... ...: . v - 8.8: ..o.... :83 8.88 . m - 2.65:... 8.020 . 3%.. mHKDHUDmhm ..Ex. ...... 8?: EB. :52. :28... . v5.83 :. 8.8.. to: .295 8:88. . 98. ......S 8. 8.5.... . 3 2:52. m3. . :5... a m..: . :llo....2o. .5283 a 20.8. o. .8352... . o . 85.8% .o 8.0: o. 8.28. . . mg mGZ525. . v .. 296.0 8.6.0 .....223 ..o 88.. N . g mazes—mméw $5.88 8.5.85... . 82. 2...... 85...: . 82. coma—o. . m - .82.... 03.8.2 . N - m:.:2.o .88. 8.8.0 . :58 :2... a 328.0 . 82. :38 23.2. ..a :26: ...o . m .. 22:2. 03... ...o . 82. 23.2. ...o ...o . 2.83%.: .o 8... v2.8... . . 8:595 . 2.23:. :28... . g..]. 8.2.2.20 .9352: . 6838.. ..o 86. N . m - 9...: 55...... mN: . 8838.. mm . o - 2.20 .858 mNm.. . N - 8:8: .92. 82...... co. m - 2.3.38: ...—c.0885... .2352: .25.»... 2. . 8.2%. final—#750 az..2.m Ega— 3 .88....58 28:8... .8...8.:.:.82.-:..Z .w 2...... 120 236%.? 25683 3:61 . 52% EBwEE—EE can $833 @853 . “Eu“ c853 . £88 >33 .8 vozflam . N - 39:7. 28 80.: . 35> a: 838%-202 m8: :9: . =86“. cabana was .3 . 3% ceaza co. . .3033qu PC 98 Eagwhom . 850 £833 «EEw 050on can 05> 895.: 302905 oov . £03223 . 63.0355; . moci =a_._.m=< we . 825; an 9383 . 32a cook m . 22.32. . 35% wagmszob g g 3% GHDZFZGU a mHM—DFUDw—Fm mGZ:0: £52926 850 8nt bag 89.. 2.3 can 82% 0:3 . x2: $2325..” .8 Bus ~\. . Ea 02083.8; 32. 2.3 cc . 8on x26 coo; 3820 . 535:2 .23 8.7. 95 . 5:. £33.53? . .353. gaukwcab mm? a flag 552550 3 mEDHUDmHm mGZ33— 3 6326.89 now—:23 36:08583— .a 935% 121 83o: 250:3 v0.85 . [ _m_oc_t< mm—u—DHUDy—Pm 8.8 Ea mm 2333qu 83% $3.82 2 . mwczuoom 0:3 3. com . maesuxwzeb 335$ 02% GZ-3_m £3— 3 6826.89 mung—E coe=oEEo3¥=oZ .N— 935. £8. 33350 . 8235.03 28 ~\. . Ezzwhom 28 _ . 8 a: ‘28 . EoEtoo .95: @885 . j s a _— wEuEe 3383. . ES 058 m ..o 222:0 @255 . llll .3554 Mum—3H0 m - 8:. cook 28 x . o9: 358:0 on . 3o oo . $6 .3 33%. . a u ... m8: 3.. 8 m—Zd‘M—UOy—n— mGZCU Boa _ wEBoE :30 . m - «9:58 3320 . Siam on . OOH—flfioucmmz «30550—0 COQm< . Qoahn—m OW . m I 3:235 3320 . 958: go 28 S . mil—ESQ 3F 88. 0:3 2 . .8282 N - 338w b.3530 E 8380 n . m0m30£mvhmfl UOHOOhm . ”>3“: lac MOHOQ V— . .O—Qn—NDQHO .0—303WsAOP—OP— H§§hu§§§b _a_oc_t< wEEmE 380 £0on8 can . wEEmE 8; deDFUiy—hm mGZ.8_m 93— 3 1825.89 mow—:39 cue—_oEEcoom .: 035,—. 122 2802: 05% :0>0E0m . «200% 0>_00>:_ :0>0E0x . :38 33:30. 330% . E0: 33:000.:— . 0.00:0: NED 0:00m - 05 30:2: . m- 0:005:53 :2::E yum—=80. m - 00.352: :0305 . 3:202 0008: 0.0:::003 :0.00:m . m . 000:0: EB 3805 . EQEE may—Dhobmhm ::00 :00:0::m . :0: 5:5 ::0: :00_00.m . $03 :00: .0.: 0030 3:305 . w:_==0 01.80: :0m:0_ 20: x0; :04 . .353 :0 0: :80 a0; . 0.003005 0.00 00.0: v . £23.00 ::0 500 00.0: m . w:=:03 ..00 00:00 N 33:05 . 00:00 mN :0302 . v - 00:00 N. wEBoE :00005 . 00:38:32 m . 0.09.8» 00 00:00 N\. N . 0:030:33 :5 .33 :a_::_ .003 0...: .003 mi 5:: 00:0: 2 . 0:32:00; €..0..=£:0030=_E 03:0: . N - 30% 220.0 .353 0.00: :58: £0.05 :0::< . 000: 3:05 . 022.0005 5:: 0.00: 0:3 50 3:33.: :0&0.m . 000: no 008 :58: at; 0:003 Sm . 000.3 :0::_;,_. . $5300. :0._:0_U . 0>=0 000: 02.0: ON . $5603. :2 _ . c . 32:0 ::0 000.: 0mm . 0300Q0é02 32% 0.8205: 3 ml 033 5:20: . N - 0.0—0:30:05 2: . _ - b.2320 swan—=3; om . b.0288 : . 0000: 000m... : . >:0—.0 wEwa: mN . mESEsS. om . N - 0:003w0: ..0 030: w . M II 0:003w0: 3:0 ::0 bum cam . ml 030380 can adsiuhw m l 8.00 2.. . m l 0.00 ::: 030.: . adaafimumg 3:00 0.23 ooN . «E 0.23 cm . .5 00.9000 mN . 0:3 5:60: 8m . 0:50; 0:200: an: 00.0: o . .mmSmfiza ..0 00.0: v . :EB:< :0>0..:0.m . N. . 00:3 0.33 2. _ N . 20:03 é 8:: 8:38. . «.52. 28 _ . 0.0wa N - 05:8 .35: . m l 2E. 02 N0 . EOE00:0;:m 0%: 56.00»: «.0 0.00 x . m - 0:030:23, . 30.50 03.0: 002% 0:3 0mm . “0:020? 0:00-N\.m 200:0 . _ - 0D 00.00 m N . 00:35:30 00:0: 0 . -:0: 00 :30on . $00030 $382 co: . 8:005 050% 098% N - 56.0 :0 28 N . N- 05:8 0>:8.om N . 88% 223 mNoN . m -::::03 0.00 E :2900M . 2 . .03 :00: 0.0.00 ~\_ N0 . 0.3.33. 0.3% a n::.~0\w=§b g 92.. .08: 02.50: 32: amazizou 050%.: 8: mGZusom . map—u flop—EFF . means—0:.— Ucm mv—NQO Sm” mmczasm 3320 . . . .. Mum—3H9 magma o>=o :E=.=< 33:51 . .2833qu 5.. 8.8 o @2305 . N .. $530 .35; . Sumo 223 “monies 8:28:32 32% moxcn 9.50:3 Uouooum— . UCG hD>O-U flog—gn— . eggs—7:6: ho B>OEDM . Dcma 03:3 OW . woxon x26 coo? 382m . 83 3.8 Ba 838w uEEg . N - wczfio o>zoo_om . 33% 233 GOQN . N - 5325 3:59.. . toe Bow o. 3:87. . 3033.2? . 9:330 09:. “53%on _amoEtt. 32m coon mat—55 89.0 GHDZ—PZOU mat—8E 00:. mEDPUDM—Pm mn—ZEOw—U GZ Habitat for small game > Attract quail > Restore old agriculture land to earlier type > Attract turkey > Plant native plants > Attract rabbits > Create a pond > To provide food and cover > Erect bird houses for songbirds and small animals > Wildlife diversity > Create a wetland > Habitat for songbirds > Create a windbreak > Plant food plots > Reforestation > Plant trees > Join CRP > Attract pheasants Table 18. Goals of site-visit participants Question: Please state your goals below. VVVVVVVVVV Provide habitat for pheasants, grouse and deer Pond development Improvements for waterfowl and birds Improve wildlife habitat Improve viewing opportunities Create nature trails Improve hunting Create nesting and cover Plant food plots Housing for ducks and birds vvvvvvvvvvv Establish prairie Establish oak savanna Establish travel corridor Rotate Aspen clearcut Selective cut hardwoods Climate control Plant trees and shrubs Timber stand management Wildlife diversity To raise wildlife populations Increase herptiles 126 Table 19. Reason for contacting Conservation District Question: What was your main reason(s) for contacting the CD or RC&D and asking for assistance? Workshops Site-visits > To attract wildlife > lncr e s ies diversity > Forest harvesting information > Information about trees and shrubs .: E S i : > Wetland enhancement > Habrtat for endangered . . . > Insect problems . > Financial assrstance . . meadow birds > Wetland information (Government programs) > Weed control . . > To attract pheasants . > Planting assrstance . > Learn about Quality Deer . > Stgn-up for workshop > To increase pheasant . Management . > To attract bluebirds population . . > To attract small game . . > Enhance wrldhfe > Restore to revious > To JOII’I CRP > To attract deer . . a :E p > To mammtze our habitat for . . cond1t1ons . . > Interested in native plants and . . w1ldl1fe . > $011 erosron restoration . > To choose the best trees for us . . > Grass Information > Increase wrldhfe knowledge and teach us how to plant > To attract pheasants > To manage woodlot better . them . . > Tree questions > To get a different perspective . . > To attract pheasants > To attract Wildlife . . > To learn about trees and shrubs > Restore a savanna/prairie > To attract deer . . > Enhance for wrldlrfe and > To attract turkeys . . . timber > Seeking advrce on watershed program for wildlife habitat > Wetland 155 a” . . > Wetland restoration > Wetland issues Table 20: Open-ended Responses* ________________________________——————————-—-— Question: Please list any reason thatlnlgiprevent you from implemen’tingzgur wildlife management plan Workshops Site-Visits > Money > Time > Lack of confidence > Interference from surrounding landowners > Effort involved > City ordinances > Weather conditions ‘P Equipment > Inability to get fire department to approve burn > Health > More information and resources > Money > Time > Planting assistance > Health > Not having the information > Environmental concerns > The apocalypse > Tools I- A response could have been stated by more than one participant. 127 2. 1 mm .2 No _28 . .. $3 :3, a a. 28:25 bo> H cao $5. .1. a E. m _2 m3 $2 a\om_ 2 _ _ 383:: 233088 89:23 82: met—S: N8. 1 a ..\ m e: 8.5% o :5: 3282 B . Erma .... _ .... 2 a. a . . z =Ee£mEo=3 2:, $6 u 502 >m \E as a : .32 .2558 as: as: a. 2 33.: eo> 2. 1 mm as 8 33 . I 1 $2 .xam 3 _m 23:5 bo> wow. u a S m 1 :82 m3 o\ovm $3 on mm 385:: cacao—cam mow—.29 8.5: 3 . ozazga cos—«€85 08 u a 2. H mm $2 $2 a o. 558 oz .8 can. 2: Ra u :82 >m aim at: am 8 28.: .2555 e: ea. w v 33.: ES 2. 1 mm 8. 3 ask 1 e..; as: a 3 23:5. eo> . mud u :32 m3 . manage on”. m a owe use 8 : :a.__§=am_._=>_,%%h.m assoaé 2 9.2 :3 8o 1 a 3." mm a. \E w : . . z a 8th 2525 2:, Sm n =8: >m as $8 a «N be: 5:558 e..: ea: 2 _ a 23.: bo> 2.53-85. _ 32313: £33.25 32316} 22.35 30,—. .x. zugoaaofi 8.59.3. «$33 €83 as bammoam EBA to “sweep? 359: EExSoA 393.1 .33: Mamiezfimfi $2 $83 :8: 98.36 6: 98 22.: has A285 Mewsamat E2330 023.8.— »aE 85333.3.— maotaam "—N 93:. 128 .522. a 3328 82.50 05.3. 332.8 on 2 as; 8388. .37. Z 9 use... E: m _ N _Soh \ .m $3: $2 $3 m. 3 32000:: afinmmezufi Me 325 «SS: 95.6.8 $2. ..\o_ o 2: mm_ tow—Mama $20 35 988.3 a a... 262.88% $_ _ $3 2 on ”a? E: o _ N .88. $~ $a N 2 . 8282: m aaaéaxseg zae $3 =3 3.3% S 32 Beeches? o\ov o\ow_ o ow 00.935 ea A2333?» fincaafihez ~\£\~ $3 $E 8. 8. :02? cm. mom .881 «smut. EEQEQ 8333 $3 foam w. an 3200th v.33: RE 2 .3 32:36:35 Ax; b O\ONW N0 ”O— ¥¥00hwflm_= NSN‘NNE N~BNLQQLQQU \MQE ”*5 $2 $8 cm 9 8.3, on. m _ N .809 $8 $8 3 n2 seesaw Essen E: 3:23“. & 223 28353 92. o o 23 8: En _ no 66:85—58“— \om \onm I an .zozeoanbsm .EoEowacaZ £2257 $me _ 2Q»: Le$x — Egan _ . e\o 5:232m «...—:53: 3.83850 6.538.... 5.232; 3 E9323 35332.5 mesa—33 .NN 935,—. 129 .522. 2 632m 80:8 05...... 323:8 on 8 BE 882.8. .38 Z 2 25... 2. N2 _Soh \ o o .m 23.23 \1 N \omm 2 mm c0283: Sbwmmuzus .2 325 2.23 .238 $3 $— 0 3 no 2.09.935 520 ES .8803 a 2 noaaumuuzm. $2 $2 2 2 oew< g No. _Soh $o $22 5 a 828%: M 38$stst 22% 33 =3 39.2: S 32 2262533 .va $2 5 2 02320 5» 335296 fimfzfihzz §m~§ $3 $2 8 R 2.8.? P no .80... dams“. 2.93520 8:395 o o ..\o_ N \o: c. 2 BE wows: v.53: QR: S .2 Emfimmuzcfi o\om© c\oh© on be .1100.— afia— gkérx N‘DIQORQQB 365 USN $3 $2 _ _ 2 8.? mu 3 =30... fawn $60 um no 223085 $238 a. 2 is m «memufiwa o a 23m 8: En _ 8 60:85:38.; . 2 . N a . 2 $6. \1 m 2 on 52323855 4550352 £223: 8% owe Sofia tfimshuomnxmm 3:38: "2528.5 6,558.8 5383: 8 2032:“ g..-2:32.2— ES 85 .3 ~35. 130 Table 24. Received previous training Workshops Site-visits Question: Have you previously attended a wildlife management workshop or some type of wildlife Question: Before this site—visit, have you previously attended a wildlife management workshop or training? some type of wildlife training? Response Frequency °/o Response Frequency °/o Yes 64 28% Yes 20 20% No 160 71% No 82 80% Total 224 Total 102 Question: If yes, please describe the Question: If yes, please describe the type of training you received. type of training you received. > Volunteer for conservation organizations Prescribed burn workshop Wildlife rehabilitation workshop BS in agriculture College coursework Youth conservation corp Member of conservation organization BS in biology Environmental education workshop Kellogg Biological Station workshop Graduate work in ecology Forest stand improvement MSU stewardship program CD site visit Backyard wildlife workshop Conferences Pheasants Forever workshop Attended same workshop last year Purple martin seminar Bluebird festival workshop MSU workshops Pond development class Grass and tree planting workshop Literature VVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVV VVVVVV Master gardener ANR workshops Raised on a farm Seminars One-on-one discussions with biologists Wildlife degree Conferences MSU workshops Pond management workshop Pheasants Forever member College courses Literature VVVVVVV VVVVV 131 Table 25. Further training received Workshops Site-Visits Question: Since attending the wildlife workshop, have you received any other assistance? Question: Before this site-visit, have you previously attended a wildlife management workshop or some type of wildlife training? Response Frequency % Response Frequency % Yes 61 39% Yes 4 25% No 49 6 1% No 12 75% Total 80 Total 16 Question: If yes, please explain. Question: If yes, please explain. Ducks unlimited put in a dike Received a site visit from CD and hired private ecologist to assist From State forester Seminars at Wildflower conference Applied for WHIP Attended same workshop again Enrolled in filter strip program Received free seed from pheasants forever ‘ ' USFWS helped fund a wildlife flooding Pond workshop V V VVVVVV VV > Accepted to CRP Table 26. Additional topics covered within the treatment Workshops Site-Visits Question: Were there additional topics that you were interested in that were not covered in the Question: Were there additional topics that you wanted to discuss with the biologist but did not? workshop? Response Frequency % Response Frequency % Yes 44 39% Yes 8 1 1% No 68 61% No 63 89% Total 1 12 Total 71 Question: If yes, please describe Question: If yes, please describe them below. them below. > Sizes of hole on bird houses > When and how to plant crops for > Predators in backyards deer > Importance of natives > Environmental concerns pertaining > Planting techniques to wildlife habitat > To manage wildlife diversity > Use of grasses > More specific information on > Timeline for my project habitat and plants > Plantings for wildlife > Agency responsibility at state and federal level for different aspects of water and land resources > Applications to smaller pieces of property > More focus on non-game > Focus on ecosystem management not individual species > The effects of urban sprawl 132 Table 27 Availability of additional handouts Response Frequency % Question: Were Workshops Site-visits Workshops fist; 2232;225:130]; ’21:?” Yes 127 37 97% 49% ’ No 4 39 3% 51% Total 131 76 Very satisfied 65 18 50% 43% Moderately ., o . / 0 Question: If Yes, please SfitlSfied 53 16 41 0 38/0 indicate how satisfied Slightly o 0 you were with the satisfied 6 6 5 /° 14 /° materials. Unsatisfied 2 2% Undecided 3 2 1% 5% Total 129 32 Table 28. Ways to change the treatment - part 1 Workshops Site-visits Question: Are there any ways you would change the workshop? Question: Are there any ways you would change the site-visit? Response Frequency % Response Frequency % Yes 67 46% Yes 83 40% No 69 48% No 101 48% No opinion 9 6% No opinion 26 12% Total 145 Total 2 10 133 Table 29. Ways to change the treatment - part 2 Question: If yes, please state these changes Question: If yes, please state these changes below. below. > Needed to be more specific > The biologist could have the walked the property to get > Provide micro solutions, needed clear step by a clear idea of the lands, soils, trees, etc... step instructions: best way to plant; where to > See pictures of various planting materials get seed > Biologist seemed to have a somewhat canned program. > Geared too much to the large landowner, They should be more responsive to landowner’s needed a backyard workshop for someone like questions and goals me > More time needed with biologist > Create a video instead of slides > Provide list of sources for plant materials > More information on insect control > Provide handouts > Spend more time with the forester and less > Provide information on other assistance available with the drain commissioner > Discussion on the site visit was very one sided > Have the workshop where we could view > Have the biologist sit down with client and write-out 3 actual programs in progress such as wetlands list of goals and objectives so the biologist could and food plots respond appropriately > Break-out sessions for backyard wildlife > Make a list of the top 10 things or areas you need to landscaping work on or accomplish in order of their timing and > Start earlier or have it on two separate nights importance > Start with general information then progress to > Need a second visit for the information and changes, one-on-one specifics first visit for overview and discuss potentials > Show them how to accomplish their goals > Provide sources where we can find the items we need to with little or no out of pocket expense fulfill our management plan > Help me with the actual design > Would like follow-up literature > Have a tree doctor attend > Explain all opportunities and funding available > Provide more seed sources and how to plant > What have liked to more time to walk and discuss site > Examples, people who have done this or are and options doing it on a small scale > We would have liked a plan that we could work on > Have fewer experts — more people who are ourselves doing this just for enjoyment not for profit > We should have received more workshop information, > Not so many speakers at one meeting exactly what assistance is available, and how to apply > Make sure they follow-up; I signed up for a for programs and assistance home phone call never received one > State should provide at no cost to the landowner > Have smaller audience or two workshops additional planting materials running at the same time > I would have liked to learn about financial assistance > More hands-on experience available > Have every instructor use a slide show; makes > Have a follow-up program it more interesting > Contact individuals who can make the changes for us > More handouts > Find funding sources > Workshops could use a one-on-one section to > Create a time line 50 we know when ‘0 do things allow people to at least start development > Provide more information on outside help plans for their own property. > Additional follow-up would be good and additional on- > Smaller classes for more individual questions site ViSitS ‘0 59¢ progress 311d make suggestions for > Start on time future changes or improvements > Do hands on show us real uees not pictures > Provide more information on tools needed to do the work and where we can get these tools > A follow-up call or visit > Would like more information on financial assistance and buyers for harvesting and thinning overgrown pine and hardwood trees > More visits without having to make more phone calls > Try to respond in a more timely manner > More follow-up > Have wildlife habitat programs available for prOperty owner owning under 10 acres > Wish more emphasis and information would have been included on non-chemical methods of controlling weeds > Market the CD assistance more 134 3.9 w. 2.... .a 2.3535 3233.8 2: 80¢ 3&9... 33 3203:? ..cutan_ Sva ..aEsoEomnn 529832" N ...—«tong EH5“. ”mo-«om 23.4.8.3 . m2 NNN Boa H :3 _S. n a «N _ bed e.. _ 8282: :35 ”Wm “on M M EcfioMMWH—wm com 38: so» .2 :96 n . "=8 a o 250. .3 mm". mm MN _ Bee—m smN e2 x 2 228082 _ . :2. as s; $8 8 a: :3:an eo> . o: :N _sfi u :3 :3. n a 2 _ had 3282: unsung : M». N. M ......fifi Eases... m2 ".6 .2 u :82 g..“: .x...- mm av b88252 a 55:35388 8 E. - u . 280m .3? s? a a. .5:88_ eo> . 2. EN 3.; u :3 ea. ... a _N _ .er s. s. _ N 82035 825:8? {K v .5:an .oz . . e a ..x v N 2 sunbeam . ween; £25 I . l o a .. . .5 NH NN _ inflow; so. §N NN 8 222082 8:85 8. N2 .. e m e..: $2. 2: 5 sagas: bo> . 3 SN 35 u :3 SN. u a «N N new ex: _ 8282: 2:85 8262.. $2 an» N: x: 25.85 .oz 0 . E2? 8. Ewes... N: u be 3m u :82 $2 :5 z a .2558 Ba. 2: .2. N_ ._ u . 288 es en N N. 22582 ea :3 N o =3:an eu> . 3: EN .2“; H :3 can. u a 8 N sad s. N .8282: $3 $3 a m... 25.2.5 82 =5; 2 gasses : . 1 5 § : : 232:8 8a 8:2? .2. “Wilma“ no N nonwowe $2 $2 «N 9” bases: 1 a m soN .xaN am No 23:85. has :5meer he? 2..qu 5? 98.»: Lack BS 30% S = .3 $8.855 3th 92.55» «non. .x. .3553; 02.2.8: 2.8.3.5 :0 _ tan— ..5539: has ...—a 9.82. 2553...: 32.33: .8 3...!» 4-2” 935. 13S 833:. 29.2; n m .uewamsnv 60208::an dawn n N Jams 395.5". “8.8“ 25-5%, 85 w E...“ a =52..qu macho . u :8 n: _NN .53 men. n a S. _ bad gm N ovum—Eu ..zm 35:30:? :83 new fan 0 o. oouwuflc :9: 55.: 8:275 . :2 $2 2 EN 3282: ha woe é E32 m: in E _ u :82 $2 $8 S 8 new“ .332 285 _c: H a Begum ea: as: 8 2: 8% 355m . 02 EN :5 H saw 30 Ex. u a Q. N Sue“ was $w o. E 853% 5m baEca a 8 25 how §N HsNN NN S Bass :2. 3.58 02.2.3.8 42 n .6 N E u :82 e..: ea. mN :: 8282: @236 a 8“. 352 .- 1“ Be 0 $3 gwm 3 3“ news . . . 2: I a m $2 e..: t 2 8% 3:25 .252 one: . n: ONN .52 :N. n a G _ n ”M02 c\.._ .x; _ _ enemas 5m c< o\..m fem N m ouuwaflu SEN—a 0:on Eo>o . ..\ 2 ..\ o. E NN 3386:: 3.83 3:2. 8: v: in Nm _ n :82 econ sea 3 3 Ban VN. _ - I a seam .. _. . $8 can 2 ”N. new.“ $85 S auxin .3th vegan eat? Egon 3:9: N .m\.:3.§ 353:8 5: waSEE 5.5: 22.3“ a; 35:3:— 8.5%»: 2852.0 20 N tam £5.58: 3:: ES 282. 3:33:22. 9:33.53 he 83.3 .Nén 2..-N... 136 3c w 2% e 285:? 3283:" n intone. .oZuv JEBoEomun 52803.2" N €8.38. bo>u. .838 099-28.... . I an N... .88. .3. u N. S _ i ...on 3:83: :55 c 38.2.8. 82 $2 o\. . . . . . . .2588 08 .85: so» a co>o ” . " =“o . . . MN..- I.” we . sew“ $2 $..N 2 ..N 225982 Eco 02.2.; a... I $S $8 Na 2 5:82. ES . I 2. 8. 38h 3N. u N. on . .. ”Mod 828?: finance. c Q... _ 28.2.8. 82 o o .839. 9:807. s . i N... \a e m .2558 ..N 1% ..N _ I :82 $NN $3 N. .2 32.2252 a 52:35.28: 2 o. _- no 280m $_N $3 on R .553. E> . 2. No. 38,—. . Nv . u SW2). .83 n N. .32 3282.: 8:23.530 E289... .oZ . . . .xb o\om n m Esau—com 9:30? 0.22“...» ...N Mr. E «N _ new”: $NN $2 MN 8 322252 03.38.. no. . 2. N n. .. m $8 $3 _n 2. .5385. 9> . E. No_ .28. n :3 mi. N N. mm m Eva—O. $.m w 828.35 2.82: nouzuoa N... N... m .. 3%....“ ..__..__.:o:§§_ 2.. n :6 wo.m M 53$. .mh: “so a c $.38»qu 95. 2.. “as. S. _ n. 280m o\o_ o\ev _ v .53..an bo> . I 2. No. Bob on. n N. no N : 2“wa $_ _ 8282: $2 $2 2 “N =3:an .oz 2:... 2 03256 I . I $2 $2 N. 2 scape—Sm 2a 0.52.3 35 3. 1W.“ E N lawman: $2 $8 : 8 522082 35 _ i . m $8 $3. NM 3. .5283. co> ...Atmmoxm 5? ~3qu est 2&3 .503 35 30A 2 ... a... 38.8%... :8: 33:5» 28,—. .x. 55:59.5 3:38: 22.8.5 N do . 5N. ...—25.3: coca ecu 282. 252.333.. ._m_>-8_n he 8...!» ._-_n 039—. 137 3.93:. :92... u m .uoaoawuv €023.53"... .33.. u N .33.. 395.5". ”8...“; 3.9-9.85 o w .22.. ... 2.355% 820 . n :8 a. N2 _28 New. u a _m _ Bad $._ _ 8.3% ...m 35:30:? :5... o\ov $.N m N 8.986 5.5 .05... NEE—:5 o o o 59 c: .5.“ UOOM how Exam: .2. ".... Q... u :82 omen “we.“ Wm mm a n. 8an .23.... 8.8.0 3.- u. 285 a a $3. $NN 2 8 new. 3.5% . .2. N2 38% . 8 N I :82 . >3. 2 _ u a .32 $2 $2 a e 8&3... .5 Earn a .o 25 .8 $NN $NN : ..N 83:5 =2. .05... 3:25. .o I . I :3 $NN $8 2 MN 328...... m 8.2: a .o. .... m R. I... _N N I 2 $3 $NN o. 2 02m. .. ... N . S... G _ n. Beam $.n $0 v c 8.9. $3.55 .83.... 288 3 NE :28. . n :8 ...:o. u a S _ .o 2 $m $N N m 8&8... 5m c< Q... _ Bags 35.3 8.98. .83 . o o u 6... S. 3.... a 033: um... t. I... 8 _ I :32 mm mom M" _N c a 3mm. _ ....N I . seem . . $NN $Nn 3 N. 8a. £25m \ a S .8 m. .5? 8%... Ext .5?» 3.8.: N 65535.3 ..obgzfi A... MSMSSE 22?: 32...... .8... o\.. .3535...— omfiamuz 2.2.8.5 20 N tam .3253... .8... ...... 9.82. 85.98:...— ._m_>Io._m .... 8......» .N-_n 03a... 138 Table 32. How participants Ieamed about outreach programs . . Fre uenc % Quemon‘ Response - Workshgq I so: Visit I Workshop 1 Site- Vis'u Acquaintance 40 16 18% 16% Newspaper 55 21 25% 21% Please indicate how Consewation disuict employee 21 31 9% 31% you first learned Flier 85 21 38% 21% about this workshop DNR employee 5 7 2% 7% or site-visit. I am not sure ' 3 3 1% 3% Other 15 7% Total 224 99 Table 33. Reasons participants own their property . Frequency % Que’m": Response Workshop Site- Visit Workshop Site- Vm’t Primary Reason 19 8 10% 9% Secondary Reason 46 19 24% 21% . . Income { Not a Reason ’ 128 65 66% 71% £955?ng Total 193 92 following reasons Primary Reason 161 67 76% 71% for owning the . { Secondary Reason 29 16 14% 17% [and you may Res‘dem Not a Reason T mi 22133 g: 10% 13% 0 35:11:55?” Pn'mary Reason 109 53 56% 55% Secondary Reason 74 40 37% 41% Recreation Not a Reason 17 4 9% 4% Total 200 97 139