in: 1

MN;

 

ha
Th;
3 h.

a»?

z

a.

.Y h... ‘ 7 c A
3- " v. n ‘4

1 .. .. a :5.=.3nis!z

a : ”gunman (3?. .e

hfiwfiflg.u;§l . . I...”
. .

x

a? ..

.. . ,
#wanufimfl rd
:9 a: (we
#41132,

1...;
.N.!.rar.fi.«:l.
Lkafld‘ if. .
9... 1Lwfl3£xai
a5 .riti
LuisuEnsi .
:1 q n E.) 332%.
"as." 14:...

:I t
i 51 .1...
~' \vt‘fi-l‘vf
.3»... in: 7.1] «

«flignn.

 

., r €1.31.
k. 52:- .3

34.1%... ..

“I‘ll It.

5451.

 

n0. 3).» .I I n! I ‘ its
.2 L. . 12... a 2;."
. . Java . "1&9;
« n. I. s. a??? :. «f .... 2: ‘CA
I 3:51.”. , .
«341.1IA ~
1.74.1]. .‘lf‘ufijhfl. .J a

E

LIBRARY ‘
Michigan State |
University

I) [\3

L»!
S\

U‘

L’\ O
‘4.)
"‘Q
J

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ATTITUDINAL, KNOWLEDGE, AND BEHAVIORAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS IN NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION'S BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT PROGRAM

presented by

Dain Ryan Palmer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

,fllauwflflm’

Major Professor’s Signature
% 9 7 I03

Date

Master of
Science

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

JUN l 0 2008

Q1

 

tolSOG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c;ICIRC/DaIeDue.p65.p.15

 

 

ATTITUDINAL, KNOWLEDGE, AND BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
PARTICIPANTS IN NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION’S
BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT PROGRAM
By

Dain Ryan Palmer

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

2003

ABSTRACT
ATTITUDINAL, KNOWLEDGE, AND BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
PARTICIPANTS IN NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION’S
BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT PROGRAM
By
Dain Ryan Palmer
Few researchers have studied the impacts of residential wildlife stewardship

programs, such as the National Wildlife Federation’s (NWF) Backyard Wildlife Habitat
(BWH) program. We used an evaluative approach using implementation theory and
program theory, adapted from Weiss (1998), to study the characteristics of BWH
participants. Environmental attitudes were measured using a subset of the New
Ecological Paradigm (N EP) scale and attitudes toward wildlife-related issues were
measured using the Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale (WAVS). Finally, we examined
the relationships between selected variables and stewardship behaviors (i.e., wildlife
management or resource conservation activities) of participants. The most common form
of educational assistance (used by 64% of nationwide participants) was free NWF
materials. For each of the 5 most popular forms of assistance, participants using the
assistance performed significantly more stewardship behaviors than their counterparts.
Consistent with the Theory of Reasoned Action, we found that attitudes toward
stewardship behaviors were the strongest predictor of number of stewardship behaviors
performed. Based on these results, we recommend that administrators of residential
wildlife stewardship programs emphasize to participants the importance of planning
processes. We also recommend that program administrators ensure that participants in

wildlife habitat education programs have access to a variety of information sources.

To Bill and Evelyn Palmer- you helped instill in me a fascination with nature

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by a grant from the National Wildlife Federation (NW F),
and a supporting gift from the Pierce Cedar Creek Institute (PCCI) (Hastings, Michigan).

I would first like to thank the staff of NWF and the staff of Pierce Cedar Creek
Institute for their assistance during this study. Specific individuals I would like to thank
are: Mr. David Mizej ewski, Manager, BWH program; Ms. Tammy Giroux, formerly a
staff member with NWF; Ms. Carey Rogers, Manager, High School Programs, NWF;
Ms. Lori Liddick, Coordinator, BWH program, NWF; Ms. Kathleen Eales,
Administrative Aide, NWF; and Ms. Casey Harris, Director of Education, PCCI.

Next, I would like to thank the faculty, staff, and students of the Michigan State
University Fisheries and Wildlife Department for their assistance and support during this
study. I would specifically like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr.
Rique Campa and Dr. Angela Mertig for their excellent guidance. I owe special thanks to
my advisor, Dr. Shari Dann, for pushing me to do my best work even while under tight
deadlines. Her dedication to fostering environmental stewardship in youth and adults is
truly inspiring.

I would like to thank Shera Palmer,.my sister, for reviewing this thesis. Finally, I
would like to thank my wife, Rachel, for stuffing all those surveys, for late-night tech

support, and most of all, for her patience and understanding.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii
List Of Figures ................................................................................................................. viii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction-—Literature Cited ............................................................................................. 4
Chapter 1: Using Implementation and Program Theory to Examine Communication
Strategies in National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program ............ 5
Communication in Residential Wildlife Stewardship Programs .................................... 5
Overview of the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program ................................................. 5

Communication Strategies for Affecting Environmentally Responsible Behavior.... 6
Backyard Wildlife Habitat Education Program: Implementation Theory and Program

Theory ............................................................................................................................. 8
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 21
Pilot Study: Pre-Certification Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants in
Michigan ................................................................................................................... 21
Nationwide Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants ................................................. 21
Survey Instruments for Pilot and Nationwide BWH Participants ............................ 22
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 23
Results ........................................................................................................................... 24
Pilot Study: Pre-Certification Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants in
Michigan ................................................................................................................... 24
Nationwide Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants ................................................. 26
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 31
Using Implementation Theory and Program Theory to Examine Backyard Wildlife
Stewardship Communication Processes ................................................................... 31
Improving Communication Strategies In Backyard Wildlife Stewardship Education
Programs ................................................................................................................... 33
Future Research ........................................................................................................ 36
Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 38
Chapter H: Use of wildlife management processes, techniques, and expertise by
participants in National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program ....... 48
Factors associated with wildlife-related and environmental stewardship
behaviors ................................................................................................................... 53
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 58
Mail survey ............................................................................................................... 58
Survey Design ........................................................................................................... 59
Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 64
Results ........................................................................................................................... 64
Predicting BWH stewardship behaviors ................................................................... 68
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 69
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 74
Literature cited .............................................................................................................. 77
Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ......................................... 91
Study Limitations--Literature Cited ................................................................................... 95

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 96

Appendix A: UCRIHS Approval Letters ..................................................................... 97
Appendix B: Workshop Survey Materials ................................................................. 103
Appendix C: Focus Group Materials ......................................................................... 121
Appendix D: Nationwide Survey Materials ............................................................... 128

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table I-l. Demographic and Property Characteristics of Nationwide BWH
Participants and Attendees of a Michigan Workshop

Table I-2. Motivations of Nationwide Participants and Attendees of a Michigan
Workshop for BWH participation

Table I-3. Use of BWH Materials or Assistance by Nationwide BWH Participants
and Attendees of a Michigan Workshop

Table 14. Percentage of Nationwide BWH Participants Performing BWH
Stewardship Processes and Techniques ‘

Table I-5. Comparison of Total Number of BWH Stewardship Activities Performed
Between Selected Groups of Nationwide Participants

Table I-6. Involvement of Nationwide BWH Participants in NWF-Related Action
and Consumerism

Table 11-1. Demographic and property characteristics of BWH participants certified
in 1999, 2000, and 2001

Table 11-2. Mean responses of BWH participants to NEP items

Table 11-3. Mean responses of BWH participants to WAVS items

Table 11-4. BWH participant responses to knowledge items

Table 11-5. Use of BWH materials or assistance by participants

Table 11-6. Mean responses of participants to BWH stewardship attitude items

Table 11-7. Percentage of participants performing BWH stewardship processes and
techniques

Table H-8. Comparison between the use of BWH stewardship processes and
techniques between participants who received assistance from a wildlife
professional and those who did not receive such assistance

Table 11-9. Relationship of demographic, attitude, knowledge, and assistance
variables to number of BWH stewardship activities conducted by participants

vii

4O

41

42

43

45

81
82
83
84
85

86

87

88

89

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I- 1. Implementation theory and program theory for the BWH program 46
Figure I-2. Stages of BWH participant involvement and study methods 47

Figure H-l. Conceptual model of BWH Stewardship 90

viii

INTRODUCTION

Much of the wildlife habitat in the United States is under private control. More
than 60% of the land in the United States is privately owned (V esterby and Krupa 2001).
These private lands contain 80% of wildlife habitats (Benson 2001); therefore, activities
of private landowners impact wildlife habitat significantly. To ensure that suitable
habitat for wildlife is provided, the involvement of private landowners in active wildlife
management of their properties is essential.

Many Americans are already engaged in activities around their homes that can
benefit wildlife. Nationwide, in 2001, 62.9 million Americans participated in residential
wildlife-watching activities, such as feeding wildlife, cultivating plants for the benefit of
wildlife, and maintaining natural areas for wildlife (U .8. Dept. of Interior 2002).

Even though many citizens have initiated wildlife attraction and habitat
improvement activities largely on their own, there is a need for programs that provide
information and technical training to assist landowners in providing wildlife habitat. For
instance, 76% of Pennsylvanians said it was important for the Pennsylvania Game
Commission to assist-private landowners in improving fish and wildlife habitat
(Responsive Management 1996). One approach to address these needs is National
Wildlife Federation’s (NWF) Backyard Wildlife Habitat (BWH) Program.

The BWH program is a residential wildlife stewardship program in which
participants provide wildlife habitat on their properties. Participants begin the process by
determining which of 4 basic habitat components (food, water, shelter, and a place to
raise young) are present on their properties. Participants then make property

modifications to provide additional wildlife habitat components. Finally, landowners

submit an application to NWF that details habitat improvements to their properties. The
application includes a $15 application fee. NWF staff review applications, and successful
applicants receive: a certificate, a letter from the NWF President, answers to any
questions indicated on the application form, and an invitation to submit information to
NWF for a press release to the applicant’s local newspaper (Tufis 1990).

NWF offers various kinds of assistance to help people improve their properties for
wildlife. Information about initially assessing property and providing habitat components
is available fi'om NWF in printed materials and on NWF’S website. Additional
information is contained in a BWH Information Kit that can be ordered from NWF or
purchased through Wild Birds Unlimited, a national chain of retail stores. For additional
assistance to landowners involved in the BWH program, NWF trains volunteer
community mentors, known as Habitat Stewards, who offer technical support to some
participants during various stages of the application process.

Until now, the BWH program has never been comprehensively studied. The goal
of this project was to understand the characteristics of participants in the BWH program
and to examine how various program components and participant background
characteristics are associated with stewardship behaviors of participants.

Following protocol approved by the MSU University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), we conducted the study in two major phases
(Appendix A). In the first phase we piloted a survey for BWH participants. The survey
was given to 46 participants at a workshop in southwestern lower Michigan for
landowners interested in providing wildlife habitat, but not certified in the BWH program

(Appendix B). Also as part of the first phase, we conducted a focus group comprised of

six workshop participants (Appendix C). During the second study phase, we surveyed a
representative sample of 1427 certified BWH participants from across the US.
(Appendix D).

Chapters I and 11 detail the phases of this study of the BWH program. Chapter I
reviews the BWH program content and processes, and it contains results from the
workshop survey and the focus group. Chapter I will be submitted for publication to
Applied Environmental Education and Communication, and is written and formatted
accordingly. In this manuscript, we summarize our observations pertaining to
communication strategies used by NWF to deliver BWH programming to participants,
and the numbers of participants who used various forms of assistance while becoming
certified.

Chapter II is based on the mail survey of certified BWH participants. We wrote
Chapter II in a style appropriate for submission for publication to The Wildlife Society
Bulletin. This chapter contains details relating to our objectives of determining the
demographic, attitudinal, and knowledge characteristics of nationwide BWH participants,
determining the kinds of materials and assistance that BWH participants used, and

determining which of these variables are associated with BWH stewardship behaviors.

 

av-

Cl

Res

luff

In

Its

INTRODUCTION--LITERATURE CITED

Benson, D. E. 2001. Wildlife and recreation management on private lands in the United
States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):359-37l.

Responsive Management. 1996. Pennsylvania residents’ Opinions on and attitudes
toward nongarne wildlife. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia,
USA.

Tufis, C. 1990. From backyard wildlife habitats to environmentally sensitive
landscapes: ecological awareness at the grassroots level. Pages 72-79 in
Symposium on Perspectives in Urban Ecology, 1993, Denver, Colorado, USA.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2002. National survey of
fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation, Washington, DC, USA.

Vesterby, M. and KS. Krupa. 2001. Major uses of land in the United States, 1997.
Economic Report 973, US. Dept. Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.

CHAPTER I

Using Implementation and Program Theory to Examine Communication Strategies

in National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program

Abstract: We used an evaluative approach using implementation theory
and program theory, adapted from Weiss (1 998) to examine
communication processes and results for a national wildlife habitat
stewardship education program. Using a mail survey of 1 427 participants
certified in National Wildlife Federation ’s (N WF ) Backyard Wildlife
Habitat (B WH) program and a study of participants at a BWH workshop
in Michigan who were not certified in the BWH program we examined the
communication strategies employed by N WF to assist participants. The
most common form of assistance (used by 64 % of nationwide participants)
was free N WF materials. For each of the 5 most popular forms of
assistance, participants using the assistance performed significantly more
wildlife management or resource conservation activities than their
counterparts. Using program theory and implementation theory is
valuable for describing and assessing national and local environmental

communications initiatives such as the N WI-I B WH program.

Communication in Residential Wildlife Stewardship Programs

Overview of the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program
The Backyard Wildlife Habitat (BWH) program is a residential wildlife

stewardship program offered by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). This program

involves the certification of residents who document provision of basic habitat

components. Since the inception of the BWH program in 1973, over 30,000 sites have
been officially certified by NWF. According to David Mizejewski, (personal
communication, 2001) NWF’S national BWH manager, in recent years, almost 3,000 new
sites have been certified annually.

Until now, the BWH program has never been comprehensively studied. Our
study objectives were to examine the effectiveness of communication strategies used by
NWF to deliver BWH programming to participants, and to determine the numbers of
participants who used various forms of assistance while becoming certified. To
accomplish these objectives, we first describe implementation theory and program theory
for the BWH program. We then use these frameworks in our analysis of data collected
from program participants. Based on our findings we provide several recommendations

for agencies and organizations that offer wildlife habitat education programs.

Communication Strategies for Affecting Environmentally Responsible Behavior
Administrators of wildlife habitat education programs must use effective

communication techniques with program participants. According to Schoenfeld and
Griffin (1981, p. 130), “Nowhere in wildlife management are the human factors so
crucial as in the management of wildlife on private lands.” Because there are few studies
that have examined communication strategies for residential wildlife habitat education
programs, we reviewed some research and best practices in communication strategies
used by agencies or organizations to share wildlife or ecological messages with
landowners.

Program administrators have many options to deliver wildlife habitat education

programming to participants. Traditional methods, such as written materials or

cons
pnn'
CXIC
by I;
less
Ii'orl

dehx

&.R.
dem
rate:

from

rela:
onlir
Iradl
(Rod
dona
Oiler
Ifinr

PIOdI

consultations from extension agents are widely used. Rodewald (2001) found that
printed materials were used the most by Ohio landowners to receive wildlife-related
extension information. In Michigan, extension delivery methods used most commonly
by farmers were extension newsletters and bulletins (Suvedi, Campo, & Lapinski, 1999).
Less frequently farmers had contact with an extension agent and attended meetings or
workshops.

Several studies have had landowners rate the usefulness of various extension
delivery methods (Bruening, 1991; Gamon, Bounaga, & Miller, 1992; Rollins, Bruening,
& Radhakrishna, 1991). Generally, meetings, face-to-face discussions, and
demonstrations were considered relatively useful. Newsletters and magazines were also
rated as fairly useful. Bruening (1991) also found that landowners considered assistance
from neighbors and friends to be useful information sources.

Web-based resources can make large amounts of information available at
relatively low costs. Yet, only 1.4% of farmers used extension information available
online (Suvedi, Campo, & Lapinski, 1999). Also, Ohio landowners preferred more
traditional communication methods over online information and workshops and seminars
(Rodewald, 2001). Master Volunteer programs provide training to volunteers who in turn
donate their time and expertise to others (Laughlin, & Schmidt, 1995). Training is now
offered online for Oregon Master Gardeners (VanDerZanden, Rost, & Eckel, 2002) and
Mirmesota Master Gardeners (Jeannette, & Meyer, 2002). Both online trainings

produced learner outcomes similar to classroom trainings.

Backyard Wildlife Habitat Education Program: Implementation Theory and
Program Theory

There exist many paths and'processes through which individuals become aware of
and certified within the BWH program (Figure I-l ). Participants progress through various
levels of involvement from awareness of the BWH program to long-term participation in
NWF action and consumerism. To understand program dynamics, we describe the
program theory and implementation theory of the BWH program (based on Weiss, 1998).

Weiss (1998, pp. 57) refers to program theory as “the mechanisms that mediate
between the delivery (and receipt) of the program and the emergence of the outcomes of
interest.” She goes on to say that the instruments for change are the responses to program
activities, not the activities themselves. Program activities are designed to affect these
responses in participants. Implementation theory refers to specific program activities and
the order in which they are carried out. According to Weiss, program theory and
implementation theory can be useful when evaluating programs because they demonstrate
the expected results of various program components; evaluators can collect data on all of
the theorized steps that lead to the intended program outcomes.

The first stage in the BWH program theory is awareness of the BWH program and
recruitment into the program (Figure H). In order for this stage to be effective,
participants must be motivated to be involved in the program. In stage 2, participants
learn about basic ecological concepts and about landscaping techniques that benefit
wildlife. Participants in stage 3 carry out activities that lead to certification. The fourth
participant stage involves the impacts of the program on participants.

There are many paths through the BWH program, and one of the challenges of

studying the program is that it is unlikely that any 2 participants had exactly the same

“treatment.” In other words, there are multiple ways that a person can go from awareness
of BWH to post-certification activities. For example, a person may become aware of the
program and decide to participate due to one, several, or none of the ways indicated in
Figure I-l. Also, there is variation of program treatments across and within regions. It is
up to individual NWF representatives located in various regions of the US. to decide
presentation content or which handouts to distribute. Finally, the BWH program changes
over time. New or revised handouts replace older ones, the website is constantly
updated, and the roles of staff and volunteers are continuously changing. Figure I-l
contains major program components, but it does not represent all of the possible paths
taken by participants. The remainder of this section details some of these components.
Stage I of BWH Involvement: Awareness and Motivation to Participate

There are many possible reasons for residents to become motivated to participate
in the BWH program. For example, people may participate due to a desire to positively
impact wildlife or because they want to attract wildlife to their properties. People may
also be more inclined to take part if they believe that there are potential social benefits,
such as the enjoyment of working with a neighbor on a landscaping project, or if they
want recognition from NWF for property improvements they have made. The desire to
learn wildlife management or environmentally friendly landscaping techniques is another
possible motivation for participation.

There are numerous ways for residents to hear about the BWH program and
become motivated to participate. The BWH slideshow is one recruitment/awareness tool
that NWF staff and volunteers use. The slideshow has an accompanying script to guide

presenters. The content of the show includes the 4 basic habitat components and an

overview of the certification process. The slideshow is designed for both the general
public and people who are already involved in clubs or activities that are related to
gardening or wildlife. Some examples of suggested audiences are butterfly clubs,
landscape architect/design associations, native plant societies, and assisted living
facilities (NWFa, n.d.).

People can learn about BWH and be recruited into the program by NWF staff and
volunteers. NWF representatives attend many wildlife and landscaping related trade
shows. In addition to handing out print materials, they answer questions of BWH
participants and recruit new BWH participants. Habitat Stewards are volunteers who
receive 24 hours of training from NWF in order to assist BWH participants and
contribute at least 50 hours of volunteer service. Stewards teach participants landscaping
and wildlife management skills and assist with other aspects of certification (NWFb,
n.d.). The Habitat Stewards component of BWH is relatively new, and about 900
Stewards nationally have been trained (D. Mizej ewski, personal communication, 2001).

Friends, neighbors, or family members who are already involved in BWH may
also persuade residents to participate in the program. Employees of retail stores that
specialize in landscaping or wildlife related activities are another potential way BWH
participants are recruited. Wild Birds Unlimited has an official partnership with NWF,
and employees can answer questions about the BWH program, as well as distribute free
NWF handouts.

NWF’S website is another way for people to learn about BWH program and
become motivated to participate. The site contains general BWH program information

and an overview of the certification process (NWFc, n.d.).

10

NWF provides free print materials that are designed to give people a general
overview of the BWH program, and to recruit new program participants. NWF staff
members distribute BWH handouts at landscaping, gardening, and wildlife shows. The
Backyard Wildlife Habitat brochure is a promotional pamphlet that gives a brief
overview of the BWH program and the basic habitat components (food, water, cover, and
places to raise young) (NWFd, n.d.). The brochure describes practices such as “reducing
your lawn size by 50%” and “planting natives and cutting out chemicals.” It features
attractive full color photographs and contains inspirational participant quotes.

NWF hosts public events such as tours of certified BWH properties, garden tours,
and public planting days. These events provide opportunities to recruit new participants
into the BWH program (C. Rogers, personal communication, February 5, 2002).

Media coverage of NWF events is another way for people to hear about and
become recruited into the BWH program. Press releases containing profiles of BWH
participants are one way that the BWH program is promoted through the media (C.
Rogers, personal communication, February 5, 2002).

Stage 2 of B WH Involvement: Development of BWH Knowledge and Skills

Participants gain skills and knowledge to perform BWH stewardship (improve
wildlife habitat and practice resource conservation in their yards) from several different
BWH program components. The Habitat Stewards program of BWH is an emerging way
for BWH participants to get support throughout the certification process. Stewards give
individuals information on basic ecological concepts and provide assistance in

landscaping/gardening methods.

11

Friends and family members who have knowledge of ecology or wildlife are a
possible resource for learning habitat improvement methods. Participants may also
receive assistance from wildlife or natural resource professionals, such as county
extension agents, wildlife biologists, wildlife consultants, or Natural Resource
Conservation Service employees. Employees of retailers such as Wild Birds Unlimited
and native plant suppliers can also assist in educating participants about BWH
techniques.

The NWF website offers even more in-depth information for participants to learn
about BWH techniques. The website offers information about the life cycles of and
methods of attracting: bats, birds, bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, frogs, lizards, and
insects. There are also tips on promoting bird health at artificial feeders, keeping
squirrels out of birdfeeders, identifyin g insects, carrying out seasonal projects (such as
plantng trees in fall), controlling European starlings, photographing backyard wildlife,
organically gardening, meeting special wildlife needs in the winter and summer, and
designing backyard habitats that are accessible to persons who are physically challenged.
In addition, there are monthly tips on resource conservation and simple habitat projects,
such as creating a brush pile for wildlife.

The BWH website contains general information on: landscaping with native
plants, sensory gardens, reducing the size of traditional lawns, the wildlife benefits of
poison ivy, and native and non-native hollies. The website has information on resource
conservation issues, such as the environmental and economic disadvantages of traditional
lawns, water conservation, the effect of drought on native plants, preventing predation by

domestic cats, reducing yard waste, and organic gardening. The BWH website has

12

instructions for several habitat projects including nest boxes for birds, an amphibian
habitat, a storm water marsh, a backyard pond, a log pile, a bee house, and a bat house.

The BWH website also includes lists of books on a variety of subjects,
including: backyard ecology, dealing with human-wildlife conflicts, resource
conservation, birding, caring for injured animals, native plants, and providing food for
wildlife. There are also links to the following websites: Wild Birds Unlimited, Lady
Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, F rogwatch USA, National Wildlife Rehabilitators
Association, and Plant Conservation Alliance.

The BWH website has several features that may assist participants. One tool is
the enature online community discussion bulletin board. Some of the discussion subjects
are: Birds & Birding, Gardening & Plant Life, Butterflies, Animal World, Ocean &
Seashore, and Our Environment. Enature also has an online guide that gives regionally
specific information on plants.

NWF offers free handouts explaining ecological concepts and wildlife
management techniques that landowners can use to provide habitat on their properties.
These materials are commonly distributed at wildlife or landscaping-related trade shows,
often with the Backyard Wildlife Habitat brochure. Handouts are also provided at BWH
slideshows and other NWF workshops. The handouts are sometimes printed in color, but
most often are photocopied on colored paper with black ink. The sheets mainly offer
general information intended for BWH participants in all 50 states. Materials currently
being distributed give life/natural history requirements information and tips on attracting
butterflies, songbirds, and hummingbirds. Other sheets give arguments for lawn

reduction and native plants. One handout gives an overview of considerations relating to

13

designing a residential pond, and includes tips such as providing gradation to allow easy
access for animals. NWF also distributes 1-page plans for constructing nest boxes and
other shelters for specific types iof animals. Plans include illustrations and an instruction
paragraph. Examples of plans include: northern flicker nest box, bat house, mourning
dove and mallard nest basket, and rabbit den.

Another resource for participants to gain skills and knowledge in BWH
stewardship is the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Information Kit (Mizej ewski, 2002). The
Kit is a guide to certification that can be purchased by program participants for $25 plus
tax. It can be ordered from NWF over the phone, or can be bought at Wild Birds
Unlimited. The kit is advertised in various BWH handouts, at BWH workshops, and on
NWF’S website. Several thousand kits are sold each year in the US. The kit has been
recently revised and contains a newly published Wildlife Habitat Planning Guide. The
48-page booklet is printed in color and contains photographs of BWH sites. It is the most
comprehensive guide to BWH that NWF has offered to date. It ties together ideas and
techniques that were historically on separate handouts or web pages.

The guide begins with an introduction to BWH and the 4 basic habitat
components. Next are tips for resource conservation, such as: reduction of pesticides
and fertilizers, lawn reduction, water conservation, waste reduction, and preventing
predation by domestic cats. The guide offers several approaches to designing and
constructing habitat sites, depending on the amount of time and effort that individuals are
willing to invest. The methods range from The Wait and See Approach, which allows
“nature to take its course,” (Mizejewski, 2002, p. 21) to The Holistic Approach, where

the goal is to have only species which were present before European settlement. The

14

guide also addresses the differences in gardening for wildlife in urban versus rural
settings. For example, where landscaping is impractical residents can do container
gardening or assist with a community garden.
Stage 3 of B WH Involvement: Habitat Improvement and Applying for BWH Certification

A participant practices BWH stewardship by performing habitat improvement and
applying for BWH certification. Participants complete the BWH Application for
Certification to document their habitat improvements. The Application is designed to
help guide participants through the certification process, as well as to communicate to
NWF staff what participants have done to their properties. In addition to contact
information, the application asks for the size of property, whether the property is in an
urban, suburban, or rural setting, how long the applicant has been “gardening for
wildlife” at the property, and whether or not a Habitat Steward assisted the applicant.
Applicants then list plants present at their residences.

Next, applicants check categories provided on the application (including a box for

‘other’) to indicate the food, water, cover, and places to raise young available for animals

39 ‘6 ,9 6‘

at their residences. Some of these categories are: “berries, suet [feeder], riverfront,”
“spring/seep,” “brarnble patch,” “rock pile/wall,” “water garden/wetland” and “dens in
the ground.”

They then indicate resource conservation they practice on their properties by
checking appropriate categories, such as “Xeriscape,” and “removing invasive exotics,”
and check broad categories of animals (invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds,

mammals) seen in their yards. They also list individual species. The final section of the

form asks applicants to send a sketch or photos of the habitat.

15

process
procedr
panlcir
apphca
Invenlo
the pIO'
avaflab
finnfl}'

habtat

condu-
ufldhl
dOII‘n
preset
Intel}

Mr

IIIEIQI

as W3

«‘ICCQ

dE\Is

According to NWF staff, “many people are intimidated by the application
process” (NWF a, n.d.); so Habitat Stewards and NWF staff make efforts to demystify the
procedure. BWH workshop leaders, when available to an applicant, can assist
participants in filling out portions of the application. Habitat Stewards also help
applicants on a one-to-one basis. NWF especially stresses the importance of creating an
inventory of habitats, plants, wildlife, and local landscapes, and creating a base map of
the property before making any property modificatidns. Habitat Stewards, where they are
available, may assist a few applicants a year with these activities. Retailers, friends, and
family members with appropriate expertise may also assist applicants with wildlife
habitat improvements.

The habitat inventory involves listing vegetation types present and evaluating the
condition of these vegetation types. For the wildlife inventory, NWF suggests making a
wildlife journal to record how various animals are using the property; applicants write
down animals and animal signs present. The plant inventory is a list of plant species
present on the property. NWF also suggests examining how the applicant’s property fits
into the larger landscape to determine vegetation types that are present or missing

(NWFb, n.d.).

The inventories are used to construct base maps of the properties that contain
major habitat components present, as well as specific features that impact wildlife, such
as water flow and amount of sunlight (NWFb, n.d.).

Next, participants do landscaping and habitat projects on their properties.
According to the Habitat Stewards training manual, a management plan should be

devised based on the information from inventory and base mapping activities, but this

16

project step is not emphasized in other NWF communications. NWF advises Stewards
that applicants should decide which animals to manage for, based on the natural history
of the area and the conditions that are currently present on a site. The applicant then
plans and executes projects designed to meet the management goals. For instance, to
manage for certain amphibians a pond might be constructed. No participant materials
(besides those provided at Habitat Stewards workshops) give instructions on making a
management plan for one’s yard. Participant materials describe how to construct habitat
projects, but not how to devise an integrated plan for wildlife management. Wildlife
management planning instruction is provided only for participants who attend BWH
Habitat Stewards workshops.

The online Habitat Planner is a resource available through the BWH website that
is an interactive certification guide for BWH participants (NWFc, n.d.). Much of the
information that participants provide is similar to that asked for on the paper Application
for Certification. Participants first provide their contact information. The Planner then
has participants inventory the habitat components on their properties. They indicate the
presence or absence of certain habitat structural attributes, such as “lawns,” “native
flowers,” “evergreen shrubs,” “lakeshore,” “fountain/birdbath,” and “high deciduous
trees.” Participants then indicate the extent to which they provide the four habitat

components stressed by NWF: food, cover, water, and places to raise young. They

,9 66 ,9 6‘

specify the presence/absence of components such as “nuts, seed feeders, rock pile,”
“prairie/meadow patch,” “natural pond,” “recirculating waterfall,” “nesting shelves,” and

“dead trees (snags).”

l7

The Planner has people illustrate what resource conservation techniques they
practice by checking categories such as “reducing/eliminating pesticide & chemical
fertilizer use” and “keeping your cat indoors.” There are also fields for participants to
enter open-ended descriptions of their properties as well as “to do” lists where
participants can plan tasks involving their properties. In addition, participants can upload
photographs of their properties.

Potentially the most helpful Habitat Planner tool is the individualized species list.
The species list is connected to an enature field guide that assists participants in
identifying wildlife on their properties. The field guide can be searched by type of
animal or geographic region and contains pictures and natural history information for
over 4800 plants and animals from across the US. Once a species is added to an
individual’s list, there is a picture of the animal and basic natural history information.
People can also record the date that they observed the animal and add open-ended
comments.

Stage 4 of B PVT-[Involvement Long-Term Impacts of the BWH Program on Participants

The last program activity is a review of BWH applications by NWF
representatives. Applicants mail (or submit electronically) their application, a sketch or
photograph of their habitat, and $15 application fee to NWF’S national headquarters in
Reston, Virginia. There, applications are sorted by state and a state native plant list from
the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center is attached to each application. Additional
supplemental state materials are attached to applications from Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin,
and South Carolina. An NWF intern or a trained volunteer reviews each application.

They use the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Application Checklist to check for required

18

components: fee paid; property size indicated; plants listed; year round food, water,
cover, and a place to raise young; and a sketch or photograph of the habitat. If any
components are missing, the application is returned with a note indicating what needs to
be included to resubmit the application. If all components are satisfactory, a note with
feedback is attached, along with any appropriate handouts (e.g., invasive plant handouts),
a letter from NWF’s president, and a certificate. Also included is a generic press release
that has blanks for participants to fill in details about themselves and their habitat to
provide to the local media. If all components are present but there are major areas of
weakness, the habitat may be “certified with reservations.” In which case, information
related to the area of weakness is included along with the other acceptance materials.
Almost all applicants are eventually certified (D. Mizej ewski, personal communication).

According to D. Mizejewski (November 16, 2001, personal communication), “the
long-term goal of the [BWH] program is to give people the knowledge to turn their
backyards and communities into valuable wildlife refuges, to teach the rewards of
connecting with nature by inviting wildlife into one’s life, and to provide opportunities
for further action and engagement for certified participants.” One form of ‘engagement’
is to draw people into lifelong support for NWF activities, including activities only
indirectly related to the BWH program (D. Mizejewski, November 16, 2001, personal
communication). For example, a person who originally became involved with NWF
through the BWH program may develop a habit of writing their elected representatives
regarding conservation issues. Some examples of engagement are not directly tied to any
NWF programming. NWF staff member Carey Rogers (May 2, 2002, personal

communication) hopes that BWH participants “become Stewards of the places where they

19

live — by volunteering with NWF or an affiliate. . . altering transportation [or consumption]
habits, [and] testifying on an issue.”

Because one focus of BWH is on developing participant action, and engagement
with NWF, efforts are made to certify as many people as possible. This means that some
people are certified while doing a minimal level of improvements. As an extreme
example, a person could conceivably get certified by setting up a birdfeeder, birdbath,
birdhouse, and planting a shrub or two in their yard, as long as all required certification
elements were indicated on the application. NWF staff expects that once such
participants are certified, they will continue to learn about landscaping for wildlife, make
further habitat improvements, and gradually become involved in other NWF programs
and action opportunities.

NWF tries to educate certified BWH participants with its website. There are
resources that feature more advanced landscaping techniques and habitat projects. The
website also contains feature articles on BWH events across the country. Every few
weeks a new article is posted. Habitats, a BWH newsletter, is sent to all certified
participants and is also available online. Topics relate to landscaping, wildlife, and other
environmental and ecological issues.

The Habitat Stewards program is another tool for post-certification involvement
of BWH participants. By training and mentoring other BWH participants, Stewards have
a chance to share their expertise. NWF also tries to recruit BWH participants to become
engaged in the Schoolyard Habitats, Workplace Habitats, and Community Wildlife

Habitat programs.

20

It is likely that alter participants are BWH certified they will have increased
knowledge of wildlife, positive attitudes toward wildlife, tolerance of the negative
impacts of wildlife, and intentions to perform long-term maintenance and improvement to

benefit wildlife.

Methods

Pilot Study: Pre-Certification Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants in Michigan
To examine in detail the experiences of one group of BWH participants in stage 1

of implementation theory and program theory (awareness and motivation to participate)
(Figure I-2), we gave 44 participants a written survey at an April 2002 BWH workshop at
Pierce Cedar Creek Institute (PCCI) in Michigan. Trained Habitat Stewards conducted
this daylong, weekend workshop for residents who had not yet been certified.

In June 2002, we conducted a focus group with six participants from the April
workshop in order to learn more about the experiences and attitudes of this particular
group who had begun developing their BWH knowledge and skills and were beginning to
work on applying for BWH certification (stages 2 and 3) (Figure I-2). We randomly
selected 18 workshop participants who lived within 16 miles of PCCI to invite to the
focus group. Six participants were able to attend the focus group. We asked focus group
participants about the communication sources they had used while developing their BWH
knowledge and skills.

Nation wide Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants

To measure attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of BWH participants from

across the country, we conducted a mail survey of certified participants who may have

become involved in long-term BWH program action (Stages 3 and 4) (Figure I-2).

21

Beginning in July 2002, we surveyed a stratified random sample of 1427 of the 8117
BWH participants certified in the US. in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Because nearly 3 times
the number of certified participants lived in the eastern US. (6093) as the western US.
(2024), we over sampled the western participants. We surveyed 708 eastern participants
and 719 western participants. We used a modified version of Dillman’s (1978) Total
Design Method and sent participants up to three mailings.

A total of 1053 BWH participants respondedto the survey. The adjusted overall
response rate for the survey was 77%. The adjusted response rate was computed by
omitting addresses with errors and persons ineligible to respond (minors and deceased
persons). The adjusted response rate was 79% for eastern participants and 74% for
western participants. Compared to other studies utilizing mail surveys, especially those
that survey the general public, our response rate is considered quite high.

Survey Instruments for Pilot and Nation wide B WH Participants

We measured several demographic and property variables of workshop and
nationwide participants (Table H). To examine the motivations of workshop and
nationwide participants in the BWH program, we asked them to rate the importance of 27
reasons for participation on a 5-point scale; higher numbers indicate higher importance
(Table I-2). We also investigated the use of communication sources used by participants
(Table I-3). For items that they had used, respondents rated the helpfulness of each form
of assistance on a 5-point scale with “very important” coded as 5 and “very unimportant”
coded as l. The total number of forms of assistance used was calculated by summing the

number of “yes” responses, for a possible range of 0 to 7.

22

We asked certified respondents whether or not they had practiced certain natural
resource conservation, planning, and inventorying techniques and processes (BWH-
stewardship behaviors) (Table I-4). We determined BWH stewardship with 18 survey
items that asked respondents whether or not they had done certain behaviors related to
resource conservation and wildlife management. We calculated the total number of
.behaviors performed by summing the number of “yes” responses, for a possible range of
0 to 18. When we calculated total BWH stewardship scores for respondents who omitted
four or fewer stewardship items we assumed that missing items indicated that the
behavior was not performed. Respondents who omitted five or more stewardship items
did not receive a total score.

We asked certified respondents about their involvement in NWF-related action
and consumerism (Table I-6) using 10 items. We examined participation by BWH
participants in activities similar to activities listed on NWF’s website as ways to “take
action:” writing an editorial, contacting an elected representative, testifying at a public
meeting, organizing a fundraiser, petition drive, or letter writing campaign, or giving a
media interview concerning a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issue. Other
activities involved the more direct use of BWH processes and techniques: volunteering
with community wildlife, natural resource, environmental, gardening, or landscaping
projects. One item asked about purchasing behavior based on natural resource
considerations.

Data Analysis
We analyzed survey data by using SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows Software for Social

Statistics (2000). Because our sample stratification for the nationwide survey over-

23

represents the western US., we applied case weights based on region for descriptive
analyses, in order that our results were representative of the BWH participants from
across the US. We used t-tests to compare mean number of BWH stewardship activities
performed by participants who did or did not receive specific types of assistance. Also,
we used Pearson’s Correlation to compare the total number of stewardship activities
performed and the total number of forms of assistance used. Following the
recommendation of Winship and Radbill (1994) regarding the use of statistical tests
which depend on standard errors, we did not use weighted data with t tests or

correlations.

Results
Pilot Study: Pre-Certification Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants in Michigan

Demographics
Michigan workshop participants ranged in age from 24 to 84 years (Table H) (M

= 54.0, SD = 14.8, Mdn = 53.0); the age of the overall Michigan population is lower
(Mdn = 35.5 years) (US. Census Bureau, 2000). While only 51.0% of the general
Michigan public is female (US. Census Bureau, 2000), over 79% of workshop attendees
were female. All of the workshop participants had graduated from high school, and over
38% of workshop participants had completed a bachelors, graduate, or professional
degree. Comparatively, only 21.8% of Michigan residents 25 years or older have at least
a bachelors degree (US. Census Bureau, 2000). Fewer workshop participants (35.0%)
than Michigan residents (44.7%) (US. Census Bureau, 2000) have incomes below
$40,000. More workshop participants (57.5%) than Michigan residents (42.7%) (US.
Census Bureau, 2000) have incomes between $40,000 and $99,999, and fewer workshop

participants (7.5%) than Michigan residents (12.7%) (US. Census Bureau, 2000) have

24

incomes of $100,000 or higher. Over 93% of workshop participants lived in rural areas
or small towns and only about 7% lived in urban or metropolitan communities, while
25.3% of the general Michigan public live in rural areas and 74.7% live in urban areas
(US. Census Bureau, 2000).

Stage 1: Awareness and Motivation to Participate

In general, motivations that involve positive impacts for wildlife were strong
reasons cited by workshop participants for BWH participation (Table I-2). Helping
wildlife survive the winter; helping wildlife survive the spring, summer, and fall; and
helping wildlife by preserving and improving wildlife habitat were all strong motivations
for participation, having mean responses of 4.8 or higher.

Workshop participants seemed to be quite interested in possible educational
benefits of the BWH program (Table I-2). Learning about wildlife, learning techniques
for providing habitat, and having educational opportunities for children had mean
responses of 3.8 to 4.7 and were relatively strong motivations for participation in the
BWH program.

The motivation of BWH participants to attract wildlife varied according to the
type of animal (Table I-2). Attracting smaller, more colorfirl species of wildlife
(songbirds and butterflies) had high mean responses of 4.7 to 4.8. Weaker motivations
for participation were reported for attracting mammals, larger birds, reptiles, and insects
(not butterflies); these items had mean responses 3.6 or lower.

Social factors were weak motivations for workshop participants to take part in the
BWH program (Table I-2). Gaining recognition from NWF was one of the least popular

motivations for participation. Also, participants rated getting recognition from friends,

25

family members, or neighbors, having a project to work on with friends, family members,
or neighbors, and being encouraged to participate by friends, family members, or
neighbors as relatively unimportant motivations for participation with mean responses of
3.7 or lower.

Prior to attending the workshop, only 21% of pilot study participants reported
using free NWF produced written materials. Seven percent or fewer participants had
used the BWH website, Information Kit, or had attended an NWF slideshow or
presentation. No workshop participants had received assistance from a Habitat Steward.
About a third had received assistance from neighbors, friends, or family members.

Stage 2: Development of BWH Knowledge and Skills

At the focus group, participants reported using a variety of kinds of assistance to
improve their knowledge and skills in BWH processes and techniques. Two participants
reported purchasing or reading books pertaining to the BWH program. Two participants
had acquired and used written extension materials; the workshop “Spurred me to look
further” and get a soil map from the Soil Conservation District, said one participant. One
woman at the focus group had an extension agent visit her prairie restoration, one cited
the workshop materials and presentations to be helpful, and one had “spent a lot of time

on the net” since the workshop.

Nationwide Backyard Wildlife Habitat Participants

Demographics
Nationwide BWH participants ranged in age from 23 to 89 years (Table H) (M =

54.1, SD = 11.4, Mdn = 54.0 years) and were older than the general US. population (Mdn

= 35.3 years) (US. Census Bureau, 2000). A much larger proportion of BWH

26

III'ec
pub}
The
abor

pro;

prc
H91;

[he I

Were

ICSp

nationwide participants were female (70.2%) than the proportion of the overall US.
population that is female (50.9%) (US. Census Bureau, 2000). Certified BWH
participants have completed more formal education (54.9% have at least a bachelors
degree) than US. residents who are 25 years or older (21.8% have completed at least a
bachelors degree) (US. Census Bureau, 2000). Certified participants had higher
household incomes (20.4% < $40,000, 28.3% 2 $100,000) than the general public (47.4%
< $40,000, 12.3% 2 $100,000) (US. Census Bureau, 2000).

About half of certified participants lived in rural areas or small towns and half
lived in urban or metropolitan areas (Table I-l). Twenty-one percent of the general
public live in rural areas and 79% live in urban communities (US. Census Bureau, 2000).
The majority (56.5%) of BWH participants had properties smaller than an acre, with
about a third reporting property from 1 to 10 acres. Only 7% of BWH participants had
property of 11 acres or larger.

Stage 1: Awareness and Motivation to Participate

When asked to recall their reasons for participation, nationwide BWH participants
reported that motivations to positively impact wildlife were very important (Table I-2).
Helping wildlife by conserving and improving wildlife habitat; helping wildlife survive
the winter; and helping wildlife survive the spring, summer, and fall were all quite
important reasons for participation; they all had mean responses of 4.9. In addition,
BWH participants reported that health benefits (relieving stress and getting exercise)
were fairly important motivations for participation with mean responses of 4.1 and 3.8

respectively.

27

Certified BWH participants were also interested in educating themselves.
Learning techniques for providing habitat and learning about wildlife were strong
motivations for participation in the BWH program, with mean responses of 4.5 and 4.3.
However, educating children had a mean response of 3.7 and was a less popular
motivation for participation (Table I-2).

Participants had different levels of motivation depending on the type of animal in
question (Table I-2). Attracting smaller, more colorful species of wildlife (songbirds and
butterflies) were the strongest motivations for participation; the mean responses for the
importance of attracting these two types of animals were 4.9 and 4.8 respectively.
Weaker motivations for participation (mean responses of 4.1 and lower) were reported
for attracting amphibians, larger birds, insects (not butterflies), reptiles, and mammals.

Social motivations were relatively unimportant reasons for participating in the
BWH program. Gaining recognition from NWF had a mean response of 2.7 and was one
of the least popular motivations for participation. Also, getting recognition from fiiends,
family members, or neighbors, joining with others that have similar interests, having a
project to work on with friends, family members, or neighbors, and being encouraged to
participate by friends, family members, or neighbors were weak motivations for
participation with mean responses of 3.3 or lower.

Stage 2: Development of B WH Knowledge and Skills

The most common source of information or assistance for certified BWH
participants to gain skills and knowledge in BWH stewardship activities were free NWF
handouts, which were used by 64% of respondents (Table I-3). Less than half of those

surveyed reported using the other forms of assistance. F orty-four percent of participants

28

have used the BWH website, and 38% have used the BWH Information Kit. Habitat
Stewards have given personal assistance to very few participants (4.2%), but again, the
Stewards program is relatively new and presently available only in certain regions.
Neighbors, friends, or family members gave 38% of participants assistance. Only 30% of
participants reported they got personal assistance from a wildlife or natural resource
professional. The total number of forms of assistance used ranged from 0 to 7 (M=2.2,
SD =1.4). BWH assistance was generally rated as quite helpful, with a mean response of
4.4 to 4.8 for all items.
Stage 3 : Habitat Improvement and Applying for B WH Certification

Landscaping with native plants, reducing chemical pesticide use, reusing yard
waste, and mulching are popular BWH stewardship activities, done by 91% or more of
participants (Table I-3). These activities are commonly described in NWF materials.

Controlling invasive exotic species, decreasing lawn size, reducing chemical
fertilizer use, conserving water, allowing natural predators to survive, and preventing
predation by domestic animals have been done by fewer participants (58% to 86%).
Some of these activities (reducing fertilizer use, conserving water, decreasing lawn size)
are highlighted in NWF materials. Several BWH materials mention invasive exotic
species. However, the BWH Information Kit is one of the few materials that describes
ways that humans can introduce invasive exotic species and outlines negative impacts of
invasive species (e.g., invasive exotic plants can replace native plant communities). The
Kit is currently being used by 38% of certified participants. Less than half (44.7%) of
respondents said they had set wildlife management goals and objectives. The BWH

Information Kit outlines general objective and goal setting processes (e.g., determining

29

habitat components to provide based on the types of animals desired). Sixty-percent or
fewer BWH participants reported inventorying or mapping activities. The number of
total backyard wildlife activities conducted (total BWH stewardship scores) ranged from
1 to 18 (M= 11.5, SD = 3.3).
INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE SOURCES AND BWH STEWARDSHIP

For the five most commonly used materials and assistance (Table I-3), we
compared the mean number of stewardship activities performed for those who had and
had not used each form of assistance. Those BWH participants who had used free NWF
materials, the BWH website, the BWH Information Kit, had received assistance from
friends, family members, or neighbors, or from a wildlife professional, performed
significantly more BWH stewardship activities than their counterparts who had not used
such materials or assistance (Table I-S). The Pearson Correlation for the total number of
stewardship activities performed and the total number of forms of assistance used is
0.290 (p < 0.01, n = 976).
Stage 4: Long-Term Program Impacts

Over 92% of certified participants have made purchasing decisions based on
environmental concerns (Table I-S). This is quite high compared to the percentage of the
general US. public (26%) and even the percentage of US. environmental leaders and
activists (64%) who regularly read labeling to assess the environmental impact of
products (Roper Organization Inc., 1990).

Thirty—one to 41 percent of participants had volunteered as: an educator who
instructs others in gardening or landscaping processes or techniques, an educator that

instructs others in wildlife, natural resources, or environmental issues, a volunteer with

30

community gardening or landscaping projects, or a volunteer with community wildlife,
natural resource, or environmental projects.

Fewer BWH participants had been involved in political or community activism
related to wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issues. The most common action
was the contacting of an elected representative; this has been done by 35.6% of
participants. By comparison, only 4% of the general public and 24% of environmental
leaders and activists regularly write to politicians regarding the environment (Roper
Organization Inc., 1990). Fewer than 20% of BWH participants had written editorials,
testified, given media interviews, or organized letter-writing campaigns regarding

environmental issues.

Discussion and Recommendations

Using Implementation Theory and Program Theory to Examine Backyard Wildlife
Stewardship Communication Processes

During this study, we found that certain program activities were more commonly
used than other program activities. This may be an indication that some program
activities are more important than others for influencing the mechanisms for change.
Stage 1: Awareness and Motivation to Participate

Even though 33% of Michigan workshop participants had received assistance
from a friend, family member, or neighbor, social motivations were a relatively
unimportant reason for participation in the program. This suggests that program
activities other than being introduced by friends, neighbors, or family may be more
important for hearing about the BWH program and becoming motivated to participate.

NWF may want to highlight the most popular reasons for participation, such as attracting

31

songbirds or butterflies, conserving wildlife habitat, or helping wildlife survive, in
introductory BWH materials.
Stage 2: Development of BWH Knowledge and Skills

The five most popular forms of assistance (free NWF written materials, the BWH
website, the BWH Information Kit, assistance from neighbors, fiiends, or family
members, and assistance from a wildlife professional) were all associated with the
number of BWH stewardship activities performed by certified participants and the
number of forms of assistance used is positively associated with the number of BWH
stewardship behaviors performed. Therefore, these program activities may all be
important ways for participants to gain BWH stewardship skills and knowledge.
Stage 3: Habitat Improvement and Applying for BWH Certification

Currently, 60% or fewer of the nationwide BWH participants are performing
inventorying and mapping activities during stage 3 of BWH involvement. So, many
participants are practicing BWH stewardship without systematically determining the
current conditions on their properties. This could potentially lead to dissatisfaction with
the program by participants if they are unsuccessful at achieving goals and objectives that
are inconsistent with the natural history of their properties and surrounding landscapes.
Most BWH materials give general information on inventorying and mapping activities.
However, the BWH Information Kit gives an overview of why inventorying is important
and how to conduct inventories.
Stage 4: Long— Term Program Impacts

Certified BWH participants are more involved in several NWF-related action and

consumerism activities than the general public. However, these differences are likely due

32

at least in part to BWH participants being a self-selected group of individuals who
performed more of these activities than the “general public” even before they became
involved with the BWH program. Therefore, without knowing which of the behaviors
were performed before participation in the BWH program, it is difficult to determine to
what extent the program causes changes in these behaviors.

Improving Communication Strategies In Backyard Wildlife Stewardship Education
Programs

Delivering program content to a large number of participants who live in different
regions or states can be a challenge for administrators of residential wildlife stewardship
programs. Organizations and agencies must deliver program content, much of which
involves instruction in complex techniques or processes, using a variety of methods. The
newly updated BWH website contains information that probably increases knowledge of
ecology, residential Wildlife management issues, and BWH techniques and processes for
BWH participants. However, because less than half of participants have used the BWH
website, NWF should continue to use other delivery methods to disseminate information.
It is essential that the free printed materials, which are the by far the most widely used
form of assistance, are kept up to date and include content that meets the needs of
participants.

Because all of the five most popular materials and forms of assistance (free NWF
written materials, the BWH website, the BWH Information Kit, assistance fi'om
neighbors, friends, or family members, and assistance from a wildlife professional) were
associated with more stewardship behaviors in nationwide BWH participants, NWF
should try to increase the dissemination of all of these sources of assistance. This could

be done by updating the free written materials, which are used by more participants than

33

any other form of assistance, to highlight other sources of information and assistance.
NWF could also distribute materials that point participants to sources of assistance, such
as county extension offices, which provide services for landowners in specific
communities.

There is also a need for more personal assistance for BWH participants. The
processes and techniques of managing wildlife and wildlife habitat on residential
properties are complex. However, if participants have knowledge and skills in wildlife
management planning, practices, and assessment then we can expect that they are likely
to have more positive experiences in the BWH program, and there are likely to be more
beneficial impacts to wildlife on their properties. The mastery of these practices is most
effectively fostered through direct instruction. However, fewer than half of participants
have used any kind of hands-on instruction in BWH processes and techniques. The lack
of personal assistance may be a reason that low proportions of participants report using
more complex or unfamiliar processes and techniques, such as: controlling invasive
exotic species, inventorying current conditions and species present, base mapping, goal
setting, and management planning.

Continuing the expansion of the Habitat Stewards program is one way to provide
direct instruction in BWH processes and techniques to BWH participants. There is great
potential for recruiting current BWH participants into the Habitat Stewards program.
Over a third of nationwide BWH participants have volunteered for community wildlife,
natural resources, or environmental projects, yet only about 3% of participants are
Habitat Stewards. NWF may be able to recruit certified participants into the Stewards

program by increasing awareness of the program. At the Michigan workshop, several

34

participants asked about how they could become involved in the Stewards program.
NWF could also provide more direct instruction by increasing partnerships with state or
local wildlife or gardening education programs offered by agencies, extension and/or
private organizations.

Administrators of residential wildlife habitat education programs should be aware
of the demographic characteristics of program participants. NWF has had success in
certifying a large number (over 30,000) of participants in the BWH program. However,
those certified in 1999, 2000, and 2001 are not representative of the demographic
composition of the US. as a whole. This may mean that the program is currently serving
many people that would be performing BWH stewardship activities regardless of their
involvement in the BWH program. To make a greater impact on increasing BWH
stewardship behaviors, NWF should try to involve more individuals from
underrepresented demographic groups.

Based on our BWH study results, organizations and agencies that administer
similar programs likely have an opportunity to increase participation fiom racial and
ethnic minorities, people with lower education levels, and people with lower incomes.
One way to accomplish this is by involving more schools in urban or rural areas in the
Schoolyard Habitats program. Having children engaged in providing habitat at school
may be a way for their parents to hear about the BWH program; parents may also learn
BWH processes and techniques if they volunteer to help plan, construct, or maintain a
Schoolyard Habitat. Since women outnumber men over two to one as participants in the
BWH program, there is also probably an opportunity to increase BWH participation by

men in other residential wildlife programs.

35

Because most BWH participants have small property (less than an acre), there is
an opportunity to involve more rural or suburban residents with larger properties. Rural
or suburban residents (especially those who farm) may be more likely to use extension
resources than residents of more urban areas. Partnering with local extension offices to
provide awareness of the BWH program and BWH materials to rural or suburban
residents may be a way to recruit residents with larger properties into the BWH program.
For the BWH program and other similar pro grams, having more participants with larger
properties could potentially have increased benefits for wildlife if this means that larger
tracts of land are being modified to provide wildlife habitat.

Future Research

The implementation theory and program theory should represent the ways that
program activities can ultimately lead to program outcomes; these theories are developed
based on the beliefs of stakeholder groups, such as program administrators and staff
members (Weiss, 1998), and are based on the program goals and objectives (Pomerantz
and Blanchard, 1992). During program evaluation, evaluators determine the extent to
which the goals and objectives are met. Developing the implementation theory and
program theory for wildlife stewardship education programs can be useful because it
requires the examination of program goals and objectives.

When examining the goals and objectives of the BWH program with NWF staff
members, we determined that many of the written program objectives are process-related.
Processes are the participation, activities, and resources of the program; outcomes are the
desired impacts that the program has on participants (Bennett, 1978). Even though most

of the written objectives are related to process, NWF staff members have expressed

36

desires for outcomes. NWF staff hopes that BWH participation leads to the outcomes of
long-termNWF action and consumerism. Bennett (1978) would call these social,
economic, and environmental outcomes. So, the development of implementation and
program theory demonstrates the need for NWF and similar wildlife education
organizations to clearly articulate desired practices, knowledge, opinions, skills, and
aspirations, and reactions outcomes.

The development of these theories is also helpful, as Weiss (1998) suggested,
when determining data collection points for wildlife stewardship education programs.
The biggest drawback to using Weiss’s approach is that, especially when the desired
program outcomes are not clearly expressed, it requires a great deal of time and effort on
the part of the researcher to communicate with program staff and to gather program
materials. However, once the implementation theory and program theory are developed,
they can help researchers and program staff members to understand how the program
may work.

This study provides some hints at the effectiveness of various communication
techniques. The study results also indicate some areas on which future BWH and
wildlife habitat education program studies should focus: the use of specific materials by
participants and how best to improve these materials, the differences between
implementation of the program in different regions of the US, the effectiveness of in
depth programs, such as the Habitat Stewards Program, and trends in the attitudes,
knowledge, and behaviors of wildlife stewardship education program participants over

time.

37

Literature Cited

Bennett, D. (1978). Analyzing impacts of extension programs No. ECSS75, US. Dept.
Of Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, DC.

Bruening, TH. (1991). Communicating with farmers about environmental issues.
Journal of Applied Communications, 75(1), 34-40.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.

Gamon, J ., Bounaga, L., & Miller, W.W. (1992). Identifying informational sources and
educational methods for soil conservation information used by landowners of
highly erodible fields. Journal of Applied Communications, 76(1), 1-5.

Jeannette, K.J., & Meyer, M.H. (2002). Online learning equals traditional classroom
training for Master Gardeners. HortTechnology, 12(1), 148-156.

Laughin, K.M. & Schmidt, J .L. (1995). Maximizing program delivery in extension:
Lessons from leadership transformation. Journal of Extension, 33(4). Retrieved
February 6, 2003, from http://www.joeorgljoe/ 1995august/a4.html

Mizejeski, D. (2002). National Wildlife Federation’s wildlife habitat planning guide:
for backyards and beyond. Reston, Virginia: National Wildlife Federation.

NWFa. (n.d.). Backyard Wildlife Habitat program guidelines.

NWFb. (n.d.). Mihchigan Habitat Stewards training manual: Working to Create and
Enhance Wildlife Habitat in Your Community.

NWFc. (n.d.). Backyard Wildlife Habitat website. Retrieved December, 2002, from
http://www.nwf.org/backyardwildlifehabitat

NWFd. (n.d.). Backyard Wildife Habitat brochure.

Pomerantz, G.A., & Blanchard, K.A. ( 1992). Successful communication and education
strategies for wildlife conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference, 5 7, 156-163.

Rodewald, AD. (2001). Delivery systems—Is the "latest" technology the greatest?
Journal of Extension, 39(4). Retrieved February 18, 2003, from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2001august/tt2.html

Rollins, T.J., Bruening, T.B., & Radhakrishna, RB. (1991). Identifying extension
information delivery methods for environmental issues. Journal of Applied
Communications, 75(2), 1-9.

38

Roper Organization Inc. (1990). The environment: public attitudes and individual
behavior. New York.

Schoenfeld, C. & Griffin, R.J. (1981). Communication: A human factor. In R.T.
Dumke, G.V. Burger, & J .R. Marsh (Eds.), Wildlife management on private lands
(pp. 130-152). Milwaukee, WI: Wildlife management on private lands-
sumposium May 3-6, 1981.

SPSS, Inc. (2000). SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version [Computer
software]. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Suvedi, M., Campo, S., & Lapinski, MK. (1999). Trends in Michigan fanners'
behaviors and perspectives on the delivery of information. Journal of Applied
Communications, 83(3), 33-50.

US. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved June 25, 2003, fi'om
http://www.census.gov/

VanDerZanden, A.M., Rost, B., & Eckel, R. (2002). Basic botany on-line: A training
tool for the Master Gardener program. Journal of Extension, 40(5). Retrieved
February 18, 2003, from http://www.joe.org/joe/20020ctober/rb3.shtrnl

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Winship, C. & L. Radbill. (1994). Sampling weights and regression analysis.
Sociological Methods and Research, 23(2), 230-257.

39

Table I-l

Demographic and Property Characteristics of Nationwide B W Participants and

Attendees ofiz Michigan Workshop
US respondents MI respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Categories % n % n
Age in 2002 966 41
Sex Male 29.8 1008 20.9 43
Female 70.2 79.1
Highest education level Not a high school graduate 0.5 1011 0.0 44
High school graduate 13.1 25.0
Vocational or trade school 4.4 2.3
Associate's degree ‘ 7.8 13.6
Some college 19.3 20.5
College graduate 26.2 18.2
Graduate or professional degree 28.7 20.5
Gross household income <$20,000 5.1 863 5.0 40
$20,000-$39,999 15.3 30.0
$40,000-$59,999 16.8 22.5
$60,000—$74,999 17.2 22.5
$75,000-$99,999 17.3 12.5
$100,000-124,999 13.2 5.0
$125,000-149,999 4.5 0.0
Z$150,000 10.6 2.5
Approximate size of property <1 acre 56.5 1024 _ _
1-10 acres 36.4 .-
11-50 acres 5.9 —
>50 acres 1.2 —
Community size Rural/farm 7.2 1018 25.0 44
Rural/non-farm 22.2 38.6
Small town (£25K people) 21.2 29.5
Urban area (25K -100K) 25.0 4.5
Metropolitan area (>100K) 24.5 2.3

 

40

Table I-2

Motivations of Nationwrde Participants and Attendees of a Michigan Workshop for BWH

particrpatton

 

US respondents MI respondents

 

Reason for participation ' SD n M SD n
To attract songbirds to property 4.9 0.4 1037 4.8 0.5 41
To conserve and improve wildlife habitatc 4.9 0.4 1037 4.8 0.5 44
To help wildlife survive the winter 4.9 0.5 1033 4.9 0.3 44
To help wildlife survive the spring, summer, and fall 4.9 0.4 1038 4.8 0.4 44
To attract butterflies to property 4.8 0.5 998 4.7 0.5 41
To view new species of wildlife on property 4.6 0.7 1035 4.2 0.9 43
To learn environmentally friendly techniques for providing wildlife 4.5 0.7 1033 4.7 0.5 43
habitat

To make property more attractive 4.3 1.0 1035 4.6 0.5 43
To learn about wildlife 4.3 0.9 1017 4.6 0.7 43
To attract amphibians to property 4.1 1.1 1028 3.2 1.3 43
To attract hawks, eagles, or owls to property 4.1 1.2 1035 3.2 1.4 43
To relieve stress by providing wildlife habitat 4.1 1.1 1030 3.9 1.0 43
To attract other insects (not butterflies), spiders or other invertebrates to 4.0 1.1 1030 3.6 1.3 42
property

To attract small mammals to property 4.0 1.2 1031 3.0 1.5 43
To have a fun recreational activity 4.0 1.2 1025 — — —
To get physical exercise by providing wildlife habitat 3.8 1.2 1034 3.9 1.1 43
To attract reptiles to property 3.7 1.3 1030 2.9 1.3 43
To provide educational opportunities for children 3.7 1.3 1021 3.8 1.2 43
To attract ‘water birds’ to property 3.6 1.4 1017 3.2 1.6 42
To have friends, family members or neighbors to know about the 3.3 1.4 1031 3.7 1.3 44
improvements made to property

To join efforts with others who share the same interests 3.2 1.3 1026 — — -
To increase the financial value of property 3.1 1.5 1027 3.4 1.4 43
To attract large mammals to property 2.7 1.5 1020 2.9 1.6 43
To have a project that I can work on with friends, family members, or 2.7 1.4 1004 3.5 1.3 42
neighbors

To get recognition from NWF for improvements made to property 2.7 1.4 1024 2.9 1.3 43
Because of encouragement to participate in the program by a friend, 2.5 1.5 981 2.5 1.4 39
family member, or neighbor

To have a new hobby 2.3 1.3 985 3.0 1.4 40

 

' “I decided to participate in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program because:”

b Mean response on 5-point scale with “Very Unimportant” coded as l and “Very Important” coded as 5.

c This item was worded as “preserve and improve wildlife habitat” for the Michigan questionnaire and

“conserve and improve wildlife habitat” for nationwide questionnaire.

41

Table I-3

Use of B WHMaterials or Assistance by Nationwide B WH Participants and Attendees of

a Michigan Workshop

 

 

MI

US Respondents Respondents
BWH material or assistancea % n Mb SD n % n
Free NWF written materialsc 63.6 1024 4.5 0.6 644 20.5 44
NWF BWH website 44.0 1024 4.4 0.7 439 6.8 44
BWH Information Kit 37.7 1016 4.6 0.6 675 2.3 44
NWF slideshow or presentation 9.4 1038 4.6 0.7 92 4.7 43
Assistance from a Habitat Steward 4.2 1029 4.8 0.5 41 0.0 44
Assistance from neighbors, friends, or family members 38.8 1037 4.6 0.5 389 32.6 43
Assistance from a wildlife management or natural resource ‘ 29.7 1037 4.6 0.6 304 — —
professional

 

' “For each of the following National Wildlife Federation materials, please indicate whether or not you

have used the resource. If you have used a resource, please indicate how helpful or unhelpful the resource

was.”

b Mean rating by respondents who reported using the material or assistance with “Very Helpful” coded as

5, “Somewhat Helpful” coded as 4, “Unsure” coded as 3, “Somewhat Unhelpful” coded as 2, “Very
Unhelpful” coded as 1.
c For actual item wording, please see Appendices B and D.

42

Table I-4

Percentage of Nationwide B WH Participants Performing B WH Stewardship Processes
and Techniques

 

 

Process or technique“ %b n
Controlling invasive exotic speciesc 58.1 1015
Landscaping with native plants 95.0 1043
Reducing the size of traditional lawn 85.6 1035
Reducing the use of chemical pesticides 90.8 1047
Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers 84.3 1048
Reusing yard waste 90.5 1048
Mulching 97.1 1035
Water conservation 59.2 1043
Setting wildlife management goals and objectives ' 44.7 1041
Planning actions to meet wildlife management goals and objectives 52.2 1035
Base mapping to document current wildlife habitat conditions 33.8 1040
Inventorying soils 13.8 1033
Inventorying plants 60.3 1040
Inventorying animals 41.9 1042
Inventorying unique wildlife-related features 53.5 1044
Inventorying water features 43.9 1038
Allowing natural predators to survive 86.4 1034
Preventing domestic animals from hunting 64.6 1041

 

‘ “For each of the following wildlife habitat activities, please indicate whether you have or have not done
the activity on your property.”

5 Percentage that have used the process or technique.

c For actual item wording, please see Appendix D.

43

Table I-5

Comparison of Total Number of B WH Stewardship Activities Performed Between
Selected Groups of Nationwide Participants

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic' M13 SD n t df
Have used free NWF materials 12.1 3.1 632 7.34" 769.9
Have not used free NWF materials 10.6 3.3 387

Have used BWH Information Kit 12.2 3.4 379 4.58" 762.9
Have not used BWH Information Kit 11.2 3.2 633

Have used BWH website 12.1 3.2 451 5.13" 972.3
Have not used BWH website 11.1 3.3 567

Have received assistance from friends, family members, or neighbors 11.9 3.2 402 3.28“ 871.5
Have not received assistance from friends, family members, or neighbors 11.3 3.3 631

Have received assistance from a wildlife professional ' 12.4 3.2 298 5.65" 546.1
Have not received assistance from a wildlife professional 11.2 3.2 735

 

' We did not test for differences based on use or nonuse of assistance from a Habitat Steward or an NWF
slideshow or presentation because less than 10% of participants reported using either of these

communication methods.
:Mean number of stewardship activities performed.
p < 0.01

44

Table I-6

Involvement of Nationwide B WH Participants in N WF-Related Action and Consumerism

 

 

ActivitL‘ %" n
Household purchasing decisions based on wildlife, natural resource, or 92.8 1043
environmental issuesc
Volunteering as a gardening or landscaping educator 41.3 1039
Volunteering with community wildlife, natural resource, or environmental projects 36.3 1043
Volunteering with community landscaping or gardening projects 35.5 1040
Volunteering as a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental educator 31.1 1040
Writing, phoning or meeting with an elected representative based on a wildlife, 35.6 1045
natural resource, or environmental issue
Submitting an editorial to a newspaper or magazine based on a wildlife, natural 19.1 1044
resource, or environmental issue ~
Testifying at a public meeting about a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental 12.7 1043
issue
Giving a media interview concerning a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental 11.4 1043
Issue
Organizing a fundraiser, petition drive, or letter writing campaign regarding a 8.3 1045

wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issue

 

‘ “Please indicate which of the following activities you have done in the last 5 years.”
b Percentage that have done the activity.
° For actual item wording, please see appendix D.

45

Figure 1-1 . Implementation theory and program theory for the BWH program (based on
Weiss, 1998).

 

Implementation theory Program theory
(program activities) (mechanisms of change)

 

Stage 1: Awareness and motivation to participate

NWF staff or Habitat Stewards present BWH
slideshow to residents

Friends, neighbors, or family members of residents
introduce residents to BWH

Retail store employees introduce residents to

BWH

Visitors to NWF’s website learn about BWH\
Residents read the BWH brochure

Residents attend an NWF hosted SIGN
Residents are exposed to media coveram

1 Residents hear about BWH program and are
re 3th events motivated to participate

 

Stage 2: Development of BWH knowledge and skills

Habitat Stewards teach participants habita
improvement knowledge and skills

.’ ’

Friends, neighbors, or family members of

knowledge and skills
Wildlife professionals teach participants habitat ’ I I”

improvement knowledge and skills I I ’1”;
Retail store errrployees teach participants habitaf’, ’
inrprovement knowledge and skills ’ , 1’

I
Participants access and study BWH website‘\’:‘/\.

Participants receive and study BWH handouts’ ’

 

. , , , ‘ Participants gain skills and knowledge to
Participants receive and study BWH Info. Kit —. perform BWH stewardship

 

u—d’
a'II’
” ’l
I
v' I ’
’I I
I ”

    

I

I I
Participants construct a site map of their propertM’
Participants do landscaping and habitat projects on

 

 

 

their properties Participants perform BWH stewardship
Stage 4: Long-term program impacts __ .. — — " " T i-
. . . . 4"T‘
NWF representatives revrew BWH applrcatronsN Participants’ prgperties are BWH certified
_—--::—'—‘":—""T
1' : ---- - : ---- — - ‘ " Participants have positive changes in
‘ c ‘ ~ ‘ ‘ ”'- ~. knowledge and attitudes toward wildlife and
s ‘ ‘ s \ intentions to perform behaviors that benefit
‘ s \ ‘ a wildlife
‘ \
‘ x \ T \ \ Participants perform long term maintenance
‘ c ‘ and improvement of wildlife habitat on their

‘ ., properties
\

“ Participants become involved in NWF
related action and consumerism

 

 

 

46

Figure [-2. Stages of BWH participant involvement and study methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3: Stage 4:
Awareness and _’ Development of _’ BWH Stewardship _’ Long-term
motivation to BWH knowledge & application for BWH program

participate and skills BWH certification impacts

MI BWH MI BWH Full National

Workshop Focus Survey

Pre-survey Group

Pilot Study

47

CHAPTER 11
Use of wildlife management processes, techniques, and expertise by participants in

National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program

Abstract: Although 49 state agencies and many private organizations offer programs to
aid landowners in providing wildlife habitat (Benson 2001a), few studies have been done
to determine the impacts of residential wildlife stewardship programs, such as the
National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat (BWH) program. To date,
approximately 30,000 landowners have certified their backyard habitats with the BWH
program. We used a mail survey of 1427 BWH participants to examine the demographic,
attitudinal, and knowledge characteristics of national participants in the BWH program.
Environmental attitudes were measured using a subset of the New Ecological Paradigm
(NEP) scale and attitudes toward wildlife-related issues were measured using the Wildlife
Attitudes and Values Scale (WAVS). We also determined the kinds of educational
materials and assistance used by participants in the program. Finally, we examined the
relationships between these variables and stewardship behaviors (i.e., wildlife
management or resource conservation activities) of participants. Consistent with the
Theory of Reasoned Action, we found that attitudes toward stewardship behaviors were
the strongest predictor of number of stewardship behaviors performed. The number of
different kinds of materials and assistance used, attitudes about the importance of
communicating about wildlife, property size, and knowledge of general ecology and
BWH processes were also significantly correlated with stewardship behaviors at the
multivariate level. Although only 30% of participants received personal assistance from

a wildlife professional, those who did were significantly more likely to have used

48

inventorying and management plarming processes than those who did not have such
assistance. Based on these results, we recommend that administrators of residential
wildlife stewardship programs emphasize to participants the importance of planning and
inventorying techniques and processes. We also recommend that program administrators
ensure that participants in wildlife habitat education programs have access to a variety of
materials and personal assistance. We believe that by following our recommendations,
residential stewardship program staff will be more effective at maximizing positive
outcomes for participants.

Key words: attitudes, backyard wildlife habitat, knowledge, residential wildlife

stewardship programs, stewardship behaviors, wildlife education

49

Much of the wildlife habitat in the United States is under private control. More
than 60% of the land in the United States is privately owned (Vesterby and Krupa 2001).
These private lands contain 80% of wildlife habitats (Benson 2001b); therefore, activities
of private landowners can significantly impact wildlife populations and habitat. To
ensure that suitable habitat for wildlife is provided the involvement of private landowners
in active wildlife management of their properties is essential. According to Kellert
(1984: 18), “the ultimate fate of wildlife will depend on landowner attitudes and,
correspondingly, their willingness to forego certain benefits for the sake of wildlife.”

Many Americans are already engaged in activities around their homes that can
benefit wildlife. Nationwide, in 2001, 62.9 million Americans participated in residential
wildlife-watching activities, such as feeding wildlife, cultivating plants for the benefit of
wildlife, and maintaining natural areas for wildlife (US. Dept. of Interior 2002). A
majority of Maine (55%) (Boyle et a1. 1991) and Pennsylvania (75%) (Snyder and
George 1981) residents have attempted to feed or attract animals. Up to a third of New
York state metropolitan residents reported providing food, water, or shelter for wildlife
on their properties (Brown et a1. 1979).

Even though many citizens have initiated wildlife attraction and habitat
improvement activities largely on their own, there is a need for programs that provide
information and technical training to assist landowners in providing wildlife habitat.
Indeed, a handful of studies have shown public interest in such assistance (Brown et a1.
1979, Responsive Management 1996).

Forty-nine state agencies offer programs which aid landowners in providing

habitat for game species; many of these agencies also have nongame private lands

50

programs, including 12 states which offer assistance for residents specifically interested
in “backyard wildlife” (Benson 2001a). Some state programs provide financial
compensation to participants, while others, such as the Acres for Wildlife Program, offer
only technical assistance and (in some states) free plant materials (Deknatel 1979).

The Backyard Wildlife Habitat (BWH) program is a residential wildlife
stewardship opportunity offered by the National Wildlife Federation (NW F). Since the
program began in 1973, NWF has certified over 30,000 sites. The popularity of the
BWH program is growing, with almost 3,000 new habitats currently being certified
annually (Mizej ewski, NWF, personal communication).

There are many possible ways that participants may become involved in the BWH
program. Landowners may hear about the program through contact with NWF staff or
volunteers, by visiting NWF’s website (NWF), or by receiving BWH materials. NWF
offers various kinds of assistance to help BWH participants improve their properties for
wildlife. Information about initially assessing property and providing habitat components
is available from NWF in print and electronic forms. Additional information is contained
in a Backyard Wildlife Habitat Information Kit that can be ordered from NWF or
purchased through Wild Birds Unlimited retail stores. For additional assistance to
landowners involved in the BWH program, NWF trains volunteer community mentors,
known as Habitat Stewards, who offer technical support to participants during various
stages of the application process (Mizej ewski, NWF, personal communication). Because
the activities of landowners in the BWH program are largely directed by the participants

themselves, the materials used to guide management and natural resource conservation

51

practices and the extent and the source of assistance from others likely varies widely from
one participant to another.

Participants begin the process of applying for NWF certification of their
properties by determining which of 4 basic habitat components (food, water, shelter, and
a place to raise young) are present on their properties. Participants then may make
property modifications to provide additional wildlife habitat components. Finally,
residents submit an application to NWF that details the habitat components of their
properties. NWF staff review applications, and successful applicants receive: a
certificate, a letter from the NWF President, answers to any questions indicated on the
application form, and an invitation to submit information to NWF for a press release to
the applicant’s local newspaper (Tufts 1990).

Voluntary residential wildlife programs have the potential to positively influence
participant behaviors that are beneficial to wildlife. There may be growing opportunities
to involve residential landowners in such programs. Applegate (1981) speculated that
landowners who are not economically dependent on their lands might have more time
and money to devote to enhancing their properties for wildlife than landowners who rely
on their lands for income. As nonfarm residential rural land use in the US. is increasing
(V esterby and Krupa 2001), there exists increased need for wildlife habitat education to
reach these rural, nonfarm residents.

Our study objectives were to determine the demographic, attitudinal, and
knowledge characteristics of BWH participants, to determine the kinds of materials and
assistance that BWH participants used, and to determine which of these variables are

associated with BWH stewardship behaviors. Based on our findings we provide several

52

recommendations for agencies and organizations that offer residential wildlife habitat
education programs.

Factors associated with wildlife-related and environmental stewardship behaviors
Theory of Reasoned Action

According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), there are two major
variables that determine intentions to perform a behavior: attitudes toward the behavior
and the subjective norm (F ishbein and Manfredo 1992). Attitudes toward a behavior are
formed based on two factors: the beliefs that an individual has that carrying out the
behavior will produce certain outcomes and the evaluation of these outcomes by the
individual. The stronger the belief that a behavior will produce positive outcomes or
prevent negative ones, the more positive the attitudes towards performing that behavior
(F ishbein and Manfredo 1992).

The subjective norm of a behavior is a combination of what a person believes that
key individuals feel about whether or not the person should perform the behavior, and
how motivated the person is to act in accordance with those individuals. A person is
more likely to feel pressure to perform a behavior if that person believes that others
approve of the behavior (F ishbein and Manfredo 1992).

Researchers have applied the TRA to investigate wildlife-related recreation
behaviors. Rossi and Armstrong (1999) found that attitudes and subjective norms toward
hunting were significant predictors of intentions to hunt, and Fulton et al. (1996)
discovered that attitudes toward hunting predicted intentions to hunt. Young and Kent
(1985) observed that intentions to camp were predicted by attitudes and subjective norms

toward camping.

53

TRA variables have also been demonstrated to affect responsible environmental
behavior. In other studies, changes in intentions to support a controlled burn policy were
predicted by changes in attitudes and subjective norms toward the policy (Bright et al.
1993), and intentions to support the reintroduction of wolves (Cam's lupus) were
predicted by attitudes toward wolf reintroduction (Bright and Manfredo 1996). Hanna
(1995) found that attitudes about wilderness issues were associated with intentions to
become involved in wilderness and environmental issues. As these examples illustrate,
attitudes and subjective norms are correlated with intentions to perform behaviors, and
intentions are predictive of the actual behaviors (Ajzen 1991). There is therefore a
probable correlation between attitudes and subjective norms toward behaviors and the
behaviors themselves.

Variables and models for environmentally responsible behavior

Researchers have found general environmental attitudes as measured by the New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap et al. 2000) to be associated with
environmental stewardship behaviors. NEP attitudes have been demonstrated to be
significantly correlated with consumer and political environmental behaviors (Scott and
Willits 1994) and political and general behaviors relating to the environment (Steel 1996,
Widegren 1998).

Knowledge has also been found to be related to environmental stewardship.
Hines et al. (1986/87) described an association between knowledge of ecology and
environmental issues, and environmental stewardship behavior. In one specific study,

boaters who had higher knowledge of issues related to dumping raw sewage were more

54

likely to dispose of sewage in an appropriate onshore dump station than those with less
knowledge (Cottrell and Graefe 1997).

This previous research concerning environmental knowledge, attitudes and
activities is consistent with Hungerford and Volk’s (1990) model describing factors that
influence responsible environmental behavior. According to this model, there are three
major categories of variables that determine environmentally responsible behavior:
entry-level variables, ownership variables, and empdwerment variables.

One important entry-level variable is environmental sensitivity. A way to
increase environmental sensitivity is by providing meaningful outdoor experiences over a
long time period; these experiences can include outdoor recreation activities, such as
hunting and fishing. Hungerford and Volk (1990:11) assert that entry level variables
“appear to be prerequisite variables [to environmentally responsible behavior], or at the
very least, variables that would enhance a person’s decision-making, once an action is
undertaken.”

Entry level variables may influence ownership variables. Ownership variables
give people a personal connection to environmental issues. These variables deal with the
personal importance of issues to individuals. A major ownership variable is an in-depth
knowledge of environmental issues. If a person “owns” an issue by being knowledgeable
about the issue, this can affect her or his behaviors related to the issue.

Ownership variables may influence empowerment variables, which are variables
that allow people to believe that they can “make a difference” when dealing with an
environmental issue (Hungerford and Volk 1990: 11-12). The perceived level of ability

in using strategies to benefit the environment is an empowerment variable. If a person

55

believes they have the skills necessary to deal with environmental issues they are more
likely to perform environmentally responsible behaviors.
Conceptual model of B WH Stewardship

We developed the conceptual model of BWH stewardship (Figure H-l), which
combines elements of Hungerford and Volk’s model and the TRA to explain how certain
variables may influence stewardship behaviors expressed by BWH participants. BWH
stewardship behaviors are defined as the implementation of wildlife management
processes and techniques on one’s property in order to benefit wildlife and help conserve
natural resources.

At the center of the BWH stewardship model are the BWH materials and
assistance that participants may have used. These materials and assistance may influence
entry-level, ownership, and empowerment variables. For example, use of BWH materials
and assistance may increase knowledge of ecology, knowledge of residential wildlife
management issues, knowledge of the consequences of BWH processes, and knowledge
of BWH practices and activities. Conceptualization and measurement of entry-level,
ownership, and empowerment variables in this study are based on previous research
regarding responsible environmental behavior (Hines et al. 1986/87, Hungerford and
Volk 1990, and Cottrell and Graefe 1997). BWH materials and assistance may also
affect attitudes toward BWH stewardship. Attitudes toward BWH stewardship,
subjective norms toward BWH stewardship, and intentions to practice BWH stewardship
are adapted from the TRA (Ajzen 1988).

We measured BWH materials and assistance used, attitudes towards BWH

stewardship, and selected entry-level, ownership, and empowerment variables. For this

56

study, we measured only selected variables from the conceptual model of BWH
stewardship.

Entry-level variables important to BWH stewardship are: environmental
attitudes, attitudes toward wildlife, knowledge of ecology, wildlife management
background, landscaping background, and demographic and property characteristics
(Figure II-l ). Entry-level variables may influence the motivation to participate in the
BWH program, as well as influence ownership variables. For example, a person who has
more positive environmental attitudes or has been providing food for birds for several
years may be more likely to be motivated to participate in the BWH program than a
person with less positive environmental attitudes or who has not fed birds; the person
who has fed birds may also have a greater personal investment in residential wildlife
management (an ownership variable). For this study, we measured environmental
attitudes, attitudes toward wildlife, and demographic and property characteristics. We
also measured knowledge of ecology, but for purposes of analysis, we combined
ecological knowledge with knowledge of residential wildlife management and
consequences of BWH processes (ownership variables), and knowledge of BWH
practices and activities (empowerment variable).

Ownership variables that may indirectly influence BWH stewardship are:
knowledge of residential wildlife management issues, personal investment in residential
wildlife management, and knowledge of consequences of BWH processes. For example,
knowing that certain invasive exotic plants can negatively impact native wildlife is one
area of knowledge regarding a residential wildlife management issue. Knowing that

reducing pesticide use can benefit wildlife is an example of knowledge of a consequence

57

of a BWH process. Ownership variables may affect empowerment variables. Persons
who know about residential wildlife management issues or the consequences of BWH
processes, or who have a personal investment in residential wildlife management may
choose to develop their knowledge and skill in BWH practices and activities. In turn,
empowerment variables such as knowledge and skill in BWH practices and activities may
lead ultimately to BWH stewardship; BWH participants who are more knowledgeable
and skilled in BWH practices and activities may be more likely to perform stewardship
behaviors than those with less knowledge or skill.

Intentions to practice BWH stewardship can lead finally to expression of BWH
stewardship behaviors. Intentions to practice BWH stewardship may be influenced by
empowerment variables, attitudes toward BWH stewardship, and subjective norms
toward BWH stewardship.

Methods
Mail survey

To measure knowledge, attitudinal, and behavioral characteristics of BWH
participants, we conducted a mail survey. Beginning in July 2002, we surveyed a
stratified random sample of 1427 of the 8117 BWH participants certified in the US. in
1999, 2000, and 2001. Because nearly 3 times the number of certified participants lived
in the eastern US. (6093) as the western US. (2024), we over sampled the western
participants. We surveyed 708 eastern participants and 719 western participants. We
used a modified version of Dillman’s (1978) Total Design Method and sent participants

up to three mailings.

58

A total of 1053 BWH participants responded to the survey. The adjusted overall
response rate for the survey was 77%. The adjusted response rate was computed by
omitting addresses with errors and persons ineligible to respond (minors and deceased
persons). The adjusted response rate was 79% for eastern participants and 74% for
western participants. Compared to other studies utilizing mail surveys, especially those
that survey the general public, our response rate is considered quite high.

Survey Design
Demographic and property characteristics of B WH participants

We measured several demographic and property variables (Table II-l). These
variables were included due to the following observations about past studies. Age is
associated with environmental attitudes (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980, Arcury 1990, Jones
and Dunlap 1992, Scott and Willits 1994, Gooch 1995, Hanna 1995, Dunlap et al. 2000),
attitudes toward consumptive uses of wildlife (Dahlgren et al. 1977), environmental
knowledge (Arcury and Johnson 1987, Hanna 1995), and environmental behavior
(Widegren 1998). Researchers have found male-female differences in environmental
attitudes (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980, Mohai 1992), attitudes toward consumptive uses
of wildlife (Dahlgren et al. 1977), environmental knowledge (Arcury et al. 1986, Arcury
and Johnson 1987, Arcury 1990), and environmental behavior (Scott and Willits 1994).
Level of education is associated with environmental attitudes (Van Liere and Dunlap
1980, Arcury 1990, Gooch 1995, Dunlap et al. 2000), attitudes toward consumptive uses
of wildlife (Dahlgren et al. 1977), environmental knowledge (Arcury et al. 1986, Arcury
and Johnson 1987, Arcury 1990), and environmental behavior (Arbuthnot 1977, Scott

and Willits 1994, Cottrell and Graefe 1997, Widegren 1998). Although researchers have

59

argued that income is not an important determinant for environmental attitudes (Morrison
and Dunlap 1986, Mertig and Dunlap 2001), we included income as a dependent variable
since we suspected that income might influence a person’s ability to engage in certain
stewardship behaviors. Size of one’s community of residence is associated with
environmental attitudes (Arcury 1990, Jones and Dunlap 1992) and environmental
knowledge (Arcury and Johnson 1987, Arcury 1990). Finally, it is likely that participants
with larger properties may perform more stewardship activities because they have more
space and possibly a greater diversity of habitat components.
Environmental and wildlife attitudes of B WH participants

We measured general environmental attitudes of BWH participants using 10
selected items from the NEP scale (Koval and Mertig 2002) (Table II-2). A principal
component factor analysis of the 10 NEP items used in our study identified 2 factors that
explain 50% of the variance between the items. The 10 items had a Cronbach’s Alpha
reliability value of 0.81. Other researchers have found the NEP scale to contain up to 3
dimensions (e.g., Albrecht et al. 1982, Scott and Willits 1994, Gooch 1995, Shanahan et
al. 1999, Koval and Mertig 2002). However, Dunlap et al. (2000) recommend the
treatment of all NEP items as a single measure unless there are substantive reasons not to,
or if the reliability of the items when combined is not acceptable. Thus, for our
subsequent analysis, we treated the 10 NEP items as a single measure. We summed
responses for all items to determine a total NEP score with a possible range of 10 to 50.
Higher total scores indicate more positive environmental attitudes. For respondents who

omitted 2 or fewer NEP items, we inserted mean responses for missing items when

60

calculating that individual’s total NEP scores. We did not calculate total NEP scores for
participants who did not respond to 3 or more of the NEP items.

We used the 18 item Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale (WAVS) to measure the
attitudes of respondents toward wildlife, and their attitudes concerning the roles of
wildlife in contemporary society (Purdy and Decker 1989a) (Table II-3). The WAVS has
been used to study the attitudes of the general public regarding wildlife, as well as to
determine the attitudes of various stakeholders, including members of wildlife-related
organizations (Butler et al. 2001). Researchers using the WAVS have found that there
are 3 or 4 distinct attitudes that are measured by the scale (Butler et. al. 2001, Purdy and
Decker 1989a, Purdy and Decker 1989b). The social benefits attitude indicates the
appreciation of the existence of wildlife. The traditional conservation attitude involves
consumptive uses for wildlife and the sustainable harvest of wildlife. The
communication benefits attitude indicates the value placed in communication about and
observation of wildlife. The problem tolerance attitude involves the acceptance of the
negative impacts of wildlife (Butler et al. 2001). We subjected the 18 WAVS items to a
principal component factor analysis and found that there were indeed 4 dimensions,
although we had two items that loaded with the communication benefits attitude that
other researchers (Butler et al. 2001) have found loaded with other attitudes‘. We
combined items based on the dimensions indicated by our factor analysis results. Four
items that loaded to form the social benefits factor explained 10% of the common
variance, and had a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability of 0.72. There were 4 items in the

traditional conservation dimension that accounted for 7% of the common variance; the

' The item dealing with economic benefits of consumptive recreation has previously loaded with the
traditional conservation attitude and the item about the importance of understanding wildlife behavior has
previously loaded with the social benefits attitude.

61

Cronbach’s Alpha value for this dimension was 0.70. The communication benefits factor
contained 6 items that explained 25% of the common variance, and had a Cronbach’s
Alpha of 0.70. The remaining 4 items loaded together as the problem tolerance
dimension and accounted for 13% of the common variance; this dimension had a
Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.80. We calculated a total attitude score for each attitude
type by summing the coded responses for each attitude item for that attitude type (higher
total scores indicate more positive attitudes). The pOssible ranges for each attitude score
are as follows: social benefits: 4 to 20, traditional conservation: 4 to 20, communication
benefits: 6 to 30, problem tolerance: 4 to 20. For respondents who omitted 1 or fewer
WAVS items for an attitude type, we inserted mean responses for missing items when
calculating total WAVS scores. We did not calculate WAVS scores for participants who
did not respond to 2 or more of the WAVS items for that attitude type.
BWH participants ’ knowledge

To assess their knowledge of landscaping and wildlife management processes and
techniques, as well as their knowledge of basic ecological concepts, we asked
respondents to answer 14 multiple-choice items (summarized in Table II-4). We counted
an item as correct if the one response that we considered the best answer was selected. A
total knowledge score, with a possible range of 0 to 14, was calculated by summing the
number of correct answers.
Use of materials and assistance by BWH participants

We asked respondents whether or not they had used certain written materials
available from NWF, or had received personal assistance from NWF staff or volunteers,

or friends, family members or neighbors while becoming certified in the BWH program

62

(Table II-5). The total number of forms of assistance used was calculated by summing
the number of “yes” responses, for a possible range of 0 to 6. When we calculated the
total number of information sources used, for respondents who omitted 1 or fewer
assistance items we assumed that missing items indicated that the form of assistance was
not used. Respondents who omitted 2 or more assistance items did not receive a total
score.

We also asked respondents whether or not they had received assistance from
wildlife management or natural resource professionals. We did not include professional
assistance in our total forms of assistance count so that we could specifically examine the
relationship between professional assistance and BWH stewardship behaviors.

Attitudes of participants toward BWH stewardship

We measured participant attitudes toward BWH stewardship using 11 items
(Table H-6). A principal component factor analysis of the BWH stewardship attitude
items revealed 3 factors that explain 54% of the common variance. However, the
dimensions did not have substantive meaning and contained as few as three items. To
insure that the scale had acceptable reliability, we treated the 3 factors as a single
variable. The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.78. We calculated a total attitude score
for participants by summing their coded responses for each attitude item. Higher total
attitude scores indicate more positive attitudes toward BWH processes and techniques,
with a possible attitude score ranging from 11 to 55. For respondents who omitted 3 or
fewer stewardship attitudes items, we inserted mean responses for missing items when
calculating total attitude scores. We did not calculate total attitude scores for participants

who did not respond to 4 or more of the attitude items.

63

Stewardship behaviors of B WH participants

We determined BWH stewardship behaviors with 18 survey items that asked
respondents whether or not they had done certain behaviors related to resource
conservation and wildlife management (Table II-7). The total number of behaviors
performed was calculated by summing the number of “yes” responses, for a possible
range of 0 to 18. When we calculated total BWH stewardship scores, for respondents who
omitted 4 or fewer stewardship items we assumed that missing items indicated that the
behavior was not performed. Respondents who failed to respond to 5 or more
stewardship items did not receive a total score.
Data analysis

We analyzed data by using SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows Software for Social
Statistics (2000). Because our sample stratification over—represents the western US, we
applied case weights based on region for the percentages and means. We used multiple
regression analysis to examine possible explanatory variables for BWH stewardship. We
used Pearson’s Chi-square test to determine whether significant differences existed
between percentages of participants performing BWH stewardship activities. Following
the recommendation of Winship and Radbill (1994) regarding the use of statistical tests
which depend on standard errors, we did not use weighted data in our multiple regression
model or with Chi-square tests.

Results

Demographic and property characteristics of B WH participants

Most BWH participants (79.3%) are 45 years or older, with 18.9% 65 years or

older (Table II-l). Participants range in age from 23 to 89 years (i = 54.1, SD = 11.4).

64

Over two-thirds (70.2%) of BWH participants are female. More than 74% of BWH
participants have completed at least some college, with over 28% having a graduate or
professional degree. So, this is a relatively well-educated audience for wildlife
management messages. BWH participants also have relatively high incomes, with 63%
reporting gross household incomes $60,000 or higher, and over 28% have incomes
$100,000 or higher.

Only about 7% of the certified habitats are in rural, farm areas. Most participants
have their properties in metropolitan (24.5%) or urban (25.0%) areas, and several more
are in small towns (21.2%) or rural, non-farm (22.2%) regions. The majority (56.5%) of
BWH participants have property smaller than an acre, with about a third reporting
property from 1 to 10 acres]. Only 7% of BWH participants have property of 11 acres or
larger.

Environmental and wildlife attitudes of B WH participants

BWH participants have strongly positive total NEP scores. Mean responses to
NEP items ranged from 2.6 to 4.6 (Table II-2). Total NEP scores for respondents had a
range of 15 to 50 (J? = 39.4, SD = 6.7). Seventy percent of participants had total scores
of 36 or higher. The mean total for BWH participants is higher than the mean total of
34.5 for the general public in Michigan on the same 10 NEP items (Koval and Mertig
2002).

BWH participants have strongly positive communication benefits attitudes (Table
II-3). Mean responses to WAVS communication benefits items ranged from 3.4 to 4.7.

Total WAVS communication benefits scores had a range of 10 to 30 (J? = 25.2, SD =

' This may seem like a small amount of acreage per person being modified to benefit wildlife, but NWF not
only attempts to use the BWH program to try to benefit wildlife, but also as a way to encourage lifelong
environmental stewardship in participants.

65

.w—Ffiofi.

“I...

W

 

3.4). BV'
response
scores re
tradition
WAVS ‘
consent

positive

panicip

only 5:
"lmpor

Use of

Less rh
asSISla]
aSSlSIaJ
2.0, SE

from a

3.4). BWH participants have strongly positive WAVS social benefits attitudes. Mean
responses to social benefits items had a range of 4.7 to 4.9. Total WAVS social benefits
scores ranged from 11 to 20 ( f = 19.1, SD = 1.5). Participants have much less positive
traditional conservation attitudes than social benefits attitudes. Mean responses to
WAVS traditional conservation items had a range of 1.2 to 3.9. Total WAVS traditional
conservation scores had a range of 4 to 20 (f = 8.1, SD = 3.0). Participants have fairly
positive WAVS problem tolerance attitudes. Mean responses to problem tolerance items
ranged from 3.7 to 4.3. Total WAVS problem tolerance scores had a range of 4 to 20 ( J?
= 15.8, SD = 3.4).
BWH participants ’ knowledge

Overall, BWH participants have high knowledge scores. The percentages of
participants who correctly answered individual knowledge items ranged from 52.3% to
97.2% (Table II-4). The total knowledge scores had a range of 0 to 14 (f = 10.8, SD =
2.5). Over 97% correctly answered the item that asked about habitat components, while
only 52.3% of participants responded that “Human-made alterations to the landscape” are
“important to include in a property base map.”
Use of materials and assistance by BWH participants

Sixty-four percent of respondents reported using free NWF handouts (Table II-5).
Less than half of those surveyed reported using any of the other kinds of materials or
assistance. The number of different kinds of materials or assistance used (excluding
assistance from a wildlife professional) by BWH participants ranged from 0 to 6 (J? =
2.0, SD = 1.3). Only 29.7% of respondents indicated that they had received assistance

from a wildlife or natural resource professional.

66

Attitudes of participants toward B WH stewardship

Participants have strongly positive attitudes toward several BWH stewardship
behaviors (Table Il-6), especially certain practices highlighted in NWF materials.
Participants have the most strongly positive attitudes toward reducing chemical pesticide
use, mulching, reducing chemical fertilizer use, and landscaping with native plants;
responses to these items have a mean of 4.7. Participants have moderately positive
attitudes toward reusing yard waste, allowing natural predators to survive, conserving
water, preventing predation by domestic animals, decreasing lawn size, and controlling
invasive exotic species; responses to these items have a mean of between 4.4 and 4.6.
Creating a management plan has a less positive/favorable mean attitude score of 4.1.
This is an important practice for effective wildlife management, but a practice not
emphasized in NWF materials. Total BWH stewardship attitude scores ranged between
19 and 55 ()7 = 49.4, SD = 4.6).

Stewardship behaviors of B WH participants

Reducing chemical pesticide use, mulching, landscaping with native plants, and
reusing yard waste are popular BWH stewardship activities, having been done by 91% or
more of participants (Table II-7). These are activities that are commonly described in
NWF materials.

Reducing chemical fertilizer use, allowing natural predators to survive,
conserving water, preventing predation by domestic animals, decreasing lawn size, and
controlling invasive exotic species have been done by fewer participants (5 8% to 86%).
Some of these activities (reducing fertilizer use, conserving water, decreasing lawn size,

and controlling invasive exotic species) are highlighted in NWF materials. Less than half

67

(44.7%) of respondents said they have set wildlife management goals and objectives.
The number of total backyard wildlife activities conducted (total BWH stewardship
scores) ranged from 1 to 18 (7c = 11.5, SD = 3. 3).

Predicting BWH stewardship behaviors

Because we believed that it would be particularly useful for professional wildlife
managers to know about the effect that assistance from a wildlife professional has on
BWH stewardship, we examined professional assistance separately from the other forms
of assistance. Participants who received assistance from a wildlife professional were
significantly more likely to have performed planning or inventorying BWH stewardship
processes or techniques than those who had not received such assistance (Table II-8).
They were also more likely to have controlled invasive exotic species or to have
conserved water.

Of the demographic and property variables, only sex, income, and property size
were significantly correlated with BWH stewardship behaviors at the bivariate level
(Table II-9). All three correlations were weak, with income having negative correlations
with stewardship and property size having a positive correlation with stewardship; being
female was negatively correlated with BWH stewardship. In the multiple regression,
only property size remains statistically significant.

All of the attitudinal, assistance, and knowledge variables had significantly
positive bivariate correlations with BWH stewardship behaviors (Table II-9). However,
only five of these variables had significant multivariate regression coefficients. BWH
stewardship attitudes were a strong predictor of BWH stewardship behavior. The only

other attitudinal, assistance, and knowledge variables that predicted BWH stewardship

68

behavior in the multivariate model were WAVS communication benefits attitudes, BWH

materials and assistance, assistance from a wildlife professional, and BWH knowledge.
Discussion

Demographic and property characteristics of B WH participants

BWH participants are older (median = 54.0 years) than the general US.
population (median = 35.3 years) (US. Census Bureau 2000). A much larger proportion
of BWH participants are female (70.2%) than the prbportion of the overall US.
population that is female (50.9%) (US. Census Bureau 2000). Certified participants have
completed more formal education (54.9% have at least a bachelors degree) than US.
residents who are 25 years or older (21.8% have completed at least a bachelors degree)
(US. Census Bureau 2000). BWH participants have higher household incomes (20.4% <
$40,000, 28.3% 2 $100,000) than the general public (47.4% < $40,000, 12.3% 2
$100,000) (US. Census Bureau 2000). About half of certified participants live in rural
areas or small towns and half live in urban or metropolitan areas. Twenty-one percent of
the general public live in rural areas and 79% live in urban communities (US. Census
Bureau 2000).

The significant, yet weak, bivariate regression coefficients between sex (being
female) and BWH stewardship, income and BWH stewardship, and property size and
BWH stewardship indicate that BWH participants who are male, have lower incomes, or
have larger property sizes have performed more stewardship behaviors than their
counterparts. Males may be more likely than females to perform landscaping and yard
care behaviors, and this may explain why they are more likely to perform a greater

number of BWH stewardship activities than females. The significant bivariate

69

relationships between sex and BWH stewardship and income and BWH stewardship
behaviors disappear at the multivariate level. The significant multivariate regression
coefficient between property size and BWH stewardship may be due to BWH participants
with smaller properties believing that some of the stewardship activities are impractical
or unnecessary in their yards. This may be especially true for planning and inventorying
processes and techniques. Urban residents, as well as other residents with small
properties, may not perform activities such as setting management goals and objectives,
base mapping their properties, or inventorying soils, plants, or wildlife, because these are
not emphasized by NWF materials and/or because they may believe that such activities
are not worth the effort in terms of benefits to wildlife and their own satisfaction in the
program.
Environmental and wildlife attitudes of B WH participants

Based on the bivariate regression results, we can conclude that BWH participants
with more strongly positive NEP attitudes or WAVS attitudes (all types) have performed
more BWH stewardship behaviors. However, only 2 of the 5 general attitude measures
we used were still significantly correlated with BWH stewardship behaviors at the
multivariate level. We expected that participants who had more positive environmental
attitudes would have performed more BWH stewardship behaviors when we controlled
for other variables. However, the NEP measures general environmental attitudes and our
BWH stewardship items gauge specific environmentally responsible behaviors, and
according to the TRA (Ajzen 1988), attitudes toward specific behaviors are better

predictors of specific behaviors than general attitudes.

7O

The lack of a significant multivariate correlation between WAVS social benefits
attitudes and BWH stewardship behaviors was unexpected. We had anticipated that
participants who believed that it was important to appreciate the role of wildlife in the
“natural environment” would perform more BWH stewardship behaviors. A possible
explanation as to why our results did not indicate such a relationship is that scores for the
social benefits scale had little variation (3? = 19.1, SD = 1.5), making it difficult to co-
vary with stewardship behaviors. -

The significant multivariate relationship between WAVS communication benefits
attitudes and BWH stewardship may have to do with the nature of the BWH program.
Because the BWH program is a communication program, participants who believe that
communicating about wildlife is important may be more likely to use materials provided
by NWF or other sources that highlight BWH stewardship activities. This additional
exposure to such materials may result in these participants performing more stewardship
activities than those participants who believe that communicating about wildlife is less
important. They may also be more likely to seek personal assistance from NWF staff,
wildlife professionals, or friends, family and neighbors, than those who feel wildlife-
related communication is less important.

Because the BWH program involves nonconsumptive uses of wildlife, it makes
sense that there is not a significant multivariate correlation between WAVS traditional
conservation attitudes and BWH stewardship. BWH stewardship activities do not
directly involve traditional wildlife-related activities such as hunting and trapping.

We were not expecting the lack of a significant multivariate relationship between

WAVS problem tolerance attitudes and BWH stewardship. We had anticipated that

71

participants who were more willing to accept the unwanted impacts of wildlife would
perform more stewardship activities. Although this is true at the bivariate level, the
results of our multivariate regression analysis did not indicate such a relationship. One or
more of the other variables in our regression model caused the relationship to disappear at
the multivariate level. This lack of a significant multivariate coefficient may be because
people who have dealt with more wildlife problems were also more likely to have
performed more stewardship activities than participants who have had fewer wildlife
problems. Participants who have experienced more wildlife problems may be less
accepting of those problems than participants who have experienced fewer such
problems.

Use of materials and assistance by BWH participants

We had expected that participants with more exposure to different kinds of
materials and assistance would perform more BWH stewardship behaviors than
participants with less exposure. The significant bivariate and multivariate relationships
between the 2 variables support this expectation.

We were also expecting participants who received assistance from a wildlife
professional to perform more stewardship behaviors than participants who did not receive
such assistance. Our multivariate results indicate a weak, although significant,
relationship. This weak relationship might come from wildlife management
professionals giving instruction in some BWH stewardship processes or techniques but
not others. The results of our Chi-square tests Show that participants who received
assistance from a wildlife professional were much more likely to perform wildlife habitat

and management planning activities. These activities are a part of adaptive wildlife

72

management (Haney and Power 1996, Holling 1978) and are advocated by Warner and
Brady (1996) for farmland management but are not generally included in BWH materials
for participants provided by NWF. Participants probably are exposed to many of these
processes and techniques when they are assisted by a wildlife professional. However,
some of the resource conservation techniques, such as reducing yard waste, may not be
highlighted by wildlife professionals. This may explain why we did not find significant
differences in the use of many of these techniques between participants who did or did
not receive professional assistance. Also, as a result of the inventorying and planning
processes they employ, wildlife professionals may advise residents against particular
approaches, thus narrowing the scope of behavior choices for landowners. Wildlife
professionals may guide participants to a narrow set of the most effective behaviors that
are specifically related to goals and objectives.
BWH participants ’ knowledge

There were significant bivariate and multivariate relationships between BWH
knowledge and BWH stewardship. These relationships were consistent with our
predictions.
Attitudes of participants toward B WH stewardship

The strong correlation between BWH stewardship attitudes and BWH
stewardship behaviors is consistent with the TRA (Rossi and Armstrong 1999, Bright and

Manfredo 1996, Hanna 1995, Bright et al. 1993, Young and Kent 1985).

73

Recommendations
Needs of wildlife habitat education program participants with smaller properties

It is important for coordinators of wildlife habitat education programs to
understand that participants who live on smaller properties may be less likely to perform
as many stewardship activities as those with larger properties. This may be because
owners of smaller properties believe that they do not have sufficient space to create a
variety of vegetation conditions. Because many participants may have properties smaller
than an acre, wildlife education programmers should continue to expand instruction in
techniques, such as container gardening, that can be done in small spaces.

Program staff should emphasize the importance of planning and inventorying
techniques and processes that participants, especially those with smaller properties, may
see as unnecessary. For example, an urban resident living in a high rise apartment could
be encouraged to inventory the currentconditions for wildlife on her balcony and in
relation to the surrounding landscape ecology, set realistic goals for providing habitat,
plan and implement projects to achieve goals, and revise and update goals.
Understanding attitudes of participants in wildlife habitat education programs

The best predictors of stewardship behaviors of participants in the BWH program
are attitudes towards the behaviors. If agency and organizational personnel want to affect
behaviors of participants in wildlife habitat education programs, they need to be aware of
the attitudes of participants toward the desired behaviors. If participants do not have
strong positive attitudes toward certain behaviors, they are unlikely to perform these

behaviors.

74

Coordinators of education programs should also be aware that attitudes regarding
the value of communicating about wildlife are associated with stewardship behaviors of
participants. Therefore, it may be difficult for program coordinators to effectively share
information with participants who do not strongly value the processes of hearing about
wildlife through various communication channels.

Because our results do not indicate that participants with greater acceptance of
wildlife problems performed more stewardship behaviors than those who were less
accepting of wildlife problems, there may be a need to educate participants in the BWH
and similar programs about the possible negative impacts of BWH stewardship activities
and how these impacts can be minimized.

Knowledge of participants in wildlife habitat education programs

This study indicates that knowledge is associated with BWH stewardship.
Although it is unclear whether there is a direct causal link between knowledge and
behaviors, staff members in wildlife habitat education programs should continue efforts
to educate participants in wildlife management processes and techniques as a possible
way to increase stewardship behaviors.

Materials and assistance in wildlife habitat education programs

This study also indicates the need for wildlife habitat education programs to make
available a variety of materials and personal assistance to program participants. In the
BWH program, participants who used a greater number of materials or got more personal
assistance performed more stewardship activities.

Because so few BWH participants performed planning and inventorying

processes and techniques, and because BWH participants who received assistance from a

75

wildlife professional were more likely to have used planning and inventorying processes
and techniques, participants in wildlife habitat education programs should be encouraged
to use processes based on adaptive management, such as adaptive impact management
(AIM) (Riley et al. 2002). AIM employs many processes from traditional adaptive
management (e. g., situational analysis, goal and objective setting, identifying alternative
management options, management intervention, and monitoring) (Holling 1978), but is
focused more on impacts. Impacts are the evaluation of the effects of wildlife events or
interactions by various stakeholder groups. Persons using AIM try to maximize positive
impacts and minimize negative impacts. NWF staff should help BWH participants
determine how best to achieve goals based on the beliefs of individual participants about
the positive and negative impacts of wildlife. NWF staff should also examine the extent
to which impacts are consistent with the desires of residents.

With thousands of new participants becoming certified each year, the BWH
program has the potential to positively impact wildlife habitat improvement and resource
conservation behaviors. By understanding the relationship between participant
demographic, attitudinal, knowledge, and assistance variables and BWH stewardship,
BWH administrators and leaders of similar programs may be better able to impact

residential wildlife stewardship behaviors.

76

Literature cited

Aj zen, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50: 179-21 1.

Ajzen, I. 1988. From intentions to actions. Pages 112-145 in I. Ajzen, editor. Attitudes,
Personality, and Behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, Maidenhead,
Berkshire, UK.

Albrecht, D., G. Bultena, E. Hoiberg, and P. Nowak. 1982. The New Environmental
Paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education 13(3):39-43.

Applegate, J .E. 1981. Landowner’s behavior in dealing with wildlife values. Pages 64-
72 in R.T. Durnke, G.V. Burger, and JR. Marsh eds. Wildlife management on
private lands. Wildlife management on private lands-symposium May 3-6.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

Arbuthnot, J. 1977. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of
environmental behavior and knowledge. Environment and Behavior 9:217-232.

Arcury, TA. 1990. Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human
Organization 49(4):300-304.

Arcury, TA. and TR Johnson. 1987. Public environmental knowledge: a statewide
survey. Journal of Environmental Education 18(4):31-37.

Arcury, T.A., T.P. Johnson, and SJ. Scollay. 1986. Ecological worldview and
environmental knowledge: an examination of the "New Environmental
Paradigm". Journal of Environmental Education 17:35-40.

Benson, D. E. 2001a. Survey of state programs for habitat, hunting, and nongame
management on private lands in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin
29(1):354-358.

Benson, D. E. 2001b. Wildlife and recreation management on private lands in the
United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):359-371.

Boyle, K. J ., M. L. Phillips, and S. D. Reiling. 1991. Highlights from the 1989 Maine
Wildlife Survey. University of Maine Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, ARE 425.

Bright, A.D., M. Fishbein, M.J. Manfredo, and A. Bath. 1993. Application of the theory
of reasoned action to the national park service's controlled burn policy. Journal of
Leisure Research 25(3):263-280.

Bright, AD. and M.J. Manfredo. 1996. A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural

resource issues: a case study of wolf reintroduction. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 1(1):1-21.

77

Brown, T. L., C. P. Dawson, and R. L. Miller. 1979. Interests and attitudes of
metropolitan New York residents about wildlife. Transactions of the Forty-fourth
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 44:289-297.

Butler, J. S., J. E. Shanahan, and D. J. Decker. 2001. Wildlife attitudes and values: a
trend analysis. Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication 01-4, Human
Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, NYS College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Cottrell, SP. and AR. Graefe. 1997. Testing a conceptual framework of responsible
environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 29(1): 1 7-27.

Dahlgren, R.B., A. Wywialowski, T.A. Bubolz, and'V.L. Wright. 1977. Influence of
knowledge of wildlife management principles on behavior and attitudes toward
resource issues. Transactions of the Forty-Second North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 42:146-155.

Deknatel, C. 1979. Wildlife habitat development on private lands: a planning approach
to rural land use. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 34:260-263.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. John Wiley
and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues 56:425-442.

Fishbein, M., and M. J. Manfredo. 1992. A theory of behavior change. Pages 29-39 in
M. J. Manfredo, editor. Influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications
in Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Resources. Sagarnore Pub. Inc., Champaign,
Illinois, USA.

Fulton, D.C., M.J. Manfiedo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: a
conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(2):24-
47.

Gooch, G. D. 1995. Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic States.
Environment and Behavior 27(4):513-539.

Hanna, G. 1995. Wildemess-related environmental outcomes of adventure and ecology
education programming. Journal of Environmental Education 27(1):21-32.

Haney, H. and R.L. Power. 1996. Adaptive management for sound ecosystem
management. Environmental Management 20(6):879-886.

Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N. Tomera. 1986/87. Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education 18: 1-8.

78

Holling, C.S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John
Wiley, New York, New York, USA.

Hungerford, H. R., and T. R. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21 :27-40.

Jones, R. E., R. E. Dunlap. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: have they
changed over time? Rural Sociology 57(1):28-47.

Kellert, S. R. 1984. Wildlife and the private landowner. American Forestry 90:27-28,60-
61.

Koval, M. H., A. G. Mertig. 2002. Attitudes toward natural resources and their
management: a report on the “2001 Resource Attitudes in Michigan Survey.”
Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division.

Mertig, AG. and R. E. Dunlap. 2001. Environmentalism, new social movements, and
the new class: a cross-national investigation. Rural Sociology 66(1):]13-136.

Mohai, P. 1992. Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap
in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources 5(1):1-19.

Morrison, DE. and R. E. Dunlap. 1986. Environmentalism and elitism: a conceptual
and empirical analysis. Environmental Management 10(5):581-589.

NWF. Backyard Wildlife Habitat website. http://www.nwf.org/habitats, retrieved 12/02.

Purdy, KC. and DJ. Decker. 1989a. Applying wildlife values information in
management: the wildlife attitudes and values scale. Wildlife Society Bulletin
17:494-500.

Purdy, KC. and DJ. Decker. 1989b. Obtaining wildlife values information for
management: the Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale (WAVS). Human
Dimensions Research Unit Publication 89-2, Human Dimensions Research Unit,
Department of Natural Resources, NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.

Responsive Management. 1996. Pennsylvania residents’ opinions on and attitudes
toward nongame wildlife. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia,
USA.

Riley, S.J., D]. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J .F . Organ, W.F. Siemer, G.F. Mattfeld, and G.
Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin
30(2):585-593.

Rossi, A. N., and J. B. Armstrong. 1999. Theory of Reasoned Action vs. Theory of
Planned Behavior: testing the suitability and sufficiency of a popular behavior
model using hunting intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4:40-56.

79

Scott, D. and F.K. Willits. 1994. Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania
survey. Environment and Behavior 26(2):239-260.

Shanahan, J ., L. Pelstring, and K. McComas. 1999. Using narratives to think about
environmental attitude and behavior: an exploratory study Society and Natural
Resources12:405-419.

Snyder, A. P., and G. L. George. 1981. Wildlife-related activities and attitudes of
Pennsylvanians. Transactions of the Forty-sixth North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 46:455-462.

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois, USA. '

Steel, BS. 1996. Thinking globally and acting locally?: environmental attitudes,
behavior and activism. Journal of Environmental Management 47:27-36.

Tufis, C. 1990. From backyard wildlife habitats to environmentally sensitive
landscapes: ecological awareness at the grassroots level. Pages 72-79 in
Symposium on Perspectives in Urban Ecology, 1993, Denver, Colorado, USA.

United States Census Bureau. Census 2000. Retrieved June 25, 2003, from
http://www.census.gov/

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2002. National survey of
fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation, Washington, DC, USA.

Van Liere, K.D. and RE. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: a
review of hypotheses, explanation and empirical evidence. Public Opinion
Quarterly 44: 1 81-197.

Vesterby, M. and KS. Krupa. 2001. Major uses of land in the United States, 1997.
Economic Report 973, US. Dept. Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.

Winship, C. & L. Radbill. 1994. Sampling weights and regression analysis.
Sociological Methods and Research 23(2):230-25 7.

Widegren, O. 1998. The New Environmental Paradigm and personal norms.
Environment and Behavior 30(1):75-100.

Warner, RE. and SJ. Brady. 1996. Managing farmlands for wildlife. Pages 648-662 in
T.A. Boohout ed. Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and
Habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Young, R. A., and A. T. Kent. 1985. Using the Theory of Reasoned Action to improve
the understanding of recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research 17:90-106.

8O

Table II-l. Demographic and property characteristics of BWH participants certified in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1999, 2000, and 2001.
Characteristic Categories % of n
respondents
Age in 2002 966
Sex] Male 29.8 1008
Female 70.2
Highest education level2 Not a high school graduate 0.5 1011
High school graduate 13.1
Vocational or trade school 4.4
Associate's degree 7.8
Some college 19.3
College graduate 26.2
Graduate or professional 28.7
degree
Gross household income3 <$20,000 5.1 863
$20,000-$39,999 15.3
$40,000-$59,999 16.8
$60,000-$74,999 17.2
$75,000-$99,999 17.3
$100,000-124,999 13.2
$125,000-149,999 4.5
Z$150,000 10.6
Community sized Rural, farm 7.2 1018
Rural, non-farm 22.2
Small town ($25K people) 21.2
Urban area (25K -100K) 25.0
Metropolitan area (>100K) 24.5
Approximate size of property <1 acre 56.5 1024
certified5 1—10 acres 36.4
11-50 acres 5.9
>50 acres 1.2

 

l Coded as 0 for “male,” 1 for “female.”

2 Coded as 1 for “less than high school graduate,” 2 for “high school graduate or GED,” 3 for “vocational
or trade school,” 4 for “associate’s degree (2 year degree),” 5 for “some college,” 6 for “college graduate

(bachelor’s or 4 year degree),” and 7 for “graduate or professional degree.”

3 Coded as 1 for ”less than $20,000,” 2 for “$20,000 to $39,999,” 3 for “$40,000 to $59,999,” 4 for
“$60,000 to $74,999,” 5 for “$75,000 to $99,999,” 6 for “$100,000 to $124,999,” 7 for “$125,000 to

$149,999,” and 8 for “$150,000 or more.”

4 Coded as l for “rural, farm” or “rural, nonfarm,” 2 for “small town,” 3 for “urban area,” 4 for

“metropolitan area.”

5 Coded as l for “less than one acre,” 2 for “l to 10 acres," 3 for “11 to 50 acres,” and 4 for “more than 50

acres.”

81

Table II-2. Mean responses of BWH participants to NEP items.

 

Statement1

 

Mean SD n
Response

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the 3.92 1.2 1033
earth can support.

When humans interfere with nature it often produces 4.42 0.9 1037
disastrous consequences.

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn 2.63 1.4 1036
how to develop them.

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 4.42 0.9 1033

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope withthe 4.03 1.1 1037
impacts of modern industrial nations.

Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the 4.62 0.7 1030
laws of nature.

The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has 3.93 1.2 1032
been greatly exaggerated.

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 3.83 1. 1033

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature 3.93 1.1 1039
works to be able to control it.

If things continue on their present course, we will soon 3.82 1.2 g 1036

experience a major ecological catastrophe.

 

‘ Survey question: “The following statements talk about the relationship between humans and the

environment. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree. Mildly Agree, are Unsure,

Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.”

2 For pro-environmental statements, the mean response was calculated with “Strongly Agree” coded as 5,
“Mildly Agree” coded as 4, “Unsure” coded as 3, “Mildly Disagree” coded as 2, “Strongly Disagree” coded

as 1.

3 For anti-environmental statements, the mean response was calculated with “Strongly Agree” coded as l,
“Mildly Agree” coded as 2, “Unsure” coded as 3, “Mildly Disagree” coded as 4, “Strongly Disagree” coded

as 5.

82

Table II-3. Mean responses of BWH participants to WAVS items.

 

 

 

 

 

Attitude 1It is important to me personally: Mean SD n
Response2
social benefits That I know that wildlife exist in nature. 4.8 0.5 1025
That I consider the presence of wildlife as a sign 4.8 0.5 1040
of the quality of the natural environment.
That I appreciate the role that wildlife play in the 4.9 0.4 1039
natural environment.
That wildlife are included in educational 4.7 0.6 1042
materials as the subject for learning more
about nature. .
traditional That game animals are managed for an annual 3.9 1.2 1034
conservation harvest for human use without harming the
future of the wildlife population.
That I hunt game animals for food. 1.7 1.2 1034
That I trap furbearing animals for the sale of fur 1.2 0.6 1035
or pelts.
That I hunt game animals for recreation. 1.4 0.9 1031
communication That I observe or photograph wildlife. 4.7 0.7 1041
benefits That I talk about wildlife with family and friends. 4.3 0.8 1026
That local economies benefit from the sale of 3.8 1.0 1036
equipment, supplies, or services related to
wildlife recreation.3
That I understand more about the behavior of 4.6 0.7 1040
wildlife.4
That I express opinions about wildlife and their 3.4 1.2 1038
management to public officials or to officers
of private conservation organizations.
That I see wildlife in books, movies, paintings or 4.4 0.8 1041
photographs.
problem That I tolerate most wildlife nuisance problems. 4.3 0.8 1038
tolerance That I tolerate the ordinary personal safety 3.9 1.1 1035
hazards associated with some wildlife.
That I tolerate the ordinary risk of wildlife 3.7 1.2 1040
transmitting disease to humans or domestic
animals.
That I tolerate most levels of property damage by 3.9 1.0 1040

wildlife.

 

' Survey question: “The following statements talk about wildlife-related issues. For each statement, please
indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.”

2 Mean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

3 Other researchers (Butler et al. 2001) have found this item loaded with the trad. conservation attitude.

4 Other researchers (Butler et al. 2001) have found this item loaded with the social benefits attitude.

83

Table II-4. BWH participant responses to knowledge items (n = 1053 for all items).

 

Item1

% of respondents
with correct response

 

Basic habitat components

Functions of wetlands

Ecological role of predators

Humans impacts on wildlife

Influence of soil type on plants found in an area

Methods to control invasive exotic plants

Importance of inventorying current conditions before setting
management objectives .

Importance of considering carrying capacity while managing for
wildlife on residential properties

Ways to find out which plants are native to an area

Advantages of using native plants

Definition of ecosystem

Components of a projerty base map

97.2
84.1
83.3
82.5
81.5
76.4
76.4

74.0

72.7
71.7
69.1
52.3

 

' For actual item wording, please see Appendix D.

84

Table II-5. Use of BWH materials or assistance by participants.

 

BWH material or assistanceI

% of respondents who have n

used material or assistance

 

Free NWF written materialsI 63.6 1024
NWF BWH website 44.0 1024
BWH Information Kit 37.7 1016
NWF slideshow or presentation 9.4 1038
Assistance from a Habitat Steward 4.2 1029
Assistance from neighbors, friends, or family members 38.8 1037
Assistance from a wildlife management or natural 29.7 1037

resource professional

1 Survey question: “For each of the following National Wildlife Federation materials, please indicate

whether or not you have used the resource.”
2 For actual item wording, please see Appendix D.

85

Table II-6. Mean responses of participants to BWH stewardship attitude items.

 

 

Process or techniquer Mean SD n
Response2
Eliminating invasive exotic species3 4.4 0.8 1023
Landscaping with native plants 4.7 0.6 1024
Reducing the use of chemical pesticides 4.7 0.6 1037
Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers 4.7 0.6 1033
Decreasing size of traditional lawns 4.4 0.8 1035
Reusing yard waste 4.6 0.7 1031
Mulching 4.7 0.6 1035
Practicing water conservation . 4.4 0.8 1037
Creating a wildlife management plan 4.1 0.9 1027
Allowing predators to survive 4.5 0.8 1035
Preventing domestic animals from hunting 4.4 0.9 1035

 

' Survey question: “The following techniques are sometimes used to provide wildlife habitat. How

important or unimportant do you personally believe it is for people to use the following
landscaping/wildlife management techniques on their properties?”

2 Mean response on 5-point scale with “Very Unimportant” coded as 1 and “Very Important” coded as 5.

3 For actual item wording, please see Appendix D.

86

Table II-7. Percentage of participants performing BWH stewardship processes and

 

 

techniques.
Process or technique1 % that have used n
mocess or technique
Controlling invasive exotic species2 58.1 1015
Landscaping with native plants 95.0 1043
Reducing the size of traditional lawn 85.6 1035
Reducing the use of chemical pesticides 90.8 1047
Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers 84.3 1048
Reusing yard waste 90.5 1048
Mulching 97.1 1035
Water conservation 59.2 1043
Setting wildlife management goals and objectives 44.7 1041
Planning actions to meet wildlife management goals and 52.2 1035
objectives

Base mapping to document current wildlife habitat conditions 33.8 1040
Inventorying soils 13.8 1033
Inventorying plants 60.3 1040
Inventorying animals 41.9 1042
Inventorying unique wildlife-related features 53.5 1044
Inventorying water features 43.9 1038
Allowing natural predators to survive 86.4 1034
Preventing domestic animals from hunting 64.6 1041

 

' Survey question: “For each of the following wildlife habitat activities, please indicate whether you have

or have not done the activity on your property.”
2 For actual item wording, please see Appendix D.

87

Table H-8. Comparison between the use of BWH stewardship processes and techniques
between participants who received assistance from a wildlife professional and those who

. . . 1
dld HOI fCCClVC SUCh assrstance .

 

% of respondents who have done

process or technique

 

 

Process or technique performed Did receive Did not receive )(2 n
assistance from assistance from
wildlife wildlife
professional professional
Controlling invasive exotic 65.9 56.5 7.48" 1004
species
Landscaping with native plants 97.0 94.4 3.01 1030
Reducing the size of traditional 87.1 83.1 2.46 1023
lawn
Reducing the use of chemical 90.3 91.3 0.27 1033
pesticides
Reducing the use of chemical 85.6 84.4 0.22 1036
fertilizers
Reusing yard waste 92.3 89.7 1.62 1037
Mulching 97.3 95.8 1.27 1021
Water conservation 67.8 60.5 4.73' 1030
Setting wildlife management 55.4 41.2 17.21” 1029
goals and objectives
Planning actions to meet 65.0 47.9 24.59” 1023
wildlife management goals
and objectives
Base mapping to document 41.6 30.2 12.40“ 1030
current wildlife habitat
conditions
Inventorying soils 19.5 10.5 15.03” 1024
Inventorying plants 68.7 56.7 12.68“ 1029
Inventorying animals 51.5 39.5 12.44" 1031
Inventorying unique wildlife- 62.1 50.3 11.76“ 1033
related features
Inventorying water features 51.2 41.7 7.68‘ 1026
Allowing natural predators to 89.2 85.6 2.35 1025
survive
Preventing domestic animals 61.1 66.2 2.37 1030

from hunting

' df= 1 for all items
” P < 0.01
' P < 0.05

88

Table II-9. Relationship of demographic, attitude, knowledge, and assistance variables to
number of BWH stewardship activities conducted by participants (n = 768).

 

 

 

Variable" Bivariate Regression Standardized
Coefficient Multivariate Regression
Coefficient
Age -0.035 0.011
Sex -0.024 -0,081‘
Education level -0.025 -0.008
Income -0100" -0020
Property size 0.100“ 0.119”
Community size -0.059 0.024
NEP 0.205“ 0.017
WAVS social benefits 0.223" -0.052
WAVS traditional conservation 0.099” 0.054
WAVS communication benefits 0.319“ 0.128"
WAVS problem tolerance 0.219" 0.013
BWH materials and assistance 0.281” 0.173"
Assistance from a wildlife professional 0.199” 0092“
BWH knowledge 0.193” 0.114"
BWH stewardship attitudes 0.493“ 0.410“
R2 0.346
LP < 0.05
P < 0.01

89

 

Figure II-l. Conceptual model of BWH Stewardship (adapted from Hungerford and

Volk 1990, Cottrell and Graefe 1997, Ajzen 1988, Hines et a1. 1986).

 

Entry-Level
Variables

0 Environmental
attitudes (NEP)‘

o Attitudes toward
wildlife (WAVS).

0 Knowledge of
ecology”

0 Demographic and
property .
characteristics

0 Wildlife
management
background

0 Landscaping
background

 

 

 

3.

 

BWH

tit

Program

 

Motivation to
Participate in

 

 

‘ Measured in this study

.. For ease of analysis, all knowledge items were combined.

 

Ownership
Variables
0 Knowledge of
residential wildlife
management
issues
0 Knowledge of
consequences of"
BWH processes
0 Personal
investment in
residential wildlife
management

 

 

 

 

BWH
Materials and

Assistance

I

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes
Toward BWH

Stewardship.

 

 

 

Subjective Norms

 

Toward BWH
Stewardship

 

 

... Measured, but not reported in this article.

90

 

 

Empowerment
I Variables
0 Knowledge and
skill in BWH
practicesgnd
activities

 

 

 

 

Intentions to
Practice
BWH
Stewardship

 

 

BWH
Stewardship‘

 

 

 

 

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study resulted in descriptive information about the BWH program. We were
also able to examine some relationships between selected program components and
participant background characteristics.

One limitation of this study is that we are unable to determine conclusively with
the study design employed that the BWH program experience affects participants’
attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors. In order to investigate direct impacts of the NWF
BWH program components on participants, a research design would need to include
contact with participants well in advance of when they first start learning about or
implementing wildlife practices and before they hear about the BWH program. The pilot
study indicated that although one group of Michigan pre-certification BWH participants
had done fewer stewardship activities and used fewer information sources than certified
nationwide participants, persons who attend BWH workshops likely have already started
some activities related to BWH certification.

Causality would be somewhat easier to investigate with a research design that
involved detailed investigation of characteristics of a control group of non-BWH
participants (equivalent in demographic and other characteristics) in comparison with
participants. Because BWH program participants are self-selected, it would be difficult
to identify a control group. These longitudinal and control group research designs are
much more costly and time intensive than existing resources allowed.

There are also some limitations in the ways that we measured certain variables.
Although the NEP scale is one of the most widely used measures of environmental

attitudes, it does have some drawbacks. The original NEP scale was developed in the

91

1970s, and even though it has been revised, it reflects a somewhat outdated view of
ecology and uses language that was common in the late 19705. Therefore, it may not be
appropriate to sample publics, especially those (such as BWH participants) that are
highly educated and that have an increasing level of sophistication regarding
environmental issues (Lalonde and Jackson 2002).

The WAVS scale also has some deficiencies. First, all of the items are worded in
the first person and respondents may “strongly disagree” with certain items that describe
behaviors that they personally do not perform, but “strongly agree” that others should be
able to perform. For example, respondents may not see an appropriate response to the
item about the importance “that I trap furbearing animals,” if they themselves do not trap,
but feel it is important for others to do so. Also, all of the WAVS items are worded in the
same direction (a response of “strongly agree” always means a strongly positive attitude).

There are some limitations in the items we used to measure use of BWH
materials, assistance, and BWH stewardship. Because these variables are dichotomous,
they do not indicate specifics (e.g., duration and frequency). For our multiple regression
model which used the number of stewardship behaviors performed as the dependent
variable, we lumped all of the stewardship items into a single variable. In other words,
we combined items as diverse as base mapping and mulching into one stewardship
behavior score. We also did not ask participants the extent to which they had done any of
the stewardship activities. For example, a participant who planted a single native flower
in front of his house (and did no other stewardship behaviors) would have the same score
as a participant who maintained a 10 acre native prairie restoration. This simplified our

analysis, but may lessen the validity of our measure.

92

A more valid measure would have broken down “stewardship” into separate
categories (e.g., planning and inventorying processes, natural resource conservation
activities, and direct management techniques). We also could have applied weights to
individual items based on the likely positive ecological impacts of activities. For
instance, preventing predation by domestic animals might result in a lower stewardship
score than controlling invasive exotic species. Finally, the use of a simple count of the
number of stewardship activities performed does not take into account which activities
are most effective or appropriate for participants to use based on their goals and
objectives and the characteristics of their properties. Participants who choose a few
activities that will help them best meet their goals and objectives may affect more
positive wildlife impacts than participants who do many activities without regard to
which activities are most appropriate.

A limitation of our BWH stewardship attitudes scale was that it did not measure
attitudes toward all BWH stewardship items. To limit the length of the survey
instrument, we did not ask about attitudes toward many of the inventorying and planning
processes and techniques.

The knowledge items that we developed have some deficiencies. Knowledge
scores were high and at least 52% of participants correctly responded to all the
knowledge items. This indicates that the items may be too easy for BWH participants.
Also, we did not distinguish between knowledge from entry-level, ownership, and
empowerment variables. If we had separated knowledge items into these three categories
of variables, we could have been able to determine the predictive ability of each type of

variable on BHW stewardship.

93

We recommend that future studies be based on the BWH program theory and
implementation theory. These studies should focus on the use of specific materials by
participants and how best to improve these materials, the differences between
implementation of the program in different regions of the US., the effectiveness of the
Habitat Stewards Program, or trends in the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of BWH
participants over time.

The relationships in the BWH stewardship cOnceptual model that we did not
examine in this study (e.g., the linkage between entry-level variables and BWH materials
and assistance used by motivation to participate in the BWH program or the effect of
subjective norms toward BWH stewardship on intentions to practice BWH stewardship)
should also be studied. We did not measure these variables in our study to ensure that the
survey instrument was not too long. Additionally, there is a need to examine the wildlife
impacts of the BWH program.

The growing popularity of the BWH program and the lack of literature on the
effectiveness of residential wildlife stewardship programs demonstrate the need to
continue researching programs such as BWH. It is the responsibility of program
managers to ensure that participants have the tools they need to set and achieve goals
related to backyard wildlife stewardship. Program managers will be more effective if

they understand the attitudinal, knowledge, and behavioral characteristics of participants.

94

STUDY LIMITATIONS-LITERATURE CITED

Lalonde, R. and EL. Jackson. 2002. The New Environmental Paradigm scale: has it
outlived its usefulness? Journal of Environmental Education 33(4):28-36.

95

APPENDICES

96

APPENDIX A: UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTERS

97

 

GRADUATE
STUDIES

meantim-
mm
mm
WWW
246mm
EIUBIMW
48824-1046

mass-21w
FAX: sumo-2m

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: lRBfl 01-626 CATEGORYi2-F

TITLE: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF BACKYARD HABITATS ON
PARTICIPANT KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DATE: September 4, 2001

UCRIHS has reviewed this proposal and granted 'PREUMINARY" APPROVAL.
This approval will be effective for one year from the approval data above.

The approval is ”Preliminary" because it is not possible to fully evaluate the research
instruments or detailed procedures at this time. As you indicated, one of the purposes
of the research project is to develop these instruments and procedures. After you
develop the Instruments and detailed procedures and prior to any data ‘
collection, you must seek standard UCRIHS approval. When you submit your full
UCRIHS application, please write the IRB# listed above on the upper right corner of

the enclosed application.

Thank you for bringing this project to our attenu‘on. If we can be of further assistance,
please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email: UCRIHSQpllotmsuedu. All UCRIHS
forms and instructions are located via the web: hup:llwww.msu.eduluserlucrlhs

Sincerely,

ng/WP’l/fl

hir u r, M.D.
Interim Chair. UCRIHS

AK: kj
cc:

98

 

51 MES-2180

FAX 517/4324503

Web: www.m/w'fls
EvMaiI: W.w

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

April 2. 2002

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: IRBlt 01.626 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-2
APPROVAL DATE: March 27. 2002

TITLE: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF BACKYARD HABITATS ON PARTICIPANT
KNOWLEDGE. ATTITUDES. AND BEHAVIOR

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. '

This letter approves the Pro-Workshop Survey and Post Workshop
Survey (Backyard Wildlife Habitat Workshop) only.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renmd with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishhg to cont'nue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a 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 IRBii
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. cornpiaints. etc.) hvolving
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@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the mb:
httpzllwww.msu.edu/user/ucrihs

Since .

Ashir Kumar. MD.

UCRIHS Chair

AK: kj

0‘31 Dain Palmer
16 Natural Resources

99

 

STANDARDS

ilelversly Casualties ea
Research imlvleg
Mil Subjects

Midiigm Stan University

202 Old: Hill

East lamina. Ml

48824

51 7355-2130

PM 51 71432-433

Web: Wanner/writs
E-Maii: WMU

MICHIGAN STATE
u N i v E R s i T Y

May 1. 2002

 

T0: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: IRBS 01-626 CATEGORY: 1-2 EXEMPT

TITLE: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF BACKYARD HABITATS ON PARTICIPANT
KNOWLEDGE. ATTITUDES. AND BEHAVIOR

ANNUAL APPROVAL DATE: March 27.2002
REVISION REQUESTEDz' April 19.2002
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: April 30. 2002

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 PROJECTS REVISION.

Approves the revisions made to the focus group portion of this protocol including
advertisement/recruitment and the consent document.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one mlendar 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 a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to

f 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 IRBR aid title. include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANOES: 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 Indicathg 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 ernal:
UCRIHS@msu.edu.

 

Ashir Kumar. MD.
Chair. UCRIHS

AK: kl

cc: Dain Palmer
16 Natural Resources

100

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University emu... .. UCRIHS@msu.edu.
Research involving
Mae Subjects

Midltgm SUB Unimiiy

202 (MS Hill

East mm. Ml

48824

517555-21!)

FAX' 517/4324503

Web: mmaiNu/W/tnhs
E-Mail: WIN

mums-em
mammm
mum

5606mm
anal-WW

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v E R SIT Y

June 24. 2002

 

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: IRB! 01-626 CATEGORY: 1-2 EXEMPT

TITLE: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF BACKYARD HABITATS ON PARTICIPANT
KNOWLEDGE. ATTITUDES. AND BEHAVIOR

ANNUAL APPROVAL DATE: March 27. 2002
REVISION REQUESTED: June 18. 2002
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: ' June 20. 2002

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 weimre of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED Ti-IIS PROJECTS REVISION.

Approves the addition of a survey mail phase. revised subject recruitment and
consent form.

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 cont‘nue a project
beyond that time need to submit It again for a 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 iRBti and title. include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the foilow'vig 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) 355-2160 or via email:

Sincerely.

’1 /

Ashir Kumar. MD.

  

16 Natural Resources

101

 

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY
February3.2004

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.
MSU

RE: IRB # 01-626 CATEGORY: 1-2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: March 3. 2003
EXPIRATION DATE: February 3. 2004

TITLE' ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF BACKYARD HABITATS ON PARTICIPANT
' KNOWLEDGE. ATTITUDES. AND BEHAVIOR

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 PROJECTS RENEWAL.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application 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 include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet 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 indicaung 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—2160 or via email:

OFFICE“ UCRIHS@msu.edu.

RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research Involving
lime Sebjeete

Sincerely.

fl

W 5..., mm... Ashir Kumar. M.D.

murmur
summer
48824

UCRIHS Chair

srmssmo AK jm

FAX: 517/4324503

Web: mmetlr/use/ucriin cc: Dain Palmer

E-Maii: winOrmuew

16 Natural Resources

102

APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP SURVEY MATERIALS

103

Workshop Cover Letter

MICHIGAN STATE
U N l v E R s l T Y

 

April 6. 2002
Dear Backyard Wildlife Habitat Workshop Participant:

Today, we are asking for your help with a study of participants in the National Wildlife
Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat program being conducted by the Michigan State
University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. This study is part of an effort to learn
about the experiences and opinions of participants in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat

program.

We are surveying workshop participants before and after the workshop to ask their
Opinions about the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program and why they decided to
participate in the program.

Results from the surveys will be used to help National Wildlife Federation staff members
and volunteers better understand the opinions and motivations of Backyard Wildlife
Habitat participants. This information will allow National Wildlife Federation staff
members and volunteers to strengthen the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program in the
future.

Your answers are completely confidential. Your name will never be associated with your
responses in any way. and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. While your response to this survey and any of the questions is
completely voluntary, you can help us very much by taking a few minutes to share your
opinions and knowledge about the Backyard Wildlife Habitats program. You indicate
your voluntary agreement to participate by completing this survey.

If you have any questions or comments about this study. we would be happy to talk with
you. Call us at (517) 432-5037, write to us at the address on the letterhead. or email us
at galmerda@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant. or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar. M.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180. fax: (517) 353-2976. e-mail: ucrihs@msu.ed_u. or regular mail: 246 Administration
Bldg, East Lansing. MI 48824.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study.

Sincerely.
Shari L. Darin Dain Palmer
Project Manager Graduate Research Assistant

Associate Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife

P.S. Please do not complete the survey if you are under 18 years of age.

104

Pre- Workshop Survey
BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT WORKSHOP

A Michigan State University Survey

Pierce Cedar Creek Institute, April 6, 2002

105

This survey will give you an opportunity to express your opinions on
issues relating to landscaping for wildlife and to share experiences you
may have had in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. Your responses
will be helpful, even if you have had no previous experience landscaping
for wildlife.

PLEASE WRITE DOWN THE KIND OF ANIMAL LISTED ON YOUR NAMETAG.

 

(THIS INFORMATION WILL BE USED TO TRACK CHANGES IN THE RESPONSES OF
iNDlVlDUALS OVER TIME. Your name will never be associated with your responses in any
way.)

LANDSCAPING AND GARDENING ACTIVITIES AND TRAINING

1. Have you ever certified a backyard wildlife habitat with the National Wildlife
Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat program? (Check one)

1 Cl Yes
2 El No_’ (Skip to question 3)

 

2. In what year was the backyard wildlife habitat certified with National
Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat program?

(Give your best estimate)

 

 

3. About how often, in a typical year, do you do the following activities? (Circle
one response for each) -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oern Somrftimes Raaely Net/er
a. Watch wildlife on your property 0 S R N
b. Provide food for wildlife on your property 0 S R N
c. Provide water for wildlife on your property 0 S R N

 

 

 

 

4. Have you ever provided shelter or nesting boxes for wildlife on your property?

(Check one)
1 Cl Yes
2 E] No

106

5. Have you ever landscaped or gardened at your property? (Check one)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No -> (Skip to question 7)

 

6. About how many years total have you landscaped or gardened at you
property? (Check one)
1 D Less than 1 year
2 [II From 1 to 2 years
3 D From 3 to 5 years
4 :1 From 6 to 10 years
5 El More than 10 years

 

 

 

 

Wildlife-Rela ted Activities

7. Have you been a member of or contributed money to the National Wildlife
Federation in the last 5 years?

1 El Yes
2 D No

8. Please list any organizations (other than the National Wildlife Federation)
related to wildlife or natural resources that you have been a member of or
contributed money to in the last 5 years.

 

 

 

9. Please list any organizations related to gardening or landscaping that you
have been a member of or contributed money to in the last 5 years.

 

 

 

107

10. Please indicate which of the following activities you have done in the last 5

years. (Circle one response for each)

 

Yes

 

a

Have you helped any friends. family members, or neighbors certify

I their yards through National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife

Habitats program?

 

Have you been trained as 3 Habitat Steward by the National
Wildlife Federation?

 

Have you hosted a training for Habitat Stewards?

Z

 

Have you been a volunteer who educates others in groups or
individually about wildlife, natural resources, or environmental
issues?

_<

Z

 

Have you been a volunteer who assists others in groups or
individually in gardening or landscaping?

 

Have you volunteered your help with any wildlife, natural resource.
or environmental projects in lour community?

 

Have you volunteered your help with any landscaping or gardening
projects in your community?

 

Have you made household purchasing decisions based on wildlife,
natural resource, or environmental issues?

 

Have you submitted an editorial to a newspaper or magazine
regarding a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issue?

-<-<-<-<-<

ZZZZZ

 

Have you written, phoned, or met with in person. an elected
representative regarding a wildlife. natural resource, or
environmental issue?

 

Have you testified at a public meeting regarding a wildlife. natural
resource, or environmental issue?

 

Have you organized a fundraiser, petition drive, or letter writing
campaign regarding a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental
issue?

 

 

“I

 

Have you given a television, radio, or newspaper interview
concerning a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issue?

 

 

 

108

 

 

 

National Wildlife Federation Publications and Programs

11.For each of the following National Wildlife Federation publications, please
indicate all publications that you have purchased, read (or Viewed), or given
to a child within the last 5 years. (Circle one response for each)

 

<
“—l
U!

 

a. National Wildlife magazine

 

. International Wildlife magazine

 

Ranger Rick magazine

 

 

Wild Animal Baby magazine

 

-< -<-<-<-<-<
2 22222;»

b
c.
d. Your Big Backyard magazine
e.
f.

Any books published by the
National Wildlife Federation

 

g. Any videos or software
published by the National Y N
Wildlife Federation

 

 

 

 

h.Please list other National Wildlife publications that you have purchased. read
(or viewed), or given to a child within the last 5 years.

 

 

 

 

12. For each of the following National Wildlife Federation Programs. please
indicate all programs that you have volunteered for or participated in within
the last 5 years. (Circle one response for each)

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
Yes. i Have volunteered for No. I Have not volunteered
or participated in the for or participated in the
program. program.

a. Schoolyard Habitats Y N
b. Campus Ecology Y N
c. Earthsavers Y N
d. Earth Tomorrow Y N
e. NatureLink Y N

 

 

 

 

f. Please list other National Wildlife Federation programs that you have
volunteered for or participated in.

 

 

 

 

109

Motivation for Participating in Backyard Wildlife Habitat

13. For each of the following possible reasons. please indicate how important or
unimportant they have been in your decision to participate in the Backyard

Wildlife Habitat Program. (Circle one response for each)

I decided to participate in the Backyard

 

3

4

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Habitat program because: Very Somewhat Unsure Sqmewnat .Very
important Important Unimportant Unimportant

a. i want to be able to View new species of VI SI U SU VU
wildlife on my property.

b. I want to attract frogs, salamanders, or other VI 3. U SU VU
amphibians to my property.

0. I want to attract lizards, snakes, or other Vl SI U SU VU
reptiles to my property.

d. i want to attract songbirds to my property. VI Si U SU VU

e. I want to attract waterfowl, wading birds, or VI SI U SU VU
other ‘water birds' to my propprty.

f. I want to attract hawks, eagles, or owls to VI Sl U SU VU
my property.

9. I want to attract small mammals, such as
rabbits, woodchucks, foxes. or opossums, to VI 5' U SU VU
my property.

h. I want to attract larger mammals, such as VI SI SU VU
deer or coyotes, to myproperty.

i. I want to attract butterflies to my property. VI SI SU VU

j. I want to attract insects (other than
butterflies), spiders, or other invertebrates to V' 5' U SU VU
my property.

k. I want to help wildlife survive during the VI SI U SU VU
ispn‘grh summer, and fall.

I. i want to help wildlife survive during the VI SI U SU VU
winter.

m.l want to help preserve and improve wildlife Vl Si U SU VU
habitat.

n. friend, family member, or neighbor
encouraged me to participate in the V' 3' U 3U VU
program.

0. i want a new hobby. Vl SI U SU VU

p. i want a project that i can work on with VI SI SU VU
friends, family members, or neighbors.

q. i want to learn more about wildlife. Vl Si U SU VU

r. I want my friends, family members or
neighbors to know about the improvements l V' 3' U 3U VU
make to my property.

5. I want recognition from the National Wildlife
Federation for the improvements i make to V' S' U 3U VU
my PFOPGFIY-

t. i want to increase the financial value of my VI SI U SU VU

 

PFOPGITX-

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Habitat Program.

I decided to participate in the Backyard ‘ 2 3 4 5
Wildlife Habitat program because: Very Somewhat Unsure SemeMIat .Very
important important Unrmportant Unrmportant

u. i want to make my property more Vl SI U SU VU
attractive.

v. I want to provide educational opportunities Vl SI U SU VU
for children.

w.l want to get good physical exercise by Vl Si U SU VU
landscapingor wildlife.

x. I want to help relieve stress in my life by VI 5| U SU VU
landscaping for wildlife.

y. I want to learn environmentally friendly Vl Sl U SU VU
landscaping techniques.

2. Please list any other reasons that you decided to participate in the Backyard

 

 

 

Management/Landscaping Techniques Used

14. For each of the following landscaping or management activities, please indicate
whether you have or have not done the activity on your property. (Circle one

response for each)

 

1
Yes. i Have
Done the
Activity.

2

No. l Have Not
Done the
Activiy.

Unsure

 

. Controlling invasive exotic species

 

Landscaping with native plants

 

Reducing the size of your traditional lawn

 

Reducing the use of chemical pesticides

 

Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers

 

Reusing yard waste

 

Mulching

 

PIP-Nb $1an

Conserving water with techniques such as drip
irrigation or collecting rainwater

 

Settingmanagementfigoals and objectives

 

be
e

Planning actions to best meet management
oals and objectives

 

inventory of plants on your property

 

-?r

Base mapping your property to document
current wildlife conditions

 

Inventorying animals on your property

 

.3

Inventorying soils on your property

 

 

Inventorying landscape features, such as

 

 

ponds and ditches, on your property

-<-<-<-<-<-<<-<-<-<<-<<<-<

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

 

111

 

 

Backyard Wildlife Habitat Materials Used

For each of the following National Wildlife Federation materials, please indicate
whether or not you have used the resource.

15. Have you used free National Wildlife Federation written materials, such as
fliers on attracting butterflies, building ponds, or building nest boxes? (Check

one)
1 El Yes
2 D NO

16. Have you used the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Information Kit purchased from
National Wildlife Federation or Wild Birds Unlimited? (Check one)

1 DYes
2 DNO

17. Have you used the National Wildlife Federation Backyard Wildlife Habitat
website? (Check one)

1 DYes
2 END

18. Have you attended a slide show or other presentation by National Wildlife
Federation staff or 3 Habitat Steward? (Check one)

1 DYes
2 END

19. Have you received personal assistance from a Habitat Steward? (Check one)
1 Cl Yes
2 El No

20. Have you received personal assistance from neighbors, friends, or family
members? (Check one)

1 DYes
2 DNO

112

 

21 . Please list any other sources of information (e.g., books, magazines or
websites) you have used while landscaping for wildlife.

 

 

 

ATTITUDES TOWARD LANDSCAPING/MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

22.The following techniques are sometimes used while landscaping for wildlife.
How important or unimportant do you personally believe it is for people to use
the following landscaping/wildlife management techniques on their
properties? (Circle one response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Very Somewhat Unsure Somewhat Very
Important important Unimportant Unimportant

a. Eliminating invasive

exotic species VI 8' U SU VU
b. Landscaping with native

plants Vl SI U SU VU
c. Reducing the use of

chemical fertilizers V' S' U S” V”
d. Decreasing the size of

traditional lawns VI 8' U SU VU
e. Reducing the use of

chemical pesticides V' 8' U SU VU
f. Reusing yard waste VI Sl U SU VU
g. Practicing water

conservation techniques

such as drip irrigation or VI 8' U SU VU

collecting rainwater
h. Practicing mulching Vi SI U SU VU
i. Creating a wildlife

management plan VI SI U SU VU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

Attitudes Toward Wildlife issues
23. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements. (Circle one response for each)

 

1 2 3 4 5
. . Strongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly
It ls Important to me personally: Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

 

a. That I observe or photograph wildlife. SA MA U MD SD
b. That I talk about wrldllfe WIth family SA MA U MD SD

 

 

 

and friends.

c. That local economies benefit from
the sale of equipment, supplies, or SA MA U MD SD
services related to wildlife recreation.

d. That I understand more about the SA ‘ MA U MD SD

behavior of wildlife.

e. That game animals are managed for
an annual harvest for human use

without harming the future of the SA MA U MD SD
wildlife population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

f. That i hunt game animals for food. SA MA U MD SD

That I know that wildlife exist in

nature. SA MA U MD SD
h. That I tolerate most wildlife nuisance

problems. SA MA U MU SD
i. That i express opinions about wildlife

and their management to public SA MA U MD SD

officials or to officers of private
conservation organizations.

j. That I see wildlife in books, movies.
paintingor photographs.

k. That I trap furbearing animals for the

sale of fur or pelts. SA MA U MD SD
|. That I tolerate the ordinary personal
safety hazards associated with some SA MA U MD SD
wildlife.

m. That i consider the presence of
wildlife as a sign of the quality of the SA MA U MD SD
natural environment.

n. That I tolerate the ordinary risk of

 

 

 

 

 

 

wildlife transmitting disease to SA MA U MD SD
humans or domestic animals.

0. That I hunt game animals for
recreation. SA MA U MD SD

 

p. That I appreciate the role that wildlife

play in the natural environment. SA MA U MD SD
q. That i tolerate most levels of property
damage by wildlife. SA MA U MD
r. That wildlife are included in
educational materials as the subject SA MA U MD SD
for learning more about nature.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

114

Environmental Attitudes

24.The following statements talk about the relationship between humans and the
environment. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly
Agree, Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.
(Circle one response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
3. We are approaching the limit of the
number of people the earth can support. SA MA U MD SD
b. When humans interfere with nature it .
often produces disastrous SA MA U MD SD
consequences.
c. The earth has plenty of natural
resources if we just learn how to SA MA U MD SD
develop them.
d. Plants and animals have as much right
as humans to exist. SA MA U MD SD
e. The balance of nature is strong enough
to cope with the impacts of modern SA MA U MD SD
industrial nations.
f. Despite our special abilities humans are
still subject to the laws of nature. SA MA U MD SD
9. The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing
humankind has been greatly SA MA U MD SD
exaggerated.
h. Humans were meant to rule over the
rest of nature. SA MA U MD so
i. Humans will eventually learn enough
about how nature works to be able to SA MA U MD SD
control it.
j. If things continue on their present
course, we will soon experience a major SA MA U MD SD
ecological catastrophe.

 

KNOWLEDGE OF WILDLIFE AND LANDSCAPING

We would like to find out what you know about landscaping for wildlife. This is not a test;
it is a way to help us strengthen the program. For the following questions. please check
the one best answer.

25.Which of the following is a basic habitat component for wildlife? (Check one)

1
2
3
4

Cl Food

[3 Water

EJ Cover

El All of the above are basic habitat requirements

11

115

 

26.Which of the following terms is used to describe all of the living and nonliving
interacting features of a given area? (Check one)
1 1: Habitat
2 c1 Ecosystem
3 a Community
4 El Biodiversity

27.Which of the following statements about invasive exotic species is true?

(Check one)

1 13 Most invasive exotic plants or animals were introduced naturally to new
areas

2 1: Most invasive exotic plants and animals benefit native plant and animal
species ‘

3 in invasive exotic plants and animals usually cannot compete with native
plants and animals
4 13 None of the above are true

28.Which of the following statements about traditional lawns is true? (Check

one)

1 1:1 Traditional lawns usually require less water than yards with native plant
species

2 1:: Traditional lawns are more beneficial to more wildlife species than
yards with native plant species

3 r: Runoff of pesticides and fertilizers from traditional lawns is a major
cause of water pollution

4 1: Virtually no wildlife species thrive on traditional lawns

29.Which of the following has the greatest influence on the types of plants that
can live in a particular area? (Check one)
1 1:1 The kind of soil that is found in the area
2 1:1 The species of animals that live in the area
3 r: The amount of sunlight during the growing season
4 1:1 The amount of carbon dioxide (002) in the atmosphere

30. Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals of a species who can be
supported in a given area indefinitely. Why is it important to understand
carrying capacity when managing for wildlife on a residential property?
(Check one)

1 :1 Over long periods of time, property owners should attempt to attract
numbers of individual animals that are more than the carrying capacity
of the area

2 in Over long periods of time, property owners should attempt to attract
numbers of individual animals that are equal to or less than the

carrying capacity of the area

3 1:1 It is impossible to exceed the carrying capacity of an area, even for
short periods of time

4 o Carrying capacity is not important to understand when managing for
wildlife on a residential property

116

31 .Which of the following is an effective and potentially ecologically sound
technique for controlling invasive exotic plants? (Check one)

1 C] The use of chemical fertilizers

2 D The use of controlled burns

3 C] The flooding of areas with water

4 Cl There is no reason to control invasive exotic plants

32.Which of the following is the best way to find out which plants are native to
your area? (Check one)

1 Cl Contact a local native plant nursery.

2 Cl Find out which plants your neighbors are successfully landscaping with.
The plants that are doing well are likely native to your area.

3 [3 Inventory the plant species currently on your property. Most of these
species are likely native to your area.

4 :1 None of the above are good ways to find out about native plants in your
area.

33.Which of the following is true about wildlife management planning? (Check
one)
1 1:] With the right management techniques, any wildlife species can be
attracted to any yard
2 Cl An inventory of habitats, wildlife, plants, soils, and local landscapes
should be done before determining management objectives

3 [II For most yards under an acre in size, little can be gained by carefully
planning landscaping activities based on management goals and
Objectives

4 C] All of the above are true

34.Which of the following is important to include in a property base map?
(Check one)

1 Cl Climate information

2 Cl Human-made alterations to the landscape
3 Cl Vegetation types for the entire state

4 Cl None of the above are important to include

35.Which of the following is true about wetlands? (Check one)
1 Cl They protect shorelines and banks from erosion
2 El They store floodwater
3 Cl They maintain groundwater supplies
4 [I] All of the above are true

13

117

Background Information

in order for us to more fully understand people’s responses to the previous
questions. we need to know a few things about your background. Remember
that your responses are completely confidential and that neither your name nor
your address will be directly linked to your responses in any way.

36. in what type of area do you currently live? (Check one)
1 [:1 Rural, Farm
2 Cl Rural, Non-Farm
3 El Small Town (25,000 people or fewer)
4 El Urban Area (From 25,001 to 100,000 people)
5 El Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

 

37. In what state do you currently live?

 

38. in what county do you currently live?

 

39.What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
(Check one)

1 El Less than high school graduate

Cl High School graduate or GED

El Vocational or Trade School

Cl Associate’s Degree (2 year degree)

El Some College

El College Graduate (Bachelor’s or 4 year degree)
[I] Graduate or Professional Degree

NQU’ISSOJN

40.We would like to know if you have any special training in landscaping or
wildlife management. For each of the following areas, please indicate if you
have a four year degree or graduate or professional degree in the area OR
have had at least 5 years of work experience in the area. (Circle one
response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree Jr 5 years No degree a2nd less than
experience 5 years experience
a. Botany Y N
b. Ecology Y N
c. Forestry Y N
d. Landscaping Y N
e. Range Management Y N
f. Wildlife Management Y N
g. Zoology Y N

 

 

 

14

118

41 .Are you male or female?
1 El Male
2 El Female

42. in what year were you born? 19_

43.What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply)
El White

1:] Black or African American

El Hispanic or Latino

El American lndian or Alaska Native

Cl Asian

[:1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

NO’UTJSCAJN

44.What was your gross household income (before taxes) in 2001? (Check one)
C] Less than $20,000

[3 $20,000 to $39,999

[:1 $40,000 to $59,999

Cl $60,000 to $74,999

CI $75,000 to $99,999

Cl $100,000 to $124,999

i:l $125,000 to $149,999

El $150,000 or more

QVOUT#OON_L

15

119

Thank you for helping us with this project!

If you have any other comments you would like to share with us, please
use the space below.

16

120

APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP MATERIALS

 

 

121

 

Focus Group Phone Recruitment Script

Hello, my name is Dain Palmer. I’m from the MSU, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1
am calling to talk with . Is he/shc is available?

Hi , this is Dain Palmer from the Michigan State University Dept. of
Fisheries and Wildlife. I also work at Pierce Cedar Creek Institute in Hastings, and I
helped moderate the April 6 Backyard Wildlife Habitat workshop at Piece Cedar Creek
Institute.

I am calling today to tell you about an opportunity to share your experiences in the
workshop, as well as other experiences you may have had while planning and doing
projects that provide wildlife habitat.

We are inviting people from the April 6 workshop to participate in a focus group
discussion about the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. We’ll hold the discussion on
June 3, from 7:00pm. to 8:30 pm. at Pierce Cedar Creek Institute in Hastings.

Results from the discussion will be used to help National Wildlife Federation staff
members and volunteers better understand the opinions and motivations of Backyard
Wildlife Habitat participants. This information will help National Wildlife Federation
consider how they provide the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program in the future.

Are you interested or able to participate in the discussion on June 3?

If participant responds “Yes”

Let me tell you a few things about the discussion. Though participation in the focus
group discussion is completely voluntary, you will be helping us greatly by sharing your
experiences in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. Your responses will be kept
completely confidential. No references to your identity will be included in any reports or
transcripts. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Would you still like to participate in the discussion on June 3‘?

Thank you for volunteering to talk with us. You will soon be mailed a letter that details
information that I discussed today about the focus group discussion.

Do you have any questions about the discussion?

Thank you once again for helping with this study. We look forward to seeing you on
June 3!

If participant responds “No”
Thank you for your time today.

Have a good evening.

122

 

 

Focus Group Cover Letter

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

May 21, 2002

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the focus group discussion on June 3, 2002
from 7. 00p. m. to 8: 30 p. m. at Pierce Cedar Creek Institute in Hastings, Michigan.
We have invited people from the April 6 Backyard Wildlife Habitat workshop to
participate in the discussion.

Results from the discussion will be used to help National Wildlife Federation staff
members and volunteers better understand the opinions and motivations of Backyard
Wildlife Habitat participants. This information will help National Wildlife Federation
consider how they provide the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program in the future.

Though participation in the focus group discussion is completely voluntary, you will be
helping us greatly by sharing your experiences in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.
Your responses will be kept completely confidential. No references to your identity will
be included in any reports or transcripts. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about the focus group discussion, we would be happy to talk
with you. Call us at (517) 432-5037, write to us at the address on the letterhead, or
email us at galmerda@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar. Chair of the University
Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 353-2976, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 246 Administration
Bldg, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study. We look forward to seeing
you on June 3rd.

Sincerely,
Shari L. Dann Dain Palmer
Project Manager Graduate Research Assistant

Associate Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife

123

Focus Group Consent Form

Michigan State University
Backyard Wildlife Habitat Consent Form

Today, we are again asking for your help with a study of participants in the National
WIIdlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat program being conducted by the
Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. This study is part of an
effort to learn about the experiences and opinions of participants in the Backyard Wildlife
Habitat program.

Results from the focus group will be used to help National Wildlife Federation staff members and
volunteers better understand the opinions and motivations of Backyard Wildlife Habitat
participants. This information will help National Wildlife Federation consider how they provide the
Backyard Wildlife Habitat program in the future.

Your participation in this discussion and your answering of any of the questions is
completely voluntary and you may withdraw from participating in this study at any time.
However, you can help us very much by taking some time to share your opinions and
knowledge about the Backyard Wildlife Habitats program during this discussion.

The discussion will be audio taped to insure an accurate record of the discussion. Upon
completion of transcription tapes will be erased. Your responses will be kept completely
confidential. No references to your identity will be included in any reports or transcripts.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with
you. Call us at (517) 432-5037, write to us at Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, or
email us at galmerda@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 353-2976, email: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 246 Administration
Bldg, East Lansing, MI 48824.

By signing this form, you are acknowledging your voluntary participation in today's discussion.

 

 

(Print Name) (Sign Name)

 

(Signature of principal investigator or authorized representative, Dain Palmer)

 

(Date)
PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THIS FORM FOR YOUR RECORDS!

124

 

 

Focus Group Script

Introductions
Hello, my name is Dain Palmer. I’m a graduate student in the MSU Dept. of Fisheries
and Wildlife. I’ll be moderating the focus group discussion. This discussion is part of
my Master’s research project. Assisting me tonight is Heather Lundrigan. Heather is a
PhD student in Fisheries and Wildlife at MSU.

Orientation
We’ve organized this discussion group to gather information that will be used to learn
about the experiences of people in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. Results from
the discussion will be used to help National Wildlife Federation staff members and
volunteers better understand the opinions and motivations of Backyard Wildlife Habitat
participants. This information will help National Wildlife Federation consider how they
provide the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program in the fiiture.

For today’s discussion we’ll follow a focus group format. The purpose of focus groups is
to gain insight on various views and perceptions in a structured format. This is different
from a general discussion session because there are specific questions outlined.

Now we’ll take care of some paperwork [I’ll hand out the consent forms at this point].
Please read through this form carefully. There are a few things I would like point out.
We’re taping our discussion today so that I don’t have to take detailed notes. The tapes
will be securely stored and destroyed at the conclusion of this study. I want to assure you
that your names will remain confidential and will not appear in any document resulting
from this study.

It’s important that you share what is on your mind regarding the topics we discuss. This
is a small group, so comments from each participant are very important. There may be
some differences in opinion here today, but please don’t let that keep you from sharing
your thoughts. There are no right or wrong answers.

Please feel free to ask for clarifications any time a question is unclear. Also, you may
decline answering any or all questions posed in this discussion. And, if you choose, you
may withdraw from this discussion and this study at any point in time.

In order for us to explore several questions related to the Backyard Wildlife Habitat
Program, it may be necessary for me to occasionally ask you to be brief. And, sometimes
I may need to redirect the discussion to other topics. So, please understand that if I
interrupt you, it’s only because we need your input on so many different things. Please
try to speak one at a time so that all of your comments can be clearly understood when I
go back over the tape.

Are there any questions before we get started? We appreciate you taking the time to
participate in this focus group.

Now let’s talk about your experiences in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.

125

 

Focus Group Questions

1. First, let’s go around the whole group. Please share with us some reasons that you
decided to participate in the BWH program.

2. Now, would someone like to share their experiences in Backyard Wildlife Habitat
program work since the April 6 workshop?
a. Since the workshop, have you done any activities to manage your property
for wildlife?
b. If so, what have you done so far, and how has it gone for you?
c. If not, why haven’t you?

3. Have your goals for providing wildlife habitat changed during or since the workshop?
a. Have you abandoned plans for your property that you no longer feel are
feasible?
b. Do you have any new plans?
0. Do you think these changes were caused by the workshop?

4. Has your knowledge about providing wildlife habitat changed during or since the
workshop?

a. Have your techniques for providing wildlife habitat changed during or

since the workshop?
i. Has your knowledge about techniques for providing wildlife
habitat changed during or since the workshop?

b. Do you think these changes in your knowledge were caused by the
workshop?

c. What were the one or two MOST IMPORTANT OR USEFUL things you
learned at the workshop that have been most helpfiil to you?

5. What resources or assistance have you found helpful while providing wildlife habitat?
a. What resources from the workshop have you used the most?
i. What books, magazines, websites, etc. have you used?
b. What OTHER resources have you found SINCE the workshop?
c. What assistance have you received from experts in providing wildlife
habitat?
d. What additional resources or assistance would you find helpful?
e. What information or resources do you feel you have been most lacking?

6. Have your attitudes changed since the workshop?

a. Have your attitudes toward techniques for providing wildlife habitat

changed?

b. Have your attitudes toward the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program
changed?
Have your attitudes toward the National Wildlife Federation changed?
Have your attitudes toward Pierce Cedar Creek Institute changed?
e. Do you think any of these changes in your attitudes were caused by the

workshop?

9.0

126

7. So far, what have you found most rewarding about providing habitat for wildlife?
8. So far, what have you found most challenging about providing wildlife habitat?

9. Knowing what you know now, is there anything you would recommend for
modifying or improving the workshop you attended?

10. What advice would you offer to the organizers of the BWH program?

Closure
Before we wrap up tonight. . .are there any other comments or thoughts you would like to
add before we finish? Anything that I may have overlooked? If you have any further
questions or comments, I’d be happy to talk with you about anything related to this focus

group. My contact information is on the Consent Form.

Thanks for your participation and input!

127

APPENDIX D: NATIONWIDE SURVEY MATERIALS

128

Nationwide Survey Cover Letter 1

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

 

July 17, 2002

I am writing to ask for your help in a study of participants in the National Wildlife
Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. This study is being conducted by the
Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife as part of an effort to
learn about the experiences of participants in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.

We are contacting a random sample of people who have properties certified in the
Backyard Wildlife Habitat program to ask about their opinions, why they participate in the
program, and how they benefit.

Results from the surveys will be used to help National Wildlife Federation staff members
and volunteers better understand the needs of Backyard Wildlife Habitat participants.
This information will help National Wildlife Federation consider how it provides the
program in the future.

Your answers are completely confidential. Your name will never be associated with your
responses in any way, and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. While your response to this survey and any of the questions is
completely voluntary, you can help us very much by taking a few minutes to share your
ideas about the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing this survey.

This survey takes most people about 20 minutes to complete. As a token of our thanks,
we have enclosed a National Wildlife Federation bookmark.

If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with
you. Call us at (517)432-5037, write to us at the address on the letterhead, or email us
at galmerda@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 353-2976, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 246 Administration
Bldg, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study.

Sincerely,

D. Palmer
Project Coordinator

P.S. Please do not complete the survey if you are under 18 years of age.

129

 

Nationwide Survey Thank You/Reminder Postcard

 

 

July 26, 2002

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your opinions and
experiences related to the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, please accept our
sincere thanks! if not, please do so today. Your feedback will provide
valuable information to National Wildlife Federation staff and volunteers.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced,
please call us at (517) 432-5037 or email us at palmerda@msu.edu and we
will get another one in the mail to you.

 

 

130

 

 

Nationwide Survey Cover Letter 2

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

August 6, 2002

WE HAVEN’T HEARD FROM YOU YET!

A few weeks ago we sent a questionnaire to you that asked for your opinions and
experiences related to the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program. To the best of our
knowledge, it has not yet been returned. If this letter and your completed survey have
crossed in the mail, please accept our sincere thanks for your participation in this study!

The comments of people who have already responded show that participants in the
Backyard Wildlife Habitats program hold a wide variety of views and have had a wide
variety of experiences in the program. We think the results are going to be very useful to
the National Wildlife Federation.

We are writing again because it’s important that we receive your questionnaire to ensure
that we’ll get accurate results. We need to hear from nearly everyone in the sample
to be sure that the results are truly representative.

Please be assured that we will not share your personal information with anyone else.
Your name will never be associated with your survey responses in any way and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your responses to the survey and any of its questions are completely voluntary. We
hope that you will fill out and return the questionnaire soon, but if for any reason you
prefer not to answer it, please let us know by returning a note or blank questionnaire in
the enclosed stamped envelope.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at (517) 432-5037 or email us at
palmerda@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact—anonymously, if you wish—Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 353-2976, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 246 Administration
Bldg, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Sincerely,

Dain Palmer
Project Coordinator

P.S. Please do not complete the survey if you are under 18 years of age.

131

 

 

Nationwide Survey Instrument

I?»

. (in,
’ dams?
1’4”” III/g

 

BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT SURVEY

A Michigan State University Survey

 

132

This survey will give you an opportunity to express your opinions on
issues relating to providing wildlife habitat and to share experiences you
may have had in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.

Your Early Backyard Wildlife Activities

1. In what year was your backyard wildlife habitat certified with National Wildlife
Federation's Backyard Wildlife Habitat program? (Give your best estimate)

 

2. Prior to the time you applied for Backyard Wildlife Habitat certification, did you ever
landscape or garden on your property? (Check one)

1 Cl Yes
2 D No— (Skip to question 4)

 

3. About how many years total did you landscape or garden on your property
before being certified? (Check one)

1 D Less than 1 year

2 El From 1 to 2 years

3 [1 From 3 to 5 years

4 El From 6 to 10 years
5 [:1 From 10 to 20 years
6 U More than 20 years

 

 

 

4. Prior to certification, did you do any activities to benefit wildlife and/or improve wildlife
habitat on your property?
1 El Yes
2 E] No

 

133

 

General Wildlife-Related Activities

5. About how often, in a typical year, do you do the following activities on your
property? (Circle one response for each)

 

2
n Sometimes

~'<"

 

. atch wildlife

b. Provide food for wildlife

rovide water for wildlife

d. Provide or maintain cover for wildlife, such as
brush piles or shrubs

Provide or maintain places, such as nesting
boxes, for wildlife to reproduce and raiseyoung

 

 

S"

 

 

 

o o 0003-
U) (D (DC/)0)

:0 :0 warnings»
Z Z 222%:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Have you been a member of or contributed money to the National Wildlife Federation
in the last 5 years? (Check one)

a. El Yes
b. D No

7. Please list any organizations (other than the National Wildlife Federation) related to
wildlife or natural resources that you have been a member of or contributed money to
in the last 5 years. Please write out full organization name(s).

 

 

 

8. Please list any organizations related to gardening or landscaping that you have been
a member of or contributed money to in the last 5 years. Please write out full
organization name(s).

 

 

 

134

 

9. Please indicate which of the following activities you have done In the last 5 years.
(Circle one response for each)

 

1 2
Yes No

 

a. Have you helped any friends, family members, or neighbors certify
their yards through National Vlfildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife
Habitat program?

b. Have you been trained as a Habitat Steward by the National Wildlife
Federation?

0. Have you hosted a training for Habitat Stewards?

d. Have you been a volunteer who educates others in groups or
individually about wildlife, natural resources, or environmental issues?
e. Have you been a volunteer who assists others In groups or individually
in gardening or landscaping?

f. Have you volunteered with any wildlife, natural resource, or
environmental projects in your community?

9. Have you volunteered with any landscaping .or gardening projects in
your community?

h. Have you made household purchasing decisions based on wildlife,
natural resource, or environmental issues?

i. Have you submitted an editorial to a newspaper or magazine
regarding a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issue?

j. Have you written, phoned, or met with in person, an elected
representative regarding a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental Y N
issue?
k. Have you testified at a public meeting regarding a wildlife, natural Y N
resource, or environmental issue?

i. Have you organized a fundraiser, petition drive, or letter writing
campaign regarding a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental Y N
issue?
m. Have you given a television, radio, or newspaper interview concerning Y N
a wildlife, natural resource, or environmental issue?
National Wildlife Federation Publications and Programs

10. For each of the following National Wildlife Federation publications, please indicate all
publications that you have purchased, read (or viewed), or given to a child within the
last 5 years. (Circle one response for each)

.<
Z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<

ZZZZZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES. i have pIirchased, read, NO. I have nit purchased,
or given a child the publication. read, or given a child the
publication.
a. National Wildlife magazine Y N
b. international Wildlife magazine Y N
c. Ranger Rick magazine Y N
d. Your Big Backyard magazine Y N
e. Wild Animal Baby magazine Y N
f. Any books published by the Y N
National Wildlife Federation
9. Any videos or software
published by the National Y N
Wildlife Federation

 

 

 

135

 

For each of the following National Wildlife Federation Programs, please indicate all
programs that you have volunteered for or participated in within the last 5 years.
(Circle one response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES. i have voiunteered for or NO. l have notzvolunteered for

participated in the program. or participated in the program.
a. Schoolyard Habitats Y N
b. Campus Ecology Y N
c. Earthsavers Y N
(1. Earth Tomorrow Y N
e. NatureLink Y N

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Habitat Techniques Used

12. For each of the following wildlife habitat activities, please indicate whether you have
or have not done the activity on your property. (Circle one response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES.1I have NO. l2have unsauae
done the not done the
activity. activity.
a. Controlling invasive exotic species Y N U
D. Landscaping with native plants Y N U
c. Reducing the size of your traditional lawn Y N U
d. Reducing the use of chemical pesticides Y N U
6. ReducinLthe use of chemical fertilizers Y N U
f. Reusing yard waste Y N U
_g. Mulching Y N U
h. Conserving water with techniques such as Y N U
drip irrigation or collectirLg rainwater
i. Setting wildlife management goals and Y N U
objectives
j. Planning actions to best meet wildlife Y N U
manggementgoals and objectives
k. Inventorying plants Y N U
l. Base mapping your property to document Y N U
current wildlife habitat conditions
m. inventorying animals Y N U
n. lnventoryingsoils Y N U
o. inventorying water features, such as ponds Y N U
and ditches
p. inventorying unique wildlife-related features,
such as cover or areas to reproduce or raise Y N U
OUJLQ
q. Allowing natural predators, such as snakes, Y N
to live org/our property
r. Preventing domestic animals, such as cats, Y N U
from hunting wildlife on your property

 

 

 

5

136

 

Attitudes Toward Techniques for Providing Wildlife Habitat

13. The following techniques are sometimes used to provide wildlife habitat. How
important or unimportant do you personally believe it is for people to use the
following landscaping/wildlife management techniques on their properties? (Circle
one response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very lrriportanti Somgwhat Ungure Som2what Vesry
important Unimportant Unimportant

a. Eliminating invasive exotic

species Vi S U SU VU
b. Landscafingwith native plants VI 8 U SU VU
c. Reducing the use of chemical

fertilizers VI 8 U SU VU
d. Decreasing the size of .

traditional lawns VI S U SU VU
e. Reducing the use of chemical

pesticides Vl S U SU VU
f. Reusing yard waste VI S U SU VU
g. Practicing water conservation

techniques such as drip Vi S U SU VU

irrigation or collecting rainwater
h. Practicing_rnulching VI S U SU VU
i. Creating a wildlife management

plan Vi S U SU VU
j. Allowing natural predators,

such as snakes, to survive VI 8 U SU VU
k. Preventing domestic animals,

such as wts, from hunting Vi S U SU VU

wildlife

 

 

 

 

Motivation for Participating in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program

14. For each of the following possible reasons, please indicate how important or
unimportant they are in your decision to participate in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat
Program. (Circle one response for each)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i participate in the Backyard 1 7- 3 4 5

Wildlife Habitat program because: mm”: .mponamt um" WWW}, Uningmm
a. i want to be able to view new species

of wildlife on my property. V' S U SU VU
b. i want to attract frogs, salamanders,

or other amphibians to my property. Vl S U SU VU
c. i want to attract lizards, snakes, or

other reptiles to my property. V' S U SU VU
d. I want to attract songbirds to my

property. VI S U SU VU
e. i want to attract waterfowl, wading

birds, or other ‘water birds’ to my VI S U SU VU

property.
f. i want to attract hawks, eagles, or

owls to my property. V' S U SU VU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

 

i participate in the Backyard

 

4

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V Somewha U Somewhat V
Wildlife Habitat program because: .mp3?“ import”: "sum Unrmflmm mg...“
g. i want to attract small mammals, such as
rabbits. woodchucks, foxes, or Vl S U SU VU
omssums, to my property.
h. I want to attract larger mammals, such
as deer or coyotes, to my property. VI S U SU VU
i. i want to attract butterflies to my
V V
property. l S U SU U
j. i want to attract insects (other than
butterflies), spiders, or other VI S U SU VU
invertebrates to my property.
k. i want to help wildlife survive during the -
sprigg, summer, and fail. W S U SU VU
I. i want to help wildlife survive during the
winter. VI S U SU VU
m. i want to help conserve and improve
wildlife habitat. ' V' S U 3” V”
n. A friend, family member, or neighbor
encouraged me to participate in the Vi S U SU VU
program.
0. i want a new hobby. Vl S U SU VU
p. i want a project that I can work on with
friends, family members, or neighbors. W S U SU VU
q. i want to learn more about wildlife. Vi S U SU VU
r. I want my friends, family members or
neighbors to know about the VI 8 U SU VU
improvements i make to my property.
5. i want recognition from the National
Wildlife Federation for the improvements VI 8 U SU VU
i make to my property.
t. i want to increase the financial value of
my property. VI S U SU VU
u. i want to make my property more
attractive. W S U SU VU
v. i want to provide educational
opportunities for children. VI 8 U SU VU
w. i want to get physical exercise by
providi_ng wildlife habitat. V' S U 5” V”
x. I want to help relieve stress in my life by
providigq wildlife habitat. V' S U 3” V”
y. i want to learn environmentally friendly
techniques for providingwiidlife habitat. V. S U SU VU
z. i want a fun recreational activity. Vl S U SU VU
aa. lwant to join efforts with others who Vi S U SU VU

 

share the same interests as i do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

 

 

Backyard Wildlife Habitat Materials Used

For each of the following National Wildlife Federation materials, please indicate
whether or not you have used the resource. If you have used a resource, please
indicate how helpful or unhelpful the resource was.

15. Have you used free National Wildlife Federation written materials, such as flyers on
attracting butterflies, building ponds, or building nest boxes? (Check one)

’ Ci Yes
ii. Ci No —" (Skip to question 17)

16. How helpful or unhelpful were the written materials? (Check one)
\ 1 Cl Very Helpful -

 

 

 

2 [3 Somewhat Helpful

3 Cl Unsure

4 El Somewhat Unhelpful
5 El Very Unhelpful

 

17. Have you used the Backyard Wildlife Habitat Information Kit purchased from National
Wildlife Federation or Wild Birds Unlimited? (Check one)

1 DYes

2 D No ' (Skip to question 19)
18. How helpful or unhelpful was the lnforrnation Kit? (Check one)

1 El Very Helpful

2 El Somewhat Helpful

3 El Unsure

4 Cl Somewhat Unhelpful
5

[3 Very Unhelpful
19. Have you used the National Wildlife Federation Backyard Wildlife Habitat website?
(Check one)

1 DYes

2 D No— (Skip to question 21)
20. How helpful or unhelpful was the website? (Check one)

1 [:1 Very Helpful

D Somewhat Helpful

Cl Unsure

El Somewhat Unhelpful
El Very Unhelpful

 

 

 

 

 

01th

 

139

 

 

21. Have you attended a slide show or other presentation by National Wildlife Federation
staff or a Habitat Steward? (Check one)

1 DYes

2 El No —' (Skip to question 23)
22. How helpful or unhelpful was the slide show? (Check one)

1 [3 Very Helpful

2 El Somewhat Helpful

3 Cl Unsure

4 El Somewhat Unhelpful
5

El Very Unhelpful
23. Have you received personal assistance from a Habitat Steward? (Check one)

 

 

 

, 1 El Yes
2 Cl No —' (Skip to question 25)
24. How helpful or unhelpful was the assistance? (Check one)
\ 1 El Very Helpful
2 El Somewhat Helpful
3 D Unsure
4 El Somewhat Unhelpful
5 El Very Unhelpful

 

 

 

 

 

25. Have you received personal assistance from neighbors, friends, or family members?
(Check one)

, 1 1:] Yes
2 E] No —> (Skip to question 27)

 

26. How helpful or unhelpful was the assistance? (Check one)
\ 1 El Very Helpful
I:l Somewhat Helpful
[3 Unsure
El Somewhat Unhelpful
Ci Very Unhelpful

 

0|th

 

 

27. Have you received personal assistance from wildlife management or natural
resource professionals, such as a wildlife biologist, extension agent, wildlife
consultant, or a Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) employee? (Check
one)

1 I: Yes

2 I: No —’ (Skip to question 29)

 

28. How helpful or unhelpful was the assistance? (Check one)
1 1:] Very Helpful

El Somewhat Helpful

l:l Unsure

D Somewhat Unhelpful

Ci Very Unhelpful

 

Ul#wl\)

 

 

140

Attitudes Toward Wildlife Issues

29. The following statements talk about wildlife-related issues. For each statement,
please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly
Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. (Circle one response for each)

1

 

 

 

2 3 4 5
It is important to me personally: Shandy Mildly Unsure Mildly Smly
. Agree Agge Disagree 0183923..
a. That I observe or photogaph wildlife. ‘ SA MA U MD SD
b. That I talk about wildlife with family and

friends. SA MA U MD SD

c. That local economies benefit from the
sale of equipment, supplies, or services . -_SA MA U MD SD
related to wildlife recreation.
d. That i understand more about the

behavior of wildlife. SA MA U MD SD
e. That game animals are managed for an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

annual harvest for human use without
banning the future of the wildlife SA MA U MD SD
population.
f. That I hunt game animals for food. SA MA U MD SD
(_g. That i know that wildlife exist in nature. SA MA U, MD SD
h That I tolerate most wildlife nuisance
problems. SA MA U MD SD

 

i. That i express opinions about wildlife and
their management to public officials or to .
officers of private conservation SA MA U MD SD
organizations. ‘
j. That i see wildlife in books, movies, SA
paintings_r photographs.
it. That i trap furbearing animals for the sale SA
cf fur or pelts. - - '
i. That I tolerate the ordinary personal
safety hazards associated with some SA MA U MD SD
wildlife. f
m That I consider the presence of wildlife as
a sign of the quality of the natural SA MA U MD SD
environment. .
n. That I tolerate the ordinary risk of wildlife
transmitting disease to humans or SA MA
domestic animals.
0. That i hunt game animals for recreation. SA ' MA
p. That i appreciate the role that wildlife play SA MA
in the natural environment.
q. - That i tolerate most levels of property SA MA
damage by wildlife. .
r. That wildlife are included in educational
materials as the subject for learning more SA MA U MD SD
about nature.

 

E

MD SD

 

MD SD

§

 

 

 

MD SD

 

MD, SD
MD SD

 

 

CCC C

MD SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1O

 

141

Environmental Attitudes

30. The following statements talk about the relationship between humans and the

environment. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree,

Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. (Circle one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

response for each)
1 2 3 4 .5
Strongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly

w ch” th I' 't fth Agree Agree Disagree Dream
a. e are approa lng e ml 0 e

number of peOple the earth can support. SA MA U MD SD
b. When humans interfere with nature it .

often produces disastrous consequences. SA MA U MD SD
c. The earth has plenty of natural resources

if we just ieam how to develop them. SA MA U MD SD
d. Plants and animals have as much right as

humans to exist. SA MA U MD SD
e. The balance of nature is strong enough to

cope with the impacts of modern SA MA U MD SD

industrial nations.
f. Despite our special abilities humans are

still subject to the laws of nature. SA MA U MD SD
9. The so-called 'ecoiogical crisis’ facing

humankind has been greatly SA MA U MD SD

exaggerated. '
h. Humans were meant to rule over the rest

of nature. SA MA U MD SD
i. Humans will eventually leam enough

about how nature works to be able to SA MA U MD SD

control it.
j. if things continue on their present course,

we will soon experience a major SA MA U MD SD

 

 

ecological catastrophe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowledge of Wildlife and Landscaping

We would like to find out what you know about landscaping for wildlife. This is not a test;
this will help us consider how we provide Backyard Wildlife Habitat programs in the
future. For the following questions, please check the one best answer.

31. Which of the following is a basic habitat component for wildlife? (Check one)

1
2
3
4

[3 Food
Cl Water
Cl Cover

[I] All of the above are basic habitat requirements

11

I42

 

32. Which of the following terms is used to describe all of the living and nonliving
interacting features of a given area? (Check one)

1
2
3
4

El Habitat

El Ecosystem
El Community
El Biodiversity

33. Which of the following statements about invasive exotic species is true?
(Check one) .

1
2

4

[3 Most invasive exotic plants or animals were introduced naturally to new areas
El Most invasive exotic plants and animals benefit native plant and animal
specres .

EJ invasive exotic plants and animals usually cannot compete with native plants
and animals

Ci None of the above are true

34. Which of the following statements about traditional lawns is true? (Check one)

1

4

13 Traditional lawns usually require less water than yards with native plant
specres

El Traditional lawns are more beneficial to more wildlife species than yards with
native plant species

Cl Runoff of pesticides and fertilizers from traditional lawns may cause major
problems with water pollution

l3 Wildlife can obtain none of their habitat needs from a traditional lawn

35. Which of the following has the greatest influence on the types of plants that
can live in a particular area? (Check one)

1
2
3
4

El The kind of soil that is found in the area

Cl The species of animals that live in the area

El The percent of sunny versus cloudy days

Cl The amount of carbon dioxide (002) in the atmosphere

36. Carrying capacity refers to the theoretical number of individuals of a species
that can be supported in a given area indefinitely. Why is it important to
understand carrying capacity when managing for wildlife on a residential

property? (Check one)

1

El Over long periods of time, property owners should attempt to attract numbers
of individual animals that are more than the carrying capacity of the area

El Over long periods of time, property owners should attempt to attract numbers
of individual animals that are equal to or less than the carrying capacity of the
area

C] it is impossible to exceed the carrying capacity of an area, even for short
periods of time

D Carrying capacity is not important to understand when managing for wildlife on
a residential property

12

143

37. Which of the following is an effective and potentially ecologically sound
technique for controlling invasive exotic plants? (Check one)

1 CI The use of chemical fertilizers

2 D The use of controlled burns

3 U The flooding of areas with water

4 El There is no reason to control invasive exotic plants

38. Which of the following is the best way to find out which plants are native to
your area? (Check one)

1 El Contact a local native plant nursery

2 Cl Find out which plants your neighbors are successfully landscaping with. The
plants that are doing well are likely native to your area

3 Ci Inventory the plant species currently on your property. Most of these species
are likely native to your area

4 Cl None of the above are good ways to find out about native plants in your area

39. Which of the following Is true about wildlife management planning? (Check
one)

1 C] With the right management techniques, any wildlife species can be attracted to
any yard

2 E] An inventory of habitat conditions, wildlife, plants, soils, and local landscapes
should be done before determining management objectives

3 [I For most yards under an acre in size, little can be gained by carefully planning
a. landscaping activities based on management goals and objectives

4 [II All of the above are true

40. Which of the following is important to include in a property base map? (Check
one)

1 El Climate information

Cl Human-made alterations to the landscape
Cl Vegetation types for the entire state

D None of the above are important to include

500k)

41. Which of the following is true about wetlands? (Check one)
El They protect shorelines and banks from erosion

Cl They store floodwater

[3 They maintain groundwater supplies

C] All of the above are true

bUN—I

13

144

42. Which of the following is true about predators? (Check one)

1

(”#0900

El Predators play an important role in food chains found in backyard wildlife
habitats

El Predators are a major threat to entire populations of prey

[3 Individuals of a predator species generally greatly outnumber the number of
individuals of a prey species

Cl Predators generally increase competition for scarce resources, such as food ,
between individuals of a prey species

43. Which of the following is an advantage of using locally native plants? (Check
one)

1

2
3
4

Ci Native plants usually are more resistant to herbicides than exotic plants

El It is usually legal to harvest native plants on public lands

Ci Native plants usually can be purchased from any business that sells plants
El None of the above are advantages of using lowliy native plants

44. Which of the following are ways that humans impact wildlife? (Check one)

1

3
4

El Humans often create edge, a boundary between different types of plants, that
benefits some wildlife species and harms others

Cl Humans can alter succession, the changes in plant species in an area over
time

Cl Human activities have resulted in habitat damage for many wildlife species

C] All of the above are human impacts on wildlife

Background information

in order for us to more fully understand people’s responses to the previous questions,
we need to know a few things about your background. Remember that your responses
are completely confidential and that neither your name nor your address will be directly
linked to your responses in any way.

45. in what type of area is the property you certified in the Backyard Wildlife Habitat
Program? (Check one)

1

2
3
4
5

[J Rural, Farm

El Rural, Non-Fann

El Small Town (25,000 people or fewer)

[:1 Urban Area (From 25,001 to 100,000 people)
1:] Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

14

145

 

46. What is the approximate size of the property you certified in the Backyard Wildlife
Habitat Program? (Check one)

1 Cl Less than one acre
2 El 1 to 10 acres

3 El 11 to 50 acres

4 C] More than 50 acres

47. in what state do you currently live?

48. in what county do you currently live?

 

49. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed? (Check one)
[3 Less than High School Graduate

El High School Graduate or GED

El Vocational or Trade School

[3 Associate's Degree (2 year degree)

El Some College

Ci College Graduate (Bachelor’s or 4 year degree)

Ci Graduate or Professional Degree

 

Narcissus)..-

50. Are you male or female?
1 E] Male
2 El Female

51. In what year were you born? 19_

52. What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply)
Cl White

[:1 Black or African American

Cl Hispanic or Latino

[3 American lndian or Alaska Native

Cl Asian

El Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

[I] Some Other Race

NOIU’irth-b

15

146

 

45. What was your gross household income (before taxes) in 2001? (Check one)
Cl Less than $20,000

1:] $20,000 to $39,999

Cl $40,000 to $59,999

13 $60,000 to $74,999

D $75,000 to $99,999

El $100,000 to $124,999

CI $125,000 to $149,999

El $150,000 or more

cruciate-com...

Thank you for helping us with this project!

If you have any other comments you would like to share with us, please
use the space below (or add additional sheets if necessary).

Please use the enclosed addressed and stamped envelope or return this
survey to:

Backyard Wildlife Habitat Surveys

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

13 Natural Resources Building

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Mi 48824

16

147