Inmfln .. i U. 1...». mmei», : x . .. “WWI fina$hhn3v§ 3w \ (Er ll ‘ a .. .V xarchuumh .. . £933.. ., . . ,. é. . 22.... gr . . I .500. 1 ’55 rain $4.. ,s my}. , In. . R22... ‘ a.\ $.- air! at... . 3:3.31. A 4 l y A . I a“ I! - “hug-.93“. . A. Jan.“ 9... .1 seal-31“” at... 5.1.9232 5 , .I » é. lagamfiafflfi s ihtm ”9:3..." Ilina . - {LI-:3 h...u,.a.¥hi , a 3 . . t. 5.3”“ _ . 1.5%.?! LivksLLuw..2 4 1.1.1011”... 3. 4.! IV!!! aka...“ .1: at... Z... .- 1. 11:15.: : 23.3.1)» .C: $324; (A. .39.} i 1006 This is to certify that the thesis entitled IMPACTS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM ON PARTICIPANTS’ KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND SKILLS REGARDING ECOLOGY AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT presented by Heather Ann Van Den Berg has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife trim 5% film Major Professor’s Signature @l X’ low Date MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution .LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 2/05 p:/ClRC/Date0ue.indd~p.1 .5 "What“ .1:in . 1”. ”Id IMPACTS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM ON PARTICIPANTS’ KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND SKILLS REGARDING ECOLOGY AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT By Heather Ann Van Den Berg 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 2006 ABSTRACT IMPACTS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM ON PARTICIPANTS’ KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND SKILLS REGARDING ECOLOGY AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT By Heather Ann Van Den Berg This study investigated the Conservation Stewards Program (CSP), a pilot program developed during 2004-2006 by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University Extension. Study methods included quantitative measures and qualitative feedback via pre- and immediate post-program questionnaires. The CSP had 65 participants, with a 97% program retention rate, and with an 85% (n=55) response rate to this evaluation. Overall, the CSP achieved its goal of attracting traditional and non-traditional stakeholders to participate in the program. Respondents were motivated to attend the CSP for learning about ecosystems, natural resources, and conservation practices. A positive shift in respondents’ knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward the state wildlife agency, attitudes toward specific resource management techniques, and connection to the land occurred. CSP respondents believed they were most prepared to access information about wildlife, plants, or habitats and had a high interest in long-term, complex, volunteer opportunities such as habitat restoration. All but one respondent indicated the program was beneficial to them. CSP respondents reacted favorably to the experience, suggesting program coordinators were successful at implementing adult education best practices for environmental education. These knowledgeable volunteers wishing to engage in complex ecosystem management activities may be an asset to wildlife management agencies in achieving their objectives. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was supported with funding from the Nongame Wildlife Fund of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and through the US. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grants (#51184200043). I thank the staff of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Michigan State University Extension (MSUE), Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNF I), and MSUE Fisheries and Wildlife Area of Expertise (AOE) Team for their contributions to the development and evaluation of the Conservation Stewards Program. Specifically I thank these individuals: Ray Rustem, Natural Heritage Unit Supervisor, MDNR; Tim Payne, Southeast Management Unit Supervisor, MDNR; Sara Schaefer, Southwest Management Unit Supervisor, MDNR; Patrick Brown, Director, MNFI; Phyllis Higrnan, Associate Program Leader, MNFI; Beverly Terry, County Extension Director, Oakland MSUE; Carol Lenchek, Extension Educator, Oakland MSUE; Bindu Bhakta, Extension Educator, Oakland MSUE; Mike Gaden, Extension Educator and ACE Co—Chair, Livingston MSUE; Roy Hayes, County Extension Director; Livingston MSUE; and Shannon Jackson, Fisheries and Wildlife Human Dimensions Lab Assistant, Michigan State University. In addition, I thank the numerous state and local conservation organizations that helped make this program and its evaluation possible. I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and mentoring of my graduate committee, Shari Dann, Shawn Riley, and John Dirkx. I sincerely appreciate the scholarship you invested in this study and expected in my research. I also thank all of my colleagues at Michigan State University; together we strive to more fully understand the world around us and how we can best contribute. Lastly, I iii thank all of my family and friends for their ongoing support, encouragement, and patience during my graduate studies and career. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ........................................................................................ vii List of Figures ....................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................. 1 Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................. 5 The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program ........................................ 5 Evaluation Design and Thesis Organization ............................................ 9 Literature Cited ............................................................................ 11 Chapter 11: Understanding Adult Learners in a Conservation Education and Volunteerism Program .............................................................................. 13 Abstract ...................................................................................... 13 Introduction and Research Purpose ...................................................... 14 Literature Review ........................................................................... 17 Methods ...................................................................................... 26 Results ........................................................................................ 29 Discussion ................................................................................... 34 Literature Cited ............................................................................. 40 Figures ....................................................................................... 43 Tables ........................................................................................ 44 Chapter III: Impacts of an Adult Conservation Education and Volunteerism Program and its Implications for Wildlife Management ........................................................ 54 Abstract ...................................................................................... 54 Introduction and Research Purpose ...................................................... 55 Literature Review .......................................................................... 57 Methods ..................................................................................... 64 Results ....................................................................................... 67 Discussion .................................................................................. 73 Management Implications ................................................................. 77 Literature Cited ............................................................................. 79 Figures ....................................................................................... 83 Tables ........................................................................................ 84 Chapter IV: Limitations and Recommendations ............................................... 94 Study Limitations ........................................................................... 94 Recommendations for Further Study .................................................... 96 Recommendations for Program Coordination .......................................... 97 Literature Cited ............................................................................. 98 Appendices ........................................................................................... 99 Appendix A: Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) Approval Letters and Informed Consent Letters. . . . . . . . ....100 Appendix B: Participant Registration Forms ......................................... 107 Appendix C: Survey Materials .......................................................... 120 Appendix D: Review of Workshop Schedule, Special Topics, Agendas, and Learning Goals and Objectives ........................................ 160 Appendix B: Data Summaries .................. ' ........................................ 2 03 LIST OF TABLES Table II-l. Participation in outdoor recreational activities, more than twice per year, by CSP respondents ................................................................................. 44 Table II-2. Pre-CSP membership of respondents in conservation organizations. . . ....45 Table II-3. Pre-CSP involvement of respondents in Conservation activities ............... 46 Table II-4. Motivations to participate in the CSP as an adult education program. . .. . ....47 Table II-5. Motivations to participate in the CSP as a volunteer program ................. 48 Table II-6. Leisure benefits sought by CSP respondents ..................................... 49 Table II-7. Respondents’ reactions to CSP ..................................................... 50 Table 11-8. Respondents’ rating of CSP curriculum units as most or least valuable ..... 51 Table II-9. CSP respondents’ comfort level with carrying out conservation volunteerism .................................................................................... 52 Table II-lO. CSP respondents’ self-ratings of post-program conservation skill levels ............................................................................................ 53 Table 111-1. CSP respondents’ attitudes and values concerning wildlife .................. 84 Table 111-2. CSP respondents’ knowledge of ecology ....................................... 85 Table 111-3. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward the Michigan Department of Natural Resources ....................................................................................... 86 Table 111-4. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques ...................................................................................... 87 Table 111-5. CSP respondents’ connection to the land ....................................... 90 Table III-6. CSP respondents’ post-program interest in specific volunteer conservation opportunities .................................................................................... 93 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure II-l. Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) as based on Hungerford and Volk’s Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) model (1990, p. 11) and Kollrnuss and Agyeman’s Pro-Environmental Behavior model (2002) .................. 43 Figure III-1. Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) as based on Hungerford and Volk’s Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) model (1990, p. 11) and Kollrnuss and Agyeman’s Pro-Environmental Behavior model (2002) .................. 83 viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) is an innovative partnership between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) to train residents in eCology and resource management for the purposes of conservation volunteerism. The CSP follows the format of the successful Master Gardener and Master NaturalistTM programs to include 40 hours of classroom instruction followed by 40 hours of volunteer service annually to receive initial “Conservation Stewards” certification. To remain certified, participants must attain 8 hours of advanced training and contribute 40 hours of service annually. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics and motivations of participants in the pilot CSP workshops and the impacts resulting from the program on knowledge, attitudes, and conservation skills. Study methods included quantitative measures and qualitative feedback via pre- and immediate post-pro gram questionnaires. The pilot CSP workshops occurred in southeastern Michigan’s Oakland and Livingston counties during February - April 2006. The workshops attracted a total of 65 registered participants with a completion rate of 97% (n = 63). Of those initially registered for the CSP, 85% (n = 55) completed 9 or more of the 11 CSP sessions, were age 18 years or older, and thus were eligible to be study subjects in this evaluation. Analysis of CSP respondent data found that: 0 Respondent Characteristics o Majority was female (61.8%); Pilot efforts did not attract racially or ethnically diverse participants (nearly all were white); Over two-thirds (78.3%) have at least a Bachelor’s degree. o The greatest proportion of respondents engaged in active recreation pursuits such as hiking (92.6%), walking or jogging (90.7%), with fewer participating in traditional natural resources activities such as boating (53.7%), fishing (27.8%), and hunting (14.8%); therefore, CSP pilot efforts attracted both traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. 0 About half (47.1%) indicated membership in 23 conservation organizations; organizations with highest membership were local land conservancies (40.7%), Audubon Society (27.8%), local watershed organizations (25.9%), and The Nature Conservancy (25.9%). 0 Nearly 52% of respondents indicated they were moderately or highly involved with local conservation organizations. a Motivations to_Participate in CSP 0 Respondents were most strongly motivated to participate in the adult education program for learning (e. g., joy of learning about local natural resources). 0 Respondents were most strongly motivated to participate in conservation volunteerism to understand ecosystems, natural resources, and conservation. 0 Respondents most strongly sought the benefits of enjoyment of outdoor/nature opportunities and helping the environment. 0 Skills to Complete Conservation Service 0 81.1% of post-pro gram respondents indicated they were comfortable completing the required 40 hours of volunteer service. 0 Respondents had the highest self-rating of conservation skills relating to accessing/locating information about wildlife, plants, or habitats and conservation engagement (i.e. contributing to local natural resource decisions). 0 Change in Knowledge of Ecology 0 Respondents experienced an increase in ecological and ecosystem knowledge. 0 Respondents experienced a significantly positive shift in specific knowledge items such as: succession, biological carrying capacity, climax community, forest health in Michigan, sources of fish and wildlife management funding, and natural resources held in public trust. 0 C_hange in Attitudes 0 Respondents experienced a positive shift in attitudes toward the MDNR. 0 Respondents experienced a statistically positive shift in utilitarian attitudes towards resource management such as: clearcutting, herbicide application, and multi-use resource management strategies. 0 Connection to the Land 0 Respondents experienced a statistically significant and positive shift in connection to the land as a result of the CSP and its focus on local natural resources, conservation efforts, and partnerships. 0 Interest in Post-Program Volunteer Conservation Service 0 Respondents were most interested in long-term, complex, habitat-related volunteer opportunities such as wildlife monitoring, native seed collecting, and removal of nuisance invasive species. O Respondents were least interested in volunteering for office-related tasks such as fundraising, newsletter writing, and other writing. - Motions to the ProgLam 0 Nearly all respondents indicated they learned or gained something new and that the in-field and hands-on learning met their expectations. O Several respondents indicated they had inadequate opportunities to practice their knowledge and skills gained during the program. 0 Of the 12 curriculum units, those taught by MDNR staff (Wetlands and Grasslands) were rated most valuable. These findings are likely to be most applicable to southern Michigan with ecosystems, agency and organizational partnerships, and human comrmmities similar to those found in the pilot study area. Program expansion into other ecoregions of Michigan is recommended. Further analysis of data can determine if differences exist among stakeholder types from diverse areas of the state. Future program evaluation should include a non-respondent survey and a survey of local collaborating wildlife and municipal agencies and organizations. This project was supported with funding from the Nongame Wildlife Fund of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and through the US. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grants (#511B4200043). Additionally, the MSUE Fisheries and Wildlife Area of Expertise Team provided funding. Personnel from the MDNR, MSUE, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services, and numerous local conservation organizations provided program and research advice. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM The Need Michigan has broad and diverse ecosystems determined by soils, climate, landforms, topographic position, and disturbances (Albert 1995). From a terrestrial perspective, Michigan has four ecoregions — Southern Lower Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Western Upper Peninsula — that are considered when integrating resource management, planning, and biological conservation (Eagle et al. 2005). From an aquatic perspective, Michigan has four Great Lakes basins — Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Eric — that provide a framework for understanding and managing aquatic communities (Eagle et al. 2005). An important principle of ecosystem management recognizes that humans are embedded in nature, having fundamental influences on ecological patterns and processes (Grumbine 1994). Recently throughout the United States, residents have become involved with citizen science programs, involved with natural resource agencies, and engaged in community conservation. The opportunity exists now to facilitate ecological training and volunteer opportunities for residents to learn and become more involved in conservation service. This is what Grumbine (1994) termed citizen support for ecosystem management through ecological literacy and enviromnental advocacy. Citizen involvement with conservation is greatly needed to counteract the pressures of human population growth on Michigan ecosystems. Human populations can threaten, transform, or degrade ecosystems (Johns 2003). In 2004, approximately 10 million people resided in Michigan (US. Census Bureau 2006). Although this is a 6.9% increase since the 1990 census (U .8. Census Bureau 2006), which is less than the national average growth of 13.1%, this small population growth affects our ecosystems. Southeast Michigan and Conservation Needs The population of Michigan is unevenly distributed with 40% living in the three metro-Detroit counties of Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland. According to the Michigan Wildlife Action Plan (Eagle et al. 2005), this population distribution creates a great demand and has a great impact on natural resources within the southern portion of Michigan, especially since much of the land (97%) is held in small private land ownership. These conditions make southeastern Michigan an ideal region for a volunteer conservation training program. The Southern Lower Peninsula ecoregion circa 1800 was comprised of oak savannas and prairies with rolling moraines, lake plains, and oak-hickory complexes (Albert 1995). Since then, the area has become dominated by agriculture and urban development because of its warm climate, long grong season, and prairies that were easily altered (Eagle et al. 2005). Nearly 99% of Michigan’s grasslands, mostly located in Southern Lower Michigan, have been reduced to fragmented ecosystems existing in small patches, as agriculture, fire suppression, and residential development have impacted these systems (Eagle et al. 2005). Amidst these landscapes, changed by natural and anthropogenic disturbances, natural resource agencies are working with conservation organizations, and residents to strive to manage our natural resources. The Need for Stakeholder Engagement in Resource Management Currently, a matrix of state and local agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private landowners own and manage our land and water resources. Citizens have traditionally looked to governmental agencies such as the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to bear the primary responsibility for natural resources management, conservation, and environmental protection. However, managing the natural resources in the state of Michigan is a difficult and complex task. Given the limited financial and human resources available to the state resource management agencies, it is no longer realistic for the MDNR and MDEQ working alone to meet natural resource management goals. In recent years, other organizations and municipal agencies have emerged to manage our natural resources at local and state levels. Thus a diverse group of stakeholders manage and affect the state’s natural resources. The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) formed to assist these diverse stakeholders, to train volunteers in ecology and resource management, to link volunteers with natural resource groups within communities, and to facilitate conservation volunteerism (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006). To achieve resource management, protection and recreation, there is a need for stakeholders to manage our natural resources cooperatively and collectively. Through engagement with stakeholders, the MDNR and MDEQ can better understand the needs of their constituents while developing stronger relationships with them. Thus, the MDNR, Michigan State University (MSU) and MSU Extension (MSUE), Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), The Nature Conservancy, and The Stewardship Network, have joined together to train and coordinate volunteers to assist with much needed conservation service and management on private and public land for public benefit. The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program and its Development The MDNR Wildlife Division allocated research funding in 2003 to develop, pilot test, and evaluate the CSP. The CSP is modeled afier the popular MSUE Master Gardener program, the MSUE Citizen Planner program, the Texas Master NaturalistTM Program, and other states’ Master Naturalist TM programs. Collaborators developed the CSP statewide partnership and vision fiom October 2003 to December 2004. During 2005, MSUE worked with partners to develop the CSP prototype program, including curriculum and adult education strategies. Participant recruitment for the CSP pilot test began in December 2005, with the inaugural workshops occurring from February - April 2006 in Oakland and Livingston counties in southeast Michigan. To become a certified Conservation Steward, a participant must first complete a 40 hour basic training course followed by 40 hours of volunteer conservation service within one year. To maintain their Conservation Stewards certification, participants must complete 8 hours of advanced training and 40 hours of volunteer conservation service annually. Conservation Stewards primarily will assist with conservation activities on public lands such as ecological monitoring, planning and decision-making, management and restoration, or education and outreach. A secondary anticipated benefit of the CSP is that participants are encouraged to implement their knowledge of ecology and resource management on their private property in cooperation with landowners in their locale. The CSP attempts to engage stakeholders through carefully crafted outreach to benefit Michigan’s natural resources through active resource management, as recommended by Johns (2003). To develop the CSP, researchers facilitated an action research process (Stringer 1996). The researchers led collaborators through iterative processes of investigating the need for the CSP, building a situational picture of the need for well-trained conservation volunteers in Michigan. Next, stakeholders thought carefirlly about the CSP “big picture” (i.e. vision, mission) and formulated sophisticated accounts of the situation (i.e. analyzed and interpreted the data gathered). Finally, partners devised a plan to address the opportunity (i.e. the pilot CSP curriculum and training experiences). The purpose of the research reported in this thesis is to determine the impacts of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program on participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills regarding ecology and resource management. Specifically, my research addresses the following questions: What attracts participants to the CSP and what benefits do they seek? What are the characteristics of participants who complete the CSP? What are the wildlife-oriented values of CSP participants? Does participation in the CSP change participants’ knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward resource management, and connection to the land? How do CSP participants perceive their conservation skills? What interests do participants have in specific post-program volunteer conservation service activities? What are the participants’ reactions to the CSP? EVALUATION DESIGN AND THESIS ORGANIZATION I used quantitative evaluation methods to describe the characteristics and motivations of participants who complete the CSP as well as the impacts resulting from their participation in the CSP. CSP respondents provided qualitative feedback from which I drew illustrative quotes to help interpret the quantitative data. This research protocol was approved by the Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University (Appendix A). Individuals wishing to participate in the CSP were required to complete a registration form (Appendix B). Responses to open-ended questions on CSP registration forms provided insights into characteristics of participants including their level of commrmity involvement with organizations, local government, and MSU Extension. Once the CSP workshop began, I invited participants to complete pre- and post-program questionnaires to investigate their motivations to participate, values, knowledge, attitudes, and skills regarding ecology and resource management. I also invited participants to respond to weekly session feedback forms. Finally, I invited all participants to attend an informal debriefing/reunion meeting 8 weeks after completing the training and to respond to a post-program open-ended questionnaire (Appendix C). Chapters 11 and III present the results of this study. Chapter 11 describes the CSP participant characteristics and motivations for adult education and conservation volunteerism as well as reactions to the CSP. Conservation organizations, resource management agencies, and Extension staff should consider these results and then develop, implement, and evaluate future conservation education and volunteerism programming. I intend to submit Chapter II to the Journal of Applied Environmental Education and Communication or an adult education journal. The purpose of Chapter III is to provide resource management professionals information concerning knowledge of ecology, attitudes, and engagement of adult 10 volunteers who complete the CSP. I intend to submit Chapter III to the Journal of Wildlife Management or a resource management journal. Chapter IV presents a discussion of study limitations and recommendations for future programming and research. The information presented in this chapter can be incorporated into MSU Extension conferences, MDNR Wildlife Management Team meetings, and regional/national professional resource management and Extension conferences. The Appendices present the Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board approval letters, informed consent letters, and data collection instruments. In addition, CSP workshop schedules, special topics, agendas, and leaning goals and objectives are included in the Appendices. Finally, the Appendices include complete data summaries for the entire CSP, Oakland County, and Livingston County respondents. LITERATURE CITED Albert, DA. (1995). Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working classification (Fourth Revision: July 1994). North Central Forest Exp. Station. Forest Servcie — US. Dept. of Ag. General Technical Report NC-l 78. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs. gov/resource/ 1998/rldandscp/rlandscp.htm (Version 03JUN98) on June 4, 2006. Dann, S.L. and Van Den Berg, H.A. eds. (2006). Michigan Conservation Stewards Program curriculum. Michigan State University Extension, East Lansing, MI. Eagle, A.C., Hay-Chmielewski, E.M., Cleveland, K.T., Derosier, A.L., Herbert, ME, and Rustem, R.A. eds. (2005). Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 1592 pp. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/dmwildlifeactionplan on June 4, 2006. Grumbine, RE. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38. 11 Johns, D.M. (2003). Growth, conservation, and the necessity of new alliances. Conservation Biology, 17(5), 1229-1237. Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. US. Census Bureau. (2006). Michigan general demographic characteristics 2004: American Community Survey. US. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington DC. 12 CHAPTER II UNDERSTANDING ADULT LEARNERS IN A CONSERVATION EDUCATION AND VOLUNTEERISM PROGRAM ABSTRACT: In 2004-2006, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University pilot tested the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP), an adult education and volunteerism program. This study investigated CSP participant characteristics, motivations for adult education and volunteering, and reactions to the pilot program. Study methods included pre- and immediate post- program questionnaires and quantitative analysis of data. The pilot CSP had 65 participants, with a 97% program retention rate, and with 85 % (n=55) completing 9 or more class sessions and responding to this study. CSP respondents were motivated to attend CSP for learning about ecosystems, natural resources, and conservation practices. CSP respondents ’ self-ratings of post-program conservation skills were high. All but one respondent indicated they learned or gained something they did not anticipate and that the program was beneficial to them. Respondents were most prepared to access or locate information (i. e. on wildlife, plants, and habitats) and to engage actively in local conservation or community service projects. Overall, the CSP achieved its goal of attracting traditional and non-traditional stakeholders to participate in the program. Additionally, CSP respondents reacted favorably to the experience, suggesting program coordinators were successful at implementing adult education best practices for environmental education. 13 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PURPOSE Conservation education seeks to foster an understanding of basic ecological principles and should be pleasant enough to motivate individuals to continue lifelong learning about the natural world (Jacobson 1999, Tilden 1977). To develop an adult conservation education and volunteerism program, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) worked to determine the educational needs of residents, pilot test and evaluate the initial efforts and impacts, and make recommendations for a sustained effort called the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP). The goals of the CSP are to provide learning and stewardship opportunities for Michigan residents to: 1. gain knowledge in natural resources ecology and conservation management, 2. gain knowledge of and experience with ecosystem-based management, 3. explore one’s own attitudes and diverse attitudes of others towards natural resource management and the affiliated state and local agencies, organizations, and institutions, 4. gain skills necessary to complete conservation management activities, 5. contribute to existing natural resources stewardship activities (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006). The CSP is an adult conservation education and volunteer training program that follows a format similar to other Extension “master” programs throughout the United States. Nationally, Extension’s Master Gardener program first started in 1972 in the state of Washington, when horticulture agents were confronted with an “overwhelming l4 demand for home gardening information” (Purdue Master Gardener 2003 p. 1). The Master Gardener program was created to “enable volunteers interested in horticulture to be trained in basic horticulture topics. . .and then answer calls about gardening problems and promote horticultural understanding in their communities” (Simonson and Pals 1990 p.1). In reviewing the success of the Master Gardener programs, several states have developed a version of the “master naturalist” program. Texas and Florida Extension systems have well-established Master NaturalistTM programs, which are partnerships between universities and state wildlife management agencies (TMNP 2006, FMNP 2006). Currently, several other states are creating and piloting their own version of the Master NaturalistTM program; a National Master NaturalistWI effort is also underway (NMNP 2006). These adult education and volunteerism programs follow a format requiring in- depth instruction then volunteer service. The Michigan CSP requires that participants complete 40 hours of classroom instruction on ecology and ecosystem-based resource management (to obtain a “provisional certification”) Then, CSP participants are required to contribute 40 hours of conservation volunteerism to obtain their final certification. To remain a certified Conservation Steward, a participant must complete 8 hours of advanced training and contribute 40 hours of volunteer service annually. The CSP is like many other adult learning programs in which participation is entirely voluntary. It is important for coordinators of adult conservation education programs to have a thorough understanding of participants’ backgrounds. This insight is important to design learning experiences that have sustained benefits for both learners and program coordinators (Merriam and Caffarella 2002). 15 CSP coordinators designed the program with adult learners specifically in mind. Andragogy is “the art and science of helping adults learn” (Knowles 1980 p. 43), which is different from pedagogy (the science and practice of helping children learn). The following are assumptions of andragogy: l. as a person matures, s/he moves from being dependent to becoming a self- directed person; adults accumulate experiences that are rich resources for learning; the readiness for adult learning is closely related to social role development; adults are problem-centered learners, utilizing knowledge for its immediate application; and adults are motivated to learn by internal factors (Merriam and Caffarella 2002) Adult learners are typically autonomous, independent, and self-directed (Kerka 2002). Basic principles for designing adult education programs are that: adults need to know why learning is needed; adults need to be respected for their self-direction; adults have rich and unique experiences from which to learn; adults are ready to learn when they need to know; and adults will continue to learn as long as their learning connects to their life situations (Knowles 1990). The purpose of this study is to describe participants in the CSP and why they are motivated to attend the program. Previous researchers (Bonneau 2003, Ryan et al. 2001) have evaluated adult conservation education programs like the CSP, but these studies 16 were not based upon previous research on adult education (Houle 1961 , Boshier and Collins 1985), volunteerism (Clary et al. 1998, Schrock 2000), or environmental education (Hungerford and Peyton 1980, Hungerford and Volk 1990, Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). This article specifically discusses CSP participants’ demographics, engagement in conservation organizations, motivations for adult education, motivations for volunteerism, benefits sought from the CSP, reactions to their learning experience, and perceptions of abilities for specific conservation activities. These results are important to coordinators and staff from agencies and local organizations interested in engaging adults in local conservation education and service. LITERATURE REVIEW Opportunities for Adult Conservation Volunteerism Long-term natural resources management success may depend on involving adult volunteers in collaborative citizen science programs at a local level. Citizen science is defined as the involvement of citizens in scientific data collection for the purposes of research (Trumbull et al. 2000). In an increasing number of circumstances, well-trained volunteers are needed to collect scientifically rigorous data on species and habitats (Kertson et al. 2005). These citizen science programs may help meet data management needs of agencies and researchers as well as increase public awareness and support of management issues (Kertson et a1. 2005). Another perspective of volunteer engagement with environmental issues is the concept of community science. Community science is slightly different from citizen science in that it implies volunteers interact and cooperate in partnership with each other 17 as well as government agencies, museums, and universities (Carr 2003). Community scientists are individuals and organizations that typically work on issues of public interest such as restoration and management. They observe problems, design studies, collect and analyze data, and act upon the results. Community scientists inevitably have an interest in collecting local data, using detailed local knowledge, and incorporating cultural perspectives into meaningful data comparisons and interpretations. After all, these community scientists are residents in a locale, and know the most about the local water quality, air quality, and resource challenges because they live, breathe, and experience the local environment. Resource management agencies describe two needs for working with volunteers. Volunteer coordination must be easy for staff and volunteer efforts should align with resource management objectives. Local volunteers offer benefits to the agency aside from a labor force; local volunteers can help narrow the gap between problem observations, research design, data collection and analysis, and ownership of the issues resulting in action (Carr 2003). Model for Adult Conservation Education, Learning, and Stewardship Collaborators based the CSP on research from the field of environmental education (BE). A modified Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) model (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002) is the conceptual framework for the CSP and study (Figure II-l). EE increases both awareness of and sensitivity toward environmental issues, enables social groups to understand the environment and complex problems, enhances attitudes and values concerning environmental protection 18 and improvement, promotes skills for identifying and solving environmental problems, and facilitates opportunities to participate and work toward environmental problem resolution (Hungerford and Volk 1990). EE researchers have described the relationships between entry-level variables, ownership variables, and empowerment variables as complex non-linear influences that promote REB (Hungerfold and Volk 1990). Hungerford and Volk suggest that empowerment is often overlooked in educational programs (1990). Empowerment variables are the strongest predictors of REB. Education for empowerment gives participants the skills needed to make change in the world. Specific variables that contribute to empowerment are perceived skill in using environmental action strategies, knowledge of environmental action strategies, an internal locus of control, and intention to act. The CSP was constructed to foster empowerment; CSP participants learned conservation action techniques and practiced conservation skills through a capstone project focused on stewardship service (Figure II-l). Studies have shown that individuals should have a sense of ownership - a thorough understanding of environmental issues and their implications for humans and ecological systems. Ownership makes environmental issues personal for each individual. Specific variables which contribute to an individuals’ sense of ownership are in-depth understanding about environmental issues and personal investment in the issues and environment. The CSP highlighted local resource management issues through case studies and agency/stakeholder presenters, and thus participants were exposed to resource management planning strategies. Entry-level variables are related to REB but less influential. Environmental sensitivity, knowledge of ecology, and demographic characteristics of learners are entry- level variables. The CSP addresses entry-level variables by teaching basic ecology and encouraging participants to engage in field-based environmental learning; the CSP also fosters discussions among participants about complex natural resource topics. In a more recent review of research, Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002 p. 240) define pro-environmental behavior as individual “behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world.” Complex relationships between environmental knowledge, values, and attitudes are intertwined with emotional involvement and political, social, and cultural contexts, thereby influencing individuals’ expression of pro-environmental behavior (Kolhnuss and Agyeman 2002). Barriers to pro-environmental behavior include old habits, lack of internal or external incentives and negative or insufficient feedback for behavior. The CSP engages participants in the REB (or pro-environmental behavior) of volunteer service to benefit natural resources. When the CSP was developed, program coordinators and collaborators brainstormed the type of volunteer service that would most benefit Michigan’s natural resources. CSP collaborators considered the research of Hungerford and Peyton (1980), which identified major types of environmental actions. These types are: 1. ecomanagernent or habitat work (i.e. one is involved with physical changes, alterations, or improvements to natural resources, landscapes, and watersheds to achieve a desired end goal); 2. persuasion/education activities (i.e. one teaches, shares or passes on information, or attempts to get others to understand key concepts and differing view points); 20 3. political or public participation (i.e. one is engaged with public decision making processes at the community, state, or other levels); 4. consumer behaviors (i.e. one acts upon the understanding of economic relationships to natural resources, for example purchasing decisions); and 5. legal work (i.e. one is involved with pursuing issues through the courts or undertaking actions that achieve legal precedents). CSP collaborators decided to focus on the desired outcomes of volunteers engaged mostly in ecomanagement or persuasion/education. CSP volunteer service activities include ecological monitoring, ecological management/restoration, ecological planning and decision-making, conservation education and outreach, and conservation based youth activities (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006). Organizational and Community Engagement One purpose of the CSP is to facilitate local opportunities for residents to contribute to natural resources management, thus enabling them to apply their ecological and resource management learning gained through the 40 hours of instruction. It is helpful for organizers to understand the community connections of CSP participants when they begin program instruction in order to design CSP education and volunteerism experiences. Adult learners in conservation education programs inevitably have diverse levels of organizational and community engagement. This is due to their own motivations as adult learners and differences in the availability of conservation organizations at the local level where they may be able to belong or volunteer. 21 Researchers call this degree of organizational engagement social capital, referring to the “networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1995 p.67). The CSP can facilitate social capital among participants as they complete 40 hours of instruction and begin their conservation volunteerism. Social capital benefits wildlife and habitat through local networks of Conservation Stewards volunteering in cooperation with each other and with agencies and organizations to complete stewardship activities. Motivations for Adult Education There is an increased focus on adult education in the United States due to the large number of adults in the baby boomer generation. This cohort of US. residents has drawn the attention of education, industry, and government (Merriam and Caffarella 2002). In Michigan, nearly sixty percent (over 5.9 million) of residents are ages 20-64 years (US. Census Bureau 2006). Adults learn in every setting, planned and unplanned, through the contexts that exist. Adults learn knowledge that is useful and relevant amidst changing social, cultural, and economic contexts (Kett 1994). Situations prompting adult learning are: religious settings, civic leadership, employment training, increased availability of professional positions, and leisure education. The CSP may be considered leisure education. Adult learning has evolved from liberal education within literary societies to education programs for political activity for societal improvement. Currently, our society and culture place an emphasis on experiential adult learning (Merriam and Caffarella 2002). Now, more than ever, adults recognize their learning in both intentional and 22 incidental experiences. Adult learning occurs informal settings such as higher education, professional education and training, informal settings such as relationships and faith- based programs, and non-formal settings such as community activism and social movements (Dirkx personal communication 2004). The CSP facilitates learning in each of these three settings. The CSP offers a non-formal learning setting in which adults participate mainly during their leisure time and for community service purposes. The CSP also may be considered a formal setting because some participants are seeking professional development through the 40 hours of instruction, or they view the education program as lifelong learning, since it is affiliated with a university. Finally, the lasting relationships and collaborations developed through or enhanced by the CSP result from its informal learning setting. Educators can best design the learning experience, process, and content if they understand the types of adult learning motivations (Fujita-Starck 1996). Motivational orientations for adult learning have been classified into three general types: goal- oriented learners motivated to achieve some specific goal, activity-oriented learners who participate for the purpose of the activity or for the social interactions, and learning- oriented participants who seek knowledge for the sake of learning (Houle 1961, Merriam and Caffarella 2002). Boshier and Collins (1985) tested and expanded Houle’s original typology with adult learners’ motivations classified as cognitive learning (learning- oriented), multi-faceted activity-learning (including social stimulation and contacts), learning driven by external expectations or community service, and professional advancement (goal-oriented) learning. 23 Motivations for Volunteerism A major component of the CSP includes an annual contribution of 40 hours of volunteer service. Therefore, in addition to understanding the motivations for adult education, understanding volunteer motivations is essential. Program coordinators and stakeholders may use this information about volunteers to design and promote conservation service opportunities that can meet the motivational interests of CSP volunteers. The Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) (Clary et a1. 1998) has been the focus of many studies aimed at understanding the motivations of volunteers. The VFI has provided insights on the motivations of participants in Extension Master Gardener programs (Schrock et al. 2000a and Schrock et al. 2000b) and the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute in Michigan (Schroeder 2004). The VFI includes the following categories of motivations for volunteering: values, understanding, social, career, protective, and enhancement. Humanitarian and altruistic concerns for others constitute the values motivation. Learning something new or exercising knowledge, skills, or abilities are included in the understanding motivation. Interacting with one’s fiiends or engaging in activities viewed favorably by others comprise the social motivation. Obtaining career-related benefits from participation in volunteer work is included in the career motivation. The protective motivation is based on the need to protect one’s ego from negative feelings about self or addressing personal problems. Finally, the enhancement motivation encompasses the opportunity to grow, improve, and develop characteristics to improve one’s ego (Clary et al. 1998). 24 Leisure Benefits Sought by Conservation Stewards Respondents Since the CSP is a non-formal adult education and volunteer conservation training program, and involvement with the program includes significant time outdoors, participants may be seeking specific leisure benefits fiom the CSP. Previous research regarding leisure benefits sought allows in-depth study of CSP participants as recreationists specifically interested in outdoor and environmental stewardship volunteerism. Leisure benefits in the United States are becoming important as many state and federal agencies have begun using benefits based management strategies for public areas (Driver et al. 1999). Leisure benefits can be personal (e.g., psychological or physiological), social or cultural (e.g., social support or community satisfaction), economic (e. g., increased productivity or decreased job tum-over), or environmental (e. g., stewardship/preservation of options or ecosystem sustainability). These benefits may be experienced immediately, may be delayed, or may be linked together (Driver et al. 1999). 25 METHODS Overview of Research Methods I used quantitative methods to describe the CSP participants, their motivations for adult education and volunteering, reactions to the program, and perceptions of conservation skills. I collected data through participant registration forms, pre- and post- program questionnaires, session feedback forms, and an 8 week post-program open- ended questionnaire. Research protocols were approved by the Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University (Appendices A, B, and C). To address content validity, data collection instruments were constructed from previously published studies with slight modifications to make the questions appropriate to the CSP. To address face validity of the data collection instruments, MSUE staff reviewed registration and feedback forms and MSU Fisheries and Wildlife colleagues not associated with this study reviewed the pre- and post-program questionnaires as well as the 8 week post-program questionnaire. Study Area The pilot CSP workshops took place from February — April 2006 in southeastern Michigan’s Oakland and Livingston counties. The pilot counties were selected for several reasons. Both counties are within the same MSUE regional unit, both possess MDNR state parks/recreation/ game areas and Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority parks, and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory has detailed ecological priority data and maps for each county. In addition, these counties are located in rapidly urbarrizing areas where much of the landscape consists of privately-owned, small parcels. Oakland 26 and Livingston counties have active conservation and community service organizations. Oakland County is in the Southeast MDNR management unit, while Livingston County is in the Southcentral MDNR management unit. Although both counties have high populations in comparison to other areas of Michigan, Oakland County has approximately 1.2 million residents whereas Livingston County has over 150,000 residents (SEMCOG 2006). Study Participants I invited all CSP participants, ages 18 and older to participate in this voluntary research study. Research study subjects were those who completed more than 80% of the program (at least 9 of the 11 instructional sessions) and volunteered to participate. According to the CSP policies and procedures, all “participants are strongly urged to attend £1 portions of the training workshop (total of approximately 40 hours) (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006 p.8) (Appendix D).” Since the two pilot counties were adjacent to each other, CSP participants were allowed to make up an instructional session in the neighboring county if a scheduling conflict arose for a session in the home county. Data Collection Instruments I used questionnaires to measure CSP participant characteristics including demographics, motivations for adult education and volunteering, benefits sought from the CSP, reactions to the CSP, and perceptions of conservation skills. I administered the questionnaires in person; the pre-program questionnaire occurred at the first session prior to any instruction and the post-program questionnaire occurred at the conclusion of the 27 last CSP session. Completion time for each questionnaire ranged from 30 to 45 minutes per person. Layout and design of the questionnaires followed guidelines established by Dillrnan (2000). The questionnaires consisted mostly of Likert-type and multiple-choice questions covering a range of topics (Appendix C). The pre-pro gram questionnaire included items regarding participant demographics, motivations, and benefits sought. The demographic items were similar in format to the Koval and Mertig (2002) Resource Attitudes in Michigan study. I drew from Houle (1961) and Boshier and Collins (1985) to include 15 items to measure motivations for adult education. I modified 31 items fiom Clary et al. (1998), Schrock et al. (2000a, 2000b), and Schroeder (2004) to measure motivations for volunteering with the CSP. To measure benefits sought fi'om the CSP, I drew fiom Ryan et al. (2001) to include 21 items. I used 16 items adapted from Bonneau (2003) on the CSP post-program questionnaire to measure perceptions of conservation skills. In addition, I used 12 items modified fiom Schroeder (2004) to measure post-program reactions. CSP participants were invited to anonymously provide open-ended feedback. CSP respondents described in detail their perceptions of the learning experiences and suggested areas needing attention for overall program improvement (Appendix C). In this article, I use the qualitative feedback to illustrate and elaborate on the quantitative findings. 28 Data Analysis I used SPSS 12.0 for Windows (2005) to analyze the quantitative data. I matched pre- and post-pro gram questionnaires for each research subject in order to analyze the differences between pre- and post-CSP responses. Analysis included calculating univariate statistics (e.g., frequencies and means) for all variables. To compare pre- vs. post-program questionnaire data, I used the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). For multi-item scales, I conducted principal component analysis with varimax rotation to determine which factors existed within the data and the common variance. Then, once the factors were identified, I examined scale reliability by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha. RESULTS The CSP pilot program attracted a total of 65 registered participants with 97% (n = 63) who completed the workshops to obtain provisional certification. Of those initially registered for the CSP, 85% (n = 55) completed 80% or more (9 or more of the 11) CSP sessions, and were age 18 years or older, and thus were qualified to be study subjects in this evaluation. Characteristics of CSP Respondents The majority of respondents were female (61.8%, n = 34). The mean age was 51 years (SD. = 13 years). The CSP did not attract racially or ethnically diverse participants; nearly all respondents identified themselves as white. Over two-thirds (78.3%, n = 43) of CSP respondents had at least a Bachelor’s degree. CSP respondents reported a bimodal annual household income with 34.7% (n = 18) within the $20,000 - 29 $59,999 salary range and 53.8% (n = 28) earning more than $75,000. The majority of CSP respondents (63.6%, n = 35) indicated they work full or part-time. About half of all CSP respondents (51 .8%, n = 28) spent most of their youth (up to age 18) in a rural area (farm or non-farm) or a small town of less than 25,000 people. Fewer than half (42.7%, n = 23) indicated they lived most of their adult life in a rural area (farm or non-farm) or a small town of less than 25,000 people. CSP respondents participated more than twice per year in diverse recreational activities. The greatest proportions of CSP respondents engaged in active recreation pursuits such as hiking (92.6%), walking or jogging (90.7%), bicycling (74.1%), swimming (57.4%), and camping (44.4%). Next, CSP respondents indicated they take part in naturalist type activities with 87% who view wildlife, 66.7% feed birds, 64.8% participate in nature study, and 55.6% watch birds. In comparison, lower proportions of CSP respondents indicated they participated in the traditional natural resources recreation activities. About half (53.7%) of CSP respondents indicated they participated in beating (motor, sail, canoe, or kayak), 27.8% go fishing, and 14.8% hunt (Table II—l). CSP respondents had varying degrees of conservation organization membership. About half (47 . l %, n = 25) indicated they belonged to 23 conservation organizations. One-third, (33.9%, n = 18) belonged to 1-2 conservation organizations with the remaining 19% (n = 10) of CSP respondents with no prior conservation organization affiliation. Membership in a local land conservancy occurred most frequently (40.7%) among all CSP respondents. Other organizations with high membership rates were: Audubon Society (27.8%), local watershed organizations (25.9%), The Nature Conservancy 30 (25.9%), Sierra Club (20.4%), various local conservation organizations (18.5%), and Wild Ones (14.8%) (Table II-2). CSP respondents were more involved with local conservation organizations and community projects than national/intemational organizations. A majority, 51.9%, indicated they were moderately or highly involved with local conservation organizations. Nearly half, 49.1%, of respondents indicated they were moderately or highly involved with community conservation projects (Table II-3). However, three-quarters (75.9%) were not previously affiliated with MSUE as a certified Master Gardener, Citizen Planner, Master Woodland Steward, or Lake and Stream Leader. Adult Education Motivations of CSP Respondents Respondents’ motivations for participating in the CSP as an adult education program were classified into three factors through principal component factor analysis, explaining 63.0% of the common variance (SPSS 2005). Those factors were: goal- oriented motivations (eigenvalue = 4.57, 30.48% common variance explained), learning- oriented motivations (eigenvalue = 3.24, 21.60% common variance explained), and activity-oriented motivations (eigenvalue = 1.64, 10.93% common variance explained). CSP respondents had the greatest overall mean to participate in the adult education program for learning-oriented motivations. Respondents had moderately high activity-oriented motivations. The goal-oriented motivation for learning had the lowest mean score (Table II-4). 31 CSP Respondents ’ Motivations for Volunteering CSP respondents’ motivations for participating in this volunteer program were classified into five factors. Through principal component factor analysis the five factors explained 66.0% of the cormnon variance (SPSS 2005). Those factors were: enhancement motivations (eigenvalue = 10.31, 30.24% common variance explained), understanding motivations (eigenvalue = 4.70, 13.79% common variance explained), career motivations (eigenvalue = 3.675, 10.78% common variance explained), social motivations (eigenvalue = 2.05, 6.02% common variance explained), and values motivations (eigenvalue = 1.77, 5.18% common variance explained). CSP respondents were most strongly motivated to volunteer in order to gain an understanding of natural resource topics such as ecosystems and conservation issues (Table II-S). CSP respondents were moderately motivated to volunteer for values (i.e. feeling concern or compassion for others) and social (i.e. community service) reasons. Enhancement and career motivations were not as strong for CSP respondents overall. Leisure Benefits Sought by CSP Respondents CSP respondents’ leisure benefits sought for participation in this program were classified into five factors and explained 71.0% of the common variance through principal component factor analysis (SPSS 2005). Those factors were: helping the environment (eigenvalue = 4.55, 36.05% common variance explained), social benefits (eigenvalue = 1.50, 11.88% common variance explained), reflection benefits (eigenvalue = 1.10, 8.72% common variance explained), enjoyment of outdoor/nature opportunities 32 (eigenvalue = 1.01, 7.99% common variance explained), and project organization (eigenvalue = 0.81, 6.40% common variance explained). The benefits sought most strongly by CSP respondents were enjoyment of outdoor/nature opportunities and helping the environment (Table II-6). Moderately important were reflection and project organization. Social benefits were least important to CSP respondents (Table II-6). Respondents ’ Reactions to the CSP Nearly all CSP respondents reported that they learned something new or something not anticipated and that the in-field and hands-on learning opportunities met their expectations. Fewer respondents noted that they had adequate opportunities to practice knowledge and skills gained during the CSP (Table II-7). The CSP consisted of twelve curriculum units. CSP respondents were asked to indicate which curriculum units were most valuable. Respondents indicated that the Wetlands Ecosystems and Management unit was most valuable followed by the Grassland Ecosystems and Management unit, and then by the unit on Making Choices to Manage Our Natural Resources. The least valuable curriculum units were Putting it All Together, Final Reflections and Projects, and the Introduction (Table 11-8). CSP Respondents ’ Skills to Carry Out Conservation Volunteerism Overall, 38.1% of respondents report increased comfort with carrying out volunteer conservation service after the CSP (Table II-9). Prior to completing the CSP, nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated they were comfortable with carrying out 33 intended volunteer conservation service hours. At the conclusion of the CSP, over three- quarters were comfortable carrying out the intended volunteer conservation service hours (significantly different p50.05). CSP respondents had a high post-program self-rating of their specific conservation skills (Table II-lO). The conservation skills with the highest means were tasks related to accessing/locating information (e.g., locating information and resources about watersheds or locate information about specific wildlife, plants, or habitats) and local conservation engagement (e.g., assisting with implementation of local conservation projects, contributing to local natural resource decisions). The conservation skills with the lowest means were tasks related to identification/monitoring (e. g., skills to collect data and observe plants or animals or skills to manage nuisance species) (Table II-10). DISCUSSION Characteristics of CSP Respondents The pilot CSP had a high level of attendance, high completion rate and high level of study subject eligibility for this research effort. I believe the CSP attracted traditional and non-traditional stakeholders, whom the MDNR desired to participate in this pilot program. One exception existed, however; the program did not attract a racially or ethnically diverse group of participants. CSP coordinators intentionally recruited participants fi'om the traditional and non-traditional stakeholder groups and from urban/suburban areas, however, little emphasis was placed on attracting racially or ethnically diverse audiences. 34 In comparison to the general Michigan population (U .8. Census Bureau 2006), CSP respondents were older and had attained more education than the general population of the state. The gender composition of the CSP respondents was similar to that of the Michigan population (US. Census Bureau 2006). Overall, it is impressive that such a high percentage of CSP respondents were actively employed and completed the program with a large time commitment. CSP respondents engaged in more active recreational pursuits than the Michigan general population (Koval and Mertig 2002, USFWS 2002). Michigan residents either sometimes or frequently participate in: wildlife viewing (69%), go bird watching (57%), hiking (45%), camping (37%), boating (48%), fishing (48%), and hunting (35%) in a typical year (Koval and Mertig 2002). According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2002), 77% of Michigan residents participated in some sort of “wildlife watching,” 39% in fishing, and 22% in hunting in 2001. “Wildlife watching” activities include feeding wildlife, observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, maintaining natural areas, visiting public areas, and maintaining plantings either away or around the home. Most (89%) of the wildlife watching in Michigan occurs around the home. From a learning and stakeholder interaction standpoint, it was helpful for the CSP to have individuals who participate in diverse recreational activity types (i.e. active recreation, naturalist type, traditional natural resources recreation, and miscellaneous outdoor recreation such as sightseeing, picnicking, and photography). Between 1991 and 2001 , a substantial decrease in fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching has occurred in Michigan (U SFWS 2002). Although large numbers of Michigan residents are involved with natural resource recreational activities, participation 35 continues to decline, suggesting the need for alternative programs and activities to increase natural resources interest and outdoor recreation activities that depend on sustainable wildlife and fisheries populations, healthy ecosystems, and public access to natural areas. Evidence fi'om this study suggests the CSP is an alternative program that may increase or sustain interest in and knowledge of natural resources. CSP respondents had a higher degree of conservation organization membership than the Michigan general population. A large majority of CSP respondents belonged to one or more conservation organizations with 47.1% belonging to three or more organizations, whereas only about one-fourth of Michigan residents belonged to at least one conservation organization within the past five years (Koval and Mertig 2002). Organizations with the most frequent membership among state citizens were: Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Ducks Unlimited, National Rifle Association, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, and the Sierra Club (Koval and Mertig 2002). In comparison, CSP respondents were involved primarily with local organizations. Clearly, the CSP respondents have a high level of commitment to conservation, whether they contribute through ongoing membership and financial contributions or through dedicated grass-roots organizational involvement. Motivations of CSP Respondents Among the CSP respondents in this pilot effort, learning-oriented motivations and understanding natural resources (ecosystems and conservation) emerged as the most frequently mentioned motivation for participation in the CSP adult education program and subsequent volunteer activities. While developing the CSP, collaborators 36 hypothesized about the motivations of individuals who would participate in the CSP. Some stakeholders believed that individuals would be less interested in the theoretical content of the program (e. g., basic ecology and management planning) and that participants would be strongly motivated to learn specific conservation related practices. Instead, my findings suggest that the Michigan residents who were attracted to this program were interested in understanding ecosystems and their functions; this knowledge will enable stewards to engage in conservation activities as informed residents and volunteers. My results suggest that CSP respondents also were motivated to take part for the reflection opportunities and project organization. Ryan et al. (2001) found that when a conservation volunteer program is disorganized, participants may believe that their time is being wasted; in fact, “volunteer stewardship activities create a reciprocal relationship between people and the environment with significant impacts for both partners” (Ryan et al. 2001 p. 644). Within the CSP, important relationships exist not only between people and the environment, but also between the citizen-volunteers and the wildlife management agencies and organizations. CSP Respondents ’ Reaction to the Program CSP respondents noted that two sessions (Wetlands Ecosystems and Management and Grassland Ecosystems and Management) taught by MDNR staff were most valuable. CSP respondents probably rated these sessions highest because they believed they were learning from resource management experts in comparison to other sessions that were taught by equally qualified individuals who worked for MSUE or other organizations. 37 Ironically, some MDNR staff members were hesitant to serve as instructors, since they lacked teaching experience. Interest in volunteering for the MDNR likely increased due to the agency staff serving as examples of dedicated individuals working to preserve, protect, and enhance natural resources for the general public (Russell and Kirkbride 2004). This value-added component is important to take into consideration for future Master NaturalistTM programs; future work should focus on capacity-building for a larger pool of instructors from resource management agencies and organizations. CSP Respondents ’ Skills to Carry Out Conservation Volunteerism The results of this study indicated the CSP resulted in positive participants’ self- ratings of their skills to perform volunteer activities. Although not a majority, approximately one-third of CSP respondents indicated they experienced a positive change in their comfort with their conservation skills. Perhaps as a result of the program, some respondents reported that they didn’t know post-C SP as much as they initially thought they did coming into the program. These participants, at the end of the program, may have realized that they need additional training or assistance with specific volunteer conservation activities. One CSP respondent noted, “We didn’t know what we didn’t know.” By far, CSP respondents were most comfortable knowing where to locate specific information for watersheds, wildlife, plants, habitats, ecology, ecoregions, and dominant ecosystems. Thus, one of the main impacts of the CSP that participants gained was skills necessary to research ecological information to enable them to make contributions to local land and watershed planning and natural resources decision making. When 38 reflecting upon the CSP experience, one respondent offered this response, “[1] learned to express and understand [the] vocabulary of information and concepts presented.” Finally, another respondent offered an elaborate open-ended response “[1 have a] greater appreciation/concern regarding how some activities can alter or damage the quality or our resources, while others (e. g., hunting) provide an important control mechanism to help maintain biodiversity and quality habitat. There are complex considerations and decision-making processes required to determine how our lands [and] waters are used and preserved.” Conclusions and Implications for Program Coordinators CSP respondents reacted favorably to the experience, suggesting program coordinators were successfirl at implementing adult education best practices for environmental education. In the firture, adult conservation education and volunteerism coordinators should consider the motivations of participants during program design and implementation in addition to considering the program needs as determined by program funding sources. The balance between wildlife agency and organizational needs and participant motivations determines the success of these programs. 39 LITERATURE CITED Bonneau, LA. (2003). Texas Master Naturalist program assessment: changes in volunteer knowledge and attitudes as a result of training. Unpublished master’s thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University. Nacogdoches, TX. Boshier, R. and Collins, J .B. (1985). The Houle typology after twenty-two years: a large- scale empirical test. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3), 113-130. Carr, A. (2003). A social scientist’s perspective on community science. Volunteer Monitor, 15(2), 2-6. Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J. Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J. and Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516- 1 530. Dann, S.L. and Van Den Berg, HA. (2006). Conservation Stewards Program curriculum. Michigan State University Extension, East Lansing, MI. Dillrnarr, DA. (2000). Mail and intemet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Driver, B.L., Douglass, R.W., and Loomis, J .B. (1999). Outdoor recreation and wilderness in America: Benefits and history in Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Charnpaigrr, IL: Sagarnore Publications. Florida Master Naturalist Program (FMNP). (2006). FMNP program description. Retrieved from http://www.masternaturalist.ifas.ufl.edu/ on June 4, 2006. Fujita-Starck, P.J. (1996). Motivations and characteristics of adult students: factor stability and construct validity of the Education Participation Scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 47(1), 29-40. Houle, CO. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Hungerford, HR. and Peyton, RB. (1980). A paradigm for citizen responsibility: environmental action. In Current Issues IV: The yearbook of environmental education and environmental studies, eds. A.B. Sacks, L.L. Burrus-Bammel, GB. Davis, and LA. Iozzi, (pp.l46-154). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. Hungerford, HR. and Volk., T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21. 40 Jacobson, SK. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kerka, S. (2002) Teaching adults: Is it different? myths and realities. Columbus, OH: ERIC Digest #21. Kertson, B.N., C.E. Grue, D]. Pierce, and LL. Conquest. (2005). Status of citizen science in state natural resource management agencies: Opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of the 70th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, in press. Kett, J .F. (1994). The pursuit of knowledge under difliculties: from self-improvement to adult education in America, 1 750-1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kolhnuss, A. & J. Agyeman. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. Knowles, MS. (1980). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16(10), 350-352, 386. Knowles, MS. (1990). The adult learner: a neglected species (4th edition). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Koval, M.H., and AG. Mertig. (2002). Attitudes Towards Natural Resources and Their Management: A Report on the “2001 Resource Attitudes In Michigan Survey.” A report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. PR project W-127-R-16, Lansing, MI. Merriam, SB. and Caffarella, RS. (2002). Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Master Naturalist Program (N MNP). (2006). Program description. Retrieved fi'om http://mastematuralist.tamu.edu/pdf/NationaL_Master_Naturalist_ brochure%SBl%5D.pdf on June 4, 2006. Purdue Master Gardener Program. (2003). Program description. Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/mg/pubs/HO-184-W.htrnl on April 24, 2003. Putnam, RD. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. Russell, R. and E. Kirkbride. (2004). Conservation of an overlooked resource — volunteers: Partnering with volunteers can accomplish great things for natural resources. Rangelands, 26(3), 20-23. 41 Ryan, R.L., R. Kaplan, and RE. Grese (2001). Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(5), 629-648. Schrock, D.S., Meyer, M., Ascher, P., and Snyder, M. (2000a). Extension Education Methods. HorTechnology, 10(3), 626-630. Schrock, D.S., Meyer, M. P. Ascher, and Snyder, M. (2000b) Benefits and values of the master gardener program. Journal of Extension, 38(1). Retrieved from www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb2.htrnl on April 24, 2003. Schroeder, B. C. (2004). The Great Lakes fisheries leadership institute: Evaluation of an Extension programs’ impacts in relation to regional Sea Grant and local Michigan participants’ expected learning outcomes. Unpublished master’s thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Simonson, BL. and Pals, DA. (1990). Master Gardeners: views from the cabbage patch. Journal of Extension, 28(2). Retrieved from www.joe.org/joe/ 199OSummer/rb3.html on April 24, 2003. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2006). Community profiles. Retrieved from www.semcog.org on June 4, 2006. Detroit, MI. SPSS, Inc. (2005). SPSS for Windows, Release 12, standard version. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Texas Master Naturalist Program (TMNP). (2006). Program description retrieved from http://mastematuralist.tamu.edu/ on June 4, 2006. Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. 3rd edition. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Trumbull, D.J., R. Bonney, D. Bascom, A. Cabral. (2000). Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Science Education, 84(2), 265-275. US. Census Bureau. (2006). Michigan General Demographic Characteristics 2004: American Community Survey. US. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census. gov on June 1, 2006. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2002). 2001 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation: Michigan. (U SFWS Publication FHW/Ol -MI). Washington, DC: Department of the Interior. 42 Figure II-l. Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) as based on Hungerford and Volk’s Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) model (1990, p.11) and Kollmuss and Agyeman’s Pro-Environmental Behavior model (2002). EE Research-Based REB Model Entry-level variables 0 Environmental sensitivity Knowledge of ecology Demographic characteristics Adult Conservation Education Model for the Conservation , Stewards Prgram l Ownership variables 0 In-depth knowledge of issues 0 Personal investment l 0 Participant demographics Motivations for adult education Motivations for volunteering Leisure benefits sought Knowledge of ecology Connection to the land Environmental sensitivity General wildlife attitudes and values Empowerment variables 0 Knowledge and perceptions of environmental action strategies Locus of control Intention to act Attitudes towards resource management (agency and techniques) -—————d Pro-Environmental Behavior model Additional Factors 0 Social context Political context Cultural context Knowledge of conservation action planning and techniques Perceptions of conservation skills Conservation service intentions Program reactions Barriers 0 Old habits Lake of internal or external incentives Negative or insufficient feedback for behavior 43 Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB): Conservation Service Table II-l. Participation in outdoor recreational activities, more than twice per year, by CSP respondents All Respondents n=54 Outdoor Activity # % Active recreation pursuits Hiking 50 92.6 Walking or jogging 49 90.7 Bicycling 40 74. 1 Swimming 31 57.4 Camping 24 44.4 Golfing 16 29.6 Horseback riding 5 9.3 Off-road vehicle use 4 7.4 Scuba diving 2 3.6 Water skiing 2 3 .6 Mountain climbing 1 1.8 Naturalist type activities Wildlife viewing 47 87.0 Bird feeding 36 66.7 Nature study 35 64.8 Bird watching 30 55.6 Botany field trips 2 3.6 Traditional natural resources recreation Boatingb 29 53.7 Fishing 15 27.8 Hunting 8 14.8 Miscellaneous outdoor recreational activities Gardening 41 75.9 Sightseeing 39 72.2 Picnicking 28 51.9 Photography 26 48. 1 Sunbathing 10 18.5 Carriage driving 1 1.8 Lighter kite flying I 1.8 3Includes all types of skiing. bIncludes motor boating, sailing, canoeing, and kayaking. Table II-2. Pre-CSP membership of respondents in conservation organizations All Respondents n=55 Conservation Oganization # % Local organizations Local land conservancy 22 40.7 Local watershed organization 14 25.9 Local conservation organization 10 18.5 Local nature center 7 13.0 Local “Friends of a park” organization 3 5.6 National/international conservation organizations Audubon Society 15 27.8 The Nature Conservancy 14 25.9 Sierra Club 1 1 20.4 Wild Ones 8 14.8 Professional conservation association 7 13.0 Ducks Unlimited 4 7.4 National Wildlife Federation 3 5.6 National Wild Turkey Federation 1 1.8 Pheasants Forever 1 1.8 The Wilderness Society 1 1.8 Michigan conservation affiliated organizations Michigan Nature Association 3 5.4 Michigan Botanical Club 2 3.6 National Rifle Association 3 5.6 Defenders of Wildlife 2 3.7 Michigan Alliance for Environmental l 1.8 and Outdoor Education Michigan Cycle Conservation Club 1 1.8 Michigan Environmental Council 1 1.8 Michigan Natural Areas Association3 1 1-8 Michigan United Conservation Club 1 1.8 Resource Steward Other organizations Humane Society of America 3 5.6 Clean Water Action 1 1.8 Greenpeace 1 1.8 The National Association for l 1.8 Interpretation New England Wildflower Society 1 1.8 People for the Ethical Treatment 1 1.8 of Animals Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 1 1.8 a”Michigan Natural Areas Association” was provided by a respondent. It is difficult to determine what the respondent meant with this answer as Michigan has the Michigan Nature Association and the Michigan Natural Areas Council; nationally an organization called the Natural Areas Association exists. 45 Table 11-3. Pre-CSP involvement of respondents in conservation activities All Conservation Involvement Respondents n= # % Involvement with Not at all involved 52 15 28.8 local Minimally involved 10 19.2’ conservation Moderately involved 12 23.1 organization Highly involved 15 28.8 Mediana = 3.00 Meanb = 2.52 SD. = 1.20 Involvement with Not at all involved 51 18 35.3 community Minimally involved 8 15.7 conservation Moderately involved 14 27.5 project Highly involved 11 21.6 Median” = 2.00 Meanb = 2.35 SD. = 1.18 Involvement with Not at all involved 51 22 43.1 national] Minimally involved 24 47.1 international Moderately involved 4 7.8 conservation Highly involved 1 2.0 orgamzatron Mediana = 2.00 Meanb = 1.69 SD. = 0.71 aMedian response on a 4-point scale with “Not at all involved” coded as a 1 and “Highly involved” coded as a 4. can response on a 4-point scale with “Not at all involved” coded as a 1 and “Highly involved” coded as a 4. 46 Table II-4. Motivations to participate in the CSP as an adult education program All Respondents n=55 Adult Education Motivation Typea GI :11 % Agree Medianb Mean Learning-oriented motivation For the joy of learning about natural resources and the outdoors in my local area. 4.80 0.56 96.4 4.75 0.58 96.4 4.73 0.59 96.4 4.69 0.61 96.3 4.64 0.56 96.4 Mean Responsesc = 4.72 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.835 To contribute to the natural resources in my local aread. For the sake of learning about natural resources and the outdoors in my local area. I wish to learn more about the outdoors for my own sake. I wish to learn more about plants or animals. MMMMM Activity-oriented motivation To meet new friends. 4 3.62 0.89 58.1 To feel like I am part of a group. 3 3.34 0.98 45.2 To complete a natural resources education program”. 3 3.29 1.24 43.7 Mean Responsesc = 3.42 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.702 Goal-oriented motivation This program can help me get a volunteer opportunity I’ve been wanting. 3.09 1.13 32.7 To pursue certifications related to natural resources that could help with 3 2.84 1.41 38.2 my career. (a) To advance my career In my natural resources that I ve always been 3 2.71 1.33 27.3 mterested In. To swrtch my career path mto natural resources of which I ve always 3 2.62 1.27 21.8 been Interested m. This program can help me get a job opportunity I’ve been wanting. 3 2.42 1.24 16.4 Mean Responsesc = 2.74 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.907 aItems based on Houle (1961) and Boshier and Collins (1985). Respondents were asked "My reasons for articipating in this education program are. . .” edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree" coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. cMean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with "Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. Other researchers (Boshier and Collins 1985) found this item loaded on the activity-oriented motivation factor. 6Other researchers (Boshier and Collins 198 5) found this item loaded on the goal-oriented motivation factor. 47 Table II-5. Motivations to participate in the CSP as a volunteer program All Respondents, n=54 ”a .. , a Volunteer Motivation Type"b ‘33: g 35 2’ 2 2 .\° Understanding (ecosystems/natural resources/conservation) Genuinely concerned about Michigan ecosystemsc 5 4.81 0.48 96.3 Learn about natural resources through hands on experiences 5 4.69 0.58 94.5 Opportunity to learn more about our ecosystems and resource management 5 4.67 0.61 96.3 Can do something for a conservation cause" 5 4.57 0.84 90.7 Feel it is important to help othersc 4 4.30 0.72 84.9 Mean Responsesd = 4.60; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.865 Values Feel compassion for people in need 3 3.41 1.07 42.6 Concerned about those less fortunate than myself 3 3.40 1.04 39.7 Mean Responsesd = 3.41; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.776 Social 3.69 0.97 62.9 3.35 0.85 38.9 3.26 0.92 31.5 2.93 1.03 24.1 2.08 1.06 9.8 Mean Responsesd = 3.07; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.705 People I know share interests in community service Those close to me value community service hi y Can learn how to deal with a variety of people Volunteering is important to those I know best People I’m close to want me to volunteer Nwwwss Enhancement Can explore my own strengtth 3.74 0.86 66.0 Way to make new friends 3.54 0.93 52.8 Makes me feel needed 2.89 1.09 31.5 2.87 1.07 25.9 2.23 1.09 7.6 2.17 1.18 11.1 1.74 1.01 5.6 Mean Responsesd = 2.74; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.864 Increase my self-esteem By volunteering I feel less lonelyg Helps me work through my own problemsg Helps me forget about how bad I’ve been feelingg i-‘Nwww-kk Career 2.83 1.30 33.4 2.77 1.42 34.0 Can help me get a foot in the door where I want to work or volunteer Will help me succeed in my chosen profession Can make new contacts that help my career 2.72 1.34 27.8 Allows me to explore different career options 2.67 1.21 27.8 Will look good on my resume 3 2.55 1.23 20.8 Mean Responsesd = 2.69; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.893 9303030) “Items based on Clary et al. (1998) and Schrock et al. (2000). bRespondents were asked “My reasons for volunteering are. . .” cMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. can response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. eOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998, Schrock et al. 2000) found these items loaded on the values factor fOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998, Schrock et a1. 2000) found these items loaded on the understanding factor 8Other researchers (Clary et al. 1998, Schrock et al. 2000) found these items loaded on the protective factor 48 Table II-6. Leisure benefits sought by CSP respondents All Respondents n= 54 Type of Benefits Sought'I '05 -° . 8 '6 g 9 5° 0 m’ < 2 E s Enjoyment of outdoor/nature opportunities Nature observation. 5 4.67 0.51 98.1 Learning how to identify specific plants or animals. 5 4.65 0.52 98.2 The opportunity to be outdoors. 5 4.56 0.60 94.4 Having fun. 4 4.44 0.60 94.4 Mean Responsesc = 4.58 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.685 Helping the environment Learning new things. 5 4.83 0.38 100.0 Seeing improvements to the environment. 5 4.81 0.44 98.1 Helping to manage our natural resources. 5 4.56 0.72 94.4 Opportumty to do natural resources work that I ve always 4 4.35 0.76 90.7 wanted to do. Opportunity to do natural resources volunteerism that I’ve 5 4.19 1.12 79.6 always wanted to do. Mean Responsesc = 4.55 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.795 Reflection benefits Having a chance to reflect. 4 3.91 0.73 68.5 Doing something physical. 4 3.78 0.79 68.5 Feeling peace of mind. 4 3.53 0.93 50.9 Mean Responsesc = 3.74 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.745 Project organization benefits Projects are well organized. 4 3.78 0.86 53.7 Knowing what is expected of me. 3 3.44 .95 44.5 Mean Responsesc = 3.61 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.680 Social benefits Working with a good leader. 4 3.98 0.72 73.6 Meeting new people. 4 3.89 0.79 70.3 Opportunities to work at my own pace. 3 3.48 0.77 42.6 Seeing familiar faces. 3 3.15 0.88 29.7 Feeling needed. 3 3.09 1.12 37.0 Mean Responsesc = 3.52 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.792 aItems based on Ryan et al. (2001). Respondents were asked “From the Conservation Stewards Program, I seek the specific benefits of. . .” edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. cMean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 49 Table II-7. Respondents’ reactions to CSP All Respondents n= 54 as “g . 8 Participants Reactions to the CSP... ‘6 0 O. >‘ o 2 (I) \o 2 o Learned or gained what they had originally hoped fi'om this experience 5 4.72 0.63 94.4 Learned or gained something new or something that they did not anticipate 5 4.89 0.37 98.1 Reported the MI CSP basic training beneficial to them 5 4.89 0.50 96.3 Reported the curriculum and instructiongl sessions met their expectations 5 4.81 0.48 96.3 Reported the in-field and hands-on learning opportunities meet their 5 . 4.76 0.55 98.1 expectations Had adequate opportunities to prgctice their knowledge and skills gained during 4 4 07 0 91 83 3 the Michig CSP ' ' ' aMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “No, definitely” coded as 1 and “Yes, definitely‘ ’ coded as 5. 50 Table II-8. Respondents’ rating of CSP curriculum units as most or least valuable All Respondents n = 54 Curriculum unit or lessonc Most Valuable‘ Least Valuableb # % # % Wetland Ecosystems and Management 40 74.1 0 0.0 Grassland Ecosystems and Management 38 70.4 1 1.9 Making Choices to Manage our Natural 36 66.7 3 5.8 Resources Terrestrial Field Experience 35 64.8 3 5.8 Lake and Stream Ecosystems and Management 34 63.0 0 0.0 Aquatic Field Experience 33 61.1 3 5.8 Forestland Ecosystems and Management 32 59.3 4 7.7 Conservation Heritage 28 51.9 6 1 1.5 Ecoregions and Ecological Foundations 27 50.0 2 3.8 Putting It All Together 18 33.3 3 5.8 Final Reflections and Projects 15 27 .8 5 9.6 Introduction 12 22.2 9 17.3 3Respondents were asked “Which curriculum unit or lesson (if any) was most valuable? (Please check all that apply)” espondents were asked “Which curriculum unit or lesson (if any) was least valuable? (Please check all that apply)” cSummaries and descriptions of curriculum modules provided in Appendix D. 51 Table II-9. CSP respondents’ comfort level with carrying out conservation volunteerism Respondents’ comfort All a Response Respondents levels _ n — 53 # % Pre-survey comfort Very uncomfortable 7 15.9 level with carrying Somewhat uncomfortable 2 4.5 out intended Unsure 7 15.9 VOIUDtCCf. Somewhat comfortable 8 18 .2 conservation Very Comfortable 20 45.5 “m“ (““3 Medianb= 4.00 Mean0 = 3.73 SD. = 1.48 Post-survey comfort Very uncomfortable 7 13.2 level with carrying Somewhat uncomfortable 2 3.8 out intended Unsure 1 1.9 volunteer Somewhat comfortable 6 11.3 conservation Very Comfortable 37 69.8 servrce hours M edianb= 5.00 Meanc = 4.21 SD. = 1.43 Difference between -2.00 1 2.4 post- vs. pre- -1.00 4 9.5 survey comfort 0.00 21 50.0 level with carrying 1.00 11 26.2 out intended 2.00 2 4,3 volunteer 4.00 3 7.1 conservation service hours Significanced 12’; .5311; 1!’Respondents were asked “How comfortable are you actually carrying out your intended volunteer conservation service hours? (Please check 215.)” bMedian response on a 5-point scale with “Very uncomfortable” coded as 1 and “Very comfortable” coded as5. cMean response on a 5-point scale with “Very uncomfortable” coded as l and “Very comfortable” coded as 5 dStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-survey comfort level determined using Wilcoxon signed- ranks test (p_<_0.05). 52 Table II-10. CSP respondents’ self-ratings of post-program conservation skill levels All Respondents n =55 a ... a a Specific Volunteer Conservation Skills E 5 Q’ ‘51; ‘3 g 05 < 2 e\° Access/locate information I can locate information and resources about my watershed. 5.0 4.69 0.47 100.0 I can locate information about specific wildlife or plants, their habitat, status, and ecology. I can locate information and resources about my ecoregion and dominant ecosystems. Local conservation engagement I have the skills necessary to assist with the implementation of local conservation projects. I have the skills necessary to complete commumty servrce 5.0 4.55 0.69 92.7 pmjects. I am comfortable contributing to local natural resources decisions. 5.0 4.40 0.74 92.7 I am comfortable With my ability to work With different resource 4.0 4.27 0.73 87.3 management agencres and mstrtutrons. I am comfortable discussing the ecological planning process. 4.0 4.18 0.77 90.9 Education/interpretation I have the skills necessary to assist with information and outreach booths at events in my local area. 5.0 4.65 0.48 100.0 5.0 4.56 0.54 98.2 5.0 4.55 0.57 96.4 5.0 4.42 0.81 92.7 I have the skills necessary to develop trail signage or brochures. 5.0 4.33 0.80 83.6 I have the skills necessary to conduct youth education programs. 4.0 4.25 0.82 89.1 I have the skills necessary to lead field trips or hikes. 4.0 4.13 0.92 83.7 Identification/monitoring I have the skills necessary to collect data and observe plants or 4.0 4.05 0.87 87.3 I have the skills necessary to manage nuisance invasive species. 4.0 4.00 0.91 85.2 I 1133;211:3“1118 necessary to help vvrth identification of sensrtrve 4.0 3.95 0. 89 80.0 “13ng skills necessary to momtor land areas for recreational 4.0 3.85 0.8 0 80.0 1‘Respondents were asked “For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only m response per statement.) ” edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 53 CHAPTER III IMPACTS OF AN ADULT CONSERVATION EDUCATION AND VOLUNTEERISM PROGRAM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT: In 2004-2006, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University Extension developed the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP), an adult conservation education and volunteerism program. This study investigated CSP participant characteristics and impacts on participants ’ knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward the state wildlife agency and natural resources management techniques, connection to the land, and interest in post-program volunteer service. Study methods included quantitative measures and qualitative feedback using pre- and immediate post-program questionnaires. The pilot Michigan CSP had 65 participants, with 85 % (n=55) responding to this study. A positive shift in CSP respondents ’ knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward the state wildlife agency, attitudes toward specific resource management techniques, and connection to the land occurred. CSP respondents indicated high interest in long-term, complex, volunteer opportunities such as habitat restoration, native seed collection, removal of nuisance invasive species, and wildlife monitoring. The CSP achieved its goal of improving knowledge, attitudes, and conservation skills among participants. Knowledgeable volunteers, wishing to engage in complex ecosystem management activities, may be an asset to wildlife management agencies in achieving their objectives. 54 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PURPOSE The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) developed and pilot tested an adult wildlife conservation education and volunteerism program. The goals of this program, the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP), are to provide learning and stewardship opportunities for Michigan residents to: 1. gain knowledge in natural resources ecology and conservation management, 2. gain knowledge of and experience with ecosystem-based management, 3. explore one’s own attitudes and diverse attitudes of others towards natural resource management and the affiliated state and local agencies, organizations, and institutions, 4. gain skills necessary to complete conservation management activities, 5. contribute to existing natural resources stewardship activities (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006). The CSP includes 40 hours of classroom instruction on ecology and resource management. Then, CSP participants are required to contribute 40 hours of conservation service to complete the initial requirements to be a certified “Conservation Steward.” In subsequent years, a participant must complete 8 hours of advanced training and contribute 40 hours of volunteer service annually. The volunteer service requirement for certification is designed to benefit ecosystems and wildlife. Texas and Florida Extension systems have well-established Master Naturalist“ programs, which are similar partnerships between universities and the state wildlife management agencies (TMNP 2006, FMNP 2006). Currently, several other states are 55 creating and piloting their own version of a Master Naturalist“ program. In addition, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has supported a National Master Naturalist“ initiative to foster corrrrnunication among state programs (NMN P 2006). The MDNR is interested in attracting both traditional and non-traditional stakeholders to participate actively in wildlife management (Rustem personal communication 2006). Wildlife stakeholders are defined as those individuals that affect or may be affected by wildlife or wildlife management (Decker et al. 1996). Issues of stakeholder concern may be recreational, cultural, social, political, economic, or related to health and safety (Riley et al. 2002). The MDNR, like many wildlife agencies, traditionally interacts with consumptive natural resource stakeholders such as sporting recreation groups and thus knows less about the knowledge and values of non-traditional stakeholders. Previous researchers (Bonneau 2003, Ryan et a1. 2001) evaluated conservation volunteerism and Master NaturalistTM programs, but were not able to build heavily upon previous studies in the human dimensions of wildlife management. In Michigan, Carter (2002) evaluated private landowner outreach programs for wildlife habitat programs. This evaluation of the CSP builds upon the work of these and many other researchers. The purpose of this study is to investigate CSP participants’ pre-workshop wildlife attitudes and values, and to examine changes in knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward resource management agencies and specific resource management techniques, sense of connection to the land, and post-program interest in volunteer conservation activities. The results fiom this study should be informative to staff from wildlife related agencies and organizations that engage individuals in conservation volunteerism. 56 LITERATURE REVIEW Opportunities for Citizen Science and Conservation Education Long-terrn natural resources management success may depend on collaborative citizen science programs at local levels. Citizen science is defined as the involvement of citizens in scientific data collection for the purposes of research (Trumbull et al. 2000). In an increasing number of circumstances, well-trained volunteers are needed to collect scientifically rigorous data on species and habitats locally (Kertson et al. 2005). Citizen science programs may help meet the data needs of the research community and management agencies as well as increase public awareness and understanding of management issues (Kertson et al. 2005). Volunteers are an often-overlooked, valuable management resource. Their engagement in resource management can help agencies and society accomplish goals that might otherwise be unachievable and foster a volunteer labor force and good will for the agency (Russell and Kirkbride 2004). A recent survey was conducted of all fifty state natural resource management agencies to investigate their engagement with volunteers. Nearly all (92%) of the state resource agencies actively recruit volunteers through a variety of mechanisms including: agency websites (54%), press releases (66%), local universities (70%), and partnerships with local non-profit environmental organizations (86%). Although significant volunteer recruitment and activities exist across resource management agencies, only one-third of state agencies have systematic training and/or certification pro grams for volunteers, and only slightly more (44%) provide ad-hoc training on a case-by-case basis. The majority (86%) of state agency respondents believe that working with volunteers can increase the public’s understanding of natural resource issues. The greatest benefit of citizen science 57 programs may be the increased involvement, ecological knowledge, and psychological ownership of natural resource issues by volunteers. Sixty-four percent of state agency respondents believe citizen science (volunteer involvement) will play an important role in 21st century fish and wildlife management (Kertson et al. 2005). State resource management agency staff were concerned about volunteers’ abilities and lack of funds to coordinate volunteer programs (Kertson et al. 2005). Agency respondents prefer volunteers who are retired natural resources professionals, natural resources undergraduates or recent graduates, private landowners, and non-profit organization members. Kertson et al. (2005) believed that for citizen science programs to work best, agencies who engage with volunteers must define the program to help meet their research and resource management objectives. Seventy-two percent of state resource management agency respondents indicated they would promote more citizen science programs if the data collected could be confirmed as scientifically credible. The creation of formal and specialized training for volunteers along with well-coordinated volunteer projects may address the data credibility concerns (Kertson et al. 2005). Another perspective to volunteer engagement with conservation is the broader concept of community science. Community science is slightly different from citizen science in that it implies that community-based volunteers interact and cooperate in partnership with each other as well as with government agencies, museums, and universities (Carr 2003). These community scientists are individuals and organizations that typically work on issues of public interest such as restoration and management locally. Community scientists observe problems, design studies, collect and analyze data, and act upon the results. According to Carr (2003) community scientists should follow 58 accepted techniques and peer-reviewed protocols for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). It is also important to recognize that the work completed by cormnunity scientists is valid, legitimate, and honest if these systematic procedures are followed (Carr 2003). Community scientists inevitably have an interest in collecting local data, using detailed local knowledge, and incorporating cultural perspectives into meaningful data comparisons and interpretations. After all, these community scientists, as residents in a locale, know the most about the local water quality, air quality, and resource challenges because they live, breathe, and experience the local environment. Community scientists can have direct and immediate effects on resource management. For successful engagement of volunteers in resource management programs, several factors must be considered. According to Russell and Kirkbride (2004), agency staff members must be supportive of volunteers, refrain from expressing negative attitudes towards volunteers, provide institutional support for volunteers, provide mechanisms for volunteer management details, be willing to provide time and effort to obtain future results, express volunteer appreciation, and publicize volunteer Opportunities and recognition. The agency staff must be examples of dedicated individuals to preserve, protect, and enhance natural resources for the general public. Education regarding conservation strategies and ecosystems is relevant for a broad audience, including conservation professionals, students, legislators, policymakers, and citizens (Brewer 2001). To be effective, the task of translating conservation knowledge for the benefit of the general public should be stimulating, attention grabbing, and imaginative (Brewer 2001). Topics important in conservation education include biology, politics, economics, sociology, and philosophy (Orr 1989). For the purposes of 59 wildlife management and volunteerism programs, conservation education should be tailored to the meet the specific management objectives of wildlife agencies. To develop the CSP, researchers facilitated an action research process (Stringer 1996) to co-desigrr the program to meet the objectives of the state wildlife agency and local communities. Next, researchers led stakeholders through iterative processes of situational analysis, development of the prototype program, and creational of an operational plan to pilot test the CSP; in addition, I developed evaluation metrics. Throughout these program development processes, collaborators focused on the CSP goal of helping the state wildlife agency and local communities meet their needs for conservation, management, and community planning for natural resources. Fostering Wildlife Stewardship Through Adult Education and Volunteerism Environmental educators, wildlife related organizations and agencies may have a new opportunity to understand adults, volunteers, and wildlife management through programs such as CSP or Master Naturalistm. Conservation education and volunteerism, as a nonformal leisure education for adults, may contribute to wildlife management objectives through providing baseline ecological knowledge and volunteer training. This centrally coordinated training and coordination of volunteers may alleviate concerns held by wildlife management agencies regarding the preparedness of volunteers. The CSP was designed to support volunteers who would likely engage in activities such as ecological monitoring, ecological management/restoration, ecological planning and decision-making, conservation education and outreach, and conservation based youth activities (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006). The activities envisioned by CSP 60 coordinators and stakeholders encompass three well-recogrrized categories of environmental action: persuasion/education activities, ecomanagement or habitat work, and political or public participation activities (Hungerford and Peyton 1980). The goal of the CSP is to foster development of responsible individuals who carry out actions or behaviors that benefit resource sustainability or connect individuals in some direct way to natural resources. Environmental education theories suggest a relationship between variables such as environmental sensitivity, personal investment in environmental issues, and knowledge of environmental action strategies to foster responsible environmental behaviors (Hungerford and Volk 1990) (Figure III-1). Recently, researchers have recognized the interconnectedness of political, social, and cultural contexts that influence one’s expression of pro-environmental behavior and the barriers such as old habits, lack of internal or external incentives, or insufficient feedback (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Yet, little is known about approaches to environmental education (EB) in adult education and volunteerism contexts nor the application of EB to wildlife management objectives. Attitudes and Values Concerning Wildlife One precursor to stewardship is an individual’s general wildlife attitudes and values (Figure 111-1). The Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale (W AVS) is a widely used tool to obtain information about the noneconomic social values towards wildlife that individuals possess (Purdy and Decker 1989). This scale, developed in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, is intended to be a Standardized values measure to incorporate into a variety of research situations to provide 61 useful information to wildlife managers (Purdy and Decker 1989). WAVS describes individuals’ deeply held attitudes and values (Butler et al. 2003). The WAVS consists of 18 items that have three to four dimensions within the scale (Butler et al. 2003, Purdy and Decker 1989). The social benefits dimension includes items that measure respondents’ appreciation of the existence of wildlife, for example seeing wildlife in nature or seeing wildlife included in education materials. The traditional conservation dimension includes items involving attitudes toward management for sustainable use and consumptive recreation, for example hunting for meat or trapping to sell furs or pelts. The communication benefits dimension includes items about the values people place on Observing and talking about wildlife, for example talking with family and fiiends about wildlife, and observing/photographing wildlife. Finally, the problem tolerance dimension measures attitudes and values concerning safety risks, for example tolerating the ordinary personal safety hazards associated with some wildlife or tolerating most wildlife nuisance problems (Butler et al. 2003). Connection to the Land Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) is developed through encouraging an individual’s connection to the land (called place attachment by some researchers) (V aske and Kobrin 2001). Place attachment arises when settings hold meanings that create or enhance one’s emotional tie to natural resources (Cuba and Hummon 1993). Connection to the land has two dimensions: place dependence and place identity (V aske and Kobrin 2001). A strong perception of place dependence occurs when local natural resources provide amenities for desired activities, thus creating an ongoing relationship between the 62 individual and the setting. Place identity is the individual’s psychological investment in an area over time; this long-tenn investment reflects the symbolic importance of the setting to the person (V aske and Kobrin 2001). Individuals not only possess psychological ties to a setting, individuals also strive for a sense of spatial belonging (Lev-Wiesel 2003). Sense of belonging is the connection (or interdependence) an individual has with the people within the surrounding community (Lev-Wiesel 2003). Joining together to learn through informal, mutual engagement in common activities is what Wenger (1998) terms communities of practice, where people have established learrring-oriented relationships over time around things that matter to them. In the conservation community, sense of belonging and communities of practice are important to understand and foster, because many local conservation successes are grassroots efforts consisting of highly dedicated individuals. Together, place dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging describe an individuals’ connection to the land and to the local conservation community. To encourage a connection to the land and to others, the CSP curriculum includes topics that highlight local ecoregions, history, and technical resources useful for natural resource management. In addition, group learning activities exist where participants engage together to research and present information as part of their Capstone Project (Appendix D). All of these topics and activities foster a connection to the land, which facilitates REB (Figure 111-1). 63 Attitudes Towards Natural Resources Management One of the most important CSP goals (from the MDNR Wildlife managers’ perspective) is to foster positive changes in attitudes toward resource management agencies and techniques; thus this study builds on previous research conducted by Bonneau (2003) and Koval and Merti g (2002). Rural residents and traditional stakeholders typically have stronger pro-management attitudes than do urban residents (Duda et al. 1998, Kellert 1980, and Mankin et al. 1999). Thus, understanding non- traditional CSP volunteers’ attitudes toward natural resources agencies and management techniques, and the impacts resulting fiom CSP on these attitudes is important. METHODS Overview of Research Methods 1 used quantitative methods to describe the attitudes and values concerning wildlife, knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward the MDNR and resource management techniques, connection to the land, and post-program interest in conservation service among CSP participants. I collected data through registration forms, pre- and post- program questionnaires, session feedback forms, and an 8 week post-program open- ended questionnaire. Research protocols were approved by the Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University (MSU) (Appendices A, B, and C). To address content validity, data collection instruments were constructed from previously published studies with slight modifications to make the questions appropriate to the CSP. To address face validity of the data collection instruments, MSUE staff reviewed registration and feedback forms and MSU 64 Fisheries and Wildlife colleagues not associated with this study reviewed the pre- and post-program questionnaires as well as the 8 week post-program questionnaire. Study Area The pilot CSP workshops took place in southeastern Michigan’s Oakland and Livingston counties during February - April 2006. These counties were selected because they are within the same MSUE region, both have numerous MDNR state parks/recreation/ game areas and Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority parks, and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory has detailed ecological priority data and maps for each county. In addition, these counties are located in a rapidly urbarrizing area of Michigan with many active conservation and community service organizations. The two counties are in different MDNR management units with Oakland County in the Southeast and Livingston County in the Soutlrcentral. Both counties have high populations in comparison to other areas of Michigan, yet differences in county population exist; Oakland County has approximately 1.2 million residents, whereas Livingston County has over 150,000 residents (SEMCOG 2006). Study Respondents I invited all CSP participants, ages 18 and older to take part in this voluntary research study. Eligible research study subjects were those who completed 280% (9 or more of the 11) of the instructional sessions and volunteered to participate in the evaluation. According to the CSP policies and procedures, all “participants are strongly urged to attend all portions of the training workshop (total of approximately 40 hours) 65 (Dann and Van Den Berg 2006 p.8) (Appendix D).” Since the two pilot counties were adjacent to each other, CSP participants were allowed to make up an instructional session in the neighboring county if a scheduling conflict arose for the session in the home county. Data Collection Instruments I administered both the pre- and post-program questionnaires in person; the pre- program questionnaire occurred at the first session prior to any instruction and the post- program questionnaire occurred at the conclusion of the last CSP session. Completion time for each questionnaire ranged from 30 to 45 minutes per person. The questionnaire consisted mostly of Likert-type and multiple-choice questions covering a range of topics and based on previous research (Appendix C). Layout and design of the questionnaire followed guidelines established by Dillrnan (2000). I used the 18 item WAVS in the pre-prograrn questionnaire to measure the attitudes of CSP respondents (Purdy and Decker 1989). 1 adapted knowledge of ecology questions from Bonneau (2003) and developed new questions based on the curriculum content of the CSP resulting in 22 knowledge items on the pre- and post-program questionnaire. 1 used 29 items, adapted from Bonneau (2003), to measure attitudes toward natural resources management techniques; these items appeared on both the pre- and post-program questionnaire. To measure pre- and post-pro gram attitudes toward the MDNR, I used 6 items fiom the Resource Attitudes in Michigan study (Koval and Mertig 2002). T 0 measure connection to the land, I drew from Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003) to include 20 scale items on the pre- and post-program questionnaire. Finally, I 66 adapted a series of 28 items on the post-program questionnaire adapted fi'om Bonneau (2003) to measure interest in volunteering for specific conservation activities. In addition to the quantitative data collection instruments, CSP respondents were invited to provide open-ended feedback to describe in detail their perceptions of the impacts of the CSP and to describe their volunteer activities. Quotes fi'om respondents provided useful and meaningful background for interpreting the quantitative findings from this study. Data Analysis I used SPSS 12.0 for Windows (2005) to analyze the quantitative data. I matched pre- and post-pro gram questionnaires for each research subject to examine the differences between pre- and post- CSP responses. Analysis included calculating univariate statistics (e. g., frequencies and means) for all variables as well as bivariate statistics to determine differences between pre- and post-program responses. In comparing pre- vs. post- prograrn questionnaire data, I used the non-pararnetric Wilcoxon sigrred-ranks test (p_<_0.05). For multi-item scales, I conducted principal component analysis with varimax rotation to determine which factors existed within the data and the common variance. Then, once the factors were identified, I examined scale reliability by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha. RESULTS The CSP pilot workshops attracted a total of 65 registered participants with a completion rate of 97% (n = 63). Of those initially registered for the CSP, 85% (n = 55) 67 completed 9 or more of the 11 CSP sessions, were age 18 years or older, and thus were eligible to be study subjects in this evaluation. Characteristics of CSP Respondents The majority of respondents were female (61.8%). The mean age was 51 years (SD. = 13 years). The CSP did not attract racially or ethnically diverse participants; nearly all respondents identified themselves as white. Over two-thirds (78.3%, n = 43) of CSP respondents had at least a Bachelor’s degree. CSP respondents reported a bimodal annual household income with 34.7% (n = 18) within $20,000 - $59,999 salary range and 53.8% (n = 28) earning more than $75,000. The majority of CSP respondents (63.6%, n = 35) indicated they work full or part-time. More than half of all CSP respondents (51.8%, n = 28) spent most of their youth (up to age 18) in a rural area (farm or non- farm) or a small town of less than 25,000 people. Fewer than half (42.7%, n = 23) indicated they lived most of their adult life in a rural area (farm or non-farm) or a small town of less than 25,000 people. CSP Respondents ’ Attitudes and Values Toward Wildlife CSP respondents’ wildlife attitudes and values were classified into four dimensions, which through principal component analysis explained 71.3% of the common variance. Those dimensions were: traditional conservation (eigenvalue = 3.94, 29.2% common variance explained), communication benefits (eigenvalue = 3.40, 25.2% common variance explained), problem tolerance (eigenvalue = 1.43, 10.6% common 68 variance explained), and social benefits (eigenvalue = 0.86, 6.35% common variance explained). CSP respondents had the strongest group mean on the communication benefits dimension with the social benefits dimension a close second. Overall, group mean scores were lower on the problem tolerance and traditional conservation dimensions. Among the communication benefits dimension, the item with the highest mean was appreciating the role that wildlife plays in the natural environment. Within the social benefits dimension, understanding more about the behavior of wildlife had the highest mean. Within the problem tolerance benefit dimension, tolerating most wildlife nuisance problems had the highest mean. Finally, in the traditional conservation dimension, managing game animals for annual harvest for human use without harming the future of wildlife populations had the highest mean (Table 111-1). Knowledge of E cologv CSP respondents experienced a statistically significant (p50.05) and positive shift in knowledge of ecology post- vs. pre-program. Respondents had a mean of 15.2 (median = 16.0) correct answers to the knowledge questions on the pre-program questionnaire and a mean of 18.5 (median = 19.0) correct answers on the post-program questionnaire. Overall, this was a 15% increase in knowledge (Table 111-2). Participants demonstrated statistically significant change on specific knowledge of ecology questions. After the program, participants were more knowledgeable regarding these concepts: populations, succession, biological carrying capacity, social carrying capacity, prairie maintenance strategies, climax corrrmunity, predominant 69 disturbances in ecosystems, status of Michigan’s forestland, Michigan forest health, sources of fish and wildlife management funding, and fish and wildlife as public trust resources (Table 111-2). CSP respondents elaborated on their knowledge of ecology and resource management resulting from the program as they responded to open-ended session feedback questions. One respondent indicated, “We didn’t know what we didn’t know.” Another respondent offered, “ [I] learned to express and understand vocabulary of information and concepts presented.” Lastly, one respondent indicated a “Greater appreciation/concern regarding how some activities can alter or damage the quality of our resources, while others (e. g., hunting) provide an important control mechanism to help maintain biodiversity and quality habitat. There are complex considerations and decision-making processes required to determine how our lands [and] waters are used and preserved.” Attitudes Toward the Michigan Department of Natural Resources CSP respondents experienced a statistically significant (p50.05) positive change on all items measuring attitudes towards MDNR. In the pre-program questionnaire, CSP respondents held the most favorable attitudes toward MDNR personnel in their role of providing high quality service to the public and in the role of providing accurate information on natural resources issues (Table 111-3). CSP respondents had the lowest pro-program attitudes concerning whether the MDNR provides adequate opportunities for public participation and whether MDNR adequately explains its programs to the public (Table 111-3). The largest positive attitude shift occurred with respect to the MDNR 70 providing adequate opportunities for public participation in natural resources decisions (Table 111-3). CSP respondents were invited to provide additional insights into their attitudes toward the MDNR. One respondent commented, “Hopefully other people in similar positions have [the MDNR biologist’s] knowledge and commitment.” Another respondent stated, “Please let your presenters know that they have really improved my impression of the DNR through their enthusiasm and willingness to share their knowledge.” Attitudes Toward Natural Resources Management Techniques CSP respondents demonstrated positive attitude changes post- vs. pro-program toward the following activities related to traditional consumptive recreation: hunting game for meat, hunting as an acceptable technique to help maintain wildlife populations, and sport or recreational hunting as an acceptable practice in general. CSP respondents also experienced positive shifts in attitudes toward the following natural resource management techniques using fire: prescribed burning as an acceptable management technique to maintain ecosystems, benefits vs. risks of fire in forest and grassland systems, and prescribed fire to improve habitat conditions. Participants changed (positively and statistically significantly, p50.05) in these utilitarian attitudes toward habitat improvement strategies: clearcutting as acceptable to manage for grouse habitat, herbicide application as acceptable to manage for invasive plants, and watersheds managed for biodiversity and ecological integrity. Attitudes toward multi-use resource management strategies changed as well; participants became more positive toward the 71 ideas that it is possible to manage for both wildlife and timber in forest communities. Lastly, CSP respondents experienced a negative shift (post- vs. pre-program) in attitudes toward natural resources being allowed to take their own course without human intervention (Table 111-4). Connection to the Land Since the CSP focused on southeastern Michigan ecosystems and had a field- based educational component, I hypothesized that a change in connection to the land might occur among CSP respondents as they learned about their local ecoregion. Through principal component factor analysis of items concerning connection to the land, five factors explained 72.6% of the common variance. The five factors were: place dependence (eigenvalue = 6.64, 39.6% common variance explained), sense of social and ecological belonging (eigenvalue = 2.48, 14.8% common variance explained), place identity- thoughts and pride (eigenvalue = 1.22, 7.3% common variance explained), sense of service (eigenvalue = 0.98, 5.87% common variance explained), and place identity — natural resources (eigenvalue = 0.84, 5.0% common variance explained). Overall, a statistically significant and positive shift occurred between the post- vs. pre-program among CSP respondents for all of the factors identified (Table 111-5). CSP respondents had the greatest overall pre- and post-program mean for sense of service. The sense of social and ecological belonging and place dependence factors had the greatest overall mean score increase post- vs. pro-program (Table 111-5). 72 Interest in Specific Volunteer Conservation Opportunities CSP respondents were more interested in volunteering for long-term, complex habitat-related opportunities than episodic conservation events or office-related tasks (Table 111-6). Respondents indicated highest interest in habitat restoration projects. Activities with high interest by CSP respondents were: wildlife monitoring, native seed collection, and removal of nuisance invasive species. CSP respondents had the lowest overall interest in volunteering for administrative tasks, such as fundraising, newsletter writing, and other writing (Table 111-3). DISCUSSION Characteristics of CSP Respondents The pilot CSP had a high level of attendance, high completion rate, and high level of study subject eligibility for this research effort. I believe the CSP attracted traditional and non-traditional stakeholders whom the MDNR desired to participate in this pilot program. One exception exists however, as the program did not attract racially or ethnically diverse participants. CSP coordinators intentionally recruited participants from the traditional and non-traditional stakeholders, however little recruitment emphasis was placed on racially or ethnically diverse stakeholders. The results in the data are not surprising when considering the recruitment efforts. The characteristics of CSP respondents are similar to the results of the Texas Master NaturalistTM evaluation (Bonneau 2003). Both the Texas Master NaturalistsTM and the CSP respondents averaged 51 years, were well educated, and had middle to upper class income levels. Likewise, the Texas Master Naturalists and CSP respondents mostly 73 lived in urban or suburban areas, which may be a reflection of the location of the workshops and urbanization trends in both states (Bonneau 2003). A majority of CSP respondents indicated they grew up in a rural or small town area. It is possible that these rural roots affect attitudes towards hunting and traditional natural resources management techniques (Heberlein and Ericsson 2005). Although CSP respondents came into the program with moderately high levels of acceptance for hunting and traditional natural resource management techniques, a change in connection to the land and acceptance of utilitarian natural resource management techniques did occur. CSP Respondents ’ Attitudes and Values Toward Wildlife CSP respondents were indeed representative of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders as identified by their deeply held values. Although CSP respondents possessed the highest group means for communication and social benefits dimensions, they were still supportive of managing game animals for annual harvest without banning populations within the traditional conservation dimension. However, respondents did not value hunting game animals for recreation or trapping forbearing animals for sale of fur or pelts. Generally, these results suggest that CSP respondents appreciate wildlife, are open-minded to others’ use of wildlife, and want to learn about complex wildlife behavior, population, and ecosystem interactions. Understanding stakeholder attitudes and values toward wildlife is helpful for wildlife managers to develop accurate perceptions of the public (Butler et a1. 2003). Traditionally, hunters and farmers are the target of wildlife managers’ outreach activities, since managers have little knowledge of the suite of stakeholders (Lischka 2006). This is 74 important because the CSP collaborators intended to attract non-traditional stakeholders, and the WAVS profile indicates CSP respondents were not like the traditional consumptive stakeholders of the state wildlife agency. Knowledge of Ecology The program improved CSP respondents’ overall knowledge of ecology. It was expected that respondents would have a relatively high pre-pro gram mean score on knowledge of ecology; participants in the pilot CSP most likely are early adopters. Early adopters typically are well-educated, popular, and social leaders who adopt innovations before they become common practices (Rogers 1995). Therefore, it is not surprising that CSP respondents had such high pro-program knowledge of ecology. Despite the high pre-program knowledge, changes did result fiom the CSP experience. The functional meaning of this small knowledge gain for wildlife management is not known for this group of pilot program respondents. In subsequent workshops, collaborators might expect to see lower pre-program knowledge mean scores, since the participants would likely be early majority, late majority, or laggard adopters (Rogers 1995). Then, changes in knowledge of ecology due to the CSP may be substantial and more valuable for participants’ in-depth understanding of wildlife management. Attitudes Toward the Michigan Department of Natural Resources The CSP appeared to foster respondents’ development of more positive attitudes toward the MDNR. Overall, CSP respondents had higher pre-program attitudes toward the MDNR than the Michigan general public (Koval and Mertig 2002), yet positive shifts 75 still occurred as a result of the program. Perhaps the involvement of MDNR staff as instructors and role models in the Conservation Heritage, Grasslands, Wetlands, Terrestrial and Aquatic Field Experience sessions influenced the participants’ attitude shifts. Attitudes Toward Natural Resources Management Techniques Overall, the CSP prompted a change in the attitudes of CSP respondents on specific topics identified by MDNR wildlife biologists and resource management professionals. Similarly, in the evaluation of the Texas Master NaturalistTM program, Bonneau (2003) found statistically significant changes in attitudes toward the following statements: natural resources should take their own course without human interference, prescribed fire improves habitat conditions for wildlife, hunting wild game for meat is acceptable, it is important to have a variety of successional stages in a forest, and clearcutting is an acceptable natural resource management practice. These utilitarian natural resource management techniques such as hunting to maintain wildlife populations, prescribed fire, clear cutting, herbicide application to control invasives, and active management of natural resources were topics outlined in the CSP curriculum (Appendix D) and in the Texas Master NaturalistTM curriculum. Connection to the Land As a result of CSP participation, respondents experienced a positive shift in connection to the land. The sense of social and ecological belonging and place dcpendence factors experienced the highest mean score increase. A possible explanation 76 for the high mean increase for the place dependence factor may be due the emphasis on Michigan’s ecosystems and local ecoregions in the CSP curriculum in addition to fundamentals of ecology. The creation of learning communities (W enger 2002) in the CSP pilot locales is one possible reason the sense of social and ecological belonging experienced a high mean score increase post- vs. pre-program. CSP Respondents ’ Interest in Specific Volunteer Conservation Opportunities The volunteer conservation opportunities of highest interest were the ecosystem management or habitat actions as classified by Hungerford and Peyton (1980). The high level of interest in ecosystem management is important to note, because agencies and organizations desire highly committed and knowledgeable volunteers to work with ongoing projects that directly affect wildlife or wildlife habitat. CSP respondents were most interested in volunteering for opportunities that directly meet wildlife management objectives. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS The CSP attracted both traditional and non-traditional stakeholders to participate and interact together. As a program, the CSP may be a valuable opportunity that draws together stakeholder groups that do not commonly interact with each other or with the MDNR. The CSP improves knowledge of ecology and attitudes toward the MDNR and natural resources management techniques. Although a positive shift in knowledge and attitudes were observed in the CSP respondents, the shift was small due to the high pre- 77 program scores. In subsequent workshops, greater changes in knowledge and attitudes may be observed, and thus the program may have greater functional impacts in support of wildlife management. Although CSP respondents held high communication benefits values, they also had a high mean attitude score concerning management of game animals for annual harvest for human use without harrrring the future of the wildlife population. This indicates that CSP respondents value a suite of management options for wildlife or wildlife habitat. Lastly, respondents had a high interest in long-term complex management activities. Wildlife agencies may benefit from programs such as CSP or Master NaturalistTM by allowing volunteers access to long-term projects. Previous research cites the interest of wildlife agencies to engage volunteers in citizen science programs (Kertson et al. 2005). Sustained investment in the CSP, and other similar adult conservation education programs may be one way to provide thorough training to adults wishing to volunteer. One respondent suggested that the state wildlife agency may benefit from the CSP because the program “supplement[s] their efforts and programs at the local level; the [M]DNR can’t be everywhere!” Another respondent offered that the CSP “provides [the MDNR] people looking for volunteer opportunities and a base of informed citizens.” 78 LITERATURE CITED Bonneau, LA. (2003). Texas Master Naturalist program assessment: changes in volunteer knowledge and attitudes as a result of training. Unpublished master’s thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University. Nacogdoches, TX. Boshier, R. and J.B. Collins. (1985). The Houle typology after twenty-two years: a large-scale empirical test. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3):1 13-130. Brewer, C. (2001). Cultivating conservation literacy: “Trickle-down” education is not enough. Conservation Biology, 15(5): 1203-1205. Butler, J.S., J. Shanahan, and DJ. Decker. (2003). Public attitudes toward wildlife are changing: A trend analysis of New York residents. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(4): 1027-1036. Carr, A. (2003). A social scientist’s perspective on community science. Volunteer Monitor, 15(2):2-6 Carter, KS. (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness of two outreach programs: Wildlife habitat workshops and personal site-visits. Unpublished master’s thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. Clary, E.G., M. Snyder, R.D. Ridge, J. Copeland, A.A. Stukas, J. Haugen, and P. Miene. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6): 1 516-1 530. Cuba, L. and D. Hummon. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community, and region. Sociology Quarterly, 34: 111-131. Dann, S.L. and HA. Van Den Berg, eds. (2006). Michigan Conservation Stewards Program curriculum. Michigan State University Extension. East Lansing, MI. Decker, D.J., C.C. Krueger, R.A. Baer Jr., B.A. Knuth, and ME. Richmond (1996). From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1:70-82. Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and intemet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Duda, MD. and KC. Young. (1998). American attitudes toward scientific wildlife Management and human use of fish and wildlife: implications for effective public relations and communication strategies. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 588-603. 79 Florida Master Naturalist Program (FMNP). (2006). FMNP program description. Retrieved from http://www.masternaturalist.ifas.ufl.edu/ on June 4, 2006. Heberlein, TA. and G. Ericsson. (2005). Ties to the countryside: Accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10:213-227. Houle, CO. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Hungerford, HR. and RB. Peyton. (1980). A paradigm for citizen responsibility: environmental action. In Current Issues IV: The yearbook of environmental education and environmental studies, eds. A.B. Sacks, L.L. BurruS-Bammel, GB. Davis, and LA. Iozzi, pp.146-154. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. Hungerford, HR. and T. Volk. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3):8-21. Kellert, S. R. (1980). Arnerican’s attitudes and knowledge of animals. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 111-124. Kertson, B.N., C.E. Grue, D.J. Pierce, and LL. Conquest. (2005). Status of citizen science in state natural resource management agencies: opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of the 70th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, in press. Kollmuss, A. & J. Agyeman. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Environmental Education Research, 8(3):239-260. Koval, M.H., and AG. Mertig. (2002). Attitudes Towards Natural Resources and Their Management: A Report on the “2001 Resource Attitudes In Michigan Survey.” A report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. PR project W-127-R-16. Lansing, MI. Lev-Wiesel, R. (2003). Indicators constituting the construct of ‘perceived community cohesion.’ Community Development Journal, 38(4):332-343. Lischka, S. A. (2006). Enabling impact-based management of acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer in southern Michigan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Mankin, P.C., R.E. Warner, and W.L. Anderson. (1999). Wildlife and the Illinois public: a benchmark study of attitudes and perceptions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27:465-472. 80 Merriam, SB. and RS. Caffarella. (2002). Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Master Naturalist Program (NMNP). (2006). Program description. Retrieved from http://masternaturalist.tamu.edu/pdf/NationaL_Master_ Naturalist_brochure%SBl%5D.pdf on June 4, 2006. Orr, D.W. (1989). The task. Conservation Biology, 3(1)110. Purdy, KC. and DJ. Decker. (1989). Applying wildlife values information in management: The wildlife attitudes and values scale. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17(4):494-500. Riley, S.J., D.J. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J .F . Organ, W.F. Siemer, G.F. Mattfield, and G. Parsons. (2002). The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(2):585-593. Rogers, EM. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (fourth edition). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. Russell, R. and E. Kirkbride. (2004). Conservation of an overlooked resource - volunteers: Partnering with volunteers can accomplish great things for natural resources. Rangelands, 26(3):20-23. Ryan, R.L., R. Kaplan, and RE. Grese (2001). Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(5):629-648. Schrock, D.S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder, M. (2000). Benefits and values of the master gardener program. Journal of Extension. 38(1). Retrieved from www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb2.htrnl on April 24, 2003. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2006). Community profiles. Retrieved from www.semcog.org on June 4, 2006. Detroit, MI. SPSS, Inc. (2005). SPSS for Windows, Release 12, standard version. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Texas Master Naturalist Program (TMNP). (2006). Program description retrieved fiom http://mastematuralist.tamu.edu/ on June 4, 2006. 81 Trumbull, D.J., R. Bonney, D. Bascom, A. Cabral. (2000). Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Science Education, 84(2):265-275. Vaske, J .J . and KC. Kobrin. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4):] 6-21. Wenger, E., R. McDermOtt, and W. M. Snyder. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boson, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 82 Figure III-1. Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) as based on Hungerford and Volk’s Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) model (1990, p.11) and Kollmuss and Agyeman’s Pro-Environmental Behavior model (2002). EE Research-Based REB Model Entry-level variables 0 Environmental sensitivity Knowledge of ecology Demographic characteristics Adult Conservation Education Model for the Conservation Stewards Progam p———————-—r l Ownership variables 0 In-depth knowledge of issues 0 Personal investment 1 Participant demographics Motivations for adult education Motivations for volunteering Leisure benefits sought Knowledge of ecology Connection to the land Environmental sensitivity General wildlife attitudes and values Empowerment variables 0 Knowledge and perceptions of environmental action strategies Locus of control Intention to act Attitudes towards resource management (agency and techniques) ———————1 Pro-Environmental Behavior model Additional Factors 0 Social context Political context Cultural context Knowledge of conservation action plamring and techniques Perceptions of conservation skills Conservation service intentions Program reactions Barriers 0 Old habits Lake of internal or external incentives Negative or insufficient feedback for behavior l Responsible Environmental 83 V Behavior (REB): Conservation Service Table 111-1. CSP respondents’ attitudes and values concerning wildlife All Respondents n=55 Attitude’"b , g g 35 2 2 Communication benefits That I appreciate the role that wildlife play in the natural environmentc. 5 4.89 0-32 That wildlife are included in educational materials as the subject for 5 4.81 0.39 learning more about nature”. That I know that wildlife exist in naturec. 5 4-80 0-49 That I talk about wildlife with family and friends. 5 4.52 0.61 That I see wildlife in books, movies, paintings or photographs. 5 4.49 0.64 That I tolerate the ordinary personal safety hazards associated with some 4 4.02 1.08 wildlifef. Mean Responsesd = 4.60; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.736 Social benefits That I understand more about the behavior of wildlife. 5 4.76 0.47 That I consider the presence of wildlife as a sign of the quality of the 5 4.74 0.52 natural environment. That I observe or photograph wildlife”. 5 4.58 0.76 That I express opinions about wildlife and their management to public 4 4.07 0.98 officials or to officers of private conservation organizationsg. That local economies benefit fi'om the sale of equipment, supplies, or 4 3.70 0.92 services related to wildlife recreation . Mean Responsesd = 4.37; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.659 Problem tolerance That I tolerate most wildlife nuisance problems. 4 3.82 1.04 That I tolerate most levels of property damage by wildlife. 4 3.74 1.01 That 1 tolerate the ordinary risk of wildlife transmitting disease to humans 4 3.63 1.17 or domestic animals. Mean Responsesd = 3.73; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.842 Traditional conservation That game animals are managed for an annual harvest for human use 4 4.19 0.83 without harming the future of the wildlife population. That I hunt game animals for food. 2 2.24 1.33 That I hunt game animals for recreation. 1 1.89 1.28 That I trap furbearing animals for the sale of fur or pelts. 1 1.60 0.85 Mean Responsesd = 2.48; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.845 aRespondents were asked “It is important to me personally...” bWAVS items based on Purdy and Decker (1989) and Butler et al. (2003). cMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded 5. ClMean response for all items in category. 6Other researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the social benefits dimension. fOther researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the problem tolerance dimension. 3Other researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the communication benefits dimension. 11Other researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the traditional conservation dimension. 84 Table 111-2. CSP respondents’ knowledge of ecology All Respondents n=55 Pro-program Post-program Difference between , a % correct % don’t % correct % don’t POSt‘ VS- pre- Knowledge of ecology question response know response know Z p Ecosystem definition 78.2 5.5 78.2 0.0 0.000 1.000 Population definition 65.5 5.5 80.0 1.8 -2. 138 0.033 Ecology definition 85.5 10.9 85.5 1.8 0.000 1.000 Succession definition 80.0 10.9 100.0 0.0 -3.3 l 7 0.001 B’°l°g’°.“l “mg ““9“” 54.5 21.8 83.6 5.5 -3.578 0.000 definrtron Climax community definition 67.3 32.7 92.7 5.5 -3.500 0.000 Factors determining Michigan’s ecosystem distribution 90.9 9.1 94.5 0.0 -0.707 0.480 Fact“ “mums pram“ 83.6 12.7 96.4 0.0 —2.1 11 0.035 ecosystems Em“? °f mn'pmm ”m" 63.6 12.7 72.7 1.8 -1.387 0.166 pollution Social carrying capacity definition 54.5 29.1 70.9 7.3 -2.065 0.039 Function of wetland systems 89.1 7.3 96.4 0.0 -1.414 0.157 Ecosystems have different predominant natural disturbances 81.8 18.2 94.5 3.6 -2.111 0.035 M’°h’g““ .has f°“’ “mm“ 65.5 27.3 76.4 1.8 -1414 0.157 ecoregions only Grain"? “1“th m” 78.2 14.5 85.5 10.9 -1.633 0.102 present In Michigan Defimm” “mg. “5 “ fms‘ 78.2 9.1 81.8 0.0 -0.632 0.527 management practice Michigan’s forestland is growing 12.7 32.7 68.5 7.4 -5.477 0.000 W‘ldhfe.’l’“““g"mem leg 85.5 12.7 87.3 1.8 -0.333 0.739 defimtron Disease is the greatest cause of tree death in Michigan 24.1 33.3 46.3 1.9 -2.683 0.007 Fish and wildlife management ffmdmg fwm hummg and fiShmg 65.5 23.6 98.2 0.0 4243 0.000 license sales and taxes on equipment Fish and wildlife resources held in public trust by the state 47.3 41.8 74.5 1.8 -3.441 0.001 “maple“ °f the ““Wem 78.2 20.0 90.9 1.8 -1.941 0.052 management approach ’ veg'w’m” .m lake“ ’8 mm“ ““d 90.9 7.3 98.2 0.0 -1.633 0.102 non-native Tom] knowledge of ecologyc Median = 16.0 Median = 19.0 Mean = 15.2 Mean = 18.5 -5.491 0.000 SD. = 4.81 SD. = 2.78 aComplete survey questions in Appendix C. Statistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). cParticipants responded to 22 knowledge of ecology questions; thus maximum knowledge score = 22 pornts. 85 Table 111-3. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward the Michigan Department of Natural Resources All Respondents n=55 Pre- ro am Post- ro Difference between p gr p gram post- vs. pre- Attitudes toward the Michigan '° .0 . 03 ° .0 . 03 D .o DepartmentofNatural g g 0. Sb 4% E Q. 313 g 8 Z pd a o 2 m < a.) 2 (I) < a) 2 Resources 2 g 2 °\° 2 The DNR manages natural resourcesinascientifically 4 3.36 0.87 51.0 4 3.91 0.65 89.1 0 0.55 -4.051 0.000 sound matter. The DNR provides accurate informationonnatural 4 3.49 0.81 58.2 4 3.98 0.66 88.9 0 0.46 -3.771 0.000 resource issues. Itrust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when makingnaturalresource 3 3.22 0.90 42.6 4 3.78 0.88 74.6 0 0.56 -3.361 0.001 decisions. “8DNRadequa‘elyexP1WS 3 2.91 0.85 29.1 4 3.40 1.01 56.4 0 0.49 -2.800 0.005 its programs to the pubhc DNR personnel provide high _ quafitysemcemmepubhc. 4 3.51 0.81 56.4 4 4.07 0.79 83.6 1 0.56 3.882 0.000 The DNR provides adequate °PP‘.”.‘“m.t‘es.f°’P“bh° 3 2.93 0.79 23.6 4 3.69 0.88 67.2 1 0.76 -4.456 0.000 participation in nature resource decisions. aItems based on Koval and Mertig (2002). true?" Respondents were asked “Do you believe this statement to be I’Median and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Never” coded as a 1 and “Always” coded as a 5. cPercent indicating “Usually" or “Always.” dStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (1150.05). 86 Table 111-4. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques All Respondents, n =55 Pre- r0 am Post- 0 Difference between p gr pr gr “I” post- vs. pre- 9 O .D .9 Natural resources g '05 ' a E '05 ' a g '05 c Q 0 management techniquea B o (15 < '8 0 V5 < 3 0 Z p 2 2 s 2 2 8° 2 5 Traditional consumptive recreation activities Hunting is an acceptable techniquetohelp maintain 4 3.91 0.87 74.5 4 4.31 0.69 87.2 0 0.40 -3.345 0.001 wildlife populations. Hunting wild game for meat is . 4 3.91 0.95 70.9 4 4.13 0.82 81.8 0 0.22 -2.252 0.024 an acceptable practice. 59°“°”e°’°a“°°alh?m“”g‘s 4 3.49 1.25 63.7 4 3.84 1.20 72.7 0 0.35 -2.846 0.004 an acceptable practice. Trapping is an acceptable techniquetoharvest 3 2.58 1.38 27.3 3 2.61 1.46 31.5 0 0.06 -0.412 0.681 furbearing mammals. Hunting wildlife game for trophiesisanacceptable 2 2.13 1.16 14.5 2 2.27 1.27 18.2 0 0.15 -0.939 0.348 practice. Natural resources management with fire Prescribed fire can improve habitat conditions. 5 4.49 0.84 87.3 5 4.80 0.52 83.6 0 0.31 -2.507 0.012 Prescribed burning is an acceptable management technique to maintain ecosystems. The benefits of fire in forest and grassland ecosystems 4 3.72 1.09 61.1 4 4.11 0.90 81.9 0 0.39 -2.447 0.014 outweigh the risks. Prescribed fire causes a threat to human life. “@333?” desmysnam’al 2 1.89 0.98 5.4 1 1.65 0.95 7.3 0 -0.24 -1545 0.122 4 4.31 0.72 85.5 5 4.69 0.66 98.10 0.38 -3.422 0.001 2 2.11 0.98 9.1 2 1.81 0.93 7.4 0 -0.31 -l.958 0.050 Strateges to improve habitat conditions Watersheds should be managed toensurebiodiversityand 5 4.71 0.50 98.2 5 4.89 0.32 100 0 0.17 -2.183 0.029 ecological integrity. Landscapes should be managed toensurebiodiversityand 5 4.55 0.60 94.5 5 4.65 0.52 98.2 0 0.11 -1.604 0.109 ecological integrity. Natural resources must be managed to ensure their availability for future _ienerations. 5 4.51 0.66 94.6 5 4.58 0.60 98.2 0 0.07 -0.726 0.468 aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. edian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the CSP curriculum units. 87 Table 111-4, continued. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques All Respondents n=55 pm- ro am Post- rog E Difi‘erence between p gr ' p post- vs. pre- .9 .o 8 -° .9 8 .o .9 Natural resources g 5 D '51) g g d Sb 3 5 Z 6 management techniquea o g < o 2 m- < 0 g p 2 o\° 2 8° 2 Strateg'es to improve habitat conditions, continued Flooding is an acceptable mgémem “”11qu t" 4 3.76 0.74 61.9 4 3.74 0.96 68.5 0 0.00 -0.075 0.940 mamtam lake, stream, or wetland ecosystems. Herbicide application is an acceptable management technique for invasive plants. With respect to natural resources, nature should be allowed to take its course without human interference. Clearcutting is an acceptable management practice to 3 2.72 1.07 18.5 4 3.77 1.12 66.0 1 0.98 -4.250 0.000 manage for grouse habitat. 4 3.58 1.05 61.9 5 4.47 0.81 92.7 1 0.89 -5.055 0.000 3 2.87 1.18 42.6 2 2.47 1.05 21.8 0 -0.43 -2.400 0.016 Private landowner activities Landowners should be allowed tocontrol access to wildlife 3 3.18 1.31 49.0 3 3.22 1.18 47.2 0 0.04 -0.175 0.861 on their land. Property owners should be able to own wildlife on their 2 1.96 1.04 7.3 1 1.91 1.15 13.0 0 -0.04 -0.287 0.774 land. Forest resource management It is important to have a variety of successional stagesina 4 4.40 0.63 92.8 5 4.42 0.71 90.9 0 0.02 -0.357 0.721 forest. It is possible to manage for both wildlife and timberin 4 4.17 0.69 87.1 4 4.36 0.75 90.9 0 0.19 -2.043 0.041 forest communities. Public forests should be managed for multiple uses. (For example, wildlife, timber, recreation, etc.) b 4.11 0.84 81.5 4 4.20 0.91 83.6 0 0.07 -0.605 0.545 Hmesnngt‘mbc’can 2.77 1.22 22.6 2 2.69 1.33 27.2 0 -0.04 -0.457 0.647 permanently harm forests. aItems modified fi'om Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. 6Statistical significance between post vs. pre—program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 88 Table 111-4, continued. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques A11 Respondents n=55 Pre-program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- ‘5 .o . 8 ‘5 .o . 8 ‘5 .9 Natural resources a ‘6 g Q 81) “'5 a Q a, ‘6 g Z c management technique £9 2 VJ :\5 g 2 <0 E E 2 p Grazing activities and predator managementd Grazing can be used to enhance wildlifehabitat. 4 3.63 0.62 59.3 4 3.53 0.88 61.8 0 -0.11 -0.783 0.434 Grazing is an acceptable mgfmentwchmquet" 4 3.58 0.71 52.7 4 3.69 1.03 70.9 0 0.11 -0.509 0.611 maintain grassland ecosystems. Gmmg‘SdeSWCF‘Vem 3 3.00 0.89 31.5 3 3.20 0.96 42.6 0 0.23 -1241 0.215 natural vegetation. It is acceptable to eliminate predators that prey on _ threatenedorendangered 2.85 1.10 32.1 3 2.98 1.30 42.6 0 0.13 0.620 0.535 species. It is acceptable to eliminate individualpredatorsthat 2 2.51 1.20 29.1 3 3.05 1.34 43.6 0 0.55 -3.208 0.001 prey on livestock. It is acceptable to eliminate predatorsthatpreyongame 2 1.85 0.89 3.6 2 1.91 0.98 3.8 0 0.04 -0.273 0.785 species. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 89 Table 111-5. CSP respondents’ connection to the land AllRespondents n=55 Pre- to Post- r0 Difference between p g p g post- vs. pre- . a ....'° 81) . ‘9 a) .... '° d Connection to the land 3 g d <3 'g g d < 3 g Z P 2 2 m’ o\° 2 2 a5 °\° 2 2 Sense of service I’mhappyto take partinthe conservation activitiesin 5 4.67 0.55 96.4 5 4.71 0.53 96.3 0 0.04 -0.440 0.660 my ecoregione. Iwill help with any conservationactivitiesin 4 4.02 0.91 76.3 4 4.33 0.72 92.7 0 0.31 -2.229 0.026 my ecoregione. Mean Responsesc = 4.35 Mean _ Cronbach’s A1pha=0.724 Responsesc =4.52 0’17 2089 0037 Place identity - natural resources lam very attached to Michigan’snatural 4 4.25 0.87 87.3 5 4.56 0.66 94.5 0 0.31 -2.678 0.007 resources. I identify strongly with places matthigmfimt 4 409 087 836 5 436 078 854 0 027 -l849 0064 Michigan natural ' ' ' ' ' ' ° ' ' resources. Mean Responsesc = 4.17 Mean .29 -2.934 0.0 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.609 Responsesc =4.46 0 03 Place identity — thoughts and pride I often think about visiting areas that feature Michigan’snatural 4 4.20 0.70 87.2 5 4.51 0.69 92.7 0 0.31 -2.519 0.012 resources. Imwfnabwtcmlmgm 4 3.98 0.73 76.3 4 4.30 0.77 90.7 0 0.28 -2.358 0.018 places in my ecoregion. I’ f ' mp’°.“d° myfwegm 4 3.98 0.90 70.3 4 4.24 0.86 83.7 0 0.24 -2092 0.036 audits people. Mean Responsesc = 4.04 Mean 0.31 -3.3 0. 1 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.623 Responsesc =4.35 55 00 “items based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” codedas a 5. Mean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). Continued on next page. eOther researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 90 Table 111-5, continued. CSP respondents’ connection to the land All Respondents n=55 Pre- ro am Post- ro Difference between p gr p g” post- vs. pre- .0 O .0. 0 .0 5n ” S a " 8 a Connection to the land' a; g d f? '3: g Q- 5." g g Z pd 2 2 m’ 8\° 2 2 vi o\° 2 2 Sense of social and ecolgical belongi_n_g If 1 . . . . cc hkemsecmg‘m‘sa 4 4.19 0.75 83.3 4 4.33 0.73 88.9 o 0.15 -1.385 0.166 part of mef. I identify strongly with places . . 4 4.15 0.76 81.8 5 4.49 0.57 96.3 0 0.35 -3.657 0.000 in my ecoregion . Ih’iveagmupolgiwfi’ends 4 4.09 0.95 78.2 5 4.53 0.69 92.7 0 0.44 -3731 0.000 in my ecoregion . 1 art f f 1 ”up 0 agrouioepwpe 4 4.04 0.88 70.9 5 4.53 0.60 94.6 0 0.49 -3.486 0.000 fiom my ecoregion . Igmmmlhtypmle 4 3.96 1.04 74.5 5 4.40 0.68 89.1 0 0.44 -3.344 0.001 in my ecoregion . 1 tta hedt thi “my? ° ° S 4 3.87 0.93 72.2 5 4.29 0.96 85.4 0 0.41 -3334 0.001 CCOI'CglOIl. People in my ecoregion appreciatewhatldo for 3 3.44 0.79 45.5 4 3.80 0.76 63.7 0 0.36 -2754 0.006 theme. Mean Responsesc = 3.97 Mean 0.38 -4.462 0.000 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.865 Responsesc =4.35 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p_<_0.05). 6Other researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 91 Table 111-5, continued. CSP respondents’ connection to the land All Respondents n=55 Pre-program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- ‘53 63 “a .n 3 ‘5 .0 Connection to the landa '-§ g d 2° 'é a O Eb g E? Z pd Z 2 v5 e\° 2 2 m e\° 2 2 Place dependence Michigan, because of its natural resources, is the bestplaceforwhatlliketo 4 4.04 0.74 81.9 4 4.33 0.84 89.1 0 0.29 -2.525 0.012 do. My ecoregion is the best place forwhatIliketodo. 4 3.55 1.00 61.8 4 3.80 0.95 72.7 0 0.25 -2.035 0.042 No other place can compare to fifcmganPccauswf 4 3.35 1.16 52.7 4 3.85 1.16 65.5 0 0.51 -3295 0.001 ichigan snatural resources. I would not substitute my ecoregionforanyother 3 3.24 1.04 34.5 4 3.49 1.29 58.2 0 0.25 -1.374 0.170 ecoregion. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places with significant Michigan 3 3.24 1.07 45.4 4 3.65 1.14 60.0 0 0.42 -2.704 0.007 natural resources than any other areas. I get more satisfaction out of “s‘ungplacesmmy 2.89 0.98 27.2 3 3.29 1.18 43.7 0 0.40 -2731 0.006 ecoregion than any other areas. N°°therpla°8°anc°mpmt° 3 2.83 1.12 26.4 4 3.33 1.28 52.7 1 0.49 -3.379 0.001 my ecoregion. . MeanResponsesc=3.30 Mean 038 _3 900 0000 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.916 coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (1350.05). 6Other researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. Responsesc =3 .68 “Items based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). t’Median and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 92 Table 111-6. CSP respondents’ post-program interest in specific volunteer conservation opportunities All Respondents n = 53 .05 .0 Volunteer Interestsll ‘5 g Q- 3 2 ‘0 Terrestrial activities Habitat restoration projects 3.00 2.53 0.54 Native seed collecting 3.00 2.51 0.66 Removal of nuisance invasive species 3.00 2.47 0.60 Miscellaneous wildlife/access activities Other wildlife monitoring 3.00 2.52 0.57 Wildlife rehabilitation 2.00 2.35 0.73 Trail construction or maintenance 2.00 2.02 0.76 Aquatic activities Riparian restoration projects 2.00 2.32 0.65 Stream monitoring 2.50 2.31 0.77 Lake monitoring 2.00 2.11 0.82 Ecological monitoring Frog and toad surveys 3.00 2.36 0.85 Bird monitoring 2.00 2.26 0.74 Monitoring of conservation easements 2.00 2.26 0.68 Education and interpretation Guide or docent (special projects) 2.00 2.31 0.72 Children’s activities 2.00 2.27 0.76 Event booths/displays 2.00 2.22 0.66 Giving presentations 2.00 2.05 0.73 Elisodic activities River clean-ups 2.00 2.20 0.65 Trash pick-ups 2.00 2.09 0.65 Orggnizational/administrative activities Committee or board work 2.00 1.96 0.78 Computer work 2.00 1.87 0.71 Other writing 2.00 1.78 0.74 Newsletter 2.00 1.74 0.71 Fundraising 1 .00 1 .27 0.45 aRespondents were asked, “ Please rate your level of interest in volunteering for each type of activity as Low, Medium, or High. (Circle only w response per statement.) ” edian and mean responses on a 3-point scale with “Low” coded as a l and “High” coded as a 3. 93 CHAPTER IV LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STUDY LIMITATIONS The CSP development and evaluation was funded with one research grant. Therefore, coordinators and program developers of the pilot CSP also conducted the evaluation research. Social desirability bias is a potential limitation of this study, because CSP respondents interacted with the coordinators/researchers for the entire duration of their participation. It is possible that participants responded positively to the program because of their relationships with coordinators/researchers. Nevertheless, throughout the entire CSP workshops, participants verbally expressed commitment to thorough evaluation and interest in learning the results of the program evaluation. I believe the relationships between CSP participants and coordinators/researchers influenced the high response rate in this study. The participants in the pilot CSP could be considered “early adopters” and may be characterized as opinion leaders within social organizations. Opinion leaders typically have high levels of knowledge and attitudes and take risks with new innovations (Rogers 1995). Results observed fiom this evaluation are similar to what coordinators of most new programs might expect with early adopter participants. Although many CSP impacts were statistically significant and positive, future evaluation results may be different. A non-respondent survey was not completed for this evaluation research; I cannot determine if my respondents are representative of the entire group of CSP participants. Therefore the results of this study are not representative of all CSP participants, the population of all conservation volunteers, or the Michigan general population. 94 Another potential limitation of this evaluation study design is the possibility of testing effect. The pre- and post-program questionnaires were identical, with the exception that some items were only included on the pre- or the post-program questionnaire. All items concerning knowledge of ecology, attitudes toward the MDNR, attitudes toward natural resource management techniques, and connection to the land were asked in exactly the same manner on both questionnaires. It is, however, likely that testing effect was minimal, since the post-pro gram questionnaire was administered 9 weeks after the pre-pro gram questionnaire. Slight differences between the two county pilot programs occurred, perhaps resulting in different learning experiences for the participants in each county (Appendix D). For example, the Oakland County CSP had a segment on environmental stewardship, commtmity planning, and green infrastructure. This segment was not available in Livingston County, however a history of Native American activity prior to European settlement in the county was included there. These and several other differences could potentially influence the participants’ experience with the CSP and the program impacts. Another limitation of this study is the absence of a control group for comparison. Although adult education programs and volunteer opportunities exist in Michigan, no similar program focuses on ecology and resource management. Thus, there were no readily available equivalent groups of subjects to serve as a control group for this study. Because of this limitation, this evaluation can be considered a baseline measurement or exploratory research. Lastly, this evaluation reflects only pre-pro gram participant characteristics and immediate post-program impacts. Short-term evaluation is important, yet it does not 95 provide researchers and program coordinators with information about medium- and long- term program results and conservation benefits. However, one long-term benefit of this study is that the data collection instruments can be used in other Master NaturalistTM programs, since the scales and questions were tested and determined to be valid and reliable. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY To further understand the impacts resulting from the pilot CSP, additional analysis of existing data may identify differences between CSP respondents fi'om diverse stakeholder groups (e. g., traditional vs. non-traditional, or highly involved volunteer vs. new, inexperienced volunteer). This additional analysis can help program coordinators and partners better understand specific stakeholder groups for conservation. Additionally, with the existing data from the pilot CSP, a non-respondent survey should be completed to determine if our sample of CSP respondents is representative of the entire CSP participants. This non-respondent survey can also provide insights into the barriers to completion of the program and subsequent volunteerism. Long-term CSP evaluation should include follow-up with pilot CSP respondents and collaborating wildlife agencies and organizations. Long-term follow-up with CSP respondents should determine if volunteers are indeed completing their conservation service, in what activities they engaged, and how the service benefits natural resources. If volunteers have not completed the conservation service, evaluation should focus on understanding the barriers to the required 40 hours of volunteerism; this will assist CSP coordinators and partners in volunteer engagement. Qualitative inquiry may help deepen 96 our understanding of the benefits participants received from the CSP and their sense of community and concern for local ecosystems in this citizen and community science program. Long-term evaluation with the agencies and organizations involved with resource management should assess whether CSP volunteers are truly helping to achieve natural resource management goals or simply completing “busy work” with only little conservation value. The CSP should be implemented throughout other areas in Michigan. Continued evaluation will be necessary to determine program impacts in regions other than southeast Michigan and to investigate whether differences exist in audiences from various geographic regions. The data collection instruments utilized in this study can be applied to future CSP evaluation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM COORDINATION The following are recommendations for future CSP coordination, incorporating the results and observations fiom this study: 0 Continue to recruit participants from traditional and non-traditional stakeholders (with an emphasis on non-traditional audiences) as well as collaborate with racially or ethnically diverse organizations to encourage participation; 0 Continue program promotion and recruitment through local media as well as via collaborating organizations to attract individuals with and without organizational affiliations; 97 0 Program promotional materials should focus on classroom ecology learning and in—field hands-on instruction; 0 CSP instructors should be a mix of MDNR, MNFI, MSUE, and local organizations and agencies to provide a pool of state agency and local staff contacts; 0 Although social motivations were not highly rated by respondents, coordinators should continue to recognize that the CSP provides a social dimension by fostering local conservation communities of practice among participants; 0 The CSP curriculum, specifically the field experiences, should include ecosystem and species identification as well short educational demonstrations to allow participants to practice selected natural resource management techniques; 0 CSP coordinators should establish and maintain a website as a communications mechanism to post curriculum materials and promote volunteer stewardship opportunities. LITERATURE CITED Rogers, EM. (1995). Difl'usion of innovations (fourth edition). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 98 APPENDICES 99 APPENDD( A: Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) Approval Letters and Informed Consent Letters 100 '1" OFFICE OF . .cGULATORY AFFAIRS more». 8 HEALTH nsrrrunouAL REVEW some (area) COIHUNITY RESEARCH REVEW OI BOARD (CRIRB) SOCIAL SCENCEI EllAVIORAL I EDUCATDN DISTIWTIONAL REVEW BOARD (SIRB) 202 Olds Hall East Lansing. Man 48824-1046 517-355-2180 Fax: 5174324503 uhunanresearch msu. edu RB r. arse: iR8@msu edu CRIRB: W e) mum-action 1.01-o, .nuu’ty inflation. MICHIGAN STATE U r R NVE SITY Initial IRB Application Approval February 7. 2006 T02 Shari DANN 13 Natural Resources Bldg. MSU Category: EXPEDITED 2-7 February 7. 2006 February 6. 2007 Re: IRB # 06-040 Approval Date: Expiration Date: Title: IMPACTS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM. The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that your project has been approved. The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design. protects the rights and welfare of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU’s Federal Wide Assurance and the Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities. Renewals: lRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. if you are continuing your project. you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project is completed. please submit an Appllcation for Permanent Closure. Revisions: The IRS must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an Application for Revlslon to have your changes reviewed. it changes are made at the time of renewal. please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application. Problems: it issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanticipated problems. adverse events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects. notify the lRB office promptly. Forms are available to report these issues. Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any correspondence with the IRB office. Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. pleasecontact us at 517-355-2180 or via email at W- Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely. .. 7445/» ‘4 Peter Vasilenko. PhD. SIRB Chair C: Heather Van Den Berg Rm. 16 Natural Resources Bulldlng East Lansing. MI 48824 101 MICHIGAN STATE Revision UNIVERSITY DIE IE TWP—35 OFFICE OF 'EGULATORY AFFAIRS Human Research Protection Programs BIOHEINCAL 1 HEALTH NSTI'I'UI'IMAL REVIEW BOARD (BIRB) W RESEARCH NSTITUTIONAL REVEW BOARD (CRIRB) socuu. SCENCEI earsnonau soucanorr Irsrrrunom nevew some (SIRB) 202 Olds Hal East Lansing. Michigan 48824-1048 517-355-2180 Fax: 517-432-4503 mlumarvesearchmsuedu SIRB & BIRB: IRBOmsuedu CRIRB: crirbOmsuedu MSU Is all qflimmtr‘vc-acrron equal-opportunity r'rurrrunon Application Approval May 30. 2006 T0: Shari DANN 13 Natural Resources Bldg. MSU ' Category. EXPEDITED 2-7 May 30. 2006 February 6. 2007 Re: IRB # 06-040 Revision Approval Date: Project Expiration Date: Title: IMPACTS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSERVATION STEWARDS PROGRAM. The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that the revision has been approved. This letter notes approval for the use of program evaluation forms as components of the research project and an additional open-ended survey to be conducted at a follow-up meeting In June 2006 a new consent form will accompany the new survey. The review by the committee has found that your revision is consistent with the continued protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a partnership between the lRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities. Renewals: IRB approval Is valid until the expiration date listed above. if you are continuing your project. you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project Is completed. please submit an Application for Permanent Closure. Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. it changes are made at the time of renewal. please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application. Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanticipated problems. adverse events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects. notify the IRB office promptly. Forms are available to report these issues. Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any correspondence with the lRB office. Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email at |RB@m§u.edu. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely. fl“ Peter Vasiienko. PhD. SIRB Chair % Heather Van Den Berg Rm. 16 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824 102 as DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing. MI 48824-1222 517/355-4477 FAX. 5I7/432~I699 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY February 2006 Informed Consent Letter for the Study of: Impacts of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Dear Participant: Thank you for considering participating in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program evaluation. The purpose of our srn'veys is to evaluate the quality of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP). This letter provides information to you about our evaluation of the CSP and provides details that may be helpful in making your decision regarding participation in this study. Participation in this evaluation study is completely voluntary. If you choose not to participate, not to answer certain questions, or stop participating in the evaluation surveys, at any time. you will not be penalized in any way. For our evaluation, we will use information from your registration form, a pre-CSP survey, and a post-CSP survey. Each survey will take approximately 30 minutes. Participation in these surveys will occur between February and October 2006. Your name will only be used to match your registration form with both the pre- and post-CSP surveys. Once the materials are matched, your name will be removed from the documents and destroyed to protect your identity. Your name will not be disclosed, in any way, in program summaries and publications. You may request copies of final summaries and publications that result from this study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The risks to you as a respondent to these evaluation research surveys are minimal. You will be asked to respond to a series of questions on the survey, which may be of a personal matter or time consuming. The responses you provide will be treated with strict confidence. There may be few or no personal benefits to you for participating in this evaluation study, however, your participation allows us to understand your experience and the impacts of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. Most of all, the time you take to complete these surveys will be beneficial as we wo rk to improve the program. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Shari Dann, MSU Fisheries & Wildlife, “8 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824 or 517-353- 0675, sldann@msu.edu or Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries & Wildlife. 16 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824, 517-432-5037, vanden64@msu.edu. If you have any questions 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 This consent form was approved by the Social SeiencelBehavioral/Education institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 02/07/06 - valid though 02106l07. This version sup'sedes al previous versions. iRB ll 06-040. " Page 1 of 2 103 DEPARTMENT or FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Budding East Lansing. MI 48824-1222 51 73554477 FAX; 517/432-1699 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.. Director of the Human Research Protection Programs at Michigan State University by phone: 517-355-2180, fax: 517-432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or mail at: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing. Ml 48824. Your signature below and initial next to the items involved with this evaluation study indicates your voluntary agreement to participate. You will receive a copy of this letter for your records. Pre-CSP Survey Post-CSP Survey Print Name Signature Date This consent form was approved by the Social Science/BehavioratlEducation Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University. Apprwed 02107/06 - valid though 0206/07. This version su'rsedes al previous versions. IRB ii 06-040. - Page 2 of 2 104 tfiy \x. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing. MI 48824-1222 51 7/3554477 FAX: 517/432-1699 MICHIGAN STATE u N I v E R s I T Y June 2006 Informed Consent Letter for the Study of: Impacts of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Follow-Up Evaluation Dear Participant: Thank you for considering participating in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program evaluation. The purpose of our surveys is to evaluate the quality of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program (CSP). This letter provides information to you about our evaluation of the CSP and provides details that may be helpful in making your decision regarding participation in this study. Participation in this evaluation study is completely voluntary. If you choose not to participate, not to answer certain questions, or stop participating in the evaluation survey, at any time, you will not be penalized in any way. For our evaluation, we will use information provided in the follow-up open-ended survey. You will not be requested to provide your name on the open-ended survey therefore your responses will be anonymous. The open-ended survey will take approximately 30 minutes and will occur during June 2006. Since the information collected in this survey is anonymous, your name will not be disclosed, in any way, in program summaries and publications. You may request copies of final summaries and publications that result from this study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The risks to you as a respondent to this evaluation research survey are minimal. You will be asked to respond to a series of questions on the survey, which may be of a personal matter or time consuming. The responses you provide will be treated with strict confidence. There may be few or no personal benefits to you for participating in this evaluation study, however, your participation allows us to understand your experience and the impacts of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. Most of all, the time you take to complete these surveys will be beneficial as we work to improve the program. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Shari Dann. MSU Fisheries & Wildlife. 1 IB Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824 or 517-353- 0675, sldann@msu.edu or Heather Van Den Berg. MSU Fisheries & Wildlife, 16 Natural Resources. East Lansing, MI 48824, 517-432-5037, vanden64@msu.edu. If you have any questions 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 This consent form was approved by the Social Science/BehavioratIEducation Institutiolnal Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University. Apper 5130/06 - valid mrough 2/6/07. This version supersedes all previous versions. IRB a 06—040. 105 MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection Programs at Michigan State University by phone: 517-355-2180, fax: 517-432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or mail at: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. You will receive a copy of this letter for your records. Print Name Signature Date we DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Michigan State University 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824- 1222 517/355-4477 FAX: 517/432-1699 This consent form was approved by the Social Science/Behavioral/Education lnstitutigial Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 5130/06 - valid through 216/07. This version supersedes all previous versions. IRB a 06-040. 106 APPENDIX B: Participant Registration Forms 107 Conservation Stewards Program Publicity Summary Publicity and registration for the pilot Conservation Stewards Program occurred during December 2005 - February 2006. Coordinators contacted the following to publicize the CSP and recruit participants: Via electronic communication: Huron River Watershed Council Newsletter (contact: Jo Latimore) Clinton River Watershed Council listserve (contact: Heather Van Den Berg) Oakland Land Conservancy listserve (contact: Heather Van Den Berg, Barbara Ash) The Stewardship Network (contact: Lisa Brush) Enviro-Mich listserve (contact: Heather Van Den Berg) Project F .I.S.H. listserve (contact: Heather Van Den Berg, Mark Stephens) Project WILD listserve (contact: Heather Van Den Berg, Dale Elshofi) Bailey Scholars Program listserve (contact: Heather Van Den Berg, Glenn Sterner) MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Department listserves (contact: Heather Van Den Berg) MSUE Area of Expertise listserves (fisheries and wildlife, water quality, landuse) (contact: Heather Van Den Berg, Scott Loveridge) Oakland County Master Gardener newsletters (contact: Carol Lenchek) Via personal presentation: Livingston County Pheasants Forever (contact: Bill Earl, Mike Gaden) Unsure source of communication: Detroit News Detroit Free Press (Heather Van Den Berg contacted by Hugh McDiarmid Jr. via posting on Clinton River Watershed Council listserve) Oakland Press Livingston County Press and Argus (Bill Earl provided Heather Van Den Berg with reporter name, I forwarded contact to Mike Gaden who initiated the in-county contact) The Spinal Column (Heather Van Den Berg contacted by Josh J ackett via posting on Clinton River Watershed Council listserve) Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services Green Infrastructure Planning and Natural Areas Advisory Group (Heather Van Den Berg provided registration information to Jim Keglovitz, OCPEDS staff) MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources communications (contact: Laura Probyn) 108 Summary of Where CSP Respondents Heard About Program (Respondents could indicate more than one source.) 25.5% from a newspaper 23.6% from a local organization 23.6% from personal communication 18.2% from Michigan State University Extension 18.2% fiom an e-mail 16.4% fi'om Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services 16.4% from Heather Van Den Berg 7 .3% from Michigan Department of Natural Resources 63.6% heard about program fiom one source 25.5% heard about program from two sources 9.1% heard about program from three sources 1.8% heard about program from four sources 109 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Registration Information for Oakland County Winter 2006 Thanks for your interest in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. This program has been in development for some time and we are ready to welcome our first participants! The first counties to be involved are Livingston and Oakland. Because this is a new program that we are “pilot testing” we hope to learn from this experience to improve the program in the future. So, in addition to full participation, we are asking that you provide feedback on content and quality, and holly participate in evaluation of the program. This program is designed for anyone interested in conservation, outdoor recreation, nature learning. natural areas, current conservation issues, local parks, and other topics such as rivers, streams, birds, and wildlife. Through participation in this program, you will learn essential strategies to help restore and conserve ecosystems in Oakland County. The series of classes, led by experts in various fields of conservation and natural resources, will include lectures, interactive learning and field trips. A required component of this program includes the completion of community service projects related to restoring and conserving ecosystems. Michigan Conservation Stewards’ service projects may include habitat restoration, data collection, educational presentations, or projects you design yourself. For example, your volunteer service could be: data collection for frog and toad surveys, invasive species management with a local land conservancy, or educational programs with a conservation district to help manage our local natural resources. To become a certified Michigan Conservation Steward, participants must fulfill the following requirements: 0 Attend all classes, including field experiences (40 total hours). 0 Complete a minimum of 40 hours of volunteer conservation service within one year. - Comply with the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program policies, procedures, and code of conduct. To maintain your certification, Michigan Conservation Stewards must complete the following @2920): e 40 hours of volunteer conservation service on approved projects. 8 hours of advanced training. , Comply with the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program policies, procedures, and code of conduct. Class times and locations vary, so a class schedule with dates, locations, times, and topics is enclosed. Class starts February 11, 2006, and is a full day from 8:30 am - 4:00 pm at HCMA Indian Springs Metropark, Environmental Discovery Center, 5200 Indian Trail, White Lake, MI. Classes on Monday nights will be taught at the MSUE Office, 1200 N. Telegraph Road, Building 26 East, Pontiac, MI. The registration fee for the Conservation Stewards Program is $190. The registration fee covers the cost of the training sessions, the Conservation Stewards Program resource notebook, and a $25 credit towards the purchase of MSUE field guides and reference materials of your choice. 110 The fee is fully refundable if requested at least two weeks prior to the start of the program. Cancellation after that date will result in no refund. ~ Class is limited to thirty participants and will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis. To be considered “registered” a completed registration, along with full payment must be received by (deadline extended) Friday. February 3. 201111. Please return the completed registration form to: Oakland County MSUE, 1200 N. Telegraph Road, Building 26 East, Pontiac, MI 48341. You must mail the $190 registration fee with your application. Please make checks payable to: Michigan State University Extension- Oakland County. A confirmation letter with appropriate maps will be mailed to you upon receipt of your application and payment. If you have any questions about this program, please contact Oakland County MSUE. Carol Lenchek Extension Educator Michigan State University Extension — Oakland County 1200 N. Telegraph Road, Building 26 East Pontiac, MI 48341 248-858-0887 lenchekc@co.oakland.mi.us Michigan State University Extension materials and programs are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability. political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. MSU is an affirmative-action equal opportunity institution. 111 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Registration Form - Oakland County Winter 2006 Name: Address: City: State: ZIP: County: Phone:(home) (work) (cell) E-mail: Fax: Several of our Ieaming experiences will take place in public parks. Please check if you have a 2006 pass into these facilities: HCMA Metroparks MDNR State Parks & Recreation Areas Oakland County Parks Please complete the following questions: I. How did you first learn about the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? 2. Why are you interested in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? 112 3. Have you participated in any other MSUE programs? (For example Master Gardener, 4-H, Citizen Planner, etc.) If yes, what program(s)? 4. Please list any organizations to which you belong, especially conservation organizations. 5. Have you ever volunteered before? If yes, please list organizations with which you have volunteered. (For example, professional, conservation, community, hobby organizations, etc.). Please indicate the average number of hours per month you have volunteered for each organization. Lunches and snacks will be provided. Vegetarian Non-vegetarian Accommodations for persons with disabilities may be requested by calling 248-858-0887 at least two weeks before class starts. .- I understand that my enrollment is contingent upon the receipt of this Conservation Stewards Program registration form and full payment of the registration fee. I also understand that I am committing to attend all program sessions, and complete the volunteer conservation service requirement. Signature Date Michigan State University Extension materials and programs are open to all without regard to race. color. national origin. gender, religion. age, disability. political beliefs. sexual orientation, marital status or family status. MSU is an affinnative-action equal opportunity institution. 113 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Activity Schedule - Oakland County Winter 2006 Meiflg Location Topic Instructor HCMA Indian Shari Dann, MSU Saturday, February 11 Springs Metropark: Introduction & Ray Rustem, MDNR 8:30 am — 4:00 pm Environmental Conservation Heritage Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Discovery Center Larry Falardeau, OCPEDS Monday, February 13 Oakland MSUE Ecological Phyllis Higman, MNFI 6:30 - 9:30 pm Conference Room Foundations Larry Falardeau, OCPEDS Making Choices to Shawn Riley, MSU Moggzylli‘gegguarny 20 Cgfi‘fdfggctdligfm Manage Our Natural Dave Moilanen, HCMA ' ' p Resources Larry Falardeau, OCPEDS Monday, February 27 Oakland MSUE 6: 3 0 _ 9:30 pm Conference Room Forestlands Dean Soloman, MSUE Monday, March 6 Oakland MSUE Grasslands Phyllis Higman, MNFI 6:30 — 9:3Dm Conference Room Vern Stephens, MDNR HCMA Indian . . Saturday, March 11 Springs Metropark: Terrestrial Field Phyllis Higman, MNFI Vern Stephens, MDNR 9:00 am - 4:00 pm Envrronmental Experience Dean Soloman, MSUE Discovery Center Monday, March 13 Oakland MSUE . 6:30 — 9:30 pm Conference Room Wetlands Ernie Kafcas, MDNR Monday, March 20 Oakland MSUE Lakes and Streams Howard Wandell, MSU 6:30 — 9:30 pm Conference Room Lois Wolfson, MSU HCMA Indian Saturday, March 25 Springs Metropark: Aquatic Field Howard Wandell, MSU 900 am - 400 pm Environmental Ex rience L018 Wolfson, MSU ' ' . 9° Ernie Kafcas, MDNR Discovery Center Monday, March 27 Oakland MSUE Pu ttin it all To ether Shari Dann, MSU 6:30 - 9:30 pm Conference Room g g Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Monday, April 3 Oakland MSUE £2? gaff: Shari Darin, MSU 6:30 — 9:30 pm Conference Room g ’ Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Evaluation 114 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Registration Information for Livingston County Winter 2006 Thanks for your interest in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. This program has been in development for some time and we are ready to welcome our first participants! The first counties to be involved are Livingston and Oakland. Because this is a new program that we are “pilot testing” we hope to learn from this experience to improve the program in the future. So, in addition to full participation, we are asking that you provide feedback on content and quality, and fully participate in evaluation of the program. This program is designed for anyone interested in conservation, outdoor recreation, nature Ieaming, natural areas, current conservation issues, local parks, and other topics such as rivers, streams, birds, and wildlife. Through participation in this program, you will learn essential strategies to help restore and conserve ecosystems in Livingston County. The series of classes, led by experts in various fields of conservation and natural resources, will include lectures, interactive learning and field trips. A required component of this program includes the completion of community service projects related to restoring and conserving ecosystems. Michigan Conservation Stewards’ service projects may include habitat restoration, data collection, educational presentations, or projects you design yourself. For example, your volunteer service could be: data collection for frog and toad surveys, invasive species management with a local land conservancy, or educational programs with a conservation district to help manage our local natural resources. To become a certified Michigan Conservation Steward, participants must fulfill the following requirements: 0 Attend all classes, including field experiences (40 total hours). 0 Complete a minimum of 40 hours of volunteer conservation service within one year. 0 Comply with the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program policies, procedures, and code of conduct. To maintain your certification, Michigan Conservation Stewards must complete the following annuaHy: 40 hours of volunteer conservation service on approved projects. 8 hours of advanced training. - Comply with the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program policies, procedures, and code of conduct. Class times and locations vary, so a class schedule with dates, locations, times, and topics is enclosed. Class starts February 18, 2006, and is a full day from 8:30 am - 4:00 pm at HCMA Kensington Metropark, Nature Center, 2240 W. Buno Road, Milford, MI. Classes on Wednesday nights will be taught at the Livingston Regional M-TEC, 1240 Packard Drive, Howell, MI. The registration fee for the Conservation Stewards Program is $190. The registration fee covers the cost of the training sessions, the Conservation Stewards Program resource notebook, and a $25 credit towards the purchase of MSUE field guides and reference materials of your choice. 115 The fee is fully refundable if requested at least two weeks prior to the start of the program. Cancellation after that date will result in no refund. Class is limited to thirty participants and will be filled on a first—come, first-served basis. To be considered “registered” a completed registration, along with full payment must be received by (deadline extended) Fridn}, February Ill. 2006. Please return the completed registration form to: Livingston County MSUE, 820 E. Grand River Avenue, Howell, MI 48843. You must mail the $190 registration fee with your application. Please make checks payable to: Michigan State University Extension-Livingston County. A confirmation letter with appropriate maps will be mailed to you upon receipt of your application and payment. If you have any questions about this program, please contact Livingston County MSUE. Mike Gaden Extension Educator Michigan State University Extension - Livingston County 820 E. Grand River Avenue Howell, MI 48843 517-546-3950 gadenm@msu.edu Michigan State University Extension materials and programs are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. MSU is an affirmative-action equal opportunity institution. 116 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Registration Form - Livingston County Winter 2006 Name: Address: City: State: ZIP: County: Phone:(home) (work) _ (cell) E-mail: Fax: Several of our Ieaming experiences will take place in public parks. Please check if you have a 2006 pass into these facilities: HCMA Metroparks MDNR State Parks & Recreation Areas Please complete the following questions: I. How did you first learn about the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? 2. Why are you interested in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? 117 3. Have you participated in any other MSUE programs? (For example Master Gardener, 4-H, Citizen Planner, etc.) If yes, what program(s)? 4. Please list any organizations to which you belong, especially conservation organizations. 5. Have you ever volunteered before? If yes, please list organizations with which you have volunteered. (For example, professional, conservation, community, hobby organizations, etc.). Please indicate the average number of hours per month you have volunteered for each organization. Lunches and snacks will be provided. Vegetarian Non-vegetarian Accommodations for persons with disabilities may be requested by calling 517-346-3950 at least two weeks before class starts. I understand that my enrollment is contingent upon the receipt of this Conservation Stewards Program registration form and full payment of the registration fee. I also understand that I am committing to attend all program sessions, and complete the volunteer conservation service requirement. Signature Date Michigan State University Extension materials and programs are open to all without regard to race. color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. MSU is an affirmative-action equal opportunity institution. 118 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Activity Schedule - Livingston County Winter 2006 Meeting Location Topic Instructor Saturda Februa 18 HCMA Kensington Introduction & Shari Darin, MSU y, ry Metropark: Conservation Ray Rustem, MDNR 8:30 am — 4:00 pm Nature Center Heritage Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Wednesday, February Livingston Regional M- Ecolo ical 22 TEC; Mott Community Foun d agtions Phyllis Higman, MNFI 6:30 — 9:30 pm College Livingston Regional M- Making Choices to . Wednesday, March 1 _ . Shawn Riley, MSU 6:30 — 9:30 pm TEC’ M0“ commumty Mmge 0‘" Dave Moilanen, HCMA College Natural Resources Livingston Regional M- Wednesday, March 8 TEC; Mott Community Forestlands Dean Solomon, MSUE 6.30 — 9.30 pm College Wednesday, March 15 Iggggfigglézg$°£3w Grasslands Phyllis Higman, MNFI 6:30 — 9:30 pm ' ‘y Vern Stephens, MDNR Collge Saturday, March 18 HCMA Kensrkngt on Terrestrial Field Shy”: Higmanmfi: 900 am — 400 pm Metropar ' Experience ern tep ens, ' ' Farm Leamlng Center Dean Solomon, MSUE Livingston Regional M- W“?“"”: Mm“ 22 TEC; Mott Community Wetlands Ernie Kafcas, MDNR 6.30 — 9.30 pm College Wednesday, March 29' fi'gg‘gmgggxnflfim Lakes and Streams Howard Wandell, MSU 6:30 — 9:30 pm ’ College y Lois Wolfson, MSU . HCMA Kensington . . Howard Wandell, MSU 983332;): :33” [In Metropark: Ag:atlr(ielfil<:e;d Lois Wolfson, MSU ' ° p Farm Learning Center pe Ernie Kafcas, MDNR . Livingston Regional M- . . . Wednesday, April 5 . . Putting it all Shari Darin, MSU 6:30 — 9:30 pm TEC’ Mott Community Together Heather Van Den Berg, MSU College Wednesday, April 12 6:30 pm — 9:30 pm Livingston Regional M- TEC; Mott Community College Final Projects, Recognition, & Evaluation Shari Darin, MSU Heather Van Den Berg, MSU 119 APPENDIX C: Survey Materials 120 0" \1 ish “Pic, 1”] \ J Q {.5 Depart” F ’9 9 - ' “will?“ A .,\\‘1 . 9.5" 0 It . 4"," ‘7” State ‘1“ Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Evaluation Pre-Workshop Survey Welcome to the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program! You are a part of a very exciting pilot program in the state. The Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) is a partnership between Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University Extension. The program provides high quality, locally-based education opportunities to create an informed Michigan citizenry who will practice community-based volunteer conservation management activities. Your participation in this evaluation will help us improve the quality of the CSP during and after the pilot efforts. Through this evaluation, we are interested in Ieaming about your knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and background information in relation to your experience as a CSP participant. Your participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary, but please know that your opinions and the information you provide are important to us and will contribute toward enhancing and improving fiiture Conservation Stewards Program efforts. Your voluntary completion of the pre- and post-workshop surveys indicates your consent to participate in this evaluation effort, however you may choose to notify us at any time and for any reason if you do not wish to participate or choose to be excluded from this survey or this evaluation study. Your name will be kept strictly confidential and used only for the purpose of matching pre- and post- program documents. After pre- and post-program surveys are matched, this cover page including your name, will be physically removed from this survey document. For the purposes of this evaluation, your responses will remain unassociated with your name and confidential as Michigan State University prepares summaries of all responses. Thank you for taking the time to help us in this evaluation. Date: Participant Name: 121 This section of the survey is intended to help us understand why you have chosen to participate in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Proggm: 1. How would you rate the following statements in relation to your motivations to participate in this adult education program? Please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only one response per statement.) 1 2 3 4 5 My reasons for participating in this Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly education program are... Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree To pursue certifications related to natural resources that could help with my SD MD N MA SA volunteerism. For the joy of learning about natural resources and the outdoors in my local SD MD N MA SA area. To switch my career path into natural resources of which I’ve always been SD MD N MA SA interested in. For something to do to get out of my usual SD MD N MA SA routine. I wish to learn more about plants or SD MD N MA SA animals. To feel like I am part of a group. SD MD N MA SA To contribute to the natural resources in my SD MD N MA SA local area. This program can help me get a job magi-runny I’ve been wanting. SD MD N M SA For the sake of learning about natural resources and the outdoors in my local SD MD N MA SA area. To meet new friends. SD MD N MA SA To complete a natural resources education SD MD N MA SA program. . To pursue certifications related to natural SD MD N MA SA resources that could help With my career. This program can help me get a volunteer opportunity I’ve been wanting. SD MD N MA SA 1 Wish to learn more about the outdoors for SD MD N MA SA my own sake. To advance my career in my natural SD MD N MA SA resources that I’ve always been interested in. 122 2. How would you rate the following statements in relation to your motivations to volunteer? Please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only gig response per statement.) 1 2 3 4 5 . Stron 1 Moderatel Neither Moderatel Stron 1 My reasons for volunteering are... Disagge: Disagreey Agree Nor Agree y Agrege y Disagree a Opportunity to learn more about our ecosystems SD MD N MA SA and resource management b People I know share interests in community SD MD N MA SA servrce c Can do somethianor a conservation cause SD MD N MA SA (1 Way to make new friends SD MD N MA SA e Will look good on my resume SD MD N MA SA f Is a good escape from my own troubles SD MD N MA SA j Will help me succeed in my chosen profession SD MD N MA SA h Learn. about natural resources through hands on SD MD N MA SA experiences i Can learn how to deal with a variety of people SD MD N MA SA j Helps me feel better about myself SD MD N MA SA k Those close to me value community service SD MD N MA SA highly l Allows me to explore different career options SD MD N MA SA m Helps me work through my own problems SD MD N MA SA n Allows me to gain new perspective on things SD MD N MA SA 0 Makes me feel needed SD MD N MA SA p My friends volunteer with conservation related SD MD N MA SA organizations Helps me foget about how bad I’ve been feeling SD MD N MA SA r People I’m close to want me to volunteer SD MD N MA SA 5 Can help me get a foot in the door where I want SD MD N MA SA to work or volunteer t Can explore my own strengths SD MD N MA SA u Genuinely concerned about Michigan SD MD N MA SA ecosystems v Feel it is important to mothers SD MD N MA SA w Relieves gurlt over being more fortunate than SD MD N MA SA others .. x Feel compassion for people in need SD MD N MA SA 1 Volunteering is important to those I know best SD MD N MA SA 2 Can make new contacts that help my career SD MD N MA SA a Increase my self-esteem SD MD N MA SA bb Concerned about those less fortunate than myself SD MD N MA SA cc By volunteering I feel less lonely SD MD N MA SA dd Makes me feel important SD MD N MA SA ee I enjoy the recognition of being a certified SD MD N MA SA Michigan Conservation Steward. 123 3. How would you rate the following statements in relation to the specific benefits you seek from your participation in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only gag response per statement.) 1 2 3 4 5 From the Conservation Stewards Program, Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly I seek the specific benefits of... Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree a The feeling of doing something useful. SD MD N MA SA b Having a chance to reflect. SD MD N MA SA c Learning new things. SD MD N MA SA d Seeing familiar faces. SD MD N MA SA e Makig decisions about projects. SD MD N MA SA f Opportunity to do natural resources SD MD N MA SA work that 1 ve always wanted to do. g Projects are well organized. SD MD N MA SA h Doing something physical. SD MD N MA SA i Knowing what is expected of me. SD MD N MA SA j Feeling peace of mind. SD MD N MA SA k Seeing improvements to the SD MD N MA SA envrronment. Opportunity to do natural resources 1 volunteerism that I’ve always wanted SD MD N MA SA to do. m Helping to manage our natural SD MD N MA SA resources. n Learning how to identify specific SD MD N MA SA plants or animals. 0 Having fiin. SD MD N MA SA Meeting new people. SD MD N MA SA q Opportunities to work at my own SD MD N MA SA pace. r Nature observation. SD MD N MA SA 5 Feeling needed. SD MD N MA SA t Working with a good leader. SD MD N MA »- SA u The opportunity to be outdoors. SD MD N MA SA 4. How comfortable are you actually carrying out your intended volunteer conservation service hours? (Please check g9) CI Very Uncomfortable Cl Somewhat Uncomfortable CI Unsure CI Somewhat Comfortable CI Very Comfortable 124 The following questions are intended to help us understand your relationship to the land in your community. Please answer the following questions. 5. Think about the areas where you choose to spend time enjoying natural resources, and where you may be volunteering as you do your conservation service. Now think specificially about Michigan’s natural resources and the ecoregion where you live. (Your ecoregion is the large area of land and water that has its own unique soils, landforms, climate, flora, and fauna.) How would you rate the following statements in relation to your connection to your ecoregion and Michigan’s natural resources. Please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only one response per statement.) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree Michigan, because of its natural resources, is the a best place for what I like to do. SD MD N MA SA b I would not substitute my ecoregion for any other SD MD N MA SA ecoregion. c I ofien thi’nk about vrsrting areas that feature SD MD N MA SA Michigan 5 natural resources. d No other place can compare to my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA e l thinkoften about coming to places in my SD MD N MA SA ecoregion. f I’m proud of my ecoregion and its people. SD MD N MA SA g I identify strongly with places in my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA h I get more satisfaction out of vrsrting places in my SD ' MD N MA SA ecoregion than any other areas. i I Will help With any conservation activrtles in my SD MD N MA SA ecoregion. j I am part of a group of people from my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA 1 get more satisfaction out of visiting places with k significant Michigan natural resources than any SD MD N MA SA other areas. . l I m happy to .take part in the conservation actiVities SD MD N MA SA in my ecoregion. m I have a group of good friends in my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA n I am very attached to this ecoregion. SD MD N MA .- SA 0 I am familiar with the people in my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA p goggle in my ecoregion apprecrate what 1 do for SD MD N MA SA 1 am very attached to Michigan’s natural resources. SD MD N MA SA No other place can compare to Michigan because of r Michigan’s natural resources. SD MD N MA SA 5 I feel like this ecoregion is a part of me. SD MD N MA SA t My ecoregion is the best place for what I like to do. SD MD N MA SA u I identify strongly wrth places that have Significant SD MD N MA SA Michigan natural resources. 125 This portion of the survey is intended to help us understand your general knowledge and skills relating to Michigan’s ecosystems and resource management before beginning the Conservation Stewards Program. This is not a test; it is simply designed to help us develop and improve our program and its curriculum. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer, please do not guess - mark the “don’t know” option. (Choose only gig answer.) 6. Which of the following terms is used to describe all of the living and nonliving interacting features of a given area? (Check one) CI habitat CI community CI biodiversity CI ecosystem CI don’t know 7. A group of individuals of the same species occupying a given area at the same time is called a: (Check one) CI species CI population CI community CI genus CI don’t know 8. The study of the relationships between organisms and the environment is termed: (Check one) wildlife management biology ecology systematics don’t know DDCICICI 9. The process by which communities of plants and animals are replaced over time by a series of different communities is called: (Check one) CI succession CI evolution CI extinction Cl recruitment CI don’t know 10. Which of the following refers to the maximum number of a given species that a habitat can sustain indefinitely without damage to the species or the habitat? (Check one) biological carrying capacity C! species loading CI social carrying capacity C1 Cl C] population sustainability don’t know 126 l 1. The term climax community can be appropriately defined as: (Check one) Cl a group of vegetative types C1 the final step in a successional series CI a grouping of natural vegetation from throughout the world CI North American temperate deciduous forest CI don’t know 12. Factors which determine ecosystem distribution in Michigan are: (Check one) landforms glaciers human disturbance climate topography natural disturbances all of the above don’t know DEIDCIDCIDCI 13. Two factors that have historically helped to maintain prairie ecosystems are: (Check one) D soils and temperatures CI fire and grazing CI mowing and plowing CI flooding and freezing CI don’t know 14. Which of the following is an example of nonpoint-source pollution? (Check one) CI fertilizers from lawns running into lakes CI discharge from a wastewater treatment plant into lakes CI discharge from factories into rivers CI all of the above CI don’t know 15. Which of the following refers to the maximum number of a given species that a society can sustain indefinitely without changing attitudes toward the species or the habitat? (Check one) CI social carrying capacity C] species loading 0 sustainable growth CI biological carrying capacity CI don’t know 16. Which of the following is a function of wetland systems? (Check one) flood control water filtration fish and wildlife habitat all of the above don’t know DDDDD 127 17. Different ecosystems have different predominant natural disturbances: (Check one) 0 true ' CI false U don’t know 18. How many distinct ecoregions are present in Michigan? (Check one) CI Two, the Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula CI Three, the Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, and Southern Lower Peninsula CI Four, the Western Upper Peninsula, Eastern Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, and Southern Lower Peninsula CI don’t know 19. What major watershed is not present in Michigan? (Check one) E] Lake Superior watershed CI Lake Michigan watershed CI Lake Huron watershed Cl Lake Erie watershed CI Lake Ontario watershed CI don’t know 20. The forest management practice in which undesirable trees are removed to allow healthier trees to grow is called: (Check one) Cl pruning CI clear cutting CI thinning D harvesting 13 don’t know 21. Currently the amount of Michigan’s forestland is: (Check one) CI growing 13 declining CI remaining the same CI don’t know 22. Which of the following is true about wildlife management planning? (Check one) D with the right management techniques, any wildlife species can be attratfted to any area an inventory of habitat conditions, Wildlife, plants, soils, and local landscapes should be done before determining management objectives for most areas under an acre in size, little can be gained by carefully planning landscaping activities based on management goals and objectives all of the above are true don’t know DUDE] 128 23. Currently the greatest cause of tree death in Michigan is: (Check one) DDDDDD logging fire disease insects weather don’t know 24. How is the majority of fish and wildlife management by the MDNR funded in Michigan? (Check one) CI CI CI CI general fund (monies from income taxes) hunting and fishing license sales and taxes on equipment federal monies for endangered species, ecological restoration, and biodiversity protection don’t know 25. Which statement below is true? (Check one) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 the Governor owns Michigan’s fish and wildlife resources Michigan’s surface water resources are owned by the federal government the only Michigan’s natural resources which can be privately owned are mineral resources fish and wildlife are held and managed in public trust by the state don’t know 26. Which of the following are princip1e(s) of an ecosystem management approach? (Check one) D ClClDClCl complexity and connectedness for biodiversity and adaptation for long-term change recognition of the dynamic character of ecosystems ecosystem processes operate on many different contexts and scales humans play an active role in ecosystem management all of the above don’t know 27. Vegetation in lakes: (Check one) CI CI CI CI likely consists of only exotic species likely consists of only native species likely consists of both native and exotic species don’t know 129 We would like to determine your knowledge level concerning the status of plant and animal species in the state of Michigan. (For each of the following questions, please mark gl_l correa answers.) 28. Which of the following species are listed as threatened or endgngered in the state of Michigan? (Please mark a_ll that apply.) DClClCl DUDE] White-tailed deer Gray wolf River otter Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Kirtland’s warbler Canada goose Wild turkey Ring-necked pheasant CID DDDDDDD Purple milkweed Purple loosestrife Painted trillum Phragmites Lake sturgeon Arctic grayling Brown trout Bluegill Don’t know 29. Which of the following species are listed as game species in the state of Michigan? (Please mark a_ll that apply.) 00 DUDE] White-tailed deer Gray wolf River otter Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Kirtland’s warbler Canada goose DDDDDDD Wild turkey Ring-necked pheasant Lake sturgeon Arctic grayling Brown trout Bluegill Don’t know 30. Which of the following species are native to Michigan? (Please mark gfl that apply.) DUDE! ClClClCl White-tailed deer Gray wolf River otter Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Kirtland’s warbler Canada goose Wild turkey Ring-necked pheasant DDDDDDDDD Purple milkweed Purple loosestrife Painted trillum Phragmites Lake sturgeon Arctic grayling Brown trout Bluegill Don’t know .- The following questions are intended to help us understand your attitudes towards natural resources management. Please answer the following questions. 3|. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only 91:; response per statement.) 1 2 3 4 5 . . Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly It is important to me personally... Disagree Disagm Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree That I observe or photograjh wildlife. SD MD N MA SA b That I talk about Wildlife With famrly and SD MD N MA SA friends. That local economies benefit from the sale of c equipment, supplies, or services related to SD MD N MA SA wildlife recreation. (I That I understand more about the behavror of SD MD N MA SA wildlife. That game animals are managed for an annual e harvest for human use without harming the SD MD N MA SA future of the wildlife population. f That I hunt game animals for food. SD MD N MA SA g That I know that wildlife exist in nature. SD MD N MA SA h That I tolerate most wildlife nuisance problems. SD MD N MA SA That I express opinions about wildlife and their i management to public officials or to officers of SD MD N MA SA private conservation organizations. 1' That I see Wildlife in books, movres, paintings SD MD N MA SA or photographs. k That I trap furbearing animals for the sale of fur SD MD N MA SA or pelts. I That I tolerate the ordinary personal safety SD MD N MA SA hazards assocrated With some Wildlife. That I consider the presence of wildlife as a m sign of the quality of the natural environment. SD MD N MA SA That 1 tolerate the ordinary risk of wildlife n transmitting disease to humans or domestic SD MD N MA ,_ SA animals. 0 That I hunt game animals for recreation. SD MD N MA SA That I appreciate the role that wildlife play in p the natural environment. SD MD N MA SA q That _I tolerate most levels of property damage SD MD N MA SA by wrldlife. That wildlife are included in educational r materials as the subject for Ieaming more about SD MD N MA SA nature. 131 32. The following statements are about your opinions About specific resource management technigues. There are no right or wrong answers, we are simply looking for your opinion. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only % response per statement.) 1 2 3 4 s Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree With respect to natural resources, nature a should be allowed to take its course without SD MD N MA SA human interference. Natural resources must be managed to b ensure their availability for future SD MD N MA SA generations. c Property owners should be able to own SD MD N MA SA Wildlife on their land. (I Landowners should be allowed to control SD MD N MA SA access to Wildlife on their land. e The benefits of fire in forest and grassland SD MD N MA SA ecosystems outweigh the risks. f Prescribed fire destroys natural habitats. SD MD N MA SA g Prescribed fire causes a threat to human life. SD MD N MA SA h Prescribed fire can improve habitat SD MD N MA SA conditions. i Hunting Wildlife game for trophies is an SD MD N MA SA acceptable practice. j Hunting Wild game for meat is an SD MD N MA SA acceptable practice. k Watersheds should be managed to ensure SD MD N MA SA biodiversrty and ecological integrity. It is acceptable to eliminate individual . N A SA 1 predators that prey on livestock. SD MD M m It is acceptable to eliminate predators that SD MD N MA SA prey on threatened or endangered specres. n It is acceptable to eliminate predators that SD MD N MA SA prey on game specres. o Grazing is destructive to natural vegetation. SD MD N MA , SA p Grazing can be used to enhance Wildlife SD MD N MA SA habitat. Public forests should be managed for q multiple uses. (For example, wildlife, SD MD N MA SA timber, recreation, etc.) 132 Opinions about specific resource management techniques, continued. r It is important to haye a variety of SD MD MA SA successronal stages in a forest. s It is possrble to manage for both Wildlife SD MD MA SA and timber in forest communities. t Harvesting timber can permanently harm SD MD MA SA forests. u Clearcutting is an acceptable management SD MD MA SA practice to manage for grouse habitat. Prescribed burning is an acceptable v management technique to maintain SD MD MA SA ecosystems. w Trapping is an acceptable technique to SD MD MA SA harvest furbearing mammals. x Landscapes should be managed to ensure SD MD MA SA biodiversrty and ecological integrity. Grazing is an acceptable management y technique to maintain grassland SD MD MA SA ecosystems. Flooding is an acceptable management 2 technique to maintain lake, stream, or SD MD MA SA wetland ecosystems. aa HerbiCide application is an acceptable SD MD MA SA management technique for invasrve plants. Hunting is an acceptable technique to help bb . . . . . SD MD MA SA maintain Wildlifcmopulations. cc Sport or recreational hunting is an SD MD MA SA accggtable practice. 33. Please indicate the extent to which you believe each statement to be true Never, Sometimes, Unsure, Usually, or Always. (Circle only are response per statement.) l 2 3 4 5 Do you bdieve this statement is true? Never Sometimes Unsure Usually Always The DNR manages natural resources in a seientifically N S US U A sound matter. ' The DNR. prowdes accurate information on natural N S US U A resource issues. I trust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when N S US U A making natural resource decmons. The DNR adequately explains its programs to the N S US U A public D‘ificpersonnel provrde high quality semce to the N S US U A The DNR provides adequate opportunities for public . . . . . . N S US U A articrpation in nature resource decrsrons. 133 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 or address will be linked to your responses in any way. 1. What is your sex? Cl Male Cl Female 2. In what year were you born? l9 3. What is your race/ethnicity? (Please mark all that apply.) White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Other Race Multi-Racial 00000000 4. What is the highest degree you have earned, and what was your major field of study at that level (excluding high school)? lease check one H Field of S Did not school school loma or GED Vocational or Trade School Some col no Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Ph.D etc. CI Cl Cl E] Cl C] E] El 5. What best describes your current status? (Please check one.) , Actively working full-time Actively working part-time Temporarily unemployed Stay-at-home spouse/partner Retired Semi-retired Student 0000000 6. What is your current and/or previous occupation? 134 7. Are you a certified Master Gardener, Master Composter, Citizen Planner, Master Woodland Steward, or Lake and Stream Leader? C] No D Yes If yes, what are you certified in? 8. How long have you lived in Michigan? years 9. How long have you lived in your current county? years 10. Do you own any land? Acres Acres Acres Acres Location (County, State) County Location (County, State) Location (County, State) Location (County, State) l 1. Where did you spend most of your youth (up to age 18)? E] El Rural, Farm Rural, Non-F arm Cl Small Town, population up to 24,999 people CI Urban Area, population 25,001 - 100,000 people CI Metropolitan area, population more than 100,000 people 12. Where have you spent most of your adult life (age 18 years and older)? Cl [:1 Rural, Farm Rural, Non-F arm Cl Small Town, population up to 24,999 people Cl Urban Area, population 25,001 — 100,000 people CI Metropolitan area, population more than 100,000 people 13. What is your approximate yearly household income? Cl Cl C] 0 C] D Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $89,999 $90,000 or more 135 (Purpose) (Purpose) (Purpose) (Purpose) 14. Are you currently a member of any of the following conservation organizations? (Please mark a_l_I that apply.) Audubon Society Bass Anglers Sportsman Society Defenders of Wildlife Ducks Unlimited The Nature Conservancy Sierra Club Wildlife Society Isaac Walton League National Rifle Association National Wild Turkey Federation National Wildlife Federation Trout Unlimited CID CIDCICICICICICID DUI Humane Society of American CID DOD GOOD 1:] DC! World Wildlife Fund Local watershed organization Local Land Conservancy Local conservation organization Professional conservation association Wild Ones Safari Club International Pheasants Forever Local “Friends of a park” organization Local Nature Center Other Other 15. Overall, please rate your involvement in the following categories of conservation activities. Note: Minimally Involved = Pay dues, receive publications; Moderately involved = attend meetings occasionally; Highly involved = attend most meetings, hold office, etc. (Mark only one choice per line.) Not at all Minimally Moderately Highly Involved Involved Involved Involved Local conservation organization E) El CI CI National/international conservation D D CI CI organization Community conservation prg'Lect E] El CI [3 16. Please check the outdoor recreational activities in which you participate more than twice per year. (Mark_ all that apply) Bicycling Bird watching Bird feeding Boating Camping Fishing Gardening Golf Hiking Horseback riding Hunting Nature study Off-road vehicle use Photography DDDDDDDDDDDDDD Picnicking Scuba diving Sightseeing Sunbathing Swimming Walking or jogging Water skiing Wildlife viewing Other DDDDDDDDD Thank you for your participation! If you have any other comments that you would like to share with us, please us the space below (and additional sheets if necessary). For more information regarding this survey evaluation, please contact: Shari L. Dann, Assoc. Professor Heather Van Den Berg, Program Manager MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife 13 Natural Resources Building 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824 e-mail: sldann@msu.edu e-mail: vanden64@msu.edu Phone: 517-353-0675 Phone: 517-432-5037 137 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Session Feedback Please help improve the Conservation Stewards Program by sharing your ideas with us. At the end of each session, please turn in your completed evaluation. Session Title County Date Comments Overall, the session presenters were knowledgeable? D Provided good ideas - [:1 Provided good resources Cl Made me feel more confident in this topic [1 I'm still confused Comments Overall, the session presenters were easy to learn from? - D Provided good ideas [3 Provided good resources D Made me feel more confident in this topic [3 I’m still confused Comments Overall, the session was informative? D Provided good ideas 0 Provided good resources I] Made me feel more confident in this topic E] I’m still confused Comments Overall, the facllitles were acceptable? 0 Yes D No Comments Overall, the‘food was acceptable? D Yes D No Specific comments about specific presenters...please identify and explain. 138 What were the most enjoyable aspects of the session today? What were the least enjoyable aspects of the session today? Additional comments: 139 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Additional Feedback Please take a few minutes to provide some feedback to these open-ended questions. 1. How has this program affected your knowledge of... a. History of resource management in Michigan? b. Understanding of making choices to manage our natural resources? c. General knowledge of Michigan’s ecosystems? (1. Specific knowledge of Michigan’s plants, animals, and ecosystems? 2. How has this program affected your perception, acceptance, or interest of varying natural resources based recreational activities? 3. Have you been able to meet and connect with others interested in natural resources through the Conservation Stewards Program? a. What support services would be helpful to be connected? 140 4. Has this program affected your ability to notice... a. General natural resources in your region? b. Specific natural resources in your region? 5. Would you recommend this program to others? What would you tell them? 6. Given what you now know about the Conservation Stewards Program, what is the maximum dollar about you would be prepared to pay to participate in this program? 7. How would you describe your interest or engagement with local government planning efforts to think in an ecosystem way? 8. How many total hours have you contributed toward your capstone project? What activities did you do during those hours? .— 9. How would you describe the usefulness of the resources provided in the Conservation Stewards Program notebook? Any suggestions? 141 0" \3 i \h “rig, Q” 9, (7’)!” Or“ 0 hep". .. T ‘9 ’2’; 940‘ -7 . 1 \\ " \Smlc V‘ Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Evaluation Post-Workshop Survey Welcome to the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program! You are a part of a very exciting pilot program in the state. The Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) is a partnership between Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University Extension. The program provides high quality, locally-based education opportunities to create an informed Michigan citizenry who will practice community-based volunteer conservation management activities. Your participation in this evaluation will help us improve the quality of the CSP during and afler the pilot efforts. Through this evaluation, we are interested in Ieaming about your knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and background information in relation to your experience as a CSP participant. Your participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary, but please know that your opinions and the information you provide are important to us and will contribute toward enhancing and improving future Conservation Stewards Program efforts. Your voluntary completion of the pre- and post-workshop surveys indicates your consent to participate in this evaluation effort, however you may choose to notify us at any time and for any reason if you do not wish to participate or choose to be excluded from this survey or this evaluation study. Your name will be kept strictly confidential and used only for the purpose of matching pre- and post- program documents. Afier pre- and post-program surveys are matched, this cover page including your name, will be physically removed from this survey document. For the purposes of this evaluation, your responses will remain unassociated with your name and confidential as Michigan State University prepares summaries of all responses. Thank you for taking the time to help us in this evaluation. Participant Name: Date: 142 The following statements are about your opinions aboflecific resource management techniques. There are no right or wrong answers, we are simply looking for your opinion. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only o_ng response per statement.) I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree With respect to natural resources, nature a should be allowed to take its course without SD MD N MA SA human interference. Natural resources must be managed to b ensure their availability for future SD MD N MA SA generations. c Property owners should be able to own SD MD N MA SA Wildlife on their land. d Landowners should be allowed to control SD MD N MA SA access to Wildlife on their land. e The benefits of fire in forest and grassland SD MD N MA SA ecosystems outweigh the risks. f Prescribed fire destroys natural habitats. SD MD N MA SA g Prescribed fire causes a threat to human life. SD MD N MA SA h Prescribed fire can improve habitat SD MD N MA SA conditions. i Hunting Wildlife game for trophies is an SD MD N MA SA acrytable practice. j Hunting Wild game for meat is an SD MD N MA SA acceptable practice. k Watersheds should be managed to ensure SD MD N MA SA biodiverSity and ecological integrity. I It is acceptable to eliminate indivrdual SD MD N MA SA predators that prey on livestock. m It is acceptable to eliminate predators that SD MD N MA SA rey on threatened or endangered specres. n It is acceptable to eliminate predators that SD MD N MA SA prey on game specres. o Grazing is destructive to natural vegetation. SD MD N MA SA p Grazing can be used to enhance Wildlife SD MD N MA SA habitat. Public forests should be managed for q multiple uses. (For example, Wildlife, SD MD N MA SA timber, recreation, etc.) 143 Opinions about specific resource management techniques, continued. It is important to have a variety of successional stages in a forest. SD MD SA It is possible to manage for both Wildlife and timber in forest communities. SD MD MA SA Harvesting timber can permanently harm forests. SD MD MA SA Clearcutting is an acceptable management practice to manage for grouse habitat. SD MD MA SA Prescribed burning is an acceptable management technique to maintain ecosystems. SD MD SA Trapping is an acceptable technique to harvest furbearing mammals. SD MD MA SA Landscapes should be managed to ensure biodiversity and ecological integrity. SD MD MA SA Grazing is an acceptable management technique to maintain grassland ecosystems. SD MD MA SA Flooding is an acceptable management technique to maintain lake, stream, or wetland ecosystems. SD MD MA SA Herbicide application is an acceptable management technitpie for invasive plants. SD MD MA SA bb Hunting is an acceptable technique to help maintain wildlife populations. SD MD MA SA CC Sport or recreational hunting is an acceptable practice. SD MD MA SA 2. Please indicate the extent to which you believe each statement to be true Never, Sometimes, Unsure, Usually, or Always. (Circle only one response per statement.) l 2 3 4 5 Do you believe this statement is true? NCVC' Sometimcs Unsure Usually Always The DNR manages natural resources in a screntifically N S US U .‘ A sound matter. The DNR prowdes accurate information on natural N S US U A resource issues. I trust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when . . . N S US U A making natural resource decrsrons. The DNR adequately explains its programs to the N S US U A public DNR personnel provrde high quality servrce to the N S US U A public. The DNR provides adequate Opportunities for public . . . . . . N S US U A participation in nature resource deCiSions. 144 This portion of the survey is intended to help us understand your general knowledge and skills relating to Michigan’s ecosystems and resource management after completing the Conservation Stewards Program. This is not a test; it is simply designed to help us develop and improve our program and its curriculum. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer, please do not guess — mark the “don’t know” option. (Choose only g_r_i_e answer.) 3. Which of the following terms is used to describe all of the living and nonliving interacting features of a given area? (Check one) Cl habitat 13 community CI biodiversity D ecosystem Cl don’t know 4. A group of individuals of the same species occupying a given area at the same time is called a: (Check one) C] species 0 population Cl community CI genus Cl don’t know 5. The study of the relationships between organisms and the environment is termed: (Check one) Wildlife management biology ecology systematics don’t know DDDDCI 6. The process by which communities of plants and animals are replaced over time by a series of different communities is called: (Check one) Cl succession 0 evolution 0 extinction CI recruitment 0 don’t know 7. Which of the following refers to the maximum number of a given species that a habitat can sustain indefinitely Without damage to the species or the habitat? (Check one) Cl biological carrying capacity Cl species loading CI social carrying capacity Cl population sustainability CI don’t know 145 8. The term climax community can be appropriately defined as: (Check one) C] a group of vegetative types CI the final step in a successional series CI a grouping of natural vegetation from throughout the world CI North American temperate deciduous forest CI don’t know 9. Factors which determine ecosystem distribution in Michigan are: (Check one) landforms glaciers human disturbance climate topography natural disturbances all of the above don’t know 00000000 10. Two factors that have historically helped to maintain prairie ecosystems are: (Check one) D soils and temperatures CI fire and grazing CI mowing and plowing CI flooding and freezing CI don’t know 11. Which of the following is an example of nonpoint-source pollution? (Check one) D fertilizers from lawns running into lakes CI discharge from a wastewater treatment plant into lakes CI discharge from factories into rivers CI all of the above Cl don’t know 12. Which of the following refers to the maximum number of a given species that a society can sustain indefinitely Without changing attitudes toward the species or the habitat? (Check one) CI social carrying capacity 3 CI species loading Cl sustainable growth 0 biological carrying capacity CI don’t know 13. Which of the following is a function of wetland systems? (Check one) flood control water filtration fish and wildlife habitat all of the above don’t know DDDDCI 146 14. Different ecosystems have different predominant natural disturbances: (Check one) CI true - CI false Cl don’t know 15. How many distinct ecoregions are present in Michigan? (Check one) D Two, the Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula CI Three, the Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, and Southern Lower Peninsula Cl Four, the Western Upper Peninsula, Eastern Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, and Southern Lower Peninsula Cl don’t know 16. What major watershed is not present in Michigan? (Check one) Cl Lake Superior watershed CI Lake Michigan watershed CI Lake Huron watershed CI Lake Erie watershed Cl Lake Ontario watershed Cl don’t know I7. The forest management practice in which undesirable trees are removed to allow healthier trees to grow is called: (Check one) Cl pruning CI clear cutting Cl thinning CI harvesting CI don’t know 18. Currently the amount of Michigan’s forestland is: (Check one) Cl growing Cl declining Cl remaining the same CI don’t know l9. Which of the following is true about wildlife management planning? (Check one) D with the right management techniques, any Wildlife species can be attracted to any area an inventory of habitat conditions, wildlife, plants, soils, and local landscapes should be done before determining management objectives for most areas under an acre in size, little can be gained by carefully planning landscaping activities based on management goals and objectives all of the above are true don’t know DUDE] 147 20. Currently the greatest cause of tree death in Michigan is: (Check one) DDDDDD logging fire disease insects weather don’t know 21. How is the majority of fish and wildlife management by the MDNR funded in Michigan? (Check one) CI D D C] general fund (monies from income taxes) hunting and fishing license sales and taxes on equipment federal monies for endangered species, ecological restoration, and biodiversity protection don’t know 22. Which statement below is true? (Check one) [3 Cl E] El CI the Governor owns Michigan’s fish and wildlife resources Michigan’s surface water resources are owned by the federal government the only Michigan’s natural resources which can be privately owned are mineral resources fish and wildlife are held and managed in public trust by the state don’t know 23. Which of the following are principle(s) of an ecosystem management approach? (Check one) Cl Cl C] [3 CI CI complexity and connectedness for biodiversity and adaptation for long-term change recognition of the dynamic character of ecosystems ecosystem processes operate on many different contexts and scales humans play an active role in ecosystem management all of the above don’t know 24. Vegetation in lakes: (Check one) Cl 0 Cl [:1 likely consists of only exotic species likely consists of only native species likely consists of both native and exotic species don’t know 148 We would like to determine your knowledge level concerning the status of plant and animal species in the state of Michigan. (For each of the following questions, please mark gl_l correct answers.) 25. Which of the following species are listed as threatened or endangered in the state of Michigan? (Please mark a_ll that apply.) Cl DUDE! ODD White-tailed deer Gray wolf River otter Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Kirtland’s warbler Canada goose Wild turkey Ring-necked pheasant CIDCIDDDDCID Purple milkweed Purple loosestrife Painted trillum Phragmites Lake sturgeon Arctic grayling Brown trout Bluegill Don’t know 26. Which of the following species are listed as game sgcies in the state of Michigan? (Please mark gl_l that apply.) CID DDCID White-tailed deer Gray wolf River otter Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Kirtland’s warbler Canada goose DDDDDDD Wild turkey Ring-necked pheasant Lake sturgeon Arctic grayling Brown trout Bluegill Don’t know 27. Which of the following species are native to Michigan? (Please mark a_ll that apply.) CID DDDCI CID White-tailed deer Gray wolf River otter Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Kirtland’s warbler Canada goose Wild turkey Ring-necked pheasant 149 DDDDDDDDD Purple milkweed Purple loosestrife Painted trillum Phragmites Lake sturgeon Arctic grayling Brown trout Bluegill Don’t know The following questions are intended to help us understand your relationship to the land in your community. Please answer the following questions. 28. Think about the areas where you choose to spend time enjoying natural resources, and where you may be volunteering as you do your conservation service. Now think specificially about Michigan’s natural resources and the ecoregion Where you live. (Your ecoregion is the large area of land and water that has its own unique soils, landforms, climate, flora, and fauna.) How would you rate the following statements in relation to your connection to you; ecoregion and Michigan’s natural resources. Please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only grit; response per statement.) l 2 3 4 5 Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree Michigan, because of its natural resources, is the a best place for what I like to do. SD MD N MA SA b I would not substitute my ecoregion for any other SD MD N MA SA ecoregion. c I often thiiik about Vismng areas that feature SD MD N MA SA Michigan 5 natural resources. (I No othegilace can compare to my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA I thinkoflen about coming to places in my SD MD N MA SA ecoregion. f I’m proud of my ecoregion and its people. SD MD N MA SA I identify strongly with places in my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA h I get more satisfaction out of Vismng places in my SD MD N MA SA ecoregion than any other areas. i I Will help With any conservation activrties in my SD MD N MA SA ecoggion. j I am part of a grog) of people from my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA 1 get more satisfaction out of visiting places with k significant Michigan natural resources than any SD MD N MA SA other areas. I I m happy to .take part in the conservatronactrvrties SD MD N MA SA in my ecoregion. m l have a group of good friends in my ecoregion. SD MD N MA _ SA n I am very attached to this ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA 0 I am familiar with the people in my ecoregion. SD MD N MA SA p Pheeorple in my ecoregion apprecrate what I do for SD MD N MA SA q I am very attached to Michigan’s natural resources. SD MD N MA SA r No other place can compare to Michigan because of SD MD N MA SA Michigan 5 natural resources. 5 I feel like this ecoregion is a part of me. SD MD N MA SA t My ecoregion is the best place for what I like to do. SD MD N MA SA u I identify strongly With places that have Significant SD MD N MA SA Michigan natural resources. 150 The following questions are intended to help us understand your comfort with conservation skills. Please answer the following questions. 29. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only as response per statement.) l 2 3 4 5 Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Nor Agree Agree Disagree I have the skills necessary to monitor land SD MD N MA SA areas for recreational uses. I have the skills necessary to collect data and SD MD N MA SA observe plants or animals. I have the skills necessary to manage nursance SD MD N MA SA invaswe spam. I have the skills necessary to assrst With the SD MD N MA SA implementation of local conservation projects. I have the .SklllS necessary to help With SD MD N MA SA identification of sensmve speCIes. I can locate information about specific wildlife or plants, their habitat, status, and SD MD N MA SA ecology. I have the skills necessary to complete SD MD N MA SA community servrce pr0jects. I have the skills necessary to assist with information and outreach booths at events in SD MD N MA SA my local area. I have the skills necessary to conduct youth SD MD N MA SA education programs. l-have the skills necessary to develop trail SD MD N MA SA Signage or brochures. I am comfortable contributing to local natural SD MD N MA SA resources decrsmns. I am comfortable discussmg the ecological SD MD N MA SA planning process. I am comfortable with my ability to work with different resource management agencies and SD MD N MA ' SA institutions. I can locate information and resources about SD MD N MA SA my ecoregion and dominant ecosystems. I can locate information and resources about SD MD N MA SA my watershed. I have the skills necessary to lead field trips or SD MD N MA SA hikes. 151 30. Please rate your level of interest in volunteering for each type of activity as Low, Medium, or High. (Circle only o_ng response per statement.) S' s Areas of Interest Medium High Field Experiences Bird monitoring Frog and toad surveys Stream monitoring Lake monitoring Habitat restoratiomirojects Removal of nuisance invasive species Native seed collecting Monitoring of conservation easements Trash pick-up River clean-ups Trail construction or maintenance Wildlife rehabilitation Riparian restoration projects Other Wildlife Monitoring Other 0 anizational Work Fundraising Committee or board member Computer Work Newsletter Other Writing Other Education/Public Information Giving Presentations Guide or Docent (Special Projects) Children’s Activities Event Booths/Displays Other r-r-r-r-r-r't-‘t-t-r-r-r- IIIIEIIIIIIE l"!— E'F'F'F'F‘l‘ IIEIII If: Other 2332333: 3:333: 3: 23332323332: 1332:2233: E‘F‘f‘l‘t‘l—l‘l— 152 3 l . After going through the program, please describe any skills, training, education, or interests that you have that might be helpful to the Conservation Stewards Program. (For example, computer, photography, graphic arts, public speaking, teaching, specific knowledge, hobbies such as birding, etc.) 32. About how much do you intend to volunteer for conservation activities in each season? (Please indicate the number of hours per season you could volunteer.) Total number of hours available to volunteer Season Summer season (May, June, July) Fall season (August, September, October) Winter season (November, December, January) Springseason (February, March, April) 153 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. The next section of this survey is intended to help us understand what you have found most or least valuable in your participation‘in the Michigan Conservation Stewards After completing the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program, what do you consider to be the most important things that you learned or gained? Did you learn or gain what you hpd originally hoped from this experience with the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? (Please check 91);.) C] No, definitely CI No, somewhat CI Neither no nor yes D Yes, somewhat D Yes, definitely Through participating in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program, did you learn or gain something new or something that you did not anticipate Ieaming? (Please check o_ne.) CI No, definitely D No, somewhat 0 Neither no nor yes CI Yes, somewhat Cl Yes, definitely Was this Michigan Conservation Stewards Program 40 hour basic training beneficial to you? (Please check ppp.) Cl No, definitely CI No, somewhat Cl Neither no nor yes D Yes, somewhat D Yes, definitely Did the curriculum and instructional sessions meet your expectations? (Please check gpp.) C] No, definitely CI No, somewhat CI Neither no nor yes D Yes, somewhat CI Yes, definitely '- 154 38. Did the in-field and hands-on Ieaming opportunities meet your expectations? (Please check one.) D 0 Cl E] [II No, definitely No, somewhat Neither no nor yes Yes, somewhat Yes, definitely 39. Did you have adequate opportunities to practice your knowledge and skills gained during the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? (Please check 99;.) Cl C] D CI 0 No, definitely No, somewhat Neither no nor yes Yes, somewhat Yes, definitely 40. Which curriculum unit or lesson (if any) was most valuable? (Please check a_ll that apply.) UDDDDDDDDDDDD Why were those lesson(s) most valuable? Introduction Conservation Heritage Ecoregions and Ecological Foundations Making Decisions to Manage our Natural Resources Forestland Ecosystems and Management Grassland Ecosystems and Management Terrestrial Field Experience Lake and Stream Ecosystems and Management Wetland Ecosystems and Management Aquatic Field Experience Putting It All Together Final Reflections and Projects Other (please list): 41. Please list (if any) your hands-on experiences that were most valuable? 155 42. Which curriculum unit or lesson (if any) was least valuable? (Please check a_ll_ that apply.) DDDDDDDDDDDDD Why were those lesson(s) least valuable? Introduction Conservation Heritage Ecoregions and Ecological Foundations Making Decisions to Manage our Natural Resources Forestland Ecosystems and Management Grassland Ecosystems and Management Terrestrial Field Experience Lake and Stream Ecosystems and Management Wetland Ecosystems and Management Aquatic Field Experience Putting It All Together Final Reflections and Projects Other (please list): 43. Please list (if any) your h_ands-on experiences that were least valuable? 44. How comfortable are you actually carrying out your intended volunteer conservation service hours? (Please check gig.) ['1 Cl Cl Cl Cl Very Uncomfortable Somewhat Uncomfortable Unsure Somewhat Comfortable Very Comfortable 156 Thank you for your participation! If you have any other comments that you would like to share with us, please us the space below (and additional sheets if necessary). For more information regarding this survey evaluation, please contact: Shari L. Dann, Assoc. Professor Heather Van Den Berg, Program Manager MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife 13 Natural Resources Building 13 Natural Resources Building East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824 e-mail: sldann@msu.edu e-mail: vanden64@msu.edu Phone: 517-353-0675 Phone: 517-432-5037 157 Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Follow-up Questions Please take afcw minutes to provide some feedback to these open-ended questions. Please think about the time since the instruction ended in April. 1. What, if any, volunteer conservation activities have you participated in since the last class session? Please describe. a. Have you continued to volunteer with activities you were already involved with prior to the Conservation Stewards Program training session? Please describe. b. Have you started volunteering with new activities since the Conservation Stewards Program training session? Please describe. 2. What material, if any, presented in the Conservation Stewards Program training sessions or included in the program handouts / notebooks have been helpful and in what ways? a. What has been helpful in your daily life? b. What has been helpful in your volunteer conservation activities? 158 3. Have you encountered any barriers or challenges in your volunteer conservation activities? Please describe. 4. What is the most memorable experience in the Conservation Stewards Program for you? 5. Do you believe that you met and connected up with others in natural resources in your area since the Conservation Stewards Program? (Please explain your answers.) a. Have you been in contact with anyone since the training workshop concluded? b. What additional networking services would be helpful to you in order to be or stay connected with others interested in natural resources? 6. In your opinion, does the Conservation Stewards Program benefit: a. ...local conservation organization and efforts? (And if so, how? If not, why not?) b. ...the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and their efforts? (And ifso, how.? If not, why not?) c. ...the Michigan State University Extension and their efforts? (And if so, how? If not, why not?) Thank-you very much for your feedback! !! 159 APPENDIX D: Review of Workshop Schedule, Special Topics, Agendas, and Learning Goals and Objectives 160 Sources of Conservation Stewards Program Instructors Oakland Livingston Total Pilot Instructor Source County County Efforts Total Instructors 17 16 17 Michigan State University Extension 7 7 7 Michigan Department of 4 5 5 Natural Resources Michigan State University 1 2 2 Fisheries and Wildlife Department Huron-Clinton 1 1 1 Metropolitan Authoritya Local County Instructors 4 1 5 Special Guests 2 4 6 aAdditionally, 4 naturalists assisted with logistics and shared volunteer opportunities. 161 3m: .93 con cm> 559...: am: .58 :95 55383. “522th new £00.65 .95 3.2.00 EcaEEoo go’s. ”OPT: .2063 c2352.. 5583 __m a. Egan. Ea 86. 1 :a one Q __a< 588:8; omo=oo EcsEEoo :22 uOWE). .9563. c2352... Ems. .co£_o>> m_o._ Ems. .__mucm>> EmBOI oocotoaxm Eel ozmsg .350 5:83 Emu ”fungus. 86523. <20: am: 68:03 £3 Dws. .__wucm>> “.5261 EmEommcms. ucm mESm>moom Emgw ncm 9.3 sin 85 i 85 m E3. sausages Eu 8;. i Em com a _E< $3.28 omo=oo _czEEoo cos. Umfis. _mco_mom c2mm£>j $205. 685.. 25m EoEommcws. ucm mEEm>moow ucm=o>> o 2.00 _caEEoo :22 GEMS. .9863. 576:3: E one i one mm 55.2 .>mumocuo>> E omnm I omuw NN coco—2 «Am—omega; mzoz as: 82m was. .5251 gas. mums. sausage :98. «.292 .wcwfiam E...> E22 5&9: mica oucotoaxm 22“. Remote... .250 9:58.. Econ. ”fungus. 86528. <20: Ea con». i Em 0on 9 seems. «HE—dam 2m: .35. 555 E25. .859: £23 accumucaou _wo_mo_oom omo=oo _caEEoo cos. duh-2 _mco_mom c2mm£>j «.292 .22 2m Em> a 260 S528 nos. Ea one i one E25. .cmEQI m=_>cn_ EoEmmwcms. ucm manm>moom ucflmmmao Womb: _mco_mom c9352.. 3 scams. gmumwcvo; . o 2.00 _czEEoo to: En omnm I 090 «zeimams. command o_maomw EoEommcms. ucm wEocmaAmoom ucmzmoaou Womb.-.)— _mco_mom commas: m scams. smumwcuo; (.20: .mwmwfiu‘mgmo 38:03”. 03:00 h_caEEoO tos— Ea 85 i cab :92 o . cm .9552 .50 ommcms. 2 $296 mains. Humans. _mcoaom coammcsfi v coca—2 .>mumocuo>> E ammo. i came NN banana“. .>mumocuo>> 3w: . com :00 cm> 55mm: roan: Echoes: io=m>>m cocoa oamEoI cozwzwmcoo w Emamoi .250 2352 Eu 8;. i Em omnm mmoamviog «3E 3550 seamwfiza Eauwoi muuaasoum :oflanmnoU mzos. .Eszm >mm 3:9st cozmzomcoo 9: 9 cozoauozs coamnuummmwmuw‘dgoz 2. beacon. (623mm :92 .cch :95 . .83ng each :oflmuoq wanna: 88 £3 - Essa 162 50.3000”. E00.0.t0n. 0:0 300.9... .05". Eoom 00:20.:00 mnws. 0:07.00 302 6:00 £050 .0580... :0 0. 0:05.. 8 one i 80 n _::< 0.0222 Eoom 8:20.50 mnms. 0:00.00 mzos. .0083. o_Ew Dws. .:o£.o>> m.o.. Dws. ...00c0>> 0.0.50... 8:0:00xm. 0.0.“. 2.029.. E. 80 i 80 um 5.0.2 0.00:0.2 .0500 awaooma .0.:0E:0..>:w 2:000:05. 8550 5.2. <20... I'll—l 00.2 See; 03 30.2 .0052, 2025: E0 86 | E0 85 mm £0.05. $00.38 120.2 .0080! 0.5m «.205. ...0.._.2 002m :0E0mm:0 :0 0E0 0.09.00 E00. :0 0 0 Eoom 8:00.:00 Ed 000% 00.0 a 2 U u w «w U x i. mam: DEN—v—NO ONJ‘UCNE >NUCOE :0E0mmc0 :0 0E0 0.600 :0 0 E00”. 8:00. :00 E 00.0% 00.0 . s. 0 . m 0 0 >> moms. 0:00.00 0. 60.2 00:05. 0.80 203005 .0.:0E:0..>:m E0 006 i E0 8.0 00000003 0.0.“. 0.80:8 0:000:05. 3 5.0.2 0.00.33 00:08 :0.0:_ <20: EZS. .cmEQI m._.>:n. E0E000cms. 0:0 0E0.m>moom 0:0.805 Eoom 8:00.80 9.55. 9.0.0.00 mzozmnws. .:0m:0.0n. 0.9000 .:0E000:0.2 0:0 mE0fi>moow 0:008:00 8 ohm i 80 0 5.0.2 0.00:9). Eoom 8:0..0E00 mes. 0:00.00 Em 090 i 000 um E0200”. 200:2). 8800 Em 8:5 8800 5828: .92 <20: 5:00: 93 :05. .550 :20 00.2 3.: $20 08508”. .9202 SO 000:0: 0. 08.9.0 9.0.05. Eoom 8:93:00 mams. 0:00.00 5: on... i 80 ow E0050“. $0055. 80:00. gazes c220. 8800 H.808. e; .025. .829: 9:3: 80:00:30“. .00.mo.00m Eoom 8:20.:00 wows. 0:00.00 womaoo 50000.0“. :0.. ca 80 i 80 9 E0200”. «00:05. ..0E00 E05005 829.83 SE 3:80 3810 Samoan 00.8305 :03030300 :ms. .90m :00 :0> .0500: 009:0... 5:028:00 0 E0520 _0.:0E:0..>:m E0 con». i E0 000 ”.205. €0.03. .0". 00.0305 5:028:00 0:. 2 800000.05 €009.05. 3 E0200”. $00.33 ...ms. .::00 :05 meim. 00.05 <50... .88ng finch. damaged mam—00$. 88 as? - .5300: 163 Conservation Stewards Program Special Topics Oakland County Conservation Heritage Oakland County’s Natural Heritage and Conservation Challenges Larry Falardeau, Principal Planner, Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services Ecoregions and Ecological Foundations Oakland County’s Natural Areas and Green Infrastructure Planning Initiative Iim Keglovitz, Senior Planner Kristen Wiltfang, GlS Technician Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services Making Choices to Manage our Natural Resources Environmental Stewardship Program and Economic Benefits for Oakland County lorry Falardeau, Principal Planner Brittany Bird, Technical Assistant Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Service Aquatic Field Experience Constructed Fen History and Management at Indian Springs Metropark [ill Martin, Naturalist Indian Springs Metropark - Environmental Discovery Center Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority Livingston County Conservation Heritage Early Settlement, Activity, and Development of Livingston County Peter Swallow, Livingston County Historian 164 [Insert N ame]County Introduction to Conservation Stewards Program And Conservation Heritage in Michigan [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 8:30 AM Arrival and Registration Explore the Environmental Discovery Center and Naturalist Bookstore Gallery of Quotes, Introductions, and Participant Learning Objectives 9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions Conservation Stewards Program Overview Pre-Survey Shari Dann and Heather Van Den Berg, MS LI Fisheries and Wildlife 10:00 AM Conservation Timeline Construction Shari Dann, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 10:45 AM Break 11:00 AM Conservation Heritage: Era of Abundance Shari Dann, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife 11:20 AM Conservation Heritage: Era of Early Conservation Shari Dunn, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 11:40 AM Conservation Heritage: Era of Ecosystem Management Shari Dann, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 12:15 PM Lunch 1:00 PM Conservation Mini-Sessions " 0 Outdoor Walk and Landscape Observations 0 Regional Conservation Mapping Shari Dann and Heather Van Den Berg, MS l1 Fisheries and Wildlife 1:45 PM Conservation Mini-Sessions (Repeat) 2:25 PM Oakland County’s Natural Heritage and Conservation Challenges Larry Falardeau, Principal Planner, Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services 165 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM Break Conservation Values: Where Do I Stand? Shari Dann, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Overview of Conservation Stewards Program 0 Comprehensive Program Overview CSP Certification Requirements and Ongoing Learning Policies and Procedures Contact Information Final Reflection Project Introduction 0 Questions Shari Dann and Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Adjourn 166 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 8:15 PM 8:25 PM 9:05 PM 9:20 PM 9:30 PM [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Ecological Foundations [Insert Location] [Insert Date] Refreshments & Livingston County Mapping Introductions, Review, Session Overview Volunteer Service Opportunities Heather Van Den Berg, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Heritage: Era of Ecosystem Management Shari Dann, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Ecological Quiz Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Introduction to Michigan’s Ecoregions and Natural Communities Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Break & Livingston County Mapping Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Introduction to Ecological Principles and Ecosystem Management Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Discussion: Making Management Decisions in Livingston County Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Session Feedback Adjourn 167 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Making Choices to Manage Our Natural Resources [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 6:00 PM Refreshments & Michigan Geology Challenge 6:30 PM Introductions, Review, Session Overview Volunteer Service Opportunities Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife 6:45 PM Small Group Decision-Making Scenario: Goose Management Shari Dann, MS LI Fisheries and Wildlife Shawn Riley, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife 7:20 PM Ecological Decision-Making in Michigan Case Study: White-tailed deer management in the Huron-Clinton Metroparks David Moilanen, Chief Interpretive Services/Public Relations Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority 8:15 PM Break 8: Michigan Geology Challenge 8:25 PM Introduction to a Decision Making Framework 0 Problems 0 Objectives 0 Alternatives 0 Consequences ' o Tradeoffs Shawn Riley, MS Ll Fisheries and Wildlife 8:55 PM Small Group Discussion of Goose Management Scenario Shari Dann, MS LI Fisheries and Wildlife Shawn Riley, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 9:20 PM Session Feedback 9:30 PM Adjourn 168 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Forestland Ecosystems and Management [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 6:00 PM Refreshments 8: Michigan Tree Challenge 6:30 PM Introductions, Review, Session Overview Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife 6:45 PM Michigan’s Forestland History & Ecosystems Georgia Peterson, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Forestry Division 7:45 PM Break 8: Michigan Tree Challenge 8:00 PM Woodland Stewardship Techniques Georgia Peterson, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Forestry Division 8:45 PM Forest Simulation Exercise: Putting It All Together 9:20 PM Session Feedback 9:30 PM Adjourn 169 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Grassland Ecosystems and Management [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 6:00 PM Refreshments 8: Book Nook Orders 6:30 PM Introductions, Review, Session Overview Heather Van Den Berg, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 6:45 PM Review of Ecological Foundations 8: Biodiversity Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory 7:00 PM Close Encounters of the Grassy Kind Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory 7:45 PM Break 8: Book Nook Orders 8:00 PM Restoring and Managing Grassland Ecosystems Vern Stephens, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 9:00 PM Small Group Discussion: Making Choices to Manage Grasslands Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Vern Stephens, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 9:20 PM Session Feedback 9:30 PM Adjourn 170 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Terrestrial Field Experience [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 8:30 AM Arrival and Registration 9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions Overview of Terrestrial Field Experience Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife 9:15 AM . Wildfires and the Michigan Landscape Mark Hansen, MSU Extension Emergency Preparedness Bruce Miller, MDNR Forest Management Division 10:45 AM Break 11:00 AM Grasslands Field Studies Vern Stephens, MDNR Wildlife Division Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1:00 PM Lunch 1:30 PM Forestland Ecosystems and Management Dean Solomon, MS U Extension 2:00 PM Forestland Field Studies Dean Solomon, MS U Extension 3:50 PM Session Feedback 4:00 PM Adjourn 171 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Wetland Ecosystems and Management [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 6:00 PM Refreshments 8: Michigan Birds and Mammals Challenge 6:30 PM Introductions, Review, Session Overview Heather Van Den Berg, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 6:45 PM Michigan’s Wetland Ecosystems, Functions, and Values Ernie Kafcas, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 7:45 PM Break 8: Michigan Birds and Mammals Challenge 8:00 PM Wetlands Metaphors and Wetlands Runoff Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife 8:30 PM Case Study: Lake St. Clair Flats Wetland Management and Restoration at Algonac State Game Area Ernie Kafcas, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 9:20 PM Session Feedback 9:30 PM Adjourn 172 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Lake and Stream Ecosystems and Management [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 6:00 PM Refreshments 8: Michigan Fish and Herps Challenge 6:30 PM Introductions, Review, Session Overview Heather Van Den Berg, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 6:45 PM Aquatic Systems: Background, Lake and Stream Ecology, Riparian Law Howard Wandell, Michigan State University Extension lois Wolfson, Michigan State University Extension 7:45 PM Break 8: Michigan Fish and Herps Challenge 8:00 PM Riparian Zone Management, Invasive Species, Volunteer Monitoring, and Reference Materials Howard Wandell, Michigan State University Extension Lois Wolfson, Michigan State University Extension 9:20 PM Session Feedback 9:30 PM Adjourn 173 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Aquatic Field Experience [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 8:30 AM Arrival and Refreshments 9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions Overview of Aquatic Field Experience Shari Dann, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 9:15 AM Wetland Field Studies Ernie Kafcas, MDNR Wildlife Division 12:00 PM Lunch 12:30 PM Clean Boats, Clean Waters Carol Swinehart, Michigan SeaGrant 1:00 PM Lake and Stream Field Studies Howard Wandell, MS U Extension Lois Wolfson, MSU Extension 3:50 PM Session Feedback 4:00 PM Adjourn Additional References: Iakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality, Carrol L. Henderson et. a1, MSU Extension, Bulletin WQ57 " Restore Your Shore, Interactive CD, Minnesota Bookstore, www.minnesotasbookstore.com Understanding, Living With, and Controlling Shoreline Erosion, Douglas R. Fuller, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council 174 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:45 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:20 PM 9:30 PM [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Putting It All Together [Insert Location] [Insert Date] Refreshments 8: [What activity here?] Introductions, Review, Session Overview Heather Van Den Berg, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Volunteer Stewardship Expo 0 See and hear from agencies and organizations involved in conservation and learn about specific volunteer opportunities. Break and Stewardship Expo Reception How To Volunteer As A Conservation Steward 0 Overview of policies and procedures 0 Safety and liability issues 0 Finding a place to volunteer Shari Darin, MS U Fisheries and Midlife Tips and Tricks For Sharing What You Know - Outreach, education, and interpretation skills for volunteering in parks, events, and with youth or adults. Shari Darin, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife Session Feedback Adjourn 175 [Insert Name] County Conservation Stewards Program Capstone Project, Final Reflection, and Evaluation [Insert Location] [Insert Date] 6:00 PM Refreshments 6:30 PM Introductions, Review, Session Overview Heather Van Den Berg, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 6:40 PM Small Group Presentations of Capstone Projects 8 minutes/group 7:45 PM Break 8:00 PM Continued, Small Group Presentations of Capstone Projects 8 minutes/group 8:45 PM Post-Conservation Stewards Program Survey Heather Van Den Berg, MS U Fisheries and Wildlife 9:20 PM Session Feedback 9:30 PM Adjourn 176 Unit 1 - An Overview of the . Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Authors: Heather Van Den Berg Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Shari L. Dann Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Welcome to the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program You are part of an important group of people - a group of citizens who care deeply about taking better care of our unique Michigan natural resources. That is why the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program has been designed for all of us...to join us together for the sake of stewardship of our wildlife, land, water, and natural resources. Our Mission The mission of the Conservation Stewards Program is to deliver high quality, locally- based training opportunities to create an informed Michigan citizenry who will practice community-based volunteer conservation management activities. Our Vlslon The Conservation Stewards Program is a collaborative effort among community-based volunteers and partners, leading conservation organizations and agencies, and educational institutions throughout Michigan. This collaboration will result in a statewide network of dedicated, well-prepared and well-organized volunteer Conservation ' Stewards who understand, promote, support, actively contribute to or lead significant conservation management activities on public and private lands. Conservation Stewards will provide a strong, informed constituency for the state’s natural resources and biodiversity. These volunteers will engage in informed, scientifically-based conservation stewardship activities to enhance resource management and sustain healthy ecosystems across Michigan, including land and water management, ecological monitoring, restoration, and public education. The network will be supported by an “academy" of statewide and local Ieaming communities with colleagues from across Michigan who have expertise in the science of conservation stewardship. 177 What is the Overall Goal of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program? The primary goal of the Conservation Stewards Program is to train volunteers and coordinate volunteer service for the benefit of Michigan’s resource conservation community. Volunteer activities include: Ecological monitoring Ecological management/restoration Ecological planning and decision making Conservation education and outreach Conservation-based youth activities. An integral component for the success of this program is in the networking with existing conservation efforts, volunteer activities, and community partnerships. A science-based ecological management training program implemented for adults requires local networks for long-term continuity and ownership. Our Specific Program Goals The Conservation Stewards Program provides Ieaming and stewardship opportunities for citizens to: 1. Gain knowledge in natural resources ecology and conservation management by Ieaming about natural resources in Michigan; the agencies, organizations, and institutions involved with resource management; conservation “best practices;" and decision-making processes for natural resource management. 2. Gain knowledge of and experience with ecosystem-based management by Ieaming about the ecosystem processes that integrate biological, social, and economic factors into comprehensive management of our state’s natural resources. 3. Explore one’s own attitudes and diverse attitudes of others towards natural resource management and the afiiliated state and local agencies, organizations, and institutions involved With conservation activities, by Ieaming about public and private resource management roles, responsibilities, and ' objectives. 4. Gain skills necessary to complete conservation management activities by participating in experiential Ieaming about management tools and techniques and by completing stewardship service to practice resource management in partnership with professionals. ' 5. Contribute to existing natural resources stewardship activities by participating as part of a pool of dedicated and informed volunteers committed to locally-based conservation management activities. 178 What is Ecosystem Management? Science-based ecosystem management is a process of assessing a site, determining management objectives, implementing conservation best practices, evaluating the success of a project, and continuing this process by modifying the objectives and implementation practices to achieve the desired management outcomes. Ecosystems are variable, and constantly changing. We attempt to reduce uncertainty and risk through our management activities and through science-based understanding of ecosystems. Although much of the work in ecosystem management occurs in natural areas (lands throughout the state that have ecological value), important conservation work occurs in all types of areas — public lands, private lands, areas under the care of conservancies, rural areas, and urban areas, whether these areas are large and contiguous, or whether they are fragmented, small and scattered across the landscape. Our state’s natural resources and their recreational use are important for economic, social, personal, and even spiritual values. Recreational activities include hunting, fishing, biking, birding, walking, paddling, boating, and even reflecting. There is room for everyone! Together we can manage our open spaces by recognizing the landscape features and making choices about their most suitable uses. As a way of managing our state's resources and taking all of these perspectives into consideration, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) moved to ecosystem management in the 1990s. The MDNR describes ecosystem management as a process that combines “ecological, social and economic considerations toward achieving the goal of sustaining Michigan’s natural resources” (Michigan Department of Natural Resources Overview of Ecosystem Management web site, retrieved 2005). Ecosystem management integrates physical, chemical, biological and ecological principles, with economic and social factor into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity and productivity of systems (MDNR, Joint Venture statement defining ecosystem management, 1998). Furthermore, through citizen participation and partnerships, ecosystem management offers new ways of addressing environmental issues. The MDNR views ecosystem management as resting on the following key principles: . Partnerships and citizen participation: work together with citizens, landowners, businesses, local governments, interested organizations, and other agencies to address issues, identify opportunities and find common solutions. . Science-based approach: use the best available scientific knowle'dge (ecological, social. and economic) as a foundation for decision-making; understand natural resource relationships, and focus on sustainability of ecological systems. 179 . Long-term view: establish targets and long-term goals for desired ecosystem conditions that maintain the capacity of the land to sustain public benefits and opportunities into the future. I . Comprehensive perspective: find solutions that support economic prosperity, lasting livelihoods, and ecological health and sustainability. The MDNR approach to ecosystem management employs eight elements of ecosystem management, as described by the Ecological Society of America: lntergenerational sustainability is a precondition for our management actions. Established measurable goals that specify future processes and outcomes are necessary for sustainability. Sound ecological models and understanding are needed through research at all levels of ecological organization. Biological diversity, structural complexity and connectedness strengthen ecosystems against disturbance and supply genetic resources necessary to adapt to long-term change. The dynamic character of ecosystems recognizes that change and evolution are inherent for sustainability. Ecosystem processes operate over a wide-range of context and scale; there is no single appropriate scale or timeframe for management. Humans, as ecosystem components, help achieve sustainable management goals. Ecosystem management provides opportunities for local communities to share in natural resources management and leadership. Current management is provisional, incomplete, and subject to change based on new research and monitoring results. Ecosystem management approaches must demonstrate adaptability and accountability. (MDNR Principles of Ecosystem Management web site, retrieved 2005) Why was the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program developed? "' The concept of the Conservation Stewards Program has been alive with many individuals and organizations involved with state and local-level resource management for many years. Beginning around 2002, work began on the part of Michigan State University Extension, Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, and a 180 multitude of partners to bring together the interest, enthusiasm, and resources to develop and implement the collaborative Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. Significant partners in the conceptualization and early volunteer development work leading to this program include the Michigan Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and The Stewardship Network. Natural resources and their management in Michigan have changed dramatically in recent years. Throughout the state, land use changes have created increased numbers of small-parcel landowners who seek to understand natural resources and ecosystem processes to make informed decisions about their property and in their communities. In addition, there is an increased desire among residents to participate in land use planning and resource management, and to positively affect local landscapes and watersheds. Numerous surveys of Michigan residents indicate that they give a high degree of support for managing wildlife for future generations and for existence values (Koval and Mertig 2002). Thus, the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has recognized the need for a program to provide coordinated training and support for volunteers on ecosystem management, tools, and techniques to empower them to complete stewardship and activities. Furthermore, significant work has proceeded with a comprehensive statewide approach to managing diverse wildlife and other natural resources. Beginning in 2004, the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resource developed the federally required Wildlife Action Plan, the goal of which is: ‘to provide a common strategic framework and set of management tools that will enable Michigan’s conservation partners (state, federal and tribal agencies, local governments, conservation organizations, universities, and landowners) to implement a long-term holistic conservation approach for all wildlife species, including fish, mussels, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and other invertebrates. " (Eagle et al., 2005) Traditionally, citizens have looked to resource management agencies, such as the Michigan Departments of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Environmental Quality (MDEQ), to be the entities solely responsible for conservation, resource management, and environmental protection. This view is no longer feasible, since it is beyond -the capacity of such agencies to complete all of the tasks of resource management and ecological monitoring throughout the state on their own, especially with increasingly limited financial and human resources. Over the years, many organizations like The Nature Conservancy (T NC). Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), regional and local land conservancies, watershed councils, conservation districts, conservation and recreational organizations, universities, local governments, and businesses have emerged as essential partners and leaders in resource management at local- and state- levels. 181 Michigan is a unique state, with abundant natural resources. Home to the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater lake system in the world, conservation in Michigan is and always will be important. Michigan has approximately 36.4 million acres of land. Within that land area, exist 3,000 miles of Great Lakes coastline, 11,000 inland lakes, and 33,000 miles of streams. Nearly 20 percent of Michigan's 36.4 million acres is publicly owned and managed by Federal, State, or local governments (Eagle et al., 2005). These lands are managed for a combination of wildlife, recreational, and economic objectives. In addition, numerous private, semi-private, and public land conservancies have formed and are being formed to protect land, water and natural resources throughout the state. So, what does this have to do with the long-term economic viability and sustainability of the state? All three of Michigan’s top “industries” are essentially and vitally linked to the wealth of our natural resources. Today, Michigan’s largest three income-producing industries are manufacturing, tourism, and agriculture (Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries, Michigan in Brief website, retrieved 2005). Manufacturing located in Michigan because of our water and other resources (e.g., minerals such as iron, copper, limestone, salt), and due to the transportation network provided internationally through our Great Lakes harbors. Agriculture, likewise, depends on our vital natural resources, such as soil and water; furthermore, agricultural greenspaces are becoming increasingly important as suburbanization advances rapidly in some parts of the state. Tourism is one of Michigan’s largest income producers, reaching a spending level of $9.5 billion in 1997 (Michigan Department of HAL, retrieved 2005). Tourists are attracted by our state’s public lands, wildlife resources (hunting, birding), fishing, water resources (boating, skating), historic landmarks (e.g., those tied to the early fur trade, such as Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinac Island), and winter recreation opportunities (ice fishing, skiing, snowmobiling). Involving Michigan's citizens more broadly in local resource management through the Conservation Stewards Program will further enhance the sustainability of our long-term economic base through tourism, and even will relate to our state's important heritage in manufacturing and agriculture. According to the 2000 US. Census, Michigan's population is just shy of 10 million residents. Forty percent of Michigan’s residents live within the southeastern metropolitan areas surrounding the city of Detroit, including Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties (Michigan government census data, 2004). According to the Wildlife Action Plan, this population distribution creates a greater demand and impact on resources within the southern portion of Michigan. These human “population changes in southern Michigan will increase threats to wildlife and their habitats." Within southern Michigan, 97% of the land is privately owned (Eagle et al., 2005). Partnerships and training for both private and public land management throughout Michigan (and especially in southern Michigan) are crucial to the statewide implementation of the Wildlife Action Plan. These partnerships in highly populated areas can bring together public land agencies (state, county, township and municipal parks), as wéll as private land holders (e.g., organizations such as conservancies, corporate land owners, and residential land owners/developers.) as well as regional councils of governments and other existing partnership networks oriented toward greenspace, watershed corridors, and other efforts designed to enhance and sustain our state’s natural resources. 182 Considering the changing landscapes and human population distribution throughout the state, the Conservation Stewards Program provides ecological Ieaming opportunities and stewardship service experiences for Michigan residents. The ecological Ieaming experiences focus on the complexities of ecosystems, decision-making processes, and multi-disciplinary approaches to resource management. The stewardship experiences provide opportunities to gain practical field skills (such as identification of exotic, invasive, forest, grassland or wetland plants), and to volunteer alongside professionals to conduct resource management on public lands. In addition, another goal of this program is to empower citizens tO'make science-based decisions about their own private lands that will benefit the public good and the future of wildlife, water, land, and ecosystem services. Ecosystems cross our land ownership boundaries, spanning both public and private lands. Only through public-private partnerships can we accomplish ecosystem management in Michigan, involving all of us as members and engaged citizens. 183 History of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Many conservation education and stewardship training and volunteer programs exist throughout Michigan, coordinated through public, private, and non-govemmental organizations. These programs equip volunteers and organizations with knowledge or skills to participate in specific activities. The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program seeks to bring together the diverse conservation and stewardship communities by developing an ecosystem curriculum and 40-hour training experience, combined with 40 hours of required stewardship service. The Michigan Conservation Stewards Program will: 1. Provide baseline ecological and natural resource conservation knowledge and skills, that many small, local organizations are unable to provide to volunteers before they complete stewardship workdays; 2. Coordinate, support and recognize volunteers who take part in stewardship service on partner lands and projects; and 3. Complement ongoing restoration, ecological monitoring, and resource management projects throughout Michigan with volunteer service and enthusiasm. Working together, MSU Extension and the Wildlife Division of MDNR formed a state- level planning team to study these successful adult education and volunteerism programs in Michigan and other states. Together, we formed a Cooperators Leadership Team, consisting of representatives from Michigan Department of Natural Resources, MSU Extension, MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, The Nature Conservancy, The Stewardship Network, and others. The Cooperators Leadership Team determined the broad need for this conservation volunteerism program in Michigan. As the Cooperators Leadership Team, we then examined state level needs in wildlife resource management, natural area protection, ecosystem monitoring and stewardship. Throughout 2004 and 2005, we conducted planning workshops, interviews and meetings with representatives from diverse wildlife conservation stakeholder types. Together, and involving more than 20 broad-ranging conservation groups from across Michigan, we selected the name of ‘Michigan Conservation Stewards Program,".rather than 'Master Naturalist" as used by other state programs. In developing this program, we explored the lessons Ieamed from the Texas and Florida Master Naturalist programs, Michigan Master Gardener and Citizen Planner programs, Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality volunteer involvement programs, The Stewardship Network training programs, The Nature Conservancy volunteer workdays, local land conservancy training workshops and stewardship days, and watershed monitoring and restoration training programs to determine the format and content of the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program. 184 State Partners for the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Michigan Department of Natural Resources seeks to expand volunteer conservation and management activities on Michigan’s lands through partnership with this program. Michigan State University Extension, and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife seeks to provide research-based information to the public about adaptive ecosystem management and to promote conservation volunteerism throughout Michigan’s counties. Michigan Natural Features Inventory seeks to provide high-quality ecological data and instructional resources to volunteers and state/local agency partners in this program. Additional Contributors for the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Michigan Chapter of The Nature Conservancy seeks to expand volunteer conservation activities on conservancy lands. The Stewardship Network seeks to network volunteers with a wide arrary of conservation opportunities throughout the state. Local Partners for the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Local partners are vitally important to this program. These partners include: the Huron-Clinton Metroparks, local (county, township, municipal) parks, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, local land tmsts, conservancies and conservation districts, local natural areas groups, regional/local watershed councils, County and regional planning agencies and organizations, and many more. 185 What is a Conservationist? A conservationist is an individual who engages in resource management enhancing landscapes, ecosystems, and habitats. A conservationist works in partnership with local and state agencies to ensure science-based resource management. A conservationist can be many things: - an active hunter or angler who helps manage populations of particular species - a recreationist who enjoys walking, hiking, and biking - a naturalist who enjoys observing plants or animals - a birder, who participates in local birding events and travels to bird watching sites - a community member who enjoys spending time outdoors, managing landscapes to attract wildlife, and who enjoys community service work - a community official making decisions about local land and water management that affect resources - a teacher sharing natural resources with students - a business owner or employee involved in resource management What is a Michigan Conservation Steward? Responsibilities of a Michigan Conservation Steward A Michigan Conservation Steward is an individual who completes 40 hours of initial training and 40 hours per year of stewardship service. Advanced training is required in each subsequent year (in addition to their annual 40 hours of stewardship service) so that volunteers can stay current with their ecosystem knowledge and specific resource management skills. Active Conservation Stewards maintain annual contact with their local office of MSU Extension, and with the state Conservation Stewards Coordinator. Stewards agree to favorably represent the program and its partners as outlined in the Michigan Conservation Stewards Program Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct Form. In addition, Conservation Stewards are required to follow local policies of the organizations with which they conduct their volunteer stewardship service, and may be required to complete liability and risk management forms of the local conservation partner and landowner before they may participate in their stewardship service activities. The Conservation Stewards Program is dedicated to training volunteers on science- based ecosystem management and best practices in management tools and techniques. - 186 Qualifications of Conservation Stewards Individuals interested in becoming a certified Conservation Steward must possess the following qualifications: a strong interest in natural resources and conservation management activities; willingness and availability to participate in extensive ecosystem and resource management workshops (totaling approximately 40 hours); willingness and availability to provide 40 hours of pre-approved, science- based conservation stewardship service; ability to communicate and share ecosystem knowledge effectively and diplomatically with others; willingness to support the Conservation Stewards Program and its partners. Conservation Stewards Training and Service Requirements Conservation Stewards must complete initial requirements (40 hours of training and 40 hours of service) within one year, and then participate in advanced training and additional conservation service each subsequent year in order to be certified as a Conservation Steward. The Conservation Stewards Program requirements consist of: . 40 hours of basic ecological training (including workshop attendance, and completion of required assignments, workshop activities, Ieaming reflections, and program evaluations) . 40 hours of pre-approved conservation stewardship service annually (opportunities will be facilitated by the Michigan Conservation Stewards Statewide Coordinator, and local workshop partners) . 8 hours of advanced training. in each year after your initial training, (as selected bythe individual Conservation Steward, and pre-approved by the Statewide Coordinator). Examples of types of training that could be selected by a Conservation Steward include: training for certification as a licensed herbicide applicator; prescribed fire certification; marine vessel operator’s license; CPR and first aid; chain saw operation/safety; MSUE’s Master Woodland Manager Program, Lake and Stream Leaders' Institute, or Citizen Planner Program; GIS training; invasive species control techniques; monitoring of conservation easements training; Projects WILD, FISH, WET, WOW, Learning Tree, or the Leopold Education Project. - In addition, we encourage certified Conservation Stewards to consider getting involved with the conservation community in new and innovative ways to share your knowledge and interest in ecosystem management! 187 Core Values of Conservation Stewards Conservation Stewards agree to abide by and serve these core values for the program: Locally-based efforts contribute to statewide impacts - Empowered volunteers will practice conservation management work to improve our local environments, contributing to statewide conservation. Quality and pride in program - High quality participant experiences will generate a sense of pride as a Conservation Stewards Program community member. Statewide partner collaboration - Diverse stakeholders (local and statewide) will work together with common goals to enhance Michigan's landscape. Economic, ecological and equitable sustainability — Our quality of life and quality of habitat are dependent upon each other, and available to all of Michigan's residents. Youth involvement- Youth, teens, and young adults can learn about stewardship and contribute greatly to lifelong conservation activities. Examples of Conservation Stewards and Their Volunteer Service Involvement The Conservation Stewards Program invites individuals interested in ecological studies, conservation management activities, community service, community development, and general natural resource management to participate. Conservation Stewards represent both the public and private sectors of conservation, because we all affect Michigan’s natural resources. Conservation Stewards also represent urban, suburban, and rural communities, individual residents, organizations, and corporations. The following profiles provide examples of the important work Conservation Stewards will be providing: Urban participants manage invasive species and plant native perennials at local neighborhood parks in partnership with a municipality. Residents modify home and garden practices to enhance wildlife values in communities based on their ecosystem training and volunteerism experience. Suburban participants work with State Recreation Lands to manage woodlots and recreational trails. Residents modify lawn care practices to reduce nutrients in waterways and distract overpopulations of geese. Rural residents manage fallow lands for upland game bird habitat in partnership with conservation organizations. Agricultural practices are modified to reduce excess nutrients reaching ponds and streams. ,. Individual residents prepare and present ecological education programs at a local nature center. Nature centers develop interpretive programs to introduce families to conservation stewardship practices. 188 0 Fisheries conservation organizations work in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources and planning and economic development officials for increased angling access, fisheries habitat, and planned community growth for stream protection. . Employees of businesses implement ecological restoration activities on corporate campuses and public lands. This component helps fulfill certification requirements for ISO 14001 environmental and community involvement. . Educators facilitate studies of biodiversity with students (early elementary to higher education), develop and implement a conservation plans on school property. . Members of faith-based organizations host stewardship workdays/fellowships on local lands with conservation easements in partnership with local land trusts and conservancies. 0 Participants representing township planning groups work with local governments to provide ecologically-sound input toward decisions such as greenspace protection, ordinances pertaining to gardening with native plants, composting, burning, or other policy matters. Benefits of Becoming a Conservation Steward The Conservation Stewards Program will provide an opportunity for you to Ieam the principles of ecosystem management, characteristics of ecosystem types, resource management tools and techniques. This training will equip you with the knowledge and skills necessary to become actively involved with stewardship and outreach activities to assist with resource management in your community for the greater good of natural resources in Michigan. Through this volunteer training and stewardship program, you will get to know others in your community interested in ecosystem management as well as the resource agencies, organizations, and institutions involved with local and statewide resource management. Through your informed stewardship service you are helping to restore, manage, monitor, and educate others about the wonderful natural resources around us. You are helping conservation partners reach their goals of successfully and sustainably managing resources for future generations — for these generations' economic, personal, and collective well-being long into the future! 189 References Eagle, A.C., E.M. Hay-Chmielewski, K.T. Cleveland, A.L. Derosier, M.E. Herbert, and RA. Rustem, eds. 2005. Michigan’s Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 1592 pp. httpzllwww.michimgmqov/wildlifeconserviionstratggy. Retreived 12/1/05. Koval, M.H., and AG. Mertig. 2002. Attitudes Towards Natural Resources and Their Management: A Report on the “2001 Resource Attitudes In Michigan Survey.’ A report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. PR project W-127- R-16. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Overview of ecosystem management. http:l/www.michiqan.gov/dnr/O,1607,7-153-10366 1 1865-24426— 00.html. Retrieved 7/12/2005. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Principles of ecosystem-based management. httpzllwwwmichiggngov/dnr/04607.7-153-10366 1 1865-31314— 00.html. Retrieved 7112/2005. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Joint Venture annual report for 1998. Lansing: MI, Department of Natural Resources. 97 pp. Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries. 2005. Michigan in brief. httpzllwww.michigangov/hal/O,1607,7-160-15481 20826 20829-56001—-,00.html. Retrieved 7/12/2005. Michigan Government census data, retrieved December 5, 2004 from www.michiq%qov/documentsmal lm census StateEst2003 80778 7.pdf 190 Unit 2 - Introduction to Michigan’s Conservation Heritage Authors: Shari L. Dann Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Ray Rustem Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Unit Unit goals: Overview of conservation heritage in Michigan. Introduction to organizations, institutions, and agencies involved in resource management in Michigan. . Introduction to the roles that citizens, scientists and leaders have played in Michigan’s conservation heritage. Identification of state conservation areas of interest. Observation of the landscape and the stories it tells of its past. Local Learning Goals: . Learn about unique natural features and the history of these features in the area where the workshop is held. ' Identify local conservation areas of interest. Identify stakeholders involved with local conservation. . Learn how to access and interpret local ecological information. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants will be able to: 1. State at least one example of how Michigan's conservation history or natural resources have played an important role in: - how the state developed and continues to develop; . the conservation movement and the ecological sciences locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally. 2. Define the meaning of “conservation," “stewardship,” and “management,” and describe the evolution of strategies used for conservation and resource management. 191 . Describe the evolution of funding and other forms of support for conservation. . Give an example of how changes in society, changes in natural resources (presence, abundance, status, health), and changes in approaches to conservation and management are interconnected. Be able to give a local example of conservation stories landscapes telll . Give a statewide and a local example of how understanding an organism’s life history, and/or surrounding landscape features help us understand what played out historically for these systems, and the ecosystem potential for what can play out in the future. . List two vastly different examples of the roles citizens have played in Michigan’s conservation heritage, (i.e. Gwen Frostic and Durwood Allen) and local conservation heritage (local examples). 192 Unit 3: Ecological Foundations in Michigan Author: Phyllis Higman Michigan Natural Features Inventory Unit goals: Introduction to ecological principles. Introduction to the principles of ecosystem management. Introduction to the factors that determine ecological communities. Overview of the regional landscape classification of Michigan. Introduction to resources relating to Michigan ecoregions and natural communities. Local Learning Goals: Identification of local ecosystems, including important native ecosystems. Natural disturbances that maintain local ecosystems. Determine the presence or absence of rare and unique ecosystem types in pilot workshop area. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: 1. 2. State five factors that influence where Michigan’s natural communities occur. List the section, subsection, and sub-subsection where they live and describe what it was like in the 1800’s compared to today. Identify at least two natural communities that have changed dramatically in region of workshop (southeast Michigan) since the early 1800’s. ' Define ecoregion}, ecosystem, natural community, natural disturbance, biodiversity, and ecosystem management. Describe how current views of ecosystem management have evolved from resource management from the past. Demonstrate the capacity to access web resources relating to Michigan’s ecoregions, ecosystems, natural communities, and rare species. 193 Unit 4: Making Choices to Manage Our Natural Resources Author: Shawn J. Riley Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Unit goals: Introduction to complex decision-making and different methods to work through complex problems. (Opportunities!) Introduction to the PrOACT decision making framework. Discussion of complex decision making examples in Michigan. Discussion of various “right things to do” for different situations. Introduction to assessing management activities. Local Learning Goals: Overview of how to apply complex decision making to local situations. Discuss local decision-making and effects on large-scale resource management. Demonstration of white-tailed deer management in the Huron-Clinton Metroparks. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: 1. Identify two examples in their lives of complex decision making opportunities, missed opportunities, and outcomes. Identify a problem definition, fundamental objectives, enabling objectives, , alternatives, consequences, and tradeoffs within the context of a conservation issue and their relationships to each other. Describe how decision-making fits into ecological management. Give one example of risk and benefits associated with ecological management. 194 Unit 5: Forestland Ecosystems and Management Author: Georgia Peterson Michigan State University Extension Michigan Department of Natural Resources Unit goals: . Introduction to natural history, diversity, and unique features of Michigan forestland systems. Michigan forestland status and threats. Introduction to stewardship strategies for forestland systems. Introduction to woodscaping — forestland management on small tracts. Introduction to organizations, institutions, and agencies involved with forestland management. Local Conservation Goals: Identification of local forest ecosystem communities. Identification of tree species specific to local forest ecosystems. Discussion of decision-making for forest ecosystems and management techniques. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: 1. Identify Michigan forestland types 2. Understand unique natural features of forestlands 3. Assess forestland, determining objectives for management, select management strategies, and monitor outcomes 4. Access resources for forestland management 5. Recognize positive impacts of forestland management for woodlots‘, wildlife, and landowners 195 Unit 6: Grassland Ecosystems and Management Author: Phyllis Higman Michigan Natural Features Inventory Vern Stephens Michigan Department of Natural Resources Unit Goals: . Introduction to natural history, diversity, and unique features of grassland systems. Introduction to ecological interactions of grassland systems. Introduction to current threats and management strategies for grassland systems. Introduction to monitoring techniques. Introduction to organizations, institutions, and agencies involved with grassland management. . Introduction to grassland management within a decision-making framework. JV" 0 Local Learning Goals: ' 0 Identification of local grassland ecosystem communities. . Identification of grassland species specific to local grassland ecosystems. . Discussion of decision-making for grassland ecosystems and management techniques. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: Identify four native warm season grasses. Identify four native and non-native grasslands. Understand unique natural features of grasslands Identify statewide grassland management examples Identify local grassland management examples Assess grasslands, determining objectives for management, select management strategies, and monitor outcomes Access resources for grassland management .‘1 @QJ‘P’N.‘ 196 Unit 7: Terrestrial Field Experience No specific goals and objectives; field session intended to reinforce units 5 and 6. 197 Unit 8: Wetlands Ecosystems and Management Author: Ernie Kafcas Michigan Department of Natural Resources Unit goals: Introduction to natural history, diversity, and unique features of wetland systems. Introduction to ecological interactions, functions, and social values of wetland systems. Introduction to current threats and management strategies for wetland systems. Introduction to research and monitoring techniques in wetland ecosystems. Introduction to organizations, institutions, and agencies involved with wetland management Wetland management in the decision making framework Local Conservation Goals: Identification of local wetland ecosystem communities. Identification of plants and animals within local unique ecosystems. Discussion of decision-making for wetland ecosystems and management techniques. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: 1. Identify and define Michigan wetland types including invasive, exotic, native, and indicator species. ' 2. Understand unique natural features of wetlands. 3. Assess wetland, determine objectives for management, select management strategies and techniques, and monitor outcomes. " 4. Access resources for wetland management. 198 Unit 9: Lake and Stream Ecosystems and Management Author: Howard Wandell Michigan State University Extension Dr. Lois Wolfson Michigan State University — Institute of Water Research Unit goals: Introduction to natural history, diversity, and unique features of lake and stream systems. Lake and stream management in the decision making framework. Introduction to ecological interactions of lake and stream systems. Introduction to current threats and management strategies for lake and stream systems. Introduction to lake and stream monitoring techniques. Introduction to organizations, institutions, and agencies involved with lake and stream management. Local Conservation Goals: Identification of local lake and stream systems. Identification of plants and animals within local aquatic ecosystems. Discussion of decision-making for lake and stream ecosystems and management techniques. Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: 1. Identify native invasive, non-native invasive, native, and other flora and fauna in lake and stream systems e wasp Understand unique natural features of lake and stream systems Identify statewide lake and stream management examples Identify local lake and stream management examples Assess lakes and streams, determining objectives for management, select management strategies, and monitor outcomes Access resources for lake and stream management 199 Unit 10: Aquatic Field Experience No specific goals and objectives; field session intended to reinforce units 8 and 9. 200 Unit 11: Putting It All Together For Conservation Volunteerism Author: Shari L. Dann Department of Fisheries & Wildlife Michigan State University Heather Van Den Berg Department of Fisheries & Wildlife Michigan State University Unit goals: Overview of conservation volunteerism in Michigan. Introduction to organizations, institutions, and agencies involved in conservation volunteerism in Michigan. Introduction to the role of the Conservation Stewards volunteer. Identify conservation volunteerism areas of interest. Introduction to volunteerism best practices and safety procedures. Introduction to conservation education. Local Conservation Goals: YOU DECIDE!!! Find a place where you would like to volunteer!!! Objectives: After completing this unit of study, participants should be able to: 7. 8. 9. Define their role as a Conservation Stewards volunteer, including liability 9nd code of conduct. Determine their conservation volunteerism interests and identify advanced training opportunities. Practice best volunteer best practices and observe safety procedures. 10. Define conservation education best practices. 201 Unit 12: Capstone Conservation Project and Final Reflection Authors: Heather Van Den Berg Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Shari L. Dann Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Unit goals: 0 Transition experience from classroom instruction to volunteer service activities that can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time. Create Ieaming communities among participants. Create an opportunity for participants to present their capstone ecosystem projects peers. o By working on this project participants will become more familiar with CSP partners and volunteer opportunities. Local Conservation Goals: . Begin implementing volunteer service hours on a locally identified and implemented program. . Identify local resource staff with agencies and organizations involved with resource management. Objectives: Through participating in this unit of study, participants will be able to: 11.Participate in a capstone conservation project with 2-4 CSP colleagues. 12. Complete 6-12 hours of volunteer service. 13. Present a 5 minute summary of their capstone project to the CSP group. 14.Work directly with at least one CSP partner agency or organization. 202 APPENDIX B: Data Summaries 203 Table Appndix-l. Conservation Stewards Program attendance and study subjects Attendance, Subjects, Oakland Livingston Total Pilot and Usable Responses County County Efforts Number registered 38 27 65 Adjusted number registered8 '39 26 65 Number completing pilot workshop 0 o 0 obtaining provisional certification 38 (97 /°) 25 (96 A) 63 (97 /0) Number responding to pre- and post- 36 (92%) 23 (88%) 59 (91%) program surveys N ' ' t 9311.)? meetmg reseamh sumec 35 (90%) 20 (77%) 55 (85%) crltena . . . . k Number part1c1patmg 1n 8 wee 8 (21%) 4 (16%) 12 (19%) reunion aOne participant initially registered in Livingston County switched to the Oakland County program to articipate with neighbors. One participant from each county dropped out of the program. 0Age 18 years or older; attended 80% or more (29)of the training sessions; calculated as percent of original registrants. dCalculated as a percent of those who completed the pilot workshop to obtain provisional certification. 204 Table Appendix-2. CSP respondent demographic characteristics . . US. Census Data nntesnsnsens 3km. 81:12:32: semester espo Sp Michigana Characteristic n # % n # % n # % % Gender Male 55 21 38.2 35 15 42.9 20 6 30.0 48.8 Female 34 61.8 20 57.1 14 70.0 51.2 Age in 2006 20—24 years 55 0 0.0 35 0 0.0 20 0 0.0 6.6 25-34 years 9 16.4 3 8.6 6 30.0 12.8 35—44 years 6 10.8 3 8.6 3 15.0 15.1 45-54 years 11 20.0 5 14.3 6 30.0 15.1 55-59 years 14 25.5 10 28.6 4 20.0 5.8 60-64 years 8 14.5 7 20.0 1 5.0 4.5 65-74 years 7 12.7 7 20.0 0 0.0 6.1 75-84 years 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4.5 85+ years 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.4 Median =55.0 Median = 59.0 Median = 45.0 Median = 36.6 Mean = 50.8 Mean = 55.2 Mean = 43.1 SD. = 13.3 SD. = 11.79 SD. = 12.34 Race or White 54 53 98.1 34 33 97.1 20 20 100.0 80.0 ethnicity Multi-Racial 1 1 .9 l 2.9 0 0.0 1.7 Education level Did not 55 l 1.8 35 1 2.9 20 0 0.0 13.1 complete high school High school 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 5.0 31.4 or GED Some training 10 18.2 5 14.4 5 25.0 30.8 or an Associate degree Bachelor’s 26 47.3 14 40.0 12 60.0 15.1 degree Master’s 17 31.0 15 42.8 2 10.0 9.5 degree or bi er 2!US. Census Bureau (2006). espondents could select more than one category. 205 Table Appendix-3. CSP respondent income, employment, and residence characteristics All Oakland Livingston Respondents Respondents Respondents Characteristic n # % n # % n # % Approximate yearly $20,000 - $39,999 52 7 13.5 33 3 9.1 19 4 21.1 household $40,000 - $59,999 . 11 21.2 6 18.2 5 26.3 income $60,000 - $74,999 6 11.5 5 15.2 1 5.3 $75,000 - $89,999 13 25.0 8 24.2 5 26.3 $90,000 or more 15 28.8 11 33.3 4 21.1 Employment Actively working 55 27 49.1 35 11 31.4 20 16 80.0 Status full-time Actively working 8 14.5 6 17.1 2 10.0 part-time Temporarily 3 5.5 3 8.6 0 0.0 unemployed Stay-at-home 2 3.6 2 5.7 0 0.0 spouse/partner Retired 14 25.5 12 34.3 2 10.0 Semi-retired 1 1.8 1 2.9 0 0.0 County of Oakland 55 39 70.9 35 33 94.3 20 6 30.0 current Livingston 6 10.9 0 0.0 6 30.0 residence Macomb 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 5.0 Lapeer 1 1.8 l 2.9 0 0.0 Washtenaw 1 l .8 0 0.0 l 5.0 Wayne 4 7.3 1 2.9 3 15.0 Ingham 3 5.5 0 0.0 3 15.0 Where respondents Rural, Farm or 54 14 25.9 35 10 28.6 19 4 21.1 spent most of their Non-F arm youth (up to age 18) Small Town, pop. 14 25.9 10 28.6 4 21.1 >25,000 people Urban Area, pop. 10 18.5 5 14.3 5 26.3 25,001 — 100,000 people Metropolitan Area, 16 29.6 10 28.6 6 31.6 pop. >100,000 people Where respondents Rural, Farm or 54 12 22.3 35 7 20.0 19 5 26.4 spent most of their Non-Farm adult life (age 18 Small Town, pop. 11 20.4 7 20.0 4 21.1 years and older) >25,000 people Urban Area, pop. 13 24.1 8 22.9 5 26.3 25,001 — 100,000 people Metropolitan Area, 18 33.3 13 37.1 5 26.3 pop. >100,000 people 206 Table Appendix-4. Participation in outdoor recreational activities, more than twice per year, by CSP respondents All Oakland Livingston Respondents Respondents Respondents n = 54 n = 35 n = 19 Outdoor Activity # % # % # % Active recreation activities Hiking 50 92.6 33 94.3 17 89.5 Walking or jogging 49 90.7 32 91.4 17 89.5 Bicycling 40 74.1 24 68.6 16 84.2 Swimming 3 I 57.4 22 62.9 9 47.4 Camping 24 44.4 13 37.1 11 57.9 Golfing 16 29.6 9 25.7 7 36.8 Horseback riding 5 9.3 5 14.3 0 0.0 Off-road vehicle use 4 7.4 3 8.6 l 5 .3 Skiinga 3 5.4 2 5.8 1 5.3 Scuba diving 2 3.6 2 5.7 0 0.0 Water skiing 2 3.6 I 2.9 l 5.3 Mountain climbing 1 1.8 1 2.9 0 0.0 Naturalist type activities Wildlife viewing 47 87.0 30 85.7 17 89.5 Bird feeding 36 66.7 23 65.7 13 68.4 Nature Study 35 64.8 24 68.6 11 57.9 Bird Watching 30 55.6 20 57.1 10 52.6 Botany field trips 2 3.6 l 2.9 l 5.3 Traditional natural resources recreation Boating 29 53.7 20 57.1 9 47.4 Fishing 15 27.8 11 31.4 4 21.1 Hunting 8 14.8 5 14.3 3 15.8 Miscellaneous recreational activities Gardening 41 75.9 27 77.1 14 73.7 Sightseeing 39 72.2 26 74.3 13 68.4 Picnicking 28 51.9 20 57.1 8 42.1 Photography 26 48.1 17 48.6 9 47.4 Sunbathing 10 18.5 6 17.1 4 21.1 Carriage driving I 1.8 l 2.9 0 0.0 _F_ighter kite flying I 1.8 l 2.9 O 0.0 a Includes all types of skiing. b Includes motor boating, canoeing, and kayaking. 207 Table Appendix-5. Membership of CSP respondents in conservation organizations Oakland Livingston All Respondents Respondents Respondents n - 55 _ _ n — 35 n — 20 Conservation Organization # % # % # % Local organizations . Local land conservancy 22 40.7 17 48.6 5 26.3 Local watershed organization 14 25.9 11 31.4 3 15.8 Local conservation organization 10 18.5 6 17.1 4 21.1 Local nature center 7 13.0 4 11.4 3 15.8 Local “Friends of a park” organization 3 5.6 2 5.7 1 5.0 National/international conservation organizations Audubon Society 15 27.8 10 28.6 5 26.3 The Nature Conservancy 14 25.9 9 25.7 5 26.3 Sierra Club 11 20.4 6 17.1 5 26.3 Wild Ones 8 14.8 5 14.3 3 15.8 Professional conservation association 7 13.0 3 8.6 3 15.8 Ducks Unlimited 4 7 .4 2 5.7 2 10.5 National Wildlife Federation 3 5.6 2 5.7 l 5.0 National Wild Turkey Federation I 1.8 0 0.0 l 5.0 Pheasants Forever 1 1.8 1 2.9 O 0.0 The Wilderness Society 1 1.8 I 2.9 0 0.0 Michigan conservation affiliated organizations Michigan Nature Association 3 5.4 2 5.7 1 5.0 Michigan Botanical Club 2 3.6 l 2.9 1 5.0 National Rifle Association 3 5.4 3 8.6 0 0.0 Defenders of Wildlife 2 3.6 2 5.7 0 0.0 Michigan Alliance for Environmental 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 5.0 and Outdoor Education Michigan Cycle Conservation Club 1 1.8 1 2.9 0 0.0 Michigan Environmental Council 1 1.8 1 2.9 0 0.0 Michigan Natural Areas Associationa 1 1-3 1 2-9 0 0-0 Michigan United Conservation Club 1 1.8 l 2.9 0 0.0 Resource Steward Other organizations Humane Society of America 3 5.6 I 2.9 2 10.5 Clean Water Action 1 1.8 l 2.9 0 0.0 Greenpeace 1 l .8 l 2.9 0 0.0 The National Association for 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 5.0 Interpretation New England Wildflower Society 1 1.8 1 2.9 0 0.0 People for the Ethical Treatment I 1.8 0 0.0 1 5.0 of Animals Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 1 1.8 l 2.9 0 0.0 a”Michigan Natural Areas Association” was provided by a respondent. It is difficult to determine what the respondent intended with this organization as Michigan has the Michigan Nature Association and the Michigan Natural Areas Council; nationally an organization called the Natural Areas Association exists. 208 Table Appendix-6. Degree of conservation organization membership by CSP respondents Level of organizational All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents membership n—55 n=35 n=20 # % # % # % 0 conservation organizations 10 18.9 5 14.3 5 27.8 1-2 conservation organizations 18 33.9 . 13 37.2 5 27.8 2 3 conservation organizations 25 47.1 17 48.7 8 44.5 209 Table Appendix-7. Pro-CSP involvement of respondents in conservation activities All Oakland Livingston Conservation Involvement Respondents Respondents Respondents n = # % n= # % n = # % Involvement with Not at all involved 52 15 28.8 34 8 23.5 18 7 38.9 local Minimally involved 10 19.2 7 20.6 3 16.7 conservation Moderately involved 12 23.1 10 29.4 2 1 1.1 organization Highly involved 15 28.8 9 26.5 6 33.3 Median21 = 3.00 Mediana = 3.00 Mediana = 2.00 Meanb = 2.52 Meanb = 2.59 Meanb = 2.39 SD. = 1.20 SD. = 1.13 SD. = 1.34 Involvement with Not at all involved 51 18 35.3 33 9 27.3 18 9 50.0 community Minimally involved 8 15.7 6 18.2 2 11.1 conservation Moderately involved 14 27 .5 11 33.3 3 16.7 project Highly involved 1 1 21.6 7 21.2 4 22.2 Mediana = 2.00 Median“ = 3.00 Mediana = 1.50 Meanb = 2.35 Mean” = 2.48 Meanb = 2.11 SD. = 1.18 S.D.=1.12 S.D.=1.28 Involvement with Not at all involved 51 22 43.1 32 14 43.8 19 8 42.1 national/ Minimally involved 24 47.1 14 43.8 10 52.6 international Moderately involved 4 7.8 3 9.4 1 5.3 conservation Highly involved 1 2.0 1 3.1 0 0.0 “gamma” Mediana = 2.00 Median. = 2.00 Mediana = 2.00 Meanb =1.69 Meanb= 1.72 Meanb = 1.63 SD. = 0.71 SD. = 0.77 SD. = 0.60 aMedian response on a 4-point scale with “Not at all involved" coded as a 1 and “Highly involv ” coded as a 4. l’Mean response on a 4-point scale with “Not at all involved" coded as a l and “Highly involved” coded as a 4. 210 Table Appendix-8. Motivations to participate in the CSP as an adult education program R L" Adult Education All Rest—pgsndents Oakland zgsspondents 1v1ngston_Respondents ' . — n n—20 Motivation Type “we-see -Vwesi . '13 a 35 < 8 3 35 3t” 8 ° 3 < Learning-oriented 2 2 e\° 2 2 °\e E 2 °\e motivations For the joy of learning about mm’°i°“’°°“nd‘he 4.80 0.56 96.4 5 4.77 0.65 94.3 5 4.85 0.37 100.0 outdoors in my local area. To contribute to the natural resourcesinmylocal 5 4.75 0.58 96.4 5 4.71 0.62 97.1 5 4.80 0.52 95.0 aread. For the sake of learning about natural resources and the outdoors in my local area. I wish to learn more about theoutdoorsformyown 5 4.69 0.61 96.3 5 4.71 0.62 97.1 5 4.65 0.59 95.0 sake. I wish to Ieam more about 5 4.73 0.59 96.4 5 4.71 0.67 94.3 5 4.75 0.44 100.0 plants or . Is. 5 4.64 0.56 96.4 5 4.54 0.61 94.3 5 4.80 0.41 100.0 Mean Responsesc = 4.72 Mean Responsesc = 4.69 Mean Responsesc = 4.77 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.835 Alpha = 0.860 Alpha = 0.745 Activity-oriented motivations To meet new friends. 4 3.62 0.89 58.1 4 3.43 0.74 54.3 4 3.95 1.05 65.0 “$213.“ I am pa“ °fa 3 3.34 0.98 45.2 3 3.06 0.92 35.3 4 3.84 0.90 63.1 To complete a natural resources education 3 3.29 1.24 43.7 3 3.03 1.27 37.1 4 3.75 1.07 55.0 programe. Mean Responsesc = 3.42 Mean Responsesc = 3.19 Mean Responsesc = 3.842 Cronbach‘s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Atha = 0.702 A1 ha = 0.399 Alpha = 0.899 aItems based on Houle (1961) and Boshier and Collins (1985). Respondents Continued on next page. were asked “My reasons for participating in this education program are. . .” edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 6Mean response for all items in category on a 5—point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. dOther researchers (Boshier and Collins 1985) found this item loaded on the activity-oriented motivation factor. cOther researchers (Boshier and Collins 1985) found this item loaded on the goal-oriented motivation factor. 211 Table Appendix-8, continued. Motivations to participate in the CSP as an adult education program , All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents Adult Education n=55 ":35 ”:20 Motivation Type' ..D 02 e2 5, DZ U) m 2 (I) Medianb Mean % Agree Medianb Meanb % Agree Medianb % Agree Goal-oriented motivations This program can help me get a volunteer opportunity I’ve been wanting. To pursue certifications related to natural resources that could help with my career. To advance my career in my natural resources that I’ve always been interested in. To switch my career path into natural resources of which I’ve always been interested in. This program can help me get ajob opportunity I’ve 3 2.42 1.24 16.4 2 2.11 1.16 8.6 3 2.95 1.23 30.0 been wanting. 3 3.09 1.13 32.7 3 3.11 1.11 37.2 3 3.05 1.20 25.0 3 2.84 1.41 38.2 3 2.43 1.31 25.8 4 3.55 1.32 60.0 3 2.71 1.33 27.3 2 2.37 1.24 17.1 3 3.30 1.30 45.0 3 2.62 1.27 21.8 3 2.54 1.31 22.9 3 2.75 1.21 20.0 Mean Responsesc = 2.74 Mean Responsesc = 2.51 Mean Responsesc = 3.12 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.907 Alpha = 0.887 Alpha = 0.945 aItems based on Houle (1961) and Boshier and Collins (1985). Respondents were asked “My reasons for articipating in this education program are. . .” edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. CMean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. Other researchers (Boshier and Collins 1985) found this item loaded on the activity-oriented motivation factor. °Other researchers (Boshier and Collins 1985) found this item loaded on the goal-oriented motivation factor. 212 Table Appendix-9. Motivations to participate in the CSP as a volunteer program All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents n=54 n=35 n=19 Volunteer Motivation u q, 1, q, 1, a, r‘ .§°°°’.§”'”.§°°” w: 3888833888888 2 e\° - 2 e\° 2 o\° Understanding (ecosystems/natural resources/conservation) Genuineiyconcemed my 5 4.81 0.48 96.3 5 4.83 0.51 94.3 5 4.79 0.42 100.0 Michigan ecosystems Learn about natural resources throughhands 5 4.69 0.58 94.5 5 4.63 0.60 94.3 5 4.79 0.54 94.7 on experiences Opportunity to Ieam more aha“ °mc°°sy31°ms 5 4.67 0.61 96.3 5 4.63 0.69 94.3 5 4.74 0.45 100.0 and resource management (:me 8°”ng for: 5 4.57 0.84 90.7 5 4.54 0.92 91.4 5 4.63 0.68 89.5 conservation cause Feeitgglimpommm help 4 4.30 0.72 84.9 4 4.18 0.67 85.3 5 4.53 0.77 84.2 Mean Responsesd = 4.60 Mean Responsesd = 4.55 Mean Responsesd = 4.70 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.865 Alpha =0.851 Alpha = 0.898 Values Feeilrlfggmmnfmpwplc 3 3.41 1.07 42.6 3 3.23 1.06 37.1 4 3.74 1.05 52.7 Concerned about those less fortunate thanmyself 3 3.40 1.04 39.7 3 3.26 0.98 34.3 3 3.67 1.14 50.0 Mean Responsesd = 3.41 Mean Responsesd = 3.24 Mean Responsesd = 3.72 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.776 Alpha = 0.672 Alpha = 0.896 aItems based on Clary et al. (1998) and Schrock et al. (2000). Continued on next page. bRespondents were asked “My reasons for volunteering are. . .” cMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. dMean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. °Other researchers (Clary et a1. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the values factor fOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the understanding factor 8Other researchers (Clary et al. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the protective factor 213 Table Appendix-9, continued. Motivations to participate in the CSP as a volunteer program All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents n=54 n=35 n=l9 Volunteer Motivation 1,5 0 8 ‘5 u 8 '05 o 8 Type' .— 5 o’ Eh . 8 d ‘56 ._ 5 d '50 8 g (11' < '8 g 05 < 8 g 05 < 2 o\° 2 o\° 2 5° Social People I know share interestsincommunity 4 3.69 0.97 62.9 4 3.66 0.84 62.8 4 3.74 1.20 63.2 service Those close to me value communityservice 3 3.35 0.85 38.9 3 3.46 0.82 42.8 3 3.16 0.90 31.6 highly . canlemi‘h0wm dealfw‘m 3.26 0.92 31.5 3 3.17 0.82 22.9 3 3.42 1.07 47.4 a variety of people V°lmteemglsmp°mtt° 3 2.93 1.03 24.1 3 3.00 0.94 22.8 3 2.79 1.18 26.4 thosellcnow best People I’m close to want 2 2.08 1.06 9.8 2 2.18 1.13 15.2 2 1.89 0.90 0.0 me to volunteer Mean Responsesd = 3.07 Mean Responsesd = 3.12 Mean Responsesd = 2.97 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.705 Alpha = 0.651 Alpha = 0.770 Enhancement can “p 1min” own 4 3.74 0.86 66.0 4 3.50 0.86 55.9 4 4.16 0.69 84.2 strengths Way to make new friends 4 3.54 0.93 52.8 3 3.31 0.83 42.9 4 3.94 1.00 72.2 Makes me feel needed 3 2.89 1.09 31.5 3 2.80 1.05 25.7 3 3.05 1.18 42.1 Increase my self-esteem 3 2.87 1.07 25.9 3 2.69 1.02 20.0 3 3.21 1.08 36.8 By ”lumeemg I feel less 3 2.23 1.09 7.6 3 2.12 1.01 2.9 3 2.42 1.22 15.8 lonelyg H 1 ”we W°rk thgmugh my 2 2.17 1.18 11.1 1 1.89 1.05 5.7 3 2.68 1.25 21.0 own problems Helps me forget about how bad I’ve been feelingg 1 1.74 1.01 5.6 l 1.49 0.74 0.0 2 2.21 1.27 15.8 Mean Responsesd = 2.74 Mean Responsesd = 2.563 Mean Responsesd = 3.08 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.864 Alpha = 0.807 Alpha = 0.896 aItems based on Clary et al. (1998) and Schrock et al. (2000). Continued on next page. bRespondents were asked “My reasons for volunteering are. . .” 6Median and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree’ coded as 5. dMean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. eOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the values factor fOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the understanding factor 8Other researchers (Clary et a1. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the protective factor 9 214 Table Appendix-9, continued. Motivations to participate in the CSP as a volunteer program All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents n=54 n=35 "=19 Volunteer Motivation 1, o .u o o '0 0 Type' E 05 ' 2 E 5 ' 130,8 05 ' 2 '3 g a 3:0 . '3 g 35 < '8 g 35 3:0 2 e\° 2 e\° 2 e" Career Can help me get a foot in the door where I want to 3 2.83 1.30 33.4 3 2.74 1.31 31.5 3 3.00 1.29 36.8 work or volunteer Will help me succeed in my chosen profession Can make new contacts that help my career Allows me to explore difierent career options 3 2.77 1.42 34.0 3 2.56 1.40 23.6 4 3.16 1.43 52.6 3 2.72 1.34 27.8 3 2.51 1.22 20.0 3 3.11 1.49 42.2 3 2.67 1.21 27.8 3 2.49 1.20 22.9 3 3.00 1.20 36.9 ““11 1°°k g°°d °° my 3 2.55 1.23 20.8 3 2.34 1.21 17.2 3 2.94 1.21 27.8 resume Mean Responsesd = 2.69 Mean Responsesd = 2.49 Mean Responsesd = 3.07 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.893 Alpha = 0.885 Alpha = 0.889 altems based on Clary et al. (1998) and Schrock et al. (2000). bRespondents were asked “My reasons for volunteering are. . .” 6Median and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree’ coded as 5. can response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “SuOngly Disagree” coded as l and “Su‘ongly Agree” coded as 5. cOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998 and Schrock et al. 2000) found this item loaded on the values factor fOther researchers (Clary et a1. 1998 and Schrock et a1. 2000) found this item loaded on the understanding factor gOther researchers (Clary et al. 1998 and Schrock et a1. 2000) found this item loaded on the protective factor 9 215 Table Appendix-10. Benefits sought by CSP participants All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents n=54 n=35 n= 19 Benefits ‘ £5 a 8 '98 a 8 .95 a 3 SoughtType ._ 5 d 81) ... 5 o‘ :3 ... 5 d 8b 8 g V; < 8 g m' < 8 g as < 2 o\° . E e\° 2 e\° Enjoyment of outdoor/nature opportunities Having fun. 4 4.44 0.60 94.4 4 4.26 0.61 91.4 5 4.79 0.42 100.0 Nature observation. 5 4.67 0.51 98.1 5 4.66 0.48 100.0 5 4.68 0.58 94.8 mghwm‘dmiy 5 4.65 0.52 98.2 5 4.54 0.56 97.1 5 4.84 0.38 100.0 specrfic plants or animals. The °pp°mmm°be 5 4.56 0.60 94.4 5 4.49 0.66 91.4 5 4.68 0.48 100.0 outdoors. Mean Responsesc = 4.58 Mean Responsesc = 4.49 Mean ResponsesC = 4.75 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.685 Alpha = 0.619 Alpha = 0.776 Helping the environment Learningnewthings. 5 4.83 0.38 100.0 5 4.86 0.36 100.0 5 4.79 0.42 100.0 Opporttmity to do natural resources workthatl’ve 4 4.35 0.76 90.7 4 4.37 0.77 94.3 4 4.32 0.75 84.2 always wanted to do. seemg.‘m9’°vemcms 1° the 5 4.810.44 98.1 5 4.86 0.36 100.0 5 4.74 0.56 94.7 envrronment. Opportunity to do natural resources volunteerism thatl’vealwayswantedto 5 4'191'12 79'6 5 4'20 1-16 32-9 do. Helpmg 1° manage °“’ 5 4.56 0.72 94.4 5 4.63 0.69 943 natural resources. Mean Responsesc = 4.55 Mean Responsesc = 4.58 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.795 Alpha = 0.728 Reflection Having a chance to reflect. 4 3.91 0.73 68.5 4 3.86 0.69 68.5 Doing something physical. 4 3.78 0.79 68.5 4 3.66 0.77 68.6 5 4.16 1.07 73.7 5 4.42 0.77 94.7 Mean Responsesc = 4.48 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.879 4 4.00 0.82 68.4 4 4.00 0.82 68.4 Feeling peace of mind. 4 3.53 0.93 50.9 3 3.24 0.89 38.2 4 4.05 0.78 73.7 Mean Responsesc = 3.74 Mean Responsesc = 3.58 Mean Responsesc = 4.02 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.745 Alpha = 0.714 Alpha = 0.781 aItems based on Ryan et al. (2001). Respondents were asked “From the Continued on next page. Conservation Stewards Program, I seek the specific benefits of...” edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 6Mean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 216 Table Appendix-10, continued. Benefits sought by CSP participants All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents n= 54 n= 35 n=19 Benefits .e o .e o .e o Sou tT eII E £5 ' 8 E a ' a g ‘5 ' 2 gh w 8 g 53 in B 3:3 35 < 8 g 95 3c” 2 5° _ 2 o\° 2 e\° Project Organization Projectsare well organized. 4 3.78 0.86 53.7 3 3.74 0.85 48.6 4 3.84 0.90 63.1 “if“ What ’5 ”1’6““ °f 3 3.44 .95 44.5 3 3.31 0.90 37.2 4 3.68 1.00 57.9 Mean Responsesc = 3.61 Mean Responsesc = 3.53 Mean Responsesc = 3.76 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.680 Alpha = 0.547 Alpha = 0.850 Social Seeing familiarfaces. 3 3.15 0.88 29.7 3 3.03 0.79 25.7 3 3.37 1.01 36.9 Meeting newpeople. 4 3.89 0.79 70.3 4 3.74 0.66 68.6 4 4.16 0.96 73.7 Oppwmt’eswwmk ”my 3.48 0.77 42.6 3 3.40 0.74 37.2 4 3.63 0.83 52.6 own pace. Feelingneeded. 3 3.091.12 37.0 3 3.00 1.03 31.5 3 3.26 1.28 47.4 Working withagood leader. 4 3.98 0.72 73.6 4 4.00 0.65 79.4 4 3.95 0.85 63.2 Mean Responsesc = 3.52 Mean Responsesc = 3.43 Mean Responsesc = 3.67 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.792 Alpha = 0.595 Alpha = 0.905 alltems based on Ryan et al. (2001). Respondents were asked “From the Conservation Stewards Program, I seek the specific benefits of. . .” bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. Mean response for all items in category on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 217 Table Appendix-11. Respondents’ reactions to CSP Reactions to the CSP Participants... All Respondents n=54 Median Mean OI U) %, Yes Medians Oakland Respondents n=35 “8 2 GI (I) "/0 Yes Median“ Livingston Respondents n=l9 Mean OI CI) % Yes Learned or gained what they had orig1La' 11y hoped from this experience Learned or gained something new or something that they did not anticipate Reported the MI CSP basic training beneficial to them Reported the curriculum and instructional sessions met their expectations Reported the in-field and h_ands-on learning opportunities meet their expectations Had adequate Importunities to practice their knowledge and skills gained during the Miggan CSP Ur 4.72 5 4.89 5 4.89 5 4.81 5 4.76 4 4.07 0.63 0.37 0.50 0.48 0.55 0.91 94.4 98.1 96.3 96.3 98.1 4.89 4.91 4.97 4.89 4.83 0.32 0.37 0.17 0.32 0.38 100.0 97.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 M 4.42 4.84 4.74 4.68 4.63 0.90 0.38 0.81 0.67 0.76 83.3 4 4.20 0.76 85.7 4 3.84 1.12 84.3 100.0 89.5 89.4 94.8 78.9 aMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “No, definitely” coded as 1 and “Yes, definitely” coded asS. 218 Table Appendix-12. Respondents’ rating of CSP curriculum units as most or least valuable - - All Oakland Livingston All Oakland Livingston C l t urnclu um Em or Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents “so” n=54 n=35 n=19 n=54 n=35 n=19 Most Valuable“ Least Valuableb # % # % # % # % # % % Wetland ecosystems 40 74.1 27 77.1 13 68.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 and management Grassland 38 70.4 23 65.7 15 78.9 1 1.9 1 2.9 0 0.0 ecosystems and management Makingdecisionsto 36 66.7 27 77.1 9 47.4 3 5.8 1 2.9 2 11.8 manage our natural resources Terrestrial field 35 64.8 22 62.9 13 68.4 3 5.8 2 5.7 1 5.9 experience Iakeandsu'eam 34 63.0 25 71.4 9 47.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ecosystems and management Aquaticfield 33 61.1 22 62.9 11 57.9 3 5.8 l 2.9 2 11.8 experience Forestland 32 59.3 22 62.9 10 52.6 4 7.7 3 8.6 l 5.9 ecosystems and management Conservation 28 51.9 18 51.4 10 52.6 6 11.5 4 11.4 2 11.8 Heritage Ecoregionsand 27 50.0 19 54.3 8 42.1 2 3.8 l 2.9 1 5.9 Ecological Foundations Puttingitalltogether 18 33.3 9 25.7 9 47.4 3 5.8 3 8.6 0 0.0 Final reflectionsand 15 27.8 8 22.9 7 36.8 5 9.6 5 14.3 0 0.0 projects Introduction 12 22.2 6 17.1 6 31.6 9 17.3 6 17.1 3 17.6 8Respondents were asked “Which curriculum unit or lesson (if any) was most valuable? (Please check all that apply)” espondents were asked “Which curriculum unit or legsgn (if any) was least valuable? (Please check all that apply)” cSummaries and descriptions of curriculum modules provided in Appendix D. 113: 219 Table Appendix-l 3. CSP respondents’ comfort level with carrying out conservation volunteerism All Oakland Livingston Respondents Respondents Respondents n= 53 n= 35 n=18 Characteristic Categories # % # % # % Pre-survey comfort Very uncomfortable 7 15.9 5 17.9 2 12.5 level with carrying Somewhat uncomfortable 2 4.5 l 3.6 1 6.3 out intended Unsure 7 15.9 2 7 .1 5 31.3 volunteer _ ' Somewhat comfortable 8 l 8 .2 8 28.6 0 0.0 0011883330“ “”106 Very Comfortable 20 45.5 12 42.9 8 50.0 hours Medianb= 4.00 Medianb= 4.00 Medianb= 4.00 Meanc = 3.73 Meanc = 3.75 Meanc = 3.69 SD. = 1.48 SD. = 1.51 SD. = 1.49 Post-survey comfort Very uncomfortable 7 13.2 3 8.6 4 22.2 level with carrying Somewhat uncomfortable 2 3.8 1 2.9 l 5.6 out intended Unsure 1 1.9 l 2.9 0 0.0 volunteer Somewhat comfortable 6 11.3 3 8.6 3 16.7 conscgvation scwicc Very Comfortable 37 69.8 27 77.1 10 55.6 “0““ Medianb= 5.00 Medianb= 5.00 Medianb= 5.00 Mean" = 4.21 Mean" = 4.43 Meanc = 3.78 SD. = 1.43 SD. = 1.24 SD. = 1.70 Difference between -2.00 l 2.4 0 0.0 l 7 .1 post - pre survey -1 .00 4 9.5 3 10.7 1 7.1 comfort level with 0.00 21 50.0 12 42.9 9 64.3 carrying out intended 1.00 11 26.2 9 32.1 2 14.3 volunteer. . 2.00 2 4.8 1 3.6 1 7.1 conservation 361““ 4.00 3 7.1 3 10.7 0 0.0 a hours Significanced z= -2417 z= -2.639 z= -.276 p = 0.016 p = 0.008 p = 0.783 8Respondents were asked “How comfortable are you actually carrying out your intended volunteer conservation service hours? (Please check gig)” bMedian response on a 5-point scale with “Very uncomfortable” coded as 1 and “Very comfortable” coded as 5. °Mem response on a 5-point scale with “Very uncomfortable” coded as l and “Very comfortable” coded as 5 dStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). 220 Table Appendix-14. CSP respondents’ self-ratings of post-training conservation skill levels Specific Volunteer '° Conservation Skillsa Median 7: =55 Mean GI m All Respondents % Agree Medianb Oakland Respondents n =35 D 8 2 DZ m % Agree Livingston Respondents Medianb .0 § 2 n =20 DI m % Agree Access/locate information I can locate information and resources about my 5.0 watershed. I can locate information about specific wildlife or plants, their habitat, status, and ecology. I can locate information and resources about my ecoregion and dominant ecosystems. Leadership/facilitation I have the skills necessary to assist with the implementation of local conservation projects. I have the skills necessary to complete community 5.0 service projects. I am comfortable contributing to local natural resources decisions. I am comfortable with my ability to work with different resource 4.0 management agencies and institutions. I am comfortable discussing the ecological planning 4.0 process. 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.69 4.65 4.56 4.55 4.55 4.40 4.27 4.18 0.47 0.48 0.54 0.57 0.69 0.74 0.73 100.0 5.0 100.0 5.0 98.2 96.4 92.7 92.7 87.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.74 4.69 4.63 4.57 4.66 4.54 4.40 0.77 90.9 4.0 4.31 0.44 0.47 0.55 0.61 0.59 0.70 0.70 0.83 100.0 5.0 100.0 5.0 97.1 94.3 94.3 94.3 88.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.60 4.60 4.45 4.50 4.35 4.15 4.05 91.4 4.0 3.95 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.81 0.75 0.76 0.61 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 85.0 90.0 aRespondents were asked “For each of the following statements, please indicate Continued on next page. whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only M response per statement.) ” Median and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 221 Table Appendix-14. CSP respondents’ self-ratings of post-training conservation skill levels All Respondents Oakland Respondents Livingston Respondents n =55 n =35 n =20 Specific Volunteer ‘5 .05 _ a ‘5 .e . g) ‘5 as . g) . . a .. Q .. Q .. Q Conservation Skills '8 E vi < 78 E US < '3 E :15 < Z e\° E e\° 2 e\° Education/interpretation I have the skills necessary to “S‘S‘w‘thmm’mam” 5.0 4.42 0.81 92.7 5.0 4.49 0.82 94.3 4.0 4.30 0.80 90.0 and outreach booths at events in my local area. I have the skills necessary to developtrailsignageor 5.0 4.33 0.80 83.6 5.0 4.34 0.77 82.8 4.5 4.30 0.87 85.0 brochures. I have the skills necessary to conductyoutheducation 4.0 4.25 0.82 89.1 4.0 4.23 0.84 88.6 4.0 4.30 0.80 90.0 programs. I have the skills necessary to lead field trips or hikes. Identification/monitoring I have the skills necessary to collectdataandobserve 4.0 4.05 0.87 87.3 4.0 4.17 0.82 88.6 4.0 3.85 0.93 85.0 plants oranimals. I have the skills necessary to managenuisance 4.0 4.00 0.91 85.2 4.0 4.06 0.85 88.3 4.0 3.90 1.02 80.0 invasive species. I have the skills necessary to help with identification 4.0 3.95 0.89 80.0 4.0 4.00 0.94 77.1 4.0 3.85 0.81 85.0 of sensitive species. I have the skills necessary to monitorland areas for 4.0 3.85 0.80 80.0 4.0 3.91 0.89 82.9 4.0 3.75 0.64 75.0 recreational uses. 4.0 4.13 0.92 83.7 4.0 4.11 0.96 85.7 4.0 4.15 0.88 80.0 aRespondents were asked “For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only fig response per statement.) ” Median and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5. 222 Table Appendix-15. CSP respondents’ interest in specific volunteer conservations opportunities All Oakland Livingston Respondents Respondents Respondents n = 53 n =33 n = 20 D «D .0 .D .D .9 Type of Volunteer Activitya a; g a ‘g: g a g g a 2 5 2 2 2 2 Terrestrial activities Habitat restoration projects 3.00 2.53 0.54 3.00 2.57 0.56 2.00 2.45 0.51 Native seed collecting 3.00 2.51 0.66 3.00 2.49 0.66 3.00 2.55 0.69 Removal of nuisance invasive species 3.00 2.47 0.60 3.00 2.46 0.61 3.00 2.50 0.61 Miscellaneous wildlife/access activities Other wildlife monitoring 3.00 2.52 0.57 3.00 2.53 0.62 2.50 2.50 0.51 Wildlife rehabilitation 2.00 2.35 0.73 2.00 2.29 0.75 3.00 2.45 0.69 Trail construction or maintenance 2.00 2.02 0.76 2.00 1.86 0.73 2.00 2.30 0.73 Aquatic activities Riparian restoration projects 2.00 2.32 0.65 2.00 2.33 0.68 2.00 2.29 0.61 Stream monitoring 2.50 2.31 0.77 2.00 2.26 0.75 3.00 2.40 0.82 Lake monitoring 2.00 2.11 0.82 2.00 2.21 0.81 2.00 1.95 0.83 Ecological monitoring Frog and toad surveys 3.00 2.36 0.85 3.00 2.37 0.84 3.00 2.35 0.88 Bird monitoring 2.00 2.26 0.74 3.00 2.36 0.78 2.00 2.10 0.64 Monitoring of conservation easements 2.00 2.26 0.68 2.50 2.41 0.66 2.00 2.00 0.65 Education and interpretation Guide or docent (special projects) 2.00 2.31 0.72 2.00 2.29 0.76 2.00 2.35 0.67 Children’s activities 2.00 2.27 0.76 2.00 2.14 0.77 3.00 2.50 0.69 Event booths/displays 2.00 2.22 0.66 2.00 2.09 0.67 2.50 2.45 0.61 Giving presentations 2.00 2.05 0.73 2.00 2.06 0.73 2.00 2.05 0.76 Elisodic activities River clean-ups 2.00 2.20 0.65 2.00 2.03 0.62 3.00 2.50 0.61 Trash pick-ups 2.00 2.09 0.65 2.00 1.97 0.66 2.00 2.30 0.57 Organizational/Administrative activities Committee or board work 2.00 1.96 0.78 2.00 2.15 0.80 2.00 1.65 0.67 Computer work 2.00 1.87 0.71 2.00 2.00 0.71 2.00 1.65 0.67 Other writing 2.00 1.78 0.74 2.00 1.85 0.78 2.00 1.65 0.67 Newsletter 2.00 1.74 0.71 2.00 1.82 0.73 1.50 1.60 0.68 Fundraising 1.00 1.27 0.45 1.00 1.38 0.49 1.00 1.1 l 0.32 aRespondents were asked, “ Please rate your level of interest in volunteering for each type of activity as Low, Medium, or High. (Circle only M response per statement.) ” edian and mean responses on a 3-point scale with “Low” coded as a l and “High” coded as a 3. 223 Table Appendix-16. CSP respondents’ attitudes and values concerning wildlife All Oakland Livingston Respondents Respondents Respondents n=55 n =35 n =20 05 O . as 0 . OS 0 . Attitudea‘b § 5 55 § 5 55 :8 a 5‘5 2 *2 2 2 2 Communication benefits That I appreciate the role that wildlife play in 5 4.89 0.32 5 4.85 0.36 5 4.95 0.22 the natural environmentc. That wildlife are included in educational 5 4.81 0.39 5 4.88 0.33 5 4.70 0.47 materials as the subject for learning more about naturec. That I talk about wildlife with family and 5 4.52 0.61 5 4.49 0.66 5 4.58 0.51 friends. That I see wildlife in books, movies, paintings 5 4.49 0.64 5 4.57 0.61 4 4.35 0.67 or photographs. That I tolerate the ordinary personal safe 4 4.02 1.08 4 4.06 1.03 4 3.95 1.19 hazards associated with some wildlife . Mean Responsesd = 4.60 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.736 Social benefits That I understand more about the behavior of 5 4.76 0.47 5 4.80 0.41 5 4.70 0.57 wildlife. That I consider the presence of wildlife as a 5 4.74 0.52 5 4.76 0.50 5 4.70 0.57 sign of the quality of the natural environment. That I express opinions about wildlife and 4 4.07 0.98 4 4.23 0.88 4 3.80 1.11 their management to public officials or to oficers of private conservation organizationsg. Thatlocaleconomies benefit fromthe sale of 4 3.70 0.92 4 3.71 0.87 4 3.70 1.03 equipment, supplies, or services related to wildlife recreation . Mean Responsesd = 4.37 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.659 aRespondents were asked “It is important to me personally...” Continued on next page. bWAVS items based on Purdy and Decker (1989) and Butler et al. (2003). cMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded 5. dMean response for all items in category. eOther researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the social benefits dimension. fOther researchers (Butler et a1. 2003) found this item loaded with the problem tolerance dimension. 3Other researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the communication benefits dimension. hOther researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the traditional conservation dimension. 224 Table Appendix-16, continued. CSP respondents’ attitudes and values concerning wildlife All Oakland Livingston Respondents Respondents Respondents n=55 n =35 n =20 Attitudea’b g; 8 D. g g Q. i; 8 Q- 2 2 m 2’ 5 m 2 5 m Problem tolerance That I tolerate most wildlife nuisance 4 3.82 1.04 4 3.71 1.10 4 4.00 0.92 problems. That I tolerate most levels of property damage 4 3.74 1.01 3 3.59 1.10 4 4.00 0.80 by wildlife. That I tolerate the ordinary risk ofwildlife 4 3.63 1.17 4 3.44 1.19 4 3.95 1.10 transmitting disease to humans or domestic animals. Mean Responsesd = 3.73 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.842 Traditional conservation That game animals are managed for an annual 4 4.19 0.83 4 4.21 0.77 4 4.15 0.93 harvest for human use without harming the future of the wildlife population. That I hunt game animals for food. 2 2.24 1.33 2 2.14 1.26 2 2.40 1.47 That I hunt game animals for recreation. 1 1.89 1.28 l 1.94 1.43 1 1.80 1.01 That I trap furbearing animals for the sale of 1 1.60 0.85 1 1.57 0.85 l 1.65 0.88 fur or pelts. Mean Responsesd = 2.48 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.845 3Respondents were asked “It is important to me personally...” bWAVS items based on Purdy and Decker (1989) and Butler et a1. (2003). cMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded 5. d'Mean response for all items in category. eOther researchers (Butler et a1. 2003) found this item loaded with the social benefits dimension. fOther researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the problem tolerance dimension. gOther researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the communication benefits dimension. 11Other researchers (Butler et al. 2003) found this item loaded with the traditional conservation dimension. 225 Table Appendix-17. CSP respondents’ knowledge of ecology All Respondents n=55 Pro-pro gram Post-program Difference between , a % correct % don’t % correct % don’t POSt' VS- PIC' Knowledge of ecology question ... response know response know Z pb Ecosystem definition 78.2 5.5 78.2 0.0 0.000 1.000 Population definition 65.5 5.5 80.0 1.8 -2.138 0.033 Ecology definition 85.5 10.9 85.5 1.8 0.000 1.000 Succession definition 80.0 10.9 100.0 0.0 -3.317 0.001 B‘°1°g‘°.al °Wg “pm” 54.5 21.8 83.6 5.5 -3.578 0.000 definition Climax community definition 67.3 32.7 92.7 5.5 -3.500 0.000 Factors determining Michigan’s ecosystem distribution 90.9 9.1 94.5 0.0 -0.707 0.480 Pam’s “‘3ng 1mm" 83.6 12.7 96.4 0.0 -2111 0.035 ecosystems Exam“? °fn°“'P°““ 8”“ 63.6 12.7 72.7 1.8 -l.387 0.166 pouuuon Social carrying capacity definition 54.5 29.1 70.9 7.3 -2.065 0.039 Function of wetland systems 89.1 7.3 96.4 0.0 -1.414 0.157 Ecosystems have different predominant natural disturbances 81.8 18.2 94.5 3.6 --2.1 11 0.035 M‘Ch‘ga“ .has f°“’ mm“ 65.5 27.3 76.4 1.8 -1414 0.157 ecoregions only Great”? Watershed “m 78.2 14.5 85.5 10.9 -1.633 0.102 present in Michigan Defimum °f mg. as a “”6“ 78.2 9.1 81.8 0.0 -0.632 0.527 management practice Michigan’s forestland is growing 12.7 32.7 68.5 7.4 -5.477 0.000 W‘ldhfe.mg°memplmg 85.5 12.7 87.3 1.8 .0333 0.739 defimtron mm “3' th" 3’83““ “use °f 1“” 24.1 33.3 46.3 1.9 -2.683 0.007 death In Michigan Fish and wildlife management “mdmg fmm h‘m‘mg and “mm 65.5 23.6 98.2 0.0 4.243 0.000 hcense sales and taxes on equipment Fish and wildlife resources held in public trust by the state 47.3 41.8 74.5 1.8 -3.441 0.001 Pmmples °f the ””31“” 78.2 20.0 90.9 1.8 -1.941 0.052 management approach “36‘3““ .m lakes ‘3 “an“ and 90.9 7.3 98.2 0.0 -1.633 0.102 non-native Total knowledge of ecologyc Median = 16.0 Median = 19.0 Mean = 15.2 Mean = 18.5 -5.491 0.000 SD. = 4.81 SD. = 2.78 aComplete survey questions in Appendix C. bStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). cParticipants responded to 22 knowledge of ecology questions; thus maximum knowledge score = 22 points. 226 Table Appendix-18. Oakland CSP respondents’ knowledge of ecology Oakland Respondents n=35 Pro-program Post-program Difference between , a % correct % don’t % correct % don’t [3031' V5- pre- Knowledge of ecology question response know response know _Z_—T Ecosystem definition 80.0 2.9 80.0 0.0 0.000 1.000 Population definition 68.6 2.9 80.0 0.0 -1.414 0.157 Ecology definition 85.7 8.6 88.6 2.9 -0.333 0.739 Succession definition 80.0 8.6 100.0 0.0 -2.646 0.008 B‘°1°g‘°.31 “mg “1’3“” 48.6 20.0 82.9 5.7 —3.207 0.001 defimtron Climax community definition 62.9 37.1 94.3 5.7 -3.317 0.001 Fact“ deem? Mum“ s 97.1 2.9 91.4 0.0 -1000 0.317 ecosystem distribution “cm” “‘3ng pm” 85.7 11.4 97.1 0.0 -1.633 0.102 ecosystems Exam”? °f“°”'p°‘m mm 60.0 11.4 71.4 2.9 -1.414 0.157 pollutron Social carrying capacity definition 45.7 34.3 74.3 5.7 -2.887 0.004 Function of wetland systems 94.3 2.9 94.3 0.0 0.000 1.000 Ecosystems have different predominant natural disturbances 80.0 20.0 94.3 5.7 -I .890 0.059 M‘ch‘ga“ .11” f°‘“ mm" 60.0 28.6 82.9 2.9 -2309 0.021 ecoregions only Great”? “1mm“ n°‘ 88.6 11.4 94.3 5.7 -1.414 0.157 present In Michigan Defim‘m “mg. as a mm” 80.0 5.7 85.7 0.0 -0.707 0.480 management practice Michigan’s forestland is growing 17.1 34.3 67.6 11.8 -4.123 0.000 w“dhfc.mgem°“‘ “mg 85.7 14.3 94.3 2.9 -1342 0.180 defimtron use“ "1‘ the grim“ “use mm 26.5 35.3 52.9 2.9 -2.496 0.013 death in Michigan Fish and wildlife management 1“”de fm‘ h‘m‘mg and fighmg 68.6 20.0 97.1 0.0 -3.162 0.002 license sales and taxes on equipment Fish and wildlife resources held in public 11118th the We 54.3 37.1 80.0 0.0 -2.714 0.007 Pump“ “the °°°sy31°m 80.0 17.1 94.3 2.9 -2.236 0.025 management approach “gem”? lakes ‘3 “at” and 4.3 2.9 100.0 0.0 -1.414 0.157 non-native Total knowledge of ecologyc Median = 16-0 Median = 20-0 Mean = 15.4 Mean = 18.9 —4.757 0.000 SD. = 4.09 SD. = 2.34 aComplete survey questions in Appendix C. bStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). cParticipants responded to 22 knowledge of ecology questions; thus maximum knowledge score = 22 points. 227 Table Appendix-19. Livingston CSP respondents’ knowledge of ecology Livingston Respondents n=20 Pre-program Post-program Difference between _ a % correct % don‘t % correct % don't POSt‘ VS- pre- Knowledge of ecology question response know response know Z p Ecosystem 75.0 10.0 75.0 0.0 0.000 1.000 Population 60.0 10.0 80.0 5.0 -l .633 0.102 Ecology 85.0 15.0 80.0 0.0 -0.447 0.655 Succession 80.0 15.0 100.0 0.0 -2.000 0.046 Biological carrying capacity 65.0 25.0 85.0 5.0 -1.633 0.102 Climax community 75.0 25.0 90.0 5.0 -1.342 0.180 Landforms, glaciers, human disturbance, climate, and 80.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 -2.000 0.046 topography Fire and grazing 80.0 15.0 95.0 0.0 -l.342 0.180 Non-point source pollution 70.0 15.0 75.0 0.0 -0.447 0.655 Social carrying capacity 70.0 20.0 65.0 10.0 -0.378 0.705 Flood control, water filtration, fish and wildlife habitat 80.0 15.0 100.0 0.0 -2.00 0.046 Ecosystems have different predominant natural 85.0 15.0 95.0 0.0 -1.000 0.317 disturbances Fm" 4’3“?“ “New” “1 75.0 25.0 65.0 0.0 -0.816 0.414 Michgian Lake Ontario 60.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 -1.000 0.317 Thinning 75.0 15.0 75.0 0.0 0.000 1.000 Michigan’s forestland is . 5.0 30.0 70.0 0.0 -3.606 0.000 growmg Wfldhfe mew 85.0 10.0 75.0 0.0 -1.000 0.317 planmng Disease 20.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 -l.134 0.257 Fish and wildlife management funding from hunting and fishing license sales and 60.0 30.0 100.0 0.0 -2.828 0.005 taxes on equipment Fish and wildlife resources held in public trust by the 35.0 50.0 65.0 5.0 -2.121 0.034 state Pmc‘l’les °f the °°°Syswm 75.0 25.0 85.0 0.0 -0.707 0.480 management approach vegetam" “115*“ ‘3 “an“ 85.0 15.0 95.0 0.0 -1.000 0.317 and non-native. Total knowledge of ecologyc Median = 16.0 Median = 19.0 Mean = 14.8 Mean = 17.8 -2.488 0.013 SD. = 5.95 SD. = 3.35 aComplete survey questions in Appendix C. Statistical significance between post vs. pre-progam determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). cParticipants responded to 22 knowledge of ecology questions; thus maximum knowledge score = 22 pomts. 228 Table Appendix-20. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward the Michigan Department of resource decisions. aItems based on Koval and Mertig (2002). true?” Natural Resources AllRespondents n=55 Pre—program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- Attitudes toward the Michigan '° .9 . 03 ° .9 _ 03 ° .9 Department of Natural “g a 0. Sb :3 53 Q 81) g E Z pd a o 2 m <2 0 2 to <1 0 2 Resources 2 g 2 °\o 2 The DNR manages natural resourcesinascientifically 4 3.36 0.87 51.0 4 3.91 0.65 89.1 0 0.55 4.051 0.000 sound matter. The DNR provides accurate informationonnatural 4 3.49 0.81 58.2 4 3.98 0.66 88.9 0 0.46 -3.771 0.000 resource issues. [trust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when makingnaturalresource 3 3.22 0.90 42.6 4 3.78 0.88 74.6 0 0.56 -3.361 0.001 _ decisions. “‘9 DNR “matelyflpl‘fms 2.91 0.35 29.1 4 3.40 1.01 56.4 0 0.49 -2.800 0.005 its programs to the public DNR personnel provide high q ualityservice to thepublic. 3.51 0.81 56.4 4 4.07 0.79 83.6 1 0.56 -3.882 0.000 The DNR provides adequate °pp‘?’.‘“m.”es.f°‘p“bh° 3 2.93 0.79 23.6 4 3.69 0.88 67.2 1 0.76 -4.456 0.000 part1c1pation in nature Respondents were asked “Do you believe this statement to be l)Median and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Never” coded as a l and “Always” coded as a 5. 0Percent indicating “Usually” or “Always.’ dStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). 229 Table Appendix-21. Oakland CSP respondents’ attitudes toward the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Oakland Respondents n=35 Pre-program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- Attitudes toward the Michigan '° .0 . 03 ° .e . 03 ° .9 Department of Natural § § 3 2) § § 35 i?) g g Z pd Resources8 2 2 gt 2 2 g E 2 The DNR manages natural resourcesinascientifically 4 3.49 0.85 54.3 4 4.03 0.51 94.3 0 0.54 -3.l39 0.002 sound matter. The DNR provides accurate informationonnatural 4 3.60 0.81 62.9 4 4.06 0.54 94.3 0 0.46 -3.119 0.002 resource issues. Itrust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when makingnaturalresource 3.21 0.88 38.3 4 3.89 0.80 80.0 1 0.68 -3.194 0.001 decisions. Th? DNRadmua‘dyexl’lms 3.00 0.87 68.6 4 3.37 1.09 54.3 0 0.37 -l.534 0.125 its programs to the pubhc DNRPim‘mlp’mdeh‘gh. 3.63 0.69 57.2 4 4.11 0.76 88.6 o 0.49 -2.660 0.008 quality mm to the public. The DNR provides adequate 0W9riumi‘esf0’publ‘c 3 3.23 0.73 34.3 4 3.69 0.90 68.6 0 0.46 -2490 0.013 partiCipation in nature resource decisions. altems based on Koval and Mertig (2002). Respondents were asked “Do you believe this statement to be true?” l)Median and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Never” coded as a 1 and “Always” coded as a 5. ¢Percent indicating “Usually” or “Always.” dStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed—ranks test (3550.05). 230 Table Appendix-22. Livingston CSP respondents’ attitudes toward the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Livingston Respondents n=20 Pre- rogram Post- rogram Difference between p p post- vs. pre- Attitudes toward the Michigan ‘° .9 . 03 ° .9 _ 03 ° .9 Department of Natural g 25; Q. 313 1% § 9. 81) a g Z pd a 0 2 U) < d) 2 VJ < '3 2 Resources 2 g 2 .,\° 2 The DNR manages natural resources in a scientifically 3.0 3.15 0.88 45.0 4 3.70 0.80 80.0 0 0.55 -2.598 0.009 sound matter. The DNR provides accurate information on natural 3.5 3.30 0.80 50.0 4 3.84 0.83 79.0 0 0.47 -2.l65 0.030 resource issues. I trust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when making natural resource decisions. The DNR adequately explains its programs to the public DNR personnel provide high quality service to the 4.0 3.30 0.98 55.0 4 4.00 0.86 75.0 1 0.70 ~2.952 0.003 public. The DNR provides adequate opportunities for public participation in nature resource decisions. 3.5 3.25 0.97 50.0 4 3.60 1.00 65.0 0 0.35 -l.308 0.191 3.0 2.75 0.79 20.0 4 3.45 0.89 60.0 0 0.70 ~2.739 0.006 2.0 2.40 0.60 5.0 4 3.70 0.87 65.0 1 1.30 -3.729 0.000 ‘Items based on Koval and Mertig (2002). Respondents were asked “Do you believe this statement to be true?” l’Median and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Never” coded as a 1 and “Always” coded as a 5. °Percent indicating “Usually” or “Always.” dStatistical significance between post- vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). 231 Table Appendix-23. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques All Respondents, n=55 Pre-program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- .0 .0 .0 Natural resources § ‘5 ' a a n5 ' § § '9 c manaementtehnia 3” c9543" 35<8§ Z P 3 ° ‘1‘” 2 2 .\° 2 2 a z 2 Traditional consunJiLtive recreation activities Hunting is an acceptable technique to help maintain 4 3.91 0.87 74.5 4 4.31 0.69 87.2 0 0.40 -3.345 0.001 wildlife populations. Huntingmdgamefmmeam 4 391 095 709 4 413 082 818 o 022 -2252 0024 an acceptable practice. ' ' ' ° ' ' ' ' ' Sp°“°”e°’°a°°“alh“mmg” 4 3.49 1.25 63.7 4 3.84 1.20 72.7 0 0.35 -2.846 0.004 an acceptable practice. Trapping is an acceptable techniquetoharvest 3 2.58 1.38 27.3 3 2.61 1.46 31.5 0 0.06 -0.412 0.681 furbearing mammals. Hunting wildlife game for trophies isanacceptable 2 2.13 1.16 14.5 2 2.27 1.27 18.2 0 0.15 -0.939 0.348 practice. Natural resources management with fire Prescribed fire can improve habitatconditions. 5 4.49 0.84 87.3 5 4.80 0.52 83.6 0 0.31 -2.507 0.012 Prescribed burning is an acceptable management technique tomaintain 4 4.31 0.72 85.5 5 4.69 0.66 98.1 0 0.38 -3.422 0.001 ecosystems. The benefits of fire in forest andgrasslandecosystems 4 3.72 1.09 61.1 4 4.11 0.90 81.9 0 0.39 -2.447 0.014 outweigh the risks. Prescnbedfirfcausesa‘h’ea‘ 2 2.11 0.98 9.1 2 1.81 0.93 7.4 0 -o.31 -l.958 0.050 to human life. P’figibtggfi’e ““3”” natural 2 1.89 0.98 5.4 1 1.65 0.95 7.3 0 -0.24 -1545 0.122 Strategies to improve habitat conditions Watersheds should be managed toensure biodiversityand 5 4.71 0.50 98.2 5 4.89 0.32 100 0 0.17 -2.l83 0.029 ecological integrity. landscapes should be managed toensurebiodiversityand 5 4.55 0.60 94.5 5 4.65 0.52 98.2 0 0.11 -1.604 0.109 ecological integrity. Natural resources must be man- agedtoensure theiravailab- 5 4.51 0.66 94.6 5 4.58 0.60 98.2 0 0.07 -O.726 0.468 ility for futuregenerations. 8LItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean responses on a 5—point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 232 Table Appendix-23, continued. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques All Respondents, n = 55 Difference between Pre-pro gram Post-program post- vs. pre- .0 0 .D O .9 Natural resources § ‘5 d , E, 5 £5 Q“ a E "E Z c management techniquea E E US :5 g 2 m’ g g 2 P Strategies to improve habitat conditions, continued Flooding is an acceptable management technique to maintain lake, stream, or 4 3.76 0.74 61.9 4 3.74 0.96 68.5 0 0.00 -0.075 0.940 wetland ecosystems. Herbicide application is an acceptable management technique for invasive plants. With respect to natural resources, nature should be allowed to take its course without human interference. Clearcutting is an acceptable management practice to 3 2.72 1.07 18.5 4 3.77 1.12 66.0 1 0.98 -4.250 0.000 manage for grouse habitat. b 3.58 1.05 61.9 5 4.47 0.81 92.7 1 0.89 -5.055 0.000 3 2.87 1.18 42.6 2 2.47 1.05 21.8 0 -0.43 -2.400 0.016 Private landowner activities Landowners should be allowed tocontrolaccesstowildlife 3 3.18 1.31 49.0 3 3.22 1.18 47.2 0 0.04 -0.175 0.861 on their land. Property owners should be able toownwildlifeontheir 2 1.96 1.04 7.3 1 1.91 1.15 13.0 0 -0.04 -0.287 0.774 land. Forest resource management It is important to have a variety of successional stages in a 4 4.40 0.63 92.8 5 4.42 0.71 90.9 0 0.02 -0.357 0.721 forest. It is possible to manage for both wildlife and timber in 4 4.17 0.69 87.1 4 4.36 0.75 90.9 0 0.19 -2.043 0.041 forest communities. Public forests should be managed for multiple uses. (For example, wildlife, timber, recreation, etc.) .5 4.11 0.84 81.5 4 4.20 0.91 83.6 0 0.07 -O.605 0.545 Hmesm’g umber can 3 2.77 1.22 22.6 2 2.69 1.33 27.2 0 -0.04 -0.457 0.647 permanently harm forests. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 233 Table Appendix-23, continued. CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques All Respondents, n =55 P r e- r 0 Post- to Difference between p g p g post- vs. pre- .D D «D 0 .0 Natural resources § '95 Q . a a fig 3' E, .5; Jag c management techniquea B o < '8 :15 < '8 Z p 2 2 8° 2 2 8° 2 E Grazingictivities and predator manage_mentd Grazing can be used to enhance wildlife habitat. 4 3.63 0.62 59.3 Grazing is an acceptable management technique to maintain grassland ecosystems. Grazing is destructive to natural vegetation. It is acceptable to eliminate predators that prey on threatened or endangered species. It is acceptable to eliminate individual predators that 2 2.51 1.20 29.1 3 3.05 1.34 43 .6 0 0.55 -3.208 0.001 prey on livestock It is acceptable to eliminate predators that prey on game 2 1.85 0.89 3.6 2 1.91 0.98 3.8 0 0.04 -0.273 0.785 gecies. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. 0Statistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. .h 3.53 0.88 61.8 0 -0.11 -0.783 0.434 4} 3.58 0.71 52.7 4 3.69 1.03 70.9 0 0.11 -O.509 0.611 3 3.00 0.89 31.5 3 3.20 0.96 42.6 0 0.23 -l.24l 0.215 2.85 1.10 32.1 3 2.98 1.30 42.6 0 0.13 -0.620 0.535 234 Table Appendix-24. Oakland CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques Oakland Respondents, n=35 Pre-pro gram Post-program Difference between yost— vs. pre- .0 D .D 0 .0 Natural resources § ‘5 ' a a '05 ' a E '9 c maria ementtechni uesa B o <95 ’< 8 o a < 3 a Z p g q 2 2 .\° 2 2 a 2 2 Traditional consunnitive recreation activities Hunting is an acceptable technique tohelp maintain 4 4.00 0.80 82.9 4 4.37 0.69 88.6 0 0.37 -2.543 0.011 wildlife populations. HuntingW’ldgamefmmeatis 4 397 101 743 4 417 089 829 0 020 -1698 0090 an acceptable practice. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 59°“ “recreat’ml hF‘mmg’s 4 3.74 1.09 71.5 4 4.03 1.20 80.0 0 0.29 -1.852 0.064 an acceptable practice. Trapping is an acceptable techniquetoharvest 3 2.66 1.47 28.5 3 2.74 1.56 38.2 0 0.12 -1.155 0.248 firrbearing mammals. Hunting wildlife game for trophies isanacceptable 2 2.26 1.20 17.1 2 2.40 1.27 20.0 0 0.14 -l.107 0.268 practice. Natural resources management with fire Prescribed fire can improve habitatconditions. 5 4.60 0.85 91.4 5 4.91 0.281000 0 0.31 -2.308 0.021 Prescribed burning is an ““3““ manages“ 5 4.43 0.66 91.4 5 4.83 0.381000 0 0.40 -3.300 0.001 techmque to maintain ecosystems. The benefits of fire in forest and grasslandecosystems 4 3.63 1.22 60.0 4 4.20 0.87 85.7 0 0.57 -2.548 0.011 outweigh the risks. Pres°nb°dmicauscsathr°at 2 2.03 0.95 8.6 1 1.71 0.87 2.9 0 -0.35 -1.579 0.114 to human hfe. “63:33:?” “em” ““1 2 1.89 1.02 8.6 1 1.69 0.99 8.6 0 -020 -0.881 0.378 Strategies to improve habitat conditions Watersheds should be managed to ensure biodiversity and 5 4.80 0.47 97.2 5 5.00 0.001000 0 0.20 —2.333 0.020 ecological integrity. landscapes should be managed to ensurebiodiversityand 5 4.69 0.53 97.1 5 4.74 0.51 97.1 0 0.06 -O.707 0.480 ecological integrity. Natural resources must be man- aged to ensure their availab- 5 4.43 0.74 91.4 5 4.69 0.471000 0 0.26 -1.789 0.074 ility for firture generations. alItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 235 Table Appendix-24, continued. Oakland CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques Oakland Respondents, n=35 Pre- to Post- to Difference between p gram p gram post- vs. gre- D ‘ 0 .0 .0 Natural resources § ‘5 ' E, 5; a ' g) E a c hm- a '8 ° 3 < a 5 .95 < 8 5, Z P management tec ques 2 2 °\° 2 2 °\° 2 2 Strategies to improve habitat conditions, continued Herbicide application is an acceptable management technique for invasive plants. Flooding is an acceptable management technique to maintain lake, stream, or wetland ecosystems. With respect to natural resources, nature should be allowed to take its course without human interference. Clearcutting is an acceptable management practice to 3 2.63 1.09 17.2 4 3.79 1.19 69.7 1 1.06 -3.516 0.000 manage for grouse habitat. Private landowner activities Landowners should be allowed to control access to wildlife 4 3.31 1.32 57.1 3 3.17 1.18 45.7 0 -0.14 -0.642 0.521 on their land. Property owners should be able to own wildlife on their 2 1.86 0.97 5.7 l 1.71 1.02 8.6 0 -0.14 -1.020 0.308 land. Forest resource management It is important to have a variety of successional stages in a 4 4.46 0.56 97.2 4 4.31 0.72 91.5 0 -0.14 -l.000 0.317 forest. Public forests should be managed for multiple uses. (For example, wildlife, timber, recreation, etc.) It is possible to manage for both wildlife and timber in 4 4.24 0.55 94.1 5 4.43 0.70 94.3 0 0.18 -1.606 0.108 forest communities. 4 3.83 0.89 74.3 5 4.63 0.55 97.1 1 0.80 -3.896 0.000 3.83 0.66 68.6 4 3.65 1.10 64.7 0 -0.15 -0.936 0.349 3 2.79 1.20 38.2 2 2.37 1.11 20.0 0 -0.47 -l.959 0.050 A 4.29 0.76 88.2 5 4.34 0.80 85.7 0 0.03 -0.221 0.825 Hammgt‘mwca" 2 2.61 1.11 18.2 2 2.31 1.26 14.3 0 -0.24 -1.496 0.135 permanently harm forests. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. 6Statistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 236 Table Appendix-24, continued. Oakland CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques Oakland Respondents, n=35 Pre-program Post-program Diizzntiesbgrtzeen Natural resources a pg 'og Q Eb n§ pg 3' a fig Jag Z pc management techmques g 2 °\° g 2 W :9 g 2 Grazing activities and predator managementf Gméliffhcfznhabgigdm enhance 4 3.74 0.61 65.7 4 3.46 0.98 60.0 0 -0.29 -1445 0.148 Grazing is an acceptable management technique to maintain grassland ecosystems. Gmmg‘Sdcsmci’vet" 3 3.06 0.91 34.3 4 3.34 1.00 54.3 0 0.29 -1403 0.160 natural vegetation. It is acceptable to eliminate predators that prey on threatened or endangered species. It is acceptable to eliminate individualpredatorsthat 2 2.40 1.20 28.6 3 2.74 1.29 31.5 0 0.34 -1.728 0.084 prey on livestock It is acceptable to eliminate predatorsthatpreyon game 2 1.83 0.89 5.7 2 1.85 0.86 0.0 0 0.00 -0.09l 0.928 species. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 3.54 0.74 51.5 4 3.60 1.17 68.6 0 0.06 -0.018 0.986 A 2.82 1.17 35.3 3 3.09 1.25 42.9 0 0.26 -l.144 0.253 b) 237 Table Appendix-25. Livingston CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques Livingston Respondents, n=20 bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. 0Statistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 238 Pre-pro gram Post-program Difference between post— vs.pre- Natural resources E g d '60 g 5 CS Sb § 5 c management techniques3 3 E <15 < 3 g 05 < 8 g Z p 2 2° 2 $ 2 Traditional consumptive recreation activities Hunt“ “"1" game f°rmeatls 4.0 3.80 0.83 20.0 4.0 4.05 0.69 80.0 0.0 0.25 -1.508 0.132 an acceptable practice. Hunting is an acceptable technique to help maintain 4.0 3.75 0.97 60.0 4.0 4.20 0.70 85.0 0.0 0.45 -2.179 0.029 wildlife populations. Sp°n°rrecrean°nalh9nmgm 3.5 3.05 1.40 50.0 4.0 3.50 1.15 60.0 0.0 0.45 -2310 0.021 an acceptable practice. Trapping is an acceptable techniquetoharvest 3.0 2.45 1.23 25.0 2.5 2.40 1.27 20.0 0.0 -0.05 -0.432 0.666 firrbearing mammals. Hunting wildlife game for trophies isanacceptable 1.5 1.90 1.07 10.0 1.5 2.05 1.28 15.0 0.0 0.15 -0.247 0.805 practice. Natural resources management with fire Prescr’l’ed fire 98mmme 4.5 4.30 0.80 80.0 5.0 4.60 0.75 95.0 0.0 0.30 -1271 0.204 habitat conditions. Prescribed burning is an accepiablemge’i’em 4.0 4.10 0.79 75.0 5.0 4.45 0.95 95.0 0.0 0.35 -1539 0.124 techmque to maintain ecosystems. The benefits of fire in forest and grassland ecosystems 4.0 3.89 0.81 63.1 4.0 3.95 0.95 75.0 0.0 0.05 -0.277 0.782 outweigh the risks. Pmsmbed f“? museum“ 2.0 2.25 1.02 10.0 2.0 2.00 1.03 15.0 0.0 -0.25 -1.195 0.232 to human life. P’eficagmfi’edemysmml 2.0 1.90 0.91 0.0 1.01.60 0.88 5.0 0.0 0.30 -1513 0.130 Strategies to improve habitat conditions Natural resources must be man- aged to ensure their availab- 5.0 4.65 0.49 100.0 4.5 4.40 0.75 95.0 0.0 -0.25 -l.265 0.206 ility for future generations. Watersheds should be managed to ensurebiodiversityand 5.0 4.55 0.51 100.0 5.0 4.68 0.48 100.0 0.0 0.11 -0.707 0.480 ecological integrity. Landscapes should be managed to ensure biodiversityand 4.0 4.30 0.66 90.0 4.5 4.50 0.51 100.0 0.0 0.20 -l.633 0.102 ecological integrity. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. Table Appendix-25, continued. Livingston CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques Livingston Respondents n=20 Pre- rogram Post- tog 'a Difference between p p post— vs. pre- 5 '9 3 '0 .n 8 '9 .1: Natural resources a g g d 3) g g C5 52’ g g Z pc . m a: management techmques 2 2 ...,\° g 2 g g 2 Strategies to improve habitat conditions, continued Flooding is an acceptable management technique to maintain lake, stream, or wetland ecosystems. Herbicide application is an acceptable management technique for invasive plants. With respect to natural resources, nature should be allowed to take its course without human interference. Clearcutting is an acceptable management practice to 3.0 2.89 1.05 21.1 4.0 3.75 1.02 60.0 1.0 0.84 -2.441 0.015 manage for grouse habitat. 3.5 3.65 0.88 50.0 4.0 3.90 0.64 75.0 0.0 0.25 -l.667 0.096 3.0 3.15 1.18 40.0 4.5 4.20 1.1] 85.0 1.0 1.05 -3.247 0.001 3.5 3.00 1.17 50.0 2.0 2.65 0.93 25.0 0.0 -0.35 -l.4l3 0.158 Private landowner activities Property owners should be able to own wildlife on their 2.0 2.15 1.14 10.0 2.0 2.26 1.33 21.1 0.0 0.16 -0.758 0.448 land. landowners should be allowed to control access to wildlife 3.0 2.95 1.28 35.0 3.5 3.30 1.22 50.0 0.0 0.35 -1.308 0.191 on their land. Forest resource management Public forests should be managed for multiple uses. (For example, wildlife, timber, recreation, etc.) It is important to have a variety of successional stages in a 4.0 4.30 0.73 85.0 5.0 4.60 0.68 90.0 0.0 0.30 -1.732 0.083 forest. It is possible to manage for both wildlife and timber in 4.0 4.05 0.89 75.0 4.0 4.25 0.85 85.0 0.0 0.20 -1.265 0.206 forest communities. 4.0 3.80 0.89 70.0 4.0 3.95 1.05 80.0 0.0 0.15 0.676 0.499 Hamming “berm 3.0 3.05 1.36 30.0 3.5 3.35 1.23 50.0 0.0 0.30 -0942 0.346 permanently harm forests. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 239 Table Appendix-25, continued. Livingston CSP respondents’ attitudes toward natural resources management techniques Livingston Respondents n=20 Pre-program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- .O ' O .9 .9 Natural resources § '05 Q a a as d a § '05 0 management techniques8 8 g < 3 g vi < '8 g Z p 2 6*” 2 o\° 2 Grazing activities and predator marifiagementf Grazing is an acceptable management technique to maintain grassland ecosystems. Grazing is destructive to natural vegetation. Grazing can be used to enhance wildlife habitat. It is acceptable to eliminate individual predators that 3.0 2.70 1.22 30.0 4.0 3.60 1.27 65.0 1.0 0.90 -2.835 0.005 prey on livestock It is acceptable to eliminate predators that prey on threatened or endangered species. It is acceptable to eliminate predators that prey on 2.0 1.90 0.91 0.0 2.0 2.00 1.17 10.0 0.0 1.10 -0.540 0.589 _game species. aItems modified from Bonneau (2003). bMedian and mean responses on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test _0.05). ese management techniques were not covered in the curriculum units. 4.0 3.65 0.67 55.0 4.0 3.85 0.75 75.0 0.0 0.20 -l.155 0.248 3.0 2.89 0.88 26.3 3.0 2.95 0.85 21.1 0.0 0.11 -0.303 0.762 3.0 3.42 0.61 47.4 4.0 3.65 0.67 65.0 0.0 0.21 -2.000 0.046 3.0 2.89 0.99 26.4 2.0 2.79 1.40 42.1 0.0 -0.11 -0.384 0.701 240 Table Appendix-26. CSP respondents’ connection to the land AllRespondents n=55 Pre-pro gram Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- .0 0 .9 .D .D 0 .D .9 Connection to the land' ‘3; g d Eb g a d g g; g Z pd 2 2 vi o\° 2 2 vi °\° 2 2 Sense of service -2.089 0.037 I’mhappytotakepartinthe conservation activitiesin 5 4.67 0.55 96.4 5 4.71 0.53 96.3 0 0.04 -0.440 0.660 my ecoregionc. Iwillhelp with any conservation activitiesin 4 4.02 0.91 76.3 4 4.33 0.72 92.7 0 0.31 -2.229 0.026 my ecoregione. Mean Responsesc = 4.35 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.724 Place identity— natural resources -2.934 0.003 1am very attached to Michigan’s natural 4 4.25 0.87 87.3 5 4.56 0.66 94.5 0 0.31 -2.678 0.007 resources. I identify strongly with places tha‘mveS’gD’ficam 4 409 087 836 5 436 078 854 0 027 -1849 0064 Michigan natural . . . . . . . . . resources. Mean Responsesc = 4.17 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.609 Place identity- thoughfi and pride -3.355 0.001 I often think about visiting areas that feature Michigan’s natural 4 4.20 0.70 87.2 5 4.51 0.69 92.7 0 0.31 -2.519 0.012 resources. 1mm?“ abo“‘°°m.mg‘° 4 3.98 0.73 76.3 4 4.30 0.77 90.7 0 0.28 -2.358 0.018 places in my ecoregion. 1mm.“ Ofmyfcomgm 4 3.98 0.90 70.3 4 4.24 0.86 83.7 o 0.24 -2092 0.036 and its people . Mean Responsesc = 4.04 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.623 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (1550.05). cOther researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 241 Table Appendix-26, continued. CSP respondents’ connection to the land All Respondents n=55 Pre-program P o st-pr 0 gram Difference between post- vs. pre- .9 Q .9 8 «D .D D .D .0 Connection to the land' g g Q- 2’ g g d Eb g g Z pd E 2 m’ o\° 2 2 :15 8° 2 2 Sense of social and ecological belongipg '4-462 0.000 I feel like this ecoregion is a part ofmef. 4.19 0.75 83.3 4 4.33 0.73 88.9 0 0.15 -1.385 0.166 I identify strongly 182th places 4 . . 4.15 0.76 81.8 5 4.49 0.57 96.3 0 0.35 -3.657 0.000 in my ecoregion . Ih‘ivcagmul’olggwfiwnds 4 4.09 0.95 78.2 5 4.53 0.69 92.7 0 0.44 -3731 0.000 In my ecoregion . I an f f 1 ”up ° ag’°“1?°.P"°Pe 4 4.04 0.88 70.9 5 4.53 0.60 94.6 0 0.49 -3.486 0.000 fi'om my ecoregion . Iagfam’ha’mlhtypeome 4 3.96 1.04 74.5 5 4.40 0.68 89.1 0 0.44 -3.344 0.001 In my CCOI'Cglon . I tta h dt thi “my? r” o S 4 3.87 0.93 72.2 5 4.29 0.96 85.4 0 0.41 -3334 0.001 ecoregion. People in my ecoregion appreciate whatldo for 3 3.44 0.79 45.5 4 3.80 0.76 63.7 0 0.36 -2.754 0.006 C them . Mean Responsesc = 3.97 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.865 a‘ltems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p30.05). 6Other researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 242 Table Appendix-26, continued. CSP respondents’ connection to the land All Respondents n=55 Pre- ro Post- ro am Difference between p g p gr post- vs. pre- ‘52 ii ‘5 ... § ‘5 .0 Connection to the landa g g d 5:? § 5 D 2:0 g 4% Z pd 2 2 vi 6\° 2 2 m °\° 2 2 Place dependence -3.900 0.000 Michigan, because of its natural resources, is the bestplaceforwhatiliketo 4.04 0.74 81.9 4 4.33 0.84 89.1 0 0.29 -2.525 0.012 do. My ecoregion is the best place forwhatIliketodo. 4 3.55 1.00 61.8 4 3.80 0.95 72.7 0 0.25 -2.035 0.042 No other place can compare to M’Ch’ganbeca‘m“ 4 335 116 527 4 385 116 655 0 051 -3295 0001 Michigan’s natural ' ° ' ' ' ' ' ' ' resources. I would not substitute my ecoregion for any other 3 3.24 1.04 34.5 4 3.49 1.29 58.2 0 0.25 -1.374 0.170 ecoregion. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places with significant Michigan 3 3.24 1.07 45.4 4 3.65 1.14 60.0 0 0.42 -2.704 0.007 natural resources than any other areas. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places in my ecoregion than any other areas. No other place can compare to my ecoregion. 2.89 0.98 27.2 3 3.29 1.18 43.7 0 0.40 -2.731 0.006 3 2.83 1.12 26.4 4 3.33 1.28 52.7 1 0.49 -3.379 0.001 Mean Responsesc = 3.30 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.916 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p30.05). 6Other researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 243 Table Appendix-27. Oakland CSP respondents’ connection to the land Oakland Respondents n=35 Difference between Pro-program Post-program post- vs. pre- .D O .9 8 0 a a - 0 5 -° . 5 ° Connection to the land'l ‘5 g Q- 3) '5 g Q- 5? '5 g Z pd 0 2 m 0 2 m 0 2 2 5° 2 °\"" 2 Sense of service -1.268 0.205 I’mhappytotakepartinthe conservationactivitiesin 5 4.69 0.53 97.1 5 4.69 0.58 94.3 my ecoregion. Iwillhelp with any conservationactivitiesin 4 4.00 1.00 77.2 4 4.26 0.82 88.6 0 0.26 -l.361 0.173 my ecoregion. O 0.00 0.000 1.000 Mean Responsesc = 4.34 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.711 Place identity - natural resources -2.908 0.004 I am very attached to Michigan’s natural 4 4.23 0.88 88.6 5 4.51 0.70 94.3 0 0.29 -2.352 0.019 resources. I identify strongly with places ma‘th’gn’ficam 4 409 0 89 85 7 5 451 070 886 0 043 -2 479 0013 Michigan natural . . . . . . . . . resources. Mean Responsesc = 4.16 Cronbach’s Allha = 0.433 Place identity - thoughts and pride -2.525 0.012 I often think about visiting areas that feature Michigan’s natural 4 4.14 0.77 82.9 5 4.57 0.61 94.3 0 0.43 -2.535 0.011 resources. I think often about coming to places in my ecoregion. I’m proud of my ecoregion and its people. 4 4.06 0.68 80.0 4 4.26 0.85 88.6 0 0.20 -1.213 0.225 4 4.03 0.83 73.6 4 4.23 0.84 85.8 0 0.18 -l.198 0.231 Mean Responsesc = 4.06 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.611 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. 6Mean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). 6Other researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (Vaske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 244 Table Appendix-27, continued. Oakland CSP respondents’ connection to the land Oakland Respondents n=35 Difference between Pre-program Post-program post- vs.pre- D D 8 0 s .. . 3 5 -° - 5 *3 Connection to the land1| ‘6 8 Q. Eh {'3' g Cl 5? '6' 5 Z pd 0 2 m 2 (I) 0 2 2 ..\° 2 °\“ 2 Sense of social and ecologicalbelogngipg -2.641 0.008 ”“1111“ th‘sccmgm’sa 4 4.29 0.67 88.6 4 4.29 0.75 88.6 0 0.00 -0047 0.963 part of me. I identify strongly with places in my ecoregion. I have a group of good friends in my ecoregion. I am part of a group of people fi'om my ecoregion. I am familiar with the people in my ecoregion. I am very attached to this ecoregion. People in my ecoregion appreciate what I do for 4 3.60 0.74 51.4 4 3.80 0.80 62.9 0 0.20 -1.252 0.210 them. D 4.20 0.72 82.8 5 4.54 0.51 100.0 0 0.34 -2.828 0.005 .h 4.23 0.88 82.8 5 4.54 0.74 91.4 0 0.32 -2.668 0.008 .h 4.23 0.84 74.3 5 4.57 0.66 91.4 0 0.34 -2.125 0.034 .h 4.20 0.90 82.9 5 4.54 0.61 94.3 0 0.34 -2.235 0.025 4 3.97 0.94 73.6 5 4.23 1.09 82.9 0 0.24 -1.602 0.109 Mean Responsesc = 4.1 I Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.853 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p_<_0.05). cOther researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 245 Table Appendix-27, continued. Oakland CSP respondents’ connection to the land Oakland Respondents n=35 Pre- to am Post- ro Difference between p gr p g post- vs. pre- D O D o g «D . o 5 .D . 8 5 '0 Connection to the land'I ‘5 g Q- 31) "" 8 0- gb '5 g 2 pd 0) 2 (n < .8 2 (I) < 0 2 2 a 2 ..\° 2 Place dependence -3.394 0.001 Michigan, because of its natural resources, is the best place for what I like to do. My ecoregion is the best place for what I like to do. No other place can compare to Michigan because of Michigan’s natural resources. I would not substitute my ecoregion for any other 3 3.11 1.13 28.6 4 3.51 1.22 62.9 0 0.40 -1.794 0.073 ecoregion. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places with significant Michigan 3 3.17 1.12 42.8 4 3.74 1.15 62.8 0 0.57 -2.867 0.004 natural resources than any other areas. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places in my 2 83 ecoregion than any other ' areas. No other place can compare to my ecoregion. 4 3.97 0.86 74.3 4 4.29 0.86 88.6 0 0.31 -2.153 0.031 4 3.51 1.10 62.9 4 3.77 1.03 74.3 0 0.26 -l.699 0.089 3 3.34 1.19 48.4 4 3.94 1.11 68.6 0 0.60 -2.925 0.003 0.99 25.8 3 3.20 1.13 40.0 0 0.37 -l.891 0.059 3 2.79 1.18 23.6 4 3.29 1.30 51.4 I 0.50 -2.674 0.007 Mean Responsesc = 3.25 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.934 altems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). 6Other researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 246 Table Appendix-28. Livingston CSP respondents’ connection to the land Livingston Respondents n=20 Pie-program Post-program Difference between post- vs. pre- . ° 1: 8 ° '0 8 ° 1: Connection to the .land g E d in g g d 5:0 ,3 E Z pd characteristics g 2 m °\° E 2 VJ °\° g 2 Sense of service -1 .661 0.097 I’m happy to take part in the conservation activities in 5 4.65 0.59 95.0 5 4.75 0.44 100.0 0 0.10 -0.707 0.480 my ecoregion. I will help with any conservation activities in 4 4.05 0.76 75.0 4 4.45 0.5 my ecoregion. ...- 100.0 0.5 0.40 -2.000 0.046 Mean Responsesc = 4.35 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.759 Place identity - natural resources -1.085 0.278 I am very attached to Michigan’s natural 4.5 4.30 0.87 85.0 5 4.65 0.59 95.0 0 0.35 -1.485 0.138 resources. I identify strongly with places that have significant Michigan natural resources. 4 4.10 0.85 80.0 4 4.10 0.85 80.0 0 0.00 -0.034 0.973 Mean Responsesc = 4.20 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.852 Place identity — thoughts and pride -2.217 0.027 I ofien think about visiting areas that feature Michigan’s natural resources. I think ofien about coming to places in my ecoregion. I’m proud of my ecoregion and its people. 4 4.30 0.57 95.0 5 4.40 0.82 90.0 0 0.10 -0.832 0.405 4 3.85 0.81 70.0 4 4.37 0.60 94.7 0 0.42 -2.530 0.011 4 3.90 1.02 65.0 4.5 4.25 0.91 80.0 0 0.35 -2.11 0.035 Mean Responsesc = 4.02 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.661 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. edian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree" coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. CMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). eOther researchers (Lev-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. Other researchers (Vaske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 247 Table Appendix-28, continued. Livingston CSP respondents’ connection to the land Livingston Respondents n=20 Pre- ro Post- to Difference between p gram p gram post- vs. pre- . 05 v 8 05 '0 8 Us '0 Connection to the‘land ‘6 g d i}, _g g Q‘ 5:}; '6 5 Z pd characteristics E 2 ‘0 .,\° 2 2 VJ °\° g 2 Sense of social and ecological belonging -3'416 0'00] ”“11““ th‘secmgwn‘“ 4 4.00 0.88 73.7 5 4.42 0.69 89.4 0 0.42 -2530 0.011 part of me. I‘anmmmgly “"‘hplaccs 4 4.05 0.83 80.0 4.5 4.40 0.68 90.0 0 0.35 -2333 0.020 mmy ecoregion. Ihave a group of good friends . . 4 3.85 1.04 70.0 5 4.50 0.61 95.0 0 0.65 -2.565 0.010 in my ecoregion. I am part of a group of people . 4 3.70 0.87 65.0 4 4.45 0.51 100.0 0.5 0.75 -2.877 0.004 from my ecoregion. Ia‘i’fam’l’mw‘ih‘hepcwlc 4 3.55 1.15 60.0 4 4.15 0.75 80.0 0 0.60 -2.489 0.013 in my ecoregion. I’mmyi‘mcmm “”3 4 3.70 0.92 70.0 4.5 4.40 0.68 90.0 1 0.70 -3.276 0.001 ecoregion. People in my ecoregion appreciatewhatldo for 3 3.15 0.81 35.0 4 3.80 0.70 65.0 1 0.65 -2.812 0.005 them. Mean Responsesc = 3.72 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.860 a‘Items based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). Continued on next page. bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. cMean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p50.05). 6Other researchers (lav-Wiesel 2003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (Vaske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 248 Table Appendix-28, continued. Livingston CSP respondents’ connection to the land Livingston Respondents n=20 Pre- ro am Post- to Difference between p gr p g “I" post- vs.pre- U 0 0 O 0 Connection to the land g “g Q: E” g ”g a: Eb g ”g z pd characteristics E 2 W °\° g 2 VJ .,\° g 2 Place dependence -1.899 0.058 Michigan, because of its natural resources, is the best place for what I like to do. My ecoregion is the best place for what I like to do. No other place can compare to Michigan because of Michigan’s natural resources. I would not substitute my ecoregion for any other 3 3.45 0.83 45.0 3.5 3.45 1.43 50.0 0 0.00 -1.08 0.914 ecoregion. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places with significant Michigan 3.5 3.35 0.99 50.0 4 3.50 1.15 55.0 0 0.15 -0.584 0.559 natural resources than any other areas. I get more satisfaction out of visiting places in my ecoregion than any other areas. No other place can compare to my ecoregion. 4 4.15 0.49 95.0 5 4.40 0.82 90.0 0 0.25 -l.387 0.166 4 3.60 0.82 60.0 4 3.85 0.81 70.0 0 0.25 -l.155 0.248 4 3.35 1.14 60.0 4 3.70 1.26 60.0 0 0.35 -1.626 0.104 3 3.00 0.97 30.0 3.5 3.45 1.28 50.0 0.5 0.45 -2.066 0.039 3 2.89 1.05 31.6 4 3.40 1.27 55.0 1 0.47 ~2.066 0.039 Mean Responsesc = 3.83 Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.854 aItems based on Vaske and Kobrin (2001) and Lev-Wiesel (2003). bMedian and mean response on a 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as a l and “Strongly Agree” coded as a 5. 6Mean response for all items in category. dStatistical significance between post vs. pre-program determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (p30.05). eOther researchers (Lev-Wiese12003) found this item loaded with the social belonging factor. fOther researchers (V aske and Kobrin 2001) found this item loaded with the place identity factor. 249