METHODS OF IDENTIFYING THE POTENTIAL AUDIENCE FOR LAND USE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN URBAN AND URBANIZING AREAS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PAUL RAYMOND FISKE 1968 THEII‘ 4:1?"- [.3 g - 3‘» nit-r'fi" 3-; BIN‘SING av " a. HUAG II SIIIIS'- IIIBIJUK 3mm INC. .I LIBRARY amotns 5‘1 grannies]. women I wt? ‘3 ”AS ‘= If This eprc demand for Iand m Imming, Michigan Imuing SMSI incl smmh-central yo] iSthe central 2 A saw I.“ OfIAEham, Eater IIICI'JLIQd in thp. EWO‘IEIQI‘IEO 87:0 IOEII propel-t \' A detaf amng SHEA Ian ABSTRACT METHODS OF IDENTIFYING THE POTENTIAL AUDIENCE FOR LAND USE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN URBAN AND URBANIZING AREAS by Paul Raymond Fiske This exploratory study was designed to assess the prospective demand for land use education programs among adult landowners within the Lansing, Michigan Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). The Lansing SMSA includes a multi~county region which is located in the southwcentral portion of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Lansing, Michigan is the central city within this urban region. A sample of 500 landowners was drawn from the county tax rolls of Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties-~the three contiguous counties included in the metropolitan region. The BOO-landowner sample was apportioned among counties on the basis of the county percentage of total property owners within the SMSA. A detailed land-use education questionnaire was distributed among SMSA landowners. The questionnaire was designed to gather infor- mation concerning (1) personal and socioeconomic characteristics of landowners; (2) the location and use made of land owned; (3) landowner knowledge of and problems experienced relating to property rights in land ownership; (4) landowner interest in learning more about land use; (5) landowner knowledge of agencies and institutions offering educa- tional programs on land resource use; and (6) readiness to participate in land use education programs. Panl Raymond Riske A total of I60 land~use education questionnaires were completed and returned by landowners sampled, giving an overall response rate of 32 percent. Response to the mail questionnaire was distributed uni- formly among counties. A total of 114 landowners, or 72 percent, indicated a positive interest in learning more about land use. However, only 98 landowners, or 62 percent, expressed a readiness to attend and participate in land- use programs within the community, county or region where they reside. Considerable variation was found to exist in the levels of interest in learning and the participation readiness indicated by re- Spondents. Young adults (18 ~ 24 years of age) and middle—aged respon- dents indicated the highest levels of participation readiness. High levels of participation readiness were demonstrated by respondents who attended but failed to complete either (1) high school, or (2) college level education. The lowest levels of participation readiness were shown by landowners holding college degrees, and those with grade school or no formal education. High levels of participation readiness were found to exist among farmers and skilled or semi-skilled craftsmen. Respondents within the broau middle-income range ($5,000 to $12,499 family income annually) indicated fairly high levels of parti- cipation readiness; but the highest level was shown by respondents in the range of $3,000 to $4,999 annually. Men showed both higher levels of interest in learning about land use and participation readiness than women. People residing on farms, and rural non-farm residents showed the highest levels of participation readiness. Absentee landowners Showed much higher levels of participation readiness than resident owners. METHODS OF IDENTIFYING THE POTENTIAL AUDIENCE FOR LAND USE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN URBAN AND URBANIZING AREAS By Paul Raymond Fiske A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1968 I46. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all who have as- sisted me with the preparation of this thesis. I particularly wish to thank Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller, my acatiennic advisor and thesis chairman, for his endless patienee, encour« agenmant and guidance during all stages of this study. Special thanks alsoI go to Drs. William J. Kimball and Mason E. Miller for their many he113f111 ideas, suggestions and criticisms during this investigation, :UKI tIiroughout my Masters program. Also, I wish to thank Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Chairman of the De~ Partnuent of Resource Development, for making available the necessary comptrter time for analyzing the data collected in this stuuy. Mr. David DeTemple of the Computer Institute of Social Science Reseeurch was extremely helpful in developing a computer program for data analJ’Sis; and fellow graduate students Michael McGuire and Ronald ”Odgsuan made many valuable suggestions regarding research methodology. Lastly, I wish to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of my Wife. .Jan. She has personally shouldered the burden of acting as the famil), bread winner to enable me to undertake this program of graduate StudY.. If not for her untiring assistance and loyal support, it would not herve been possible for me to return to college. My son, Scott, has likewnise been understanding and patient. I like to feel that this thesis 15 the: culmination of a family project which dates back several years. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS AC KNOWLEDGMENTS LIST“ OF TABLES LIST“ OF ILLUSTRATIONS Chapter I'. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Introduction The Problem Definition of Terms Used General Plan of the Investigation Assumptions Hypothesis Stated II'. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Literature on Extension's Role in Public Education Programs Literature on Conservation Education Exploratory Research in Land~Use Education Summary II. PERSPECTIVES ON LAND USE EDUCATION AND POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of Adult Education in Land Use Programs of the C00perative Extension Service Origin and Legal Foundations Extension Involvement with Land~Use Education Programs Programs of the "Special Agencies" of the Depart~ ment of Agriculture The Soil Conservation Service Programs of the Forest Service The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service The Rural Electrification Administration The Farmers Home Administration Other Programs ' iii ii vii 21 Some Present Policy Issues in Land Use Some Important Social Considerations Some Economia Considerations Some Political Considerations IV’. PRJJECT DESIGN Conceptual FounIatirns The Study Area LocatiOn and Size Population Numbers Income and Employment Sampling Procedures The Questionnaire \f. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION Response to the Questionnaire Characteristics of Respondents Personal Characteristics of Respondents Age of Respondents Sex of Respondents Occupation of Respondents Respondent Education Income of Respondents Place of Residence Other Social and Economic Ch racteristics of Respondents Absentee Ownership Status Work Status of Respondents Community Leadership Status Size of Family ReSpondent Replies to General Questions VI . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Interest in Learning Readiness to Participate Final Audience Delineation Conclusions Limitations Recommendations APPEND I x A APPEND I x B BIBLIOGRAPHY iv 105 138 158 I71 176 Table IO. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Percentage Distribution of Population by Residence Class for the State of Michigan, and Counties Within the Lansing SMSA . . Idedian Income of Families for the State of Michigan, and Counties within the Lansing SMSA Selected Employment Characteristics of Employed Persons for Counties within the Lansing SMSA Number and Distribution of Response to the Mail Question~ naire, by Cosnties, in the Lansing SMSA . Age Class Distribution of SMSA Lan owners who ReSponded to the Mail Questionnaire 'The Distribution of Respondents Among Occupation Classes 'Fhe Distribution of Landowner Respontents among Educational Attainment Classes in the Lansing SMSA Specialized Vocational Training Reported by Questionnaire Respondents . 'Fhe Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents among Income Classes . . . 'Fhe Distribution of all Respondents among Selected Resi- dence Classifications Present Use Made of Land Owned by Respondents which is Located within the Lansing SMSA . . . Present Use Made of Land Owned by Respondents Which is Located in Counties Outside the Lansing SMSA IVumber of Respondents Having Questions Concerning Property Rights by Selected Categories 'The Influence of Age, Sex and Eéucation on Interest in Learning More Aboat Land Use V Page 97 98 99 106 108 110 III 115 118 125 H [‘0 O\ 127 130 15. 16. 17. 26. 27. The Influence of Occupation, Income, Place of Residen e and A sentee Ownership Status on Interest in Learning Mire abrut Land Use Respondent Awareness of Organizations Offering LeanUse Education Programs within the County of their Residen e The Influence of Occupation, Income, Plane of Residence and Absentee Ownership Status upon Propensity for Par“ ticipation in Lani-Use Education PrOgrams The Influence of Age, Sex and Education upon Propensity for Participation in Land—Use Edication PrOgrams The 'The 'The The 'The 'The Interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Level of Level of Respondents, by Age Class Level of ResponIents, by Eda ation Class Level of Responuents, by Occupational Cl 55 Level of Respondents, by Income Class Level of Respondents by Place of Residence Participation Readiness Shown by Respondents, by Age Class 'The Level of Participation Readiness Shown by Respondents, by Edu ational Class 'The Level of Participation Readiness Shown by Respondents, by OCCUpational Class 'The Level of Participation Readiness Shown by Respondents, by Income Class . 'The Level of Participation Readiness Shown by Respondents, by Place of Residence vi 136 146 147 ISO LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1- Idap Showing the Location of the Lansing, Michigan SMSA . . 95 2- Locatirn of Individual Land Parcels Owned by Respon ents, by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Introduction Pdan, too, is a part of the landscape. He is not in a landscape "as coins are in a box;" rather he is a part of the areal com- Inlex, and he cannot successtlly separate himself from it. The apparent separation of man from the earth in the great cities is :1 dangerous illusion. Even cities must stand on the ground and toe supported by earth resources. From every city railroads, high- yvays, steamship lines, and other forms of transportation extend to the most remote parts of the earth. The city is built and sup» {sorted by resources brought in by these arteries-~by minerals and fOods. Any interruption of the flow of traffic into the cities (quickly enough brings the urban dwellers face to face with their fundamental reliance on the land.1 Land~use education has been a fundamental concern of conserva- tiCHTiStS, educators, and a heterogeneous assortment of public and prim INEtCB officials, ever since the time of the first permanent settlement on 1316 IVorth American Continent. Indeed, the very basis for the pstterns 0f? lzind settlement and economic development of the United States may be tracned to a basic preoccupation of Americans with obtaining knowledge Concxerning the location and extent of resources. Over the years, land-use education has not, however, been easily disCfiBrnable as an avowed objective of either public or private bureau— cracies . Rarely has land~use education received a high priority status among; the objectives of government agencies, universities, public schrols K le. Preston E. James, An Outline of Geography (Boston: Gin and Company, 1935), pp. 353—54. h) and adult education organizations. Rather, organized programs of educa tion dealing with land resource use have tended to be limited in content and scope to the intensive study of individual resources. Government agencies, on the other hand, have generally entered the educational arena even more reluctantly; and have done so, in many cases, only in the in~ terest of gaining favorable public support for specific resource develop— ment programs or for advancing the cause of conservation for (again) single resources. Frequently, local governments have made little pre— tense of undertaking land—use education programs among the private citi~ zenry before resorting to the regulation and control of land use within cities and minor civil livisions "in the public interest." In such cases, specific conditions or nuisances which affect the public health, safety, morals, convenience and welfare have usually been deemed so in- tolerable as to preclude any social action other than immediate and com“ plete public regulation. It becomes increasingly apparent that public educational pro~ grams which limit their scope to the study of the occurance, use, value and abundance of individual resources do not impart a complete knowledge of the myriad forces which affect and control land resource use. Too, a preoccupation of educators and conservationists with "natural resources” tends to cloud and detract from the overall effectiveness of land—use edu~ cation. Zimmerman notes that: . . there is a strong tendency, easily understandable but none theless unfortunate, to identify resources with substances or tan— gible things. To be sure, substances can function as resources, and indeed they play a tremendous part as resources. One has but to think of coal, iron, petroleum, copper, etc., to realize that. They are obvious, easily recognized, and considered important, whereas less patent invisible and intangible aspects--such as 3 health, social harmony, wise policies, knowledge, freedom ~are ignored, even thOUgh possibly these latter are more important than all the coal, iron, gold, and silver in the world put to— gether. In fact, resources evolve out of the dynamic interac- tion of all these factors. Our conclusion may be clearly drawn. The word "resource" does not refer to a thing or a substance but to a function which a thing or a substance may perform or to an operation in which it may take part, namely, the function or operation of attaining a given end such as satisfying a want. In other words, the word "resource" is an abstraction reflecting human appraisal and re— lating to a function or operation. As such, it is akin to such words as food, property or capital, but much wider in its sweep than any of these. An adult program in land use education should consider, then, a myriad of social, economic, institutional and political forces which com» bine and interact to cause certain patterns of land resource use at given times and places. The Problem Beginning at about the start of the 20th Century in the United States, sweeping changes in public policy toward our nation's land re- sources took place. Before that time, the overwhelming interest in land-~ by both the government and private citizen- concerned its rapid settle ment and development for agricultural production. The acquisition and disposal of large portions of the Public Domain, and the liberal land policies which paved the way for the awesome task, gave precious little consideration (by present standards) to the impact of the tremendous waste and exploitation of land resources which was to accompany the move ment. By the turn of the 20th Century, a cry of timber famine was heard throughout the land; for the clearing, cstting and burning of timber 1Erich W. Zimmerman, World Resources and Industries (rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951), pp. 6~7. I. .I Iris for agTICUII‘II‘“ :fthese res .ur‘es. '.'n-.LeI the III: ‘II’J’ screen'atien "I I :rnsen‘ation o 1.1:: :3: act reservmg f' 3.3.5.25 "for the I‘d’. has III: to preset» ultimate explelti initial step, CCT‘. \ZIseIite Talley, served item the “POD the Pippy «:9, resort an , I “A T (in 1:7: ,. .Irst n tional 4 lands for agricultural use hai severely depleted the quantity and quality of these resources. Under the able leadership of President Theodore Roosevelt, a popw ular conservation movement began. Actually, a token gesture toward the conservation of natural resources was made in 1332 when congress pased an act reserving four sections of land in the Ouachita Mountains of Ar- kansas ”for the future disposal of the United States." This reservation was made to preserve the hot mineral springs of the area from ”indis— criminate exploitation and abuse by private interests." Following this initial step, congress established the Yosemite Grant in 1864. The Yosemite Valley, ani the nearby grove of "Mariposa Big Trees" were re~ served from the public domain and entrusted to the State of California "upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public U56, TQSOTt and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time . . . ” Later (in 1872), congress established Yellowstcne National Park-~the first national park in the world. The first reservation of forest land, to be administered as fed eral forest, was made in 1591 by President Harrison. This reservation was known as "the Yellowstone Timberland Reserve." The Roosevelt~Pinchot forces got down to business in earnest after the turn of the century. Huge areas of the Public Domain were re Served as federal forest lands by President Roosevelt. Gifford Pinchot was appointed chief of the newly organized Division of Forestry which was Elevated to bureau status in 1901. In 1905 the federal forest reserves were placed under the control of the Bureau of Forestry in the U.S. De- Partment of Agriculture. The reserves came to be known as National I p“ i Frests, and tne we , l‘Rn.;‘ I M“ I tLE. 3 ’s Arcther 1.".pr antcentere arcsxn' 1 Cttnference of Comm: ccnference father alt V ‘ egement, 1m. u .5 to .. grizaiion of many 5' “\QVLE tkle 1“ art-lion have been p attendant soci .1 9.1 \: ALE 5. Gradually, 107% lent the‘ s. l y .102. The great this ' . PTOHem mt 35396.". 107p ‘ 5 , 37"; c 1 ., ACtut-a' ,5. “‘W‘il it fin-em has Q1" ‘3 some 590 1‘ primary 5*“ «nastirement , 5.11;: S Forests, and the Bureau of Forestry was designated as the U.S. Forest Service. Another important milestone reachel during the vcnservation move~ ment centered around the national publicity surrounding the National Conference of Governors, called by President Roosevelt in 1905. This conference further aired the new concept of forest conservation and man- agement, and was to become instrumental in providing impetus for the or» ganization of many state forestry and conservation commissions. Among the more recent land problems to receive national consid eration have been problems involving soil erosion and depletion, and the attendant social and economic ills which they bring down upon farm fami~ lies. Gradually, there has come a general awareness that certain Ian’s do not lend themselves well to intensive cultivation and crop produc~ tion.1 The great dust storms of the early 1930's succeeded in bringing this problem into clearer focus. During this period (roughly the decades between 1920 and 1940), land abandonment became widespread, farm mortgage 1Actually, a considerable body of knowledge dealing with land“ use capability was amassed before this time. In fact, the federal gov- ernment has concerned itself with various lend classification systems, is some see it, ever since the adoption of the constitution. The pre~ liminary phase, according to some scholars, consisted of the segregation, measurement, and subdivision of land in the public domain for private sale or grant. On the other hand, some maintain that land (lassifica- tion received its initial beginnings with four famous geographical and geological surveys of the arid and semi arid mountainous sections of the public domain in the west. These surveys were unfertaken between 1867 and 1879 under the direction of Hayden, Wheeler, King and Powell. These Surveys mapped the areas which they covered, and considered the uses of the land, both actual and potential. For a comprehensive discoarse on land classification systems in the United States, see: Wilfred H. Pine, fi_§gyiew of Land Classifirations in the United States, Agricultural EConomics Report No. 94 Tfianhattan, Kansas: Kansas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, 1947); also, Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1958). 6 foreclosures multiplied alarmingly, tax delinquency became widespread; and in many areas, the land resources were severely damaged by drought, flood, erosion and poor ealtivation practices. The national depression of the 1930's, with its especial effects upon farms situated on marginal and sub~marginal agricultural lands, had a decided effect upon our national land policy. Secretary of Agricul~ ture, Arthur M. Hyde, a staunrh supporter of a readjustment in national land policy, outlined the following steps for correcting the many ills confronting American Agriculture: The . . . problem is to correct or avoid mistakes in the major uses to which land is put and to safeguard the public interests in the utilization of land. Summarizing, it seems desirable to“- (1) Encourage farmers who are operating poor land to find better opportunities in agriculture or other occupations. Poor land includes land which, though temporarily adapted to commcr ial farming, is peculiarly subject to wastage by erosion. (2) Promote compact communities which will permit maximum economy of schools, roads, and other institutions by encouraging abandon~ ment of areas, eSpecially of poor land, where occupancy has be- come extremely scattered through abandonment, delinquency, etc. (3) Create conditions that will make possible the use for which the land is best adapted, including fire protection for forests, modification in taxation, consolidation of tracts, and the nec~ essary tranSportation facilities, and disseminating the requisite information. (4) Insure the maintenance of the forest or range areas requisite for a permanent and stable agricultural economy in regions where agriculture is closely interrelated with forestry, or with the use of the range. (5) Discourage the overexpansion of agriculture. (6) Prevent the expansion of agriculture into areas poorly adapte” for the purpose and the development of a sparse type of settle- ment that will mean heavy costs for public services. This inclu es discouraging the development of irrigation and drainage by collec- tive action except when agriculturally and economically feasible. (7) Promote the aijustment of land valuation and the tax burden to what the particular use for which the land is adapted is capable of supporting. (8) Develop those types of land that will contribute to watershed protection, flood control, adequate provision for future timber requirements, 33:4 I use on Land L'tiliu program of land use: inatec among the 0‘ cf minds in Chica; the Land 'Jtilimt Another t ence has the cre . lininlstnstion i I “Resources Bran) relt. The fir, l~35 the prepay the nation‘ 5 sauces in 13: Beth interest as the 1 . ~. g. ltel‘fle- or, . m T ,‘ 1 n4“, 7 requirements, and the protection of range resources. In 1931, Secretary of Agriculture Hyde called a National Confer ence on Land Utilization in Chicago. The conceptual basis for a national program of land use adjustment was firmly established and widely dissem- inated among the organizations and persons in attendance. The meeting of minds in Chicago came to a meaningful fruition with the initiation of the Land Utilization Program of 1934.2 Another direct outcome of the National Land Utilization Confer— ence was the creation of a "National Planning Board" in the Public Works Administration in 1933. This board was later succeeded by the "national Resources Board" through executive order of President Franklin D. Roose- velt. The first major task undertaken by the National Resources Board was the preparation of a comprehensive report on the extent and use of the nation's land and water resources. In its report on natural re~ sources in 1934, the board observed that: Both the Federal Government and the States have an obvious interest in preventing the continuance of planless land settle~ ment which is seriously contrary to the general welfare as well as the welfare of the settlers themselves.3 le. Report of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1931 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 40. 2The major objective of the Land Utilization Program was that the Federal Government, through inter-agency cooperation, purchase and develop 75 million acres of sub-marginal farmland to serve the Public and relieve the distress of the occupants. Between 1933 and 1946, some 250 projects, totalling 11.3 million acres were acquired and developed for an estimated $47.5 million. Works of improvement on this land cost about $102.5 million; so total costs were about $150 million. For more BXtended discussions, see: Hugh H. Wooten, The Land Utilization Pro~ 333m, 1934 to 1964 (Washington: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, 1965). 30f. the National Resources Planning Board, A Repgrt on National Blgnping and Public Works in Relation to Natiral Resources (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), p. 19. 8 It may be generalized that, out of the flurry and activity of the programs initi ted during the ”New Deal” era, a definite change in national land policy took shape; namely that "consideration should be given to the utilization of land in accordance with its inherent capa‘ city for adequately supporting particular forms of land use.” Genuine concern for the conservation and wise use of the nation's land resources, and the attendant programs which were devised to deal with land problems, contributed significantly to changes in national land-use trends. In the main, the first two decades of the 20th Century marked the high‘water mark of agricultural land use in the United States. Until this time the trend was toward ever—increasing expansion of the quantity of land devoted to agricultural uses. A total of 4?0 million acres of cropland was reached by 1920. This figure remained fairly sta ble until approximately 1930 when a different trend became apparent—-the areal expansion of cities and urban areas.1 Urban population intreased nearly a hundredfol- during the 19th Century, and a corresponding increase occurred in the space occupied by cities. This trend has continued explosively into the 20th Century, along with a comparable decline in rural population. Many factors have 1Unless specifically footnoted to other references, the preced— ing narrative is based largely upon information presented in the follow- ing works: C. Frank Brockman, Recreational Use of Wild Lands (New York: McGraw~Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959); Joseph R. Motheral, "Land and Our Economic Development." Land, Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, 1958); Karl S. Landstrom, "How We acquired Our Landed Estate," Land, Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington: U.S. Gov't. printing Office, 1958); Mark M. Reagan and Hugh H. Wooten, ”Land Use Trends and Urbanization," A Place to Live, Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, 1963); Frank E. Smith, The Eglitics of Conservation (New York: Pantheon Books, 1966); and John—- 136, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961). ccdrihuted t" t? :ohe U) the in; productivity of a Fignms and trnr ‘samts of leisu donin metropol The najt areas in the 2.. lnimto-tward in a t: lions disc. lat-1011 gro betters {g t0 the cit tenSiYe in Within thc lncre aUt‘ mob 11 Sltuat '10“ tatign CC “0 103ge1 1 hard gTO‘ Take 1159 is mm” Stateg. W0 agric-1tura 9 contributed to this change in land use trends; but the major ones appear to be (1) the invention and widespread ownership of automobiles, (2) the productivity of agriculture, (3) improved mobility made possible by good highways and transfer systems, (4) higher levels of income, (5) in reased amounts of leisure time, and (6) sustained industrial growth and expan~ sion in metropolitan areas. The major factor contributing to the areal expansion of urban areas in the 20th Century has been that of improved mobility and circus lation outward from the city core. As Barlowe puts it: In a transportation constrained society, travel considera~ tions discourage the rapid outward expansion of the city. Popu- lation growth calls for shifting more land around the city's borders to urban use . . . , but the areas taken lay adjacent to the city and this outward movement associates with more in- tensive use and higher land rents for the areas already foun. within the city. Increased mobility~ developments such as commuter trains, automobiles, and all-weather highways —have greatly changed this situation. The modern city is not subject to serious transpor- tation constraints. Cities tend to expand outward, but there is no longer the pressure there once was for relatively smooth out. ward growth. Taken separately, the total land area presently devoted to urban use is minute when compared with the total land area of the United States. Wooten indicates that in 1959 the land area devoted to non— agricultural uses totaled nearly 53.5 million acres in the 48 contiguous states.2 Urban areas, taken separately, accounted for about 27.1 1Raleigh Barlowe, "Some Policy Considerations in the Taxation of Agricultural Lands," Land Use Study, Education and Planning, Proceedings Of a Seminar sponsoredby the Dept. of Resource Development, Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Cooperative Exten- sion Service, 1966), p. 65. 2Hugh H. Wooten, Karl Gertel and William C. Pendelton, Major Uses 2§;Land and Water in the United States, Agricultural Economic Report No. 13 (Washington: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, 1959), p. 10. 10 million acres of this total. Compared with the gross land area of the 48 contiguous states (1,902 million acres), urban land use amounts to only 1.4 percent of the total, based upon 1959 data. Between 1950 and 1959, the rate of absorption of rural land by urban areas amounted to about 1 million acres per year. The real impact of the trend toward increased urbanization is, in many respects, not nearly as serious within the central city itself as in the outlying suburbs and fringe areas.1 The unguided expansion of .suburban and fringe growth into the rural areas around cities often has czatastrophic effects. New and increased demands for public services are nuade in small satellite communities which are ill—equipped to provide ‘tfiem. The demands for schools, roads, police and fire protection, sew- :agge disposal, waste treatment plants, and other services, often exceed ‘tlie financial capacity of the communities involved. A scatteration and Iniwxing of land uses often results which may seriously impair the econow uric and social well being of suburban residents. In many respects, the urban sprawl which exists around our Citiies is a regrettable phenomenon. Many of the mistakes which were Inacle in our older cities are being repeated again in the suburbs. 1There is certainly room for controversy on this point. The Planless, haphazard growth of our central cities his given rise to many Selfiious social and economic problems as well. Billions of dollars are eiJlg spent in efforts to renew and rejuvenate the central cities. The gritniness and squalor of urban slums, traffic congestion, air pollution, watfflr supply inadequacies, outmoded and deteriorating buildings, and a host: of other problems require attention. The flight to the suburbs of lar8€3 numbers of middle and high income people has left a social hier- arCh)’ in the city core ma'e up of disproportionate numbers of low in- come Eind non-white people, often considered the hard core unemployed. 11 As pressing as urban and suburban land-use problems appear, we should not overlook their interrelatedness with rural land problems. With more leisure time available, higher incomes, nearly universal ac- cess to automobiles and all weather highways, urban dwellers make fre quent forays into rural areas to satisfy their desire for outdoor recrea— tion experiences.1 Moreover, many rural communities have come to depend heavily upon outdoor recreation and tourism for their economic life bloor. The interdependency which exists as between rural and urban land ste indicates a need for land-use planning and education of a regional Iiature. Clearly, there are no land use problems which may be neatly cat~ eagorized as wholly "urban" or "rural." All Americans share a common rwesponsibility in the wise use of our land resources. Because of the exxisting political, institutional and social structure of cities, sub. erb5 and rural communities, however, it is difficult to develop coordin arted programs of land use education and planning. One of the thorniest Errobdems involves the rational selection of a suitable planning region. .A Inumber of alternatives exist in this choice: metropolitan areas, Cannties, groups of counties, trade areas, or perhaps a natural physio~ grYlphic region such as a river basin. There seems to be a need for developing rapport and constructive _ 1The limited opportunities for outdoor recreation in and around Citries and metropolitan areas has been well documented by the Outdoor ReCIreation Resources Review Commission. Basically, the problem is a matter of physical location. Obviously, there are few areas of unique and.11atural character within the heart of the city, i.e., streams, wood~ laJKIS, lakes, hunting areas and the like. Thus, urban residents are f0rc€fli to travel outward into rural areas to satisfy their desires for reCreational pursuits requiring these types of environment. On the Othel‘ hand, public and private facilities designed for intensive use are Ofterl available in and around the city. 12 dialogues between citizens and leaders on a regional basis. However, there has often been a lack of suitable coordinating and/or educational body to entice farmers, rural non—farm residents, suburbanites and urban leaders to the meeting table. Land-use planning of a regional nature should consider all affected interests. Speaking of this problem, Green has observed that: Progressive metropolitan action requires coordination, cooperation and participation among all affected public and private interests. Negative action or no action by significant parties or jurisdicticns may be schismatic and deleterious to the region's development and over-all economic health. Planning, then, becomes an apparatus for defining and pinpointing evolving areas of common interest, of eliciting coordinated actions, and of a apting to change in a dy- namic economic, political and social complex. In 1960, the Census of Population2 revealed that 63 percent of our population resided in central cities of 50,000 people or more. Be- tween 1950 and 1960 the central cities showed a net increase in popula- tion of 11 percent. Suburbs and fringe areas, on the other hand, showed m1 increase of 50 percent; and rural population showed a rate of increase 0f cuily 7 percent. Today (1967), it is estimated that léO million P90E11e~-7 out of every 10 Americans -reside in urban areas which repre- sent only slightly more than 1 percent of our land. In examining these statistics, one conclusion may be clearly drakfli: adult education programs in lane use must be designed to inclu e UTbaIi, as well as rural, audiences if they are expected to have any sig- nifi<:ant impact. At present, however, there is little evidence that \ U , 1James L. Green, Metropolitan EconOmic Republic (Athens, Georgia: "lVfBrsity of Georgia Press, 1965), p. 53. 2 P U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of O? Elléition, Number of Inhabitants (Washington: U.S. Government Printing f1Ce, 1960). 13 urban and suburban populations are actually being reached with any on— going adult education programs in land use. Moreover, very little precise research has been undertaken to determine who, or what groups, might be interested in actual participation in adult education programs of this type. Recently, it has become popular to hypothesize that adult landsuse elucation programs are badly needed in metropolitan areas. It can be inferred from this assertion that urban people really ”want" and "need" such programs. We hear statements to the effect that ”we shoul. 'equcate' urban and suburban people in all aspects of resource conserva- tion and use;" or, "let's start an educational program in l‘nd use which is geared to the needs of the citizenry in metropolitan areas." It appears to the researcher that numerous questions need to be answered lxafore any widespread efforts are undertaken in urban and urbanizing areas. Adult educators ShOuld (1) determine who is interested in such programs; (2) the characteristics of the audience ShOlll': be determined; (3) .an effort should be made to determine, before formulating the educam tiorual program, what type of information shoul be included; and (4) an Cfffrrt should be made to determine the extent of a ult participation in the Ibroposed program. The problem facing the educational programmer who wishes to deV‘BIOp a land-use education program in urbanized areas is that he lacks factllal information relating to the characteristics and needs of his potenitial audience. Lacking such information, the educator or instruc tor 11as a very limited basis for developing an educational program wh' . . . . .. 1C}‘ can serve as a fruitful learning experience for his aidience. t reinforfs 13““ efforts in develoyi Thin}. "f 1"" that have as t7 instruct. ”1‘“ 1 scope but. *3? majority of {E‘- 0‘.‘ knowledge, most of them 6 almost always Viller 5‘? educator mizst ans late and aiminist .I‘toa', feel, thin] point in any ed ora class is as sztuation, the i I? impart and t‘ in assimilatin T218 ) t how - to ldentif. 1“ urban and u “131‘ Charactg -——“———'“— I _— _—‘ '— 5 I) I VD ‘a—J l4 Kidd reinforces this issertion with the following observation about past efforts in developing adult education programs: Think of the millions of books and pamphlets in every language that have as their subject how to reach, how to train, how to instruct, how to propagandize. These books vary in quality and scope but, barring a few distinguished exceptions, by far the majority of them deal with the way one human being imposes his will, or knowledge, or skill upon another. Consciously or unconsciously, most of them are about how communication is shaped or directed, almost always from the point of View of the director. 1 Miller becomes still more definitive. In his judgment, an educator must answer one basic question before he may successf lly formu~ late and administer an educational program; namely, ”what people need to know, feel, think, or be able to do in order to start at the beginning point in any educational eXperience." In other words, before a meeting or a class is assembled (either formally or informally) in a learning situation, the instructor must know precisely what information he wishes tc>.impart and the capacity, motivation and capabilities of his audience flar assimilating (learning) the material presented. This, then, is the problem to be investigated in this study: how 'to identify the potential audience for land-use educaticn programs in lxrban and urbanizing areas, and how to elicit or appraise the parti culax-characteristics of the audience once identified. Definition of Terms Used Land Use. Will refer to the manner in which man utilizes the 1James R. Kidd, How Adults Learn (New York: Association Press, 1959) , p. 15. E 2Mason E. Miller, Teaching—Learning Process and Methods for FiESflEgion Workers (East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Extension er‘Sonnel Development, Michigan State University, 1965), p. 18. (Mimeo- graphed) 15 physical and spatial resoirces which exist upon, beneath and above the landed portion of the earth's surface-~that portion of earth space not taken up by oceans. Included in this broad definition 'ould be soil, streams and lakes, precipitation, climate, minerals, forests, wililife, man-made appurtenances, and even the air that we breathe. Land-Use Education. Defined as informal group meetings for private citizens. Participation in such programs woald be voluntary and free of charge. Professional educators would be present at such meetings to present pertinent facts and information, answer questions, and lead discussions. Land-Use Education Subject Matter. Topics to be included in land use educational programs wOild be zoning, the preservation of open space, property rights in land ownership, water rights, pollution control, citizen benefits in land use planning, causes and effects of urban sprawl arui blight, maintaining a pleasing and functional living environment, etc. Potential Audience. All adults who own land, and permanently resixje, within the Lansing, Michigan Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areél; and who demonstrate an interest in learning about land use, and i“dicate a propensity for participation in land-use education programs. Adults. For the purpose of this investigation, will be taken to meal; those citizens who (1) exercise ownership rights over a parcel of lansi, (2) pay real property taxes to a local governmental unit within the“ Lansing SMSA, and (3) declare permanent residence therein. Cooperative Extension Service (CES). As used in this inVesti~ gathDn, will refer to the off-campus, non—classroom educational organis 2ation which is affiliated with the land grant universities of each 16 state in the United States It should be noted, however, that the CES carries on many signi— ficant activities on the campus of the Land-Grant Colleges. Much re» search is carried on thrOUgh the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the findings are made available to the public in Agricultural Experiment Station Publications. In addition, many on campus workshops, confer» ences and short courses are offered for private citizens and leaders. Too, many of the Land-Grant Colleges offer formal course work in Exten- sion Education, primarily at the graiuate level. The CES also cooperates closely with ”University Extension Programs." Centers for continuing education have been established at many Land-Grant Universities. These centers offer both on-campus and off campus courses covering a variety of subjects. Through this program citizens are able to take extension courses in their home town, tr at a nearby location, during their leisure time. Standard Metropolitan Statistival Area (SMSA).l Defined as a COQJIty or a group of contiguous counties which contains at least one Cit)' of 50,000 inhabitants or more; or "twin cities” with a combined POFNJlation of at least 50,000. In addition to the county, or counties, COntaining such a city, or cities, contiguous counties are included in an 53MSA if, according to certain criteria, they are essentially metro Folditan in character and are socially and economically integrated with the‘ central city. The Lansing, Michigan SMSA meets these criteria and Wi1_1 be used as the study area in this investigation. _\ ‘ 0 1Synopsis of information presented in U.S. Census of Populatigfl, ‘2;-£EEE" pp. vi vii. l7 , . 1 ‘. . . drbanized Area. An area which contains at least one City of 50,000 inhabitants or more, as determined by the 1960 Census of Popua lation, as well as the surrounding, closely settled incorporated and unincorporated places. The urbanized area includes the following types of contiguous areas which constitute its urban fringe: (a) Incorporated places with 2,500 inhabitants or more. (b) Incorporated places with less than 2,500 inhabitants, provided that each has a closely settled area of 100 dwelling units or more. (c) Enumeration districts in unincorporated territory with a p0pulation density of 1,000 or more inhabitants per square mile (the area of large, non-residential tracts devoted to such urban uses as railroad yards, factories, and cemeteries are excluded from the pepulation density computations for enumeration districts by the Bureau of the Census). (d) Other enumeration districts in unincorporated territory with lower population density provided that they served one of the following purposes: i The elimination of enclaves. ii To close indentations in the urbanized area of one mile or less across the open end. iii To link outlying enumeration districts of qualifying density that were more than 1 1/2 miles from the main body of the urbanized area. General Plan of the Investigation This exploratory study is designed to assess the demand2 for aiulrt land use education programs within a metropolitan region. The inv'estigation has been designed, also, to gather basic information and 1Ibid. 2As used hereafter in the investigation, "the demand" will be asslnned to be analogous with (1) expressed citizen interest in learning more, about land use, and (2) a quantitative expression of citizen pro~ pensity for actual participation in a land'use educational program. 155 concept of demand coincides closely with that used in market re- :EarCh where product demand is quantified in terms of selected socio- Onomic characteristics of consumers. 18 data relating to the potential audien e identified. A secon ary objec— tive is to uetermine the numbers of persons, within the identified potential audience, who own property for leisure and recreational use outside and away from the influence of the Lansing Metropolitan Area. (This group of people is familiarly referred to as "non~resident," or "absentee" landowners within the county or tommunity where they have purchasei vacation or seasonal~use properties.) Assumptions. The design and execution of this research rests on the assump- tion that a hypothetical adult educational program in land use will ul~ timately be offerel within the study area -the Lansing Metropolitan Region. The potential audience for such an educational program will, it is assume , be composed of persons coming from varying social and econo— mic backgrounds. It is further positei that the potential audien e for {U1 adult education program in land use will be composed of two major gIOqus: (l) citizens who own land only within the Lansing Metropolitan Region, and whose interests in land use will be confined to "domestic" Prcflalems within the metropolitan area; and (2) citizens who own land Witliin the SMSA and also in counties outside the metropolitan area, and Whose: interest in land use will be inflienced by their non-resident 0Wnership status in other areas. Basic to the conduct of this research is the assumption that the P°tsrntial audience for a land~use education program within the Lansing SMSA is, essentially, an unknown entity. It can be argued that research of tfliis type constitutes a "frill," and that it is not necessary in dev€310ping an educational program. Granted, the traditional use of the 19 mass media (radio, television, newspapers, telephone, etc ) could be used by the educator in advertising specific meeting times ani places. Moreover, he might succeed in obtaining an excellent turn—out for his meeting—«in terms of the numbers of persons in attendan e. As he as~ cended to the poiium at the start of the meeting, however, he would be less than human if he did not have a few mngivings about the adequacy and appropriateness of his presentation. Somewhere along the line, during the preparation of his speech and/or visual presentation, he was forced to make some basic assumptions relating to his potential audience; namely, that his auiience would probably be receptive to the topic and material presented; that the au.« ience possessed certain levels of knowledge about his topic; and that these assumptions, "if correct," would enable him to communicate with his audience at the proper level for learning to take place. In short, time point is simply this: our hypothetical educator could not be sure thert his assumptions were valid as he possessed no afivance knowledge cxnicerning the audience which would actually attend his meeting. This study seeks to probe more deeply into the characteristics 0f"the potential audience thin simply enumerating the numbers of people th> might attend a hypothetical meeting on land use. Rather, the poten- tiEll audience will be analyzed by use of selected so io-economic charac- teI‘istics. EXEfigghesis Stated. The major hypothesis underlying this investigation is that "the denuind for land-use education programs in urban and urbanizing regions 15 IDositively related with selected socio-economic characteristics of 20 individual property owners." The selected socio-economic characteristics to be used as indepencent variables in this study are age, ecu ation, income, occupation, sex, and place of residence. These variables will be analyzed as to their effect upon the size of the potential au ience for a hypothetical land use education program in the Lansing Metropoli~ tan Area. As no comparable research data could be located in the review of literature, considerable effort has been devoted to the preparation of a measuring instrument to obtain primary data.1 By using the measuring instrument, which was distributed among a random sample of property owners in the Lansing SMSA, a quantitative expression of the potential audience for landwuse education programs will be obtained. Individual property owners will be classified as either "in” or "not in" the poten- tiil audience on the basis of their responses to key questions in the measuring device. A 1The questionnaire used in this Investigation is exhibited in ppendix A. at . l flf‘h r! uh... A .. A‘H‘ ’lJ ll '1: £4 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In the preliminary chapter, it has been suggested that adult education programs in land use are not actually a new phenomenon in the usual sense. Rather, it is posited that land-use education has been closely interwoven with actual resource use and resource policy throughout the evolution of the American civilization. Land~use educa- tion has evolved out of the American experience (often consisting of trial.and error approaches) with the development and use of land re- souznces. In this sense, then, land—use education in the United States, unti 1 very recent times, has often consisted of the informal type; ac—i quirusd through the ”school of hard knocks," and passed between indivi- dualss, families, government agencies, and schools and universities. More recently, and as scientific evidence has been acquired, land—iise education has assumed more formalized overtones. It has been perceivned by some educational organizations--notably the cooperative Extensixan Service and the Land-Grant Colleges-—that the public stake in land resource use (and abuse) is so great that there is a need for an informecl citizenry. For example, to resort to the widespread use of police Power measures such as zoning ordinances, building codes, land SUbdiViSinn regulations, and the like, may enable the responsible pub- lic agency to control the "effects" of the misuse of land resources; but th 0 o I I e underlying "causes" of misuse, such as ignorance and self-interest 21 22 motives of individuals and firms, are not considered. This approach ta the public direction of land use virtually assures that similar land-use problems will recur, if not in the community or region under considera— tion, then in another location. It should be noted at this point that budget and personnel limi- tations would not permit the administration of a comprehensive program in land—use education which is designed to reach every citizen indivi- dually. Furthermore, it is posited that not all citizens would be in- terested in participation in such programs. How, then, should such pro- grams be administered? Lloyd H. Davis, Administrator of the Federal Extension Service, offers an interesting policy statement on this point: We can make our maximum contribution only by seeking out and working with those groups which have contributions to make and encouraging them to greater accomplishment; and by evaluating each opportunity, making sure that it is placed properly in the liierarchy of priorities. We cannot afford the luxury of confusion and frustration about udiere our responsibility lies. We have a responsibility to all people and we serve all people ubut we do this by serving only a puart of the needs of all people. We have neither money nor the nuinpower to make even a small dent if we set out to serve society tlurough direct service to all individuals.1 These statements reinforce the notion that research is needed Which vwauld delimit and identify the potential audience for educational progranu; designed for public participation. If land—use education pro- grams aiwa to be offered within urban areas on a widespread scale, it seems inqaerative that research be conducted to properly pinpoint and identii"'>"'t:lie characteristics of the audience which would participate. \____\ 1 D‘ (If. Lloyd H. Davis, "Extension Opportunities," County Agents lgreCtOI3’ (52nd ed.; Flossmoor, Illinois: C. L. Mast and Associates, »p. 6. . ‘ ' ‘I‘ ,Ifiv‘fl. $1. Aciiu 1 ib‘orfi'y ....,.,_. .,: _ . pleti L Harv; 9L , . r V‘ €T‘n0‘.‘3.l ? ”L i C x ‘3‘ 23 The review of literature indicates a singular lack of precise research in this specific area. However, some aspects of land use are interwoven or implied in much of the literature reviewed. Basically, the literature reviewed for this investigation may be placed in three separate categories: (1) literature dealing with the present and future role of the Cooperative Extension Service in administering public educa- tional programs; (2) literature dealing with applied phases of Extension education such as conservation education; and (3) exploratory research in land~use education. Literature on Extension's Role in Public Education Programs. Much of the research conducted in this area deals with the pro~ priety of extending Extension Programs and services to the off-farm seg- ment: of society. Traditionally, Extension has been heavily committed to educzitional programs for farm people. However, in extending educational servixces in some areas-~advancing regional economic growth, developing humari resources, improving living environments, etc.—-it has become obvicnis that to exclude nonufarm people is unrealistic in view of the social..and economic interdependency which exists as between farm and non~fa17n people. .An early study in this area was conducted by Kaufman.1 His was a natioruil poll of County Extension Agents directly responsible for the administination of educational programs in urban and urbanizing areas. No formal mail questionnaire was prepared. Instead, a carefully struc—- tured "covner letter" was mailed to each County Extension Director in the \ l in U br CHiarles R. Kaufman, "The Responsibility of the Extension Service r 4“ ikreas," (unpublished Research, Michigan State University, 1957). 24 United States who was responsible for Extension Programs within counties having cities of 25,000 inhabitants or more. The cover letter sought to obtain an answer to one basic question: "what was the nature and scepe of educational pregrams administered in urban areas, and whet was Exten- sion's future role in urban areas?" A total of 118 counties were selected for inclusion in the survey area, and letters were mailed to each of the County Extension Directors involved. Response was excellent. A total of about 97 responses were obtained from the agents contacted. At that time, the general nature of the responses obtained was "that Extension should become involved with programs involving urban people." The agents stressed the need f0? (haveloping educational programs which involved interaction and cooperae ticni between rural and urban people. The need for land use education, peI‘.se3 was not stressed in the responses obtained, but it was implicit in expressed concern over the need for resource conservation. In 1958, Cornett1 conducted a stu y of public opinion related to true legitimate role of Cooperative Extension in Jackson County, Michigan. In addition, he sampled the opinions of the resident faculty (non-agricultural) at Michigan State University to determine their know- ledge Enid awareness of Michigan Extension Programs, and to obtain fac- UItY Vienus regarding the future direction of Extension Programs. 'The methodology employed by Cornett involved sampling the opin~ ions of'IJrivate citizens who could be selected from among the membership M 1 R 1 Iilgin M. Cornett, "A Study of Public Concepts Related to the a: :_of (haoperative Extension SerVice” (Unpublished Masters Thesis, 1C lgan State University, 1958).. 25 of civic and social organizations, e.g., the Jackson Rotary Club, the Jackson Kiwanis Club, business and professional women's clubs, and the Jackson County Artificial Breeders Association. Two basic findings resulting from Cornett's investigation appear to be pertinent. These findings are in the form of responses obtained to two questions in a mail questionnaire: 1. Urban people seem to use an increasing amount of Extension agent work time. Normally, this will mean less time for farm areas. Due to the urban load, do you favor less rural service or adding another Extension Agent? This question received a response overall from 63 full~time farmers, 40 part time farmers, 96 Rotarians, 65 Kiwanis, and 41 business zuud professional women. Twenty-five percent of those responding favored zuuiing another agent; twenty-two percent favored doing less urban work; five; percent were in favor of doing less rural work; and the remaining thiirty-five percent "did not know.” 23. Should Extension Agents increase their educational efforts on public programs such as zoning, taxation, community develop- ment, health, etc.? A tabulation of responses shows that 47 percent of those polled answeinsd yes; 15 percent replied some; 16 percent replied no; and 22 Percent "did not know." At least one major class was not included significantly in Cornettzfs survey- industrial and/or production workers. .In 1961, Hazlitt1 attempted to evaluate public opinion regarding the adGQLuicy of extension programs in Yuma County, Arizona. Hazlitt's \ 1 th «James R. Hazlitt, ”A Study Indicating the Future Direction of Nezdcoopfirrative Extension Service in Order to Meet the Problems and § of? the People" (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State Uni— VETSI’CY , 1961). 26 investigation was undertaken within the framework provided by three ba— sic assumptions: (1) "It will be necessary for Extension to broaden the scope of its program offerings from the traditional offerings of the past, if Extension is going to help people help themselves in adjusting to change, in meeting their needs, and in solving their problems." (2) "The problems and needs of the people extend to a much greater extent beyond the areas in which Extension has traditionally been working." (3) "The people are desirous of the help Extension could give in help- ing them to meet their problems and needs." Hazlitt drew a random sample by using addresses in telephone directories, lists of water users in irrigation districts, and the Yuma City>County Directory. Using the names available in these sources as the: sampling frame, be pro eeded to select every Kth_name at systematic intmarvals. A series of 3" X 5" cards were prepared as individual ad— dresses were selected, and cares were marked alternately "male" and "fenuale" to indicate the sex of the person to be interviewed at each addrwsss. Mazlitt states that the sample was not stratified, and may "have: been disproportionately weighted with urban residents due to the simple; random sample procedure." Bartlett1 undertook a national survey of county agents and Ex- tensicni Administrators to obtain their views on the future role of Extensixin in urban and urbanizing areas. All fifty of the United States were ineluded in the survey. Bartlett's sampling methodology involved K _ 1 . . S . Francis K. Bartlett, "The Role of the Cooperative ExtenSion erVice iii Urban and Urbanizing Areas" (Unpublished Masters Thesis, MiChigan State University, 1964). 27 the inclusion of four potential respondents from each state: the State Director of the Extension Service, ant three county agents. Sample counties were selected in line of priority, based upon total county pop~ ulation (county with highest population in state selected first, and so on down the scale). A detailed mail questionnaire was prepared and mailed to each prospective respondent selected. On the basis of the responses ob» tained to the mail questionnaire, Bartlett concluded that; It is generally agreed upon by both county workers and state director respondents that extension workers should spend a sub- stantial proportion of their time working with urban people. The county workers tend to believe more time should be spent with ur- ban work than do the state directors. Bartlett further concluded that there "is not a sharply~defined role: for Cooperative Extension in urban areas at the present time." Replaies to the mail questionnaire also indicated that extension programs in iiziian and urbanizing areas should include the following areas of empkuasis: (1) home economics, (2) 4~H and other youth work, (3) commu- nity 21nd public affairs, (4) marketing and utilization of agricultural Prodturts, (5) agricultural production-management, and (6) resource deve l opment . Eifieratnire on Conservation Education. .A considerable body of literature exists which deals with the teaching of subjectwmatter related to the conservation of natural re— sources. Research in this area has dealt with the content of educational c“rricuhlms in conservation; levels of knowledge possessed by individuals before aruj after educational awareness experiences; and conservation a ' - ttitude ‘testlng and measurement- A study which has some bearing upon this investigation was under- taken in 1947 by Wievel.1 His stu;y attempted to measure differences in knowledge of and attitudes toward the conservation of natural resources among high school students. Wievel was unable to find an existing knowledge test or atti- tude scale which was suitable for his investigation. He was, therefore, forced to develop his own measuring instrument. His test involved the preparation of three separate, but related, instruments: (1) a personal data sheet for students, (2) a twenty-five statement attitude scale, and (3) a multiple-choice achievement test containing seventy—five questions. This test was agministered to a random selection of freshman and senior lrigh school students in order that he might determine whether or not differences in knowledge and attitufes existed between stu.lents at the entzj/ level and those having completed nearly four years of secondary education. As a result of this investigation, Wievel offers several con» clusions: 1- Grade Level. Significant differences in attitudes and know— ledge ‘vere evident as between freshmen and seniors. Seniors achieved higher? scores on all parts of the test than freshmen. 2- ‘§g§3 Boys made higher scores than girls on all parts of the teSt, exxcept for questions dealing with mineral conservation. 3- ‘School Grades. Students having above average grades generally made higher scores on the test than did stun'ents whose grarles were aver- age 01‘ below average. 4' fliace of Residence (Farm and non~farm). Place of residence K 1 v t' 13ernard F. Wievel, "Attitudes Towards and Knowledge of Conser- [S Ion FNDSsessed by Students in Iowa High Schools" (Unpublished Ph.D. Ssertation, Iowa State University, 1947). 29 generally was associated with differences in test score on knowledge about soil conservation. Students having farm residences made the best scores on these questions. On the other hand, few differences in know« ledge of and attitudes toward wildlife, forest, mineral or water conserv vation existed as between farm and non~farm students. 5. Background in Natural Science Courses. It was found that those students who’had taken the greatest number of natural science courses in their high school program generally mafe the best scores on the knowledge test, and possessed more favorable attitudes toward resource conservation. 6. Background in Agricultural Courses. Students having some courses in agriculture in their high school program made better scores on all parts of the test than students who did not. 7. Background in Social Science Courses. Students who ha; taken the most courses in social science generally had slightly more favorable attitudes towards conservation, but made slightly lower scores on the knowledge test. ,8. Student Conservation Activities. There was a general tendency for students who had engaged in the most conservation activities to achieve better scores on both the knowledge and the attitude test. In 1955, Lively and Preiss1 undertook a comprehensive survey of colJleges and universities in the United States to determine (1) the ex~ tent: of course offerings in conservation in universities and colleges; and (2) to obtain the views of college teachers regarding the adequacy of ccniservation education at the university level. The results of the investigation showed that in the study year 94 perxzent of the large universities (includes Land-Grant colleges, and colleges with over 7,000 enrollment) offered some instruction in re— source <:onservation. Out of the remaining 1,024 colleges, 55.3 percent Offered some course work in conservation. 1118 mail questionnaire used in the survey posed a highly signi- ficant Qibestion to the college teachers included in the sample; namely, \ 1 Am . (Charles E. Lively and Jack J. Preiss, Conservation Education in -33i2§51_5311lgge§_(New York: The Ronald Press, 1957). 30 the "reason for conservation's lack of popularity” among private citi~ zens. The college teachers cited five alleged reasons: 1. "Ignorance of the rate at which Our resources are used." 2. "A carryover of destructive attitu es of the past.” 3. "A feeling of irresponsibility for the state of resources.” 4. "Pressures from industry to consume and discard.” 5. ”The belief that science will save us.” In 1961, George1 developed an investigation designed to measure the attitudes of high school students, college students and adults to ward conservation "in situations where conservation education is a part of the educational experience.” In developing the study, George interpreted "conservation atti- tude” to mean "the feelings pedple have either for or against conserva~ tion." The overall objective of the study was "to develop a method of appraisal with adequate testing tools to (1) measure attitude levels (If students and adults with varied backgrounds, (2) compare attitudes the national defense, develop and produce new types of commer- cial fertilizer, produce and distribute hydroelectric power, promote deb Sired research, and facilitate resource development and improve the economic welfare of the people in the area." Thus, the TVA has contri— 74 buted substantially to public land use education in the seven—state re— gion within its jurisdiction.1 Several agencies of the U.S. Department of the Interior have been very active in this area; namely, the Bureau of Lan‘ Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and recently (since 1962), the Bureau of Outdoor Recreau tion. The U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior has provided reliable information concerning the location and character of the nation's land resources through published maps and reports, all of which are available for public information. In addition to these, there are many organizations, bureaus, and agencies which have been active at state, regional, county and local levels. Virtually all of the United States have conservation agencies, state planning commissions and other resource—oriented agencies which make available information related to land resource use. Recently, many regional planning commissions have been organized at sub—state levels. These organizations are directly concerned with land-use planning for counties, multi—county areas, metropolitan areas, or physiographic areas such as river basins. The planning reports published by these agencies are available for public consumption. One of the major objectives of these agencies is the coordination of land-use planning on a regional basis. Education enters the planning process because of its very nature. Comprwehensive planning necessarily involves land-use education due to the invorvement of a variety of local government officials, businessmen, in~ 1 Cf. Raleigh Barlowe, op. cit., p. 475. 7S dustrial corporations, civic and social leaders, and private citizens. Further down the scale are the agencies of county, city and com» munity government. These agencies have a considerable influence over the manner in which land resources are used, and consequently they be- come directly involved with public land-use edu'ation. For the indivi— dual citizen, land-use education obtained from local government may seem a bit on the negative side in many instances, but it is a reality never~ theless. For example, consi.er the influence of the many city ordin» ances in existence; the influence of local zoning ordinances; or the effect of the taxation power of government. The researcher has attempted to range quite broadly in discus- sing the history of land—use education in the United States. However, this discourse has not, in his judgement, covered the field by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, he has beer impressed with mag~ IlitUde and diversity of the many sources of land use education which heave existed within the United States during its history. Mahy of the agencies, organizations and institutions considered have not listed lxlndeuse education as an important objective or activity. They have, becxause of the nature of their work activities, entered the edu;ational arerua by default or accident. Formal education programs in land-use, designed to reach "the man on the street," have not been made widely availtfl31e in the past. Furthermore, many of the past efforts have been largely confined to Rural audiences. Only very recently has there been rmuflltaffort devoted to the extension of land~use education to urban Peeple. 76 Some Present Policy Issues in Land Use In this section, an attempt will be made to consider briefly some of the major policy issues involving land use at the present time in the United States. In view of the complex nature of the issues, the researcher will attempt to limit these discussions to a consideration of major land problems involving urban areas. However, rural land issues, because of their interrelationship with urban ones, inevitably will re- ceive some consideration as well. In developing this section, the researcher will adhere to a three-fold framework, considering separately some majcr social, economic and political issues involving land. Certainly, a case can be made for the inclusion of other issues in these discussions (other institutional and physical considerations involving land for example), but further ex— }aansion of these discussions transcends the scope of this investigation. Shame Important Social Considerations. Land use is affected directly by the actions of society collec t ively, and by the actions of individual persons. Moreover, land use deqaends, to a considerable degree, upon the prevailing social attitudes ttnvard land resources. Throughout most of this nation's history social attxitudes h.ve varied somewhat, at various times and places, but, by and largye, man has attempted to harness and utilize the resources of the land for Iris own benefit and enjoyment. Clawson notes, however, that there is arurther facet to the relationship between man and the land, namely: - . . under what social arrangements, laws, and customs has man been allowed to use the land, and how has he in fact used it. This is more properly a man-man relationship than it is a man~ liuki one. Men, acting through the tribe, or the family, or the govervunent, have set up rules under which other men are allowed to ouni, sell, buy,lease, inherit, and otherwise use land for 77 their benefit. Sometimes these arrangements are specific and written, . . . sometimes they are less definite, subject to interpretation by the stronger for their own enés. In their totality, these variogs arrangements constitute a system of land tenure for that time and pla,e.1 It is frequently pointed out that the physical location of land is fixed. Man, however, is not subject to this constraint. Man's use of his innate intelligence to acquire new knowledge, and to make techno~ logical advances, has enabled him to develop and use land resources which were untappable in earlier decades. Thus, land-use change is basically a phenomenon associated with social thange. Earlier sections have considered at some length the trend toward urbanization which has evolved during the 20th Century and earlier; how urban areas have grown Outward into the rural areas which surround them; and how urban areas have undergone social redistribution. The use of land resources has social implications in all areas, but perhaps nowhere more markedly than in the compact and closely settled urban areas. In such a situation, the manner in which one man chooses to use the land can have profound effects upon his neighbor, and upon whole sections of the city. One of the central issues involving urban land .so in recent years has been the redistribution of population throughout the metropcl itan area. Havighurst notes that this phenomenon has been underway for many years. He summarizes it thusly: During the process of metropolitan growth, the central cities gained in their proportion of working~class resiients and of negroes, while the suburbs gained in their proportion of middle“ IMarion Clawson, Man and Land in the United States (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), p. 2. 78 class residents. Thus the metropolitan area became stratified along economic and racial lines. The inner shells of the city contain people with low incomes; the outer shells contain people with middle incomes; and the outer edges of the city and suburbs have high incomes.l As previously noted, the average American today has higher lev~ . . . . 2 . . . els of income, more leisure time, and considerably more mobility than past generations. Furthermore, he has demonstrated a voracious appe— tite for outdoor recre tion experiences. In many cases, the impact of the demand for outdoor recreation exhibited by urban people is felt in rural areas where private or public recreation areas are available. The trend tOWard increased urbanization in the United States has many implications for rural areas. Rogers indicates that there are at least seven majfr social chinges underway in rural America t Lay. He points out that: 1. American_people today are movers twenty percent of our population changes residence each year. h) Farm pejple are decreasing in number ~ less favorable farm incomes in an otherwise prosperous economy have motivated many farm people to migrate to urban centers. 3. Increasing numbers of persons are becoming part-time farmers. 4. Rural—nonfarm people are increasing rapidly in number. le. Robert J. Havighurst, Education in Metropolitan Areas (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc , 1966), p. 52. 2The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission estimates, for example, that by 1976 the average work week will be reduced to 35.4 hours; the average employee will receive 2.8 weeks of paid vacation an- nually; and that there will be an average of 8.5 paid holidays per em- ployee. These projections contrast with 1960 estimates of 38.5 hours per work week, 2.0 weeks of paid vacation, and 6.3 paid holidays per Year. For more extended treatment, see: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Projections to the Years 1976 and 2000: Economic GTOWth, Population, Labor Force and Leisure, and Transportation: ORRRC Report No. 23 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962). I- .I' . 5. Rural and urban values re becoming "rurbanifed" - not only are Americans becoming c«ncentratei in and around metropol itan centers, but the differen es between urban and rural people are decreasing. 6. Widened horizons are resulting from improved communications and transportation. 7. There are rural implications of growing ipdustri lization. One of the major policy issues involving lani use in our urban areas concerns the future form and character of our cities. As cities expand outward into the rural fringe areas the commuting distante to the central business district gradually increases. The expressways and highways in metropolitan areas are already jammed to capacity in most cases. Should further land be subdivided on the outskirts of the urban area, when this contributes further to the commuter loading on the free- way system? Shoulfi mass transit systems be a Opted in the major metro- politan areas to relieve the conjestion which exists in the central: cities due to the daily commutation of city workers? Some Economic Considerations. Most cities and metropolitan areas owe their existence to the economic activity associated with the production and distribution of goods and services. This activity leads to the creation of employment Opportunities and a demand for manpower. Thus, the major attraction or "pull" of the metropolitan areas upon people centers around the exis- tence and availability of employment opportunities. Moreover, most economists agree that definite income Vifferentials exist as between urban and rural areas. Urban people, by and large, enjoy higher incomes l ‘ Cf. Everett M. Rogers, Social Change in Rural Society (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1960), p. 2. than rural people. Land use in metropolitan areas also is directly related to and affected by the economic activity within the urban system. Chapin points out that the state of the urban economy conditions the use of land in and around the city to a considerable degree. He notes, for example, that: an expanding eccnomy with the implications it holds for new businesses and industries and population growth means more land going into use. Similarly, economic forces that are respon. sible for declining trends in economic activity also exert in- fluences on the pattern of urban land uses in the city.1 Land is generally used in urban areas (and in other areis as well) for those purposes which the owner envisions as affording the highest returns. That is, land, under the prevailing renditions at a given time, usually gravitates in the marketplace to its ”highest and best use." Land economists consider land as being devoted to the high— est and best use when it provides the highest possible returns (both monetary and intangible) to the owner and/or society. Often, the workings of the marketplace have resulted in imper fections in the allocation of land resources in and around urban areas. That is, some landowners, after acquiring title to a pircel of land, devote it to a particular type of use which conflicts with the welfare, safety or convenience of neighborhoods or the broader community. A goof example of this would be the acquisition of land for heavy industrial use which lies within, or in close proximity to, residential neighbor« hoods. The use of heavy equipment might create a nuisance in the 1F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning (2nd ed.; Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965), p. 107. 81 residential neighborhood, possibly affecting human safety. Other fac~ tors wuch as noise, poor layout of streets and circulation, odor nui— sances, and possibly outright air pollution woul directly affect the common welfare of the neighborhood. To avoid such conflicts of interest in land use, most cities have set up zoning ordinances which limit the use of land in certain sections of the city. Non conforming uses, su h as the industrial plant cited above, are excluded from rertain areas or zones in the interest of the public welfare. One of the central issues in urban land use relates to the re» lative permanence of certain intensive uses. It is one thing to bring about land use changes in extensively used rural areas, such as forest or range lands, and quite another to dislo.ge a skyscraper or high rise apartment complex in the city. Clawson notes that: One major factor is changing, as the nation matures in its land use: each land use is getting more and more firmly establishefi on particular tracts of land, and can be changed only as a re~ sult of greater trouble and turmoil. One might almost advan e a "turmoil" theory of land use change. . . . When land use is relatively extensive, and when there are many other tracts about as good for a particular use, the turmoil cost is low. But, as each land use gets more firmly established on particular tracts, the turmoil costs rise. Much has been written about the effects of "urban sprawl"; par~ ticularly its encroachment into and preemption of agricultural land in the urban-rural fringe. A variety of approaches have been used to re- tain agricultural lands on the outskirts of the city. There are two primary rationale for retaining agricultural uses within urban areas: (1) the first relates to relieving the tax burden associated with 1Marion Clawson, Land For Americans (Chicago: Rand~McNally and Company, 1963), p. 132. (‘0 K) agricultural land ownership in metropolitan areas, (2) the second in- volves public interest in the preservation of "open space” in metropol- itan regions. The most current information available indicates that farmers located in metropolitan regions are injeed faced with higher property taxes than their counterparts in rural areas. Hady and Stinson report, for instance, that: USDA estimates indicate that taxes per acre levied on farms in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) average more than 2 l/2 times the taxes on farms in counties adjacent to SMSA's, and more than five times those in the more viral counties located some distance from metropolitan centers. The "turmoil theory" mentioned above has some significance in these matters. Public action to maintain open space, and to prevent the displacement of agriculture by residential subdivisions in the urban-rural fringe, has generally run counter to and in conflict with the established pattern of land taxation in the United States. Local governmental units historically hive laid claim to a portion of the value associated with land resources to defray a large portion of the costs associated with the a ministration of government programs, and the provision of public services. The basis for these tax levies in- volves the assessment of individaal land parcels according to their . 2 present "fair market values." 1Thomas F. Hady and Thomas F. Stinson, Taxation of Farmland on the Rural-Urban Fringe, Agricultural Economic Report No. 119 (Washing- ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 2. _ 2The concept of fair market value is rather elusive, and it has, In many cases, been subjected to rather loose interpretation. The courts have generally held that it constitutes "the highest price esti- mETed in terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale 83 The practice of assessing land at its current value in the local real estate market often creates some hardship for farmers locrted on the rural-urban fringe. Often, farmland is assessed according to its "prospective value" for uses other than agriculture, usually because of its close proximity to and suitability for low density residential sub divisions. The prospective valae for non agricultural uses associ’ted with land situated thusly usually exceeds the value which would be ex- pected provided the land was used exclusively for agriculture. Many state legislatures have either passed, or are considering the adoption of, preferential taxation measures to deal with this prob- lem. State legislation of this nature has generally fallen within four broad categories: (1) preferential assessments, (2) tax deferrals, (3) planning and zoning, and (4) easements.l Most of these measures require either amendment of the state constitution, or the passage of special enabling acts which permit the implementation of control measures at the local level. A comprehensive treatment of preferential taxation legislation in the United States is beyond the scope of this study. A brief state- ment as to the objectives an; techniques involved in the four major approaches to preferential taxation in existence to ay seems appropriate, in the open market allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser who buys with knowledge of all the uses to which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used." A definition which is used fairly widely in practice is that it is simply "the price agreed upon by a willing buyer and a willing seller under circumstances where neither is sub— jected to undue pressure.” For a more comprehensive treatment, see: Raleigh Barlowe, op. cit., p. 185. 1Thomas F. Hady and Thomas F. Stinson, op. cit., p. 2. rujwever. 1. Preferential assessment - state legislation dealing with this approach generally provides "that land which is actively devoted to farming shall be assessed on the basis of its value for agriculture, and that other potential uses, such as housing subdivisions, shall be ignored " 2. Tax Deferral - these laws provide "that part of the pro— perty tax is deferred each year, rather than forgiven. This deferred tax becomes due when land passes into non~agricultural uses." Some states, notably New Jersey, have inserted a "roll~ back" clause in the state law. This provides that the deferred 'taxes become due and payable for a Specified number of years })rior to the time the land passes into non agricultural use. lVew Jersey provides for the collection of a roll back tax for 21 period of 3 years. .3. PlanningAand Zoning» This approach is used in the belief tlLat rigid zoning and land use planning will enable the urban zirea to retain land in agriculture and open space. Basically, jst provides that ”farmland can receive preferential assessment cnuly in areas which have been designated as agricultural or cuaen space zones. Farmland in other zones is assessed exactly liJlitical power between farm and city may be the major internal u;ivisive influence. The balance of political power has been gradually shifting in favor‘ of urban people. But, urban land problems hive received much less attenrtion, generally, than have rural ones. As political representation contirnaes to shift more to the favor of urban areas, urban people will exercigse considerably more influence over politi al uecisions affecting 130d Iwesource use and policy. The complex nature of the modern city makes land use problems difficmilt to deal with. Cities have expanded outward very rapidly in N l . . .John M. Gaus, Leonard D. White an: Marshall E. Dimock, The Frontlelfii of Public Administration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), p. 92. 2 l3aul Buckholts, Political Geography (New York: The Ronald Press, 1966), p. 14. '— 87 recent decades, and in many cases have outgrown their legal political boundaries. Formally separate and :Listin- t cities h‘ve often grown together to such an extent that their legal boundaries have little. mean. ing from the standpoint of delineating separate areas of governmental responsibility. That is, the rapid expansicn of urban area, in the spa-~ tial sense, has forced some cities to accept economic and governmental. responsibility for suburban and fringe areas which actually lie outside the political boundaries of the central city. The movement and read~ justing of political boundaries simply has not kept pace with the rate of suburban and fringe growth. Further complications have resulted becaise of the expansion of urban areas across state boundaries. Under such circumstances the ad— ministration of government programs and functions becomes a cumbersome process. Decision-making responsibilities are scattered and widely diffused among a variety of agencies, committees and individuals. Any action taken by one group individually usually is fraught with ramifi cations which affect the entire metropolital area collectively. Land- use planning authorities have been established in many metropolitan areas. These planning commissions are usually delegated authority for maintaining a continuous and comprehensive planning program which is designed to coordinate government programs and actions dealing with land use. CHAPTER IV PROJECT DESIGN, The objective in this chapter will be to outline and discuss the research methodology used in conducting this investigation. The firsrt section will be devoted to outlining the con eptual framework of the ;investigation. Next, the study area will be identified and de~ scrilaed. Following these Piscussions, attention will be devoted to the techriiques used in preparing and distributing the mail questionnaire. Ccnceptaal Foundations In earlier chapters it has been emphasized that the United St ttzs to ay is strongly urban oriented. Future historians will recall the «denzade of the 1960's as a period when most of America's people, moneyr and material wealth were concentrated in and around its cities. What ssignificance does this phenomenon have for those concerned with the den/elopment and administration of 17nduuse education programs? Based upon the strength of sheer numbers, and the changing con- centralxion of political power, urban people will possess considerably more irtflaence over future decisions concerning natural resource use and managenuant_ It seems apparent, to the researcher at least, that urban people fused to acquire a sensitivity for the responsibilities which they face iTI this decisionamaking process. Likewise, rural people need to acquire EH1 understanding of, and appreciation for, the problems of urban I‘ 58 79 Fmaople. Some educators question the ability of urban and suburban pmaople to shoulder these responsibilities fortnri htly in view of their tirdaan orientation. George has observed, for example, that: an ever infreasing portion of our population has never lived on a farm, been part of a small town or community, or realized many experiences close to nature and the problems of conservation. However, the American urban and suburban popul tion has shown considerable interest in the prod.cts of natural resource use such as outdoor recreation. Today, it is becoming increas- ingly evident that this growing segment of our population . . . , \vill be making the decisions on resoirce use and management.1 The literature reviewed in developing this investigation suga gestzs that land—use education programs are needed in urban and urbaniz- ing zlreas. Past stu ies have revealed, for instance, that county exten- SiCN1 {agents and state a.ministrators feel that CES has a definite role in 11r133n and urbanizing regions. If one common thread is evident in paSt. research, it is that regional educational programs are needed which invc>1xre both urban and rural peOple. With this in min , the researcher has :sealected an individual metropolitan region as the study area for this :investigation. Very little is known about the audiences who annually partici~ pate iJ1 the many adult education programs in the United States. Still 1355 is; known about "potential audiences" that might conceivably parti~ Clpatei iJ1 educational programs at some future time. As Leonard has noted: Evaluations available on . . . education programs selziom give ‘POIT? than minor attention to the audiences being reached. Other tfliarl occupational interests, previous training and interests, littlle is known of the vast group of persons annually reached thITNJgh a multitude of conferences, lectures, correspondence, ..___“_~‘_____*___~W 1- :iobert W. George, 0 . cit., p. 68. Qi' and short courses planned and directed by a majority of the colleges and universities of the United States. Although these cbservations are interesting, their implitations for the present study are somewhat limited. The major objective of this investigatirn is to pndertake an empirical analysis of the prospective adult audience for an ed cation program which is to be offered in the future. More specifically, the focus of this investigation will be upon appraisal of the prospective a-ult audien e for "land-use education programs ” How might this problem best be approa hed? The vast aggregation of people who reside within a metropolitan area constitute a very heterogeneous population as regar 5 personal characteristics such as age, recupation, education level, place of resi- dence, and the like. Furthermore, there is considerable variation among people regarding individual attitudes toward land resource conservation and use. These differences in attitudes are conditioned and modified by experience. As Crow points out: Human behavior is conditioned by individual urges and desires, as these are modified by experience. Human beings do countless things as a result of complex and little-understood motives. They are impelled variously to swim rivers, climb mountains, build houses, play canasta, fight wars, compete in various sports, or participate in civic projects. An adult education program in land use wruld logically be de~ signed to reach the persons in leadership roles within the community 1Olen E. Leonard and Sheldon Lowry, "Continuation Education C011eges and Universities," in Rural Social Systems and Adult Education, ed. by (3. P. Loomis (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Press, 1953), p. 232. 2 . . , Lester D. and Alice Crow, Human Dexelopment and Learning_(hew York: American Book Company, 1965), p. 12?. new“ 91 (and under the framework of this investigation, within the broader met~ repolitan region). The ultimate success of the educational program will depend largely upon whether or not people in lea ership positions are actually involved in the program. Wh1t characteristics do lo;al lea ers usually possess? In general, "men are more heavily represented in lea)» ership positions than women; the middle—aged participate more than the young or old; the upper educational and so ial-class groups more than the lower; white native-born PrCtestants more than members of ethnic or religious minorities."1 In identifying the potential adult audience for a land-use edu- cation program, it becomes necessary to devise a testing instrument for differentiating between people who possess the motivation to participate, and those who do not. Out of the vast number of personal characteris- tics and traits which might conceivably be used as barometers for iden- tifying a potential participant, two stand out in importance: (1) a potential participant should possess an interest in learning more about the subject matter to be included in the program; and (2) he should indicate in some way a propensity for actual participation in the program to be offered. Johnstone and Rivera provide reinforcement for this ap- proach: Although anyone might think of any number of personal traits which would identify a potential adult~education participant, there are two general characteristics such a person should be expected to possess as a very minimum. He should show at least some interest in learning more about a subject or skill, and . le. Wendell Bell, Richard J. Hill and Charles R. Wright, Pub» llc Leadership: A Critical Review with Special Reference to Adult Eda; cation (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1961), p. 187. 92 he should display some readiness to take action to satisfy his learning interests.1 Two major factors will be considered, then, in identifying a potential audience for land~use education programs in urban and urbaniz~ ing areas: (1) citizen interest in learning (about land use), and (2) citizen expression of a readiness to participate (in land-use education programs). As has been noted earlier, people are motivated to do var~ ious things, and act in certain ways, as a result of complex and poorly understood forces. The objective of an educational program in land re~ source use would be to establish certain norms of knowledge concerning land use which, if successfully imparted to the participating audience, would predispose them to behave in certain ways following the educa~ tional experience. That is, if the educator possesses an understanding of the motives which condition the "entry behavior” of his audience, he can use this information in formulating an educational program which will guide the participating audience to the desired "terminal behavior” following completion of the program. Marketing researchers have used similar rationale in undertak- ing investigations of consumer behavior. As consumer knowledge is assumed to affect behavior-~the disposition to purchase certain products or services-~businessmen pay particular attention to the way in which the factors affecting knowledge predispose people to behave. Similarly, consumer (citizen) knowledge is directly related to public policy con~ cerning land use. As Henell has noted: . 1John W. C. Johnstone and Ramon J. Rivera, Volunteers for Learn- Hjs (Chicago: Alline Publishing Company, 1965), p. 163. 93 . a stu y of consumer knowledge is also of interest to pub- lic policy, . . . which could aim at providing people with in- formation that predisposes them to behave certain ways. The norms for a welfare policy of this kind can of course be ser lected in many ways; in other words, their determination may be a subjective task, but once the norms have been chosen, it is in principle an objective task to determine how much know~ ledge is needed in order that the behavior implicit in the norm shall be reached. It is readily conceeded that the mere indication by an individ- {1211 of an interest in learning, or a desire to participate in a spe- czific educational program, does not guarantee his attendan e at a meeting art some future date. (He may choose to use his leisure time differ~ errtly when faced with the decision to atten , or not attend, a particu- lair meeting or class on land use.) Further, an empirical measure, using tfliese two factors, gives little assuranse that the learning norm (the ‘ternninal behavior) will actually be attained following the educational exqaerience. However, an appraisal of the potential audience, using the critneria stated here, will allow the instructor to go about the job of fornquating his educational program in a somewhat more objective fashion thaJI he might otherwise. For if there is a complete lpck of factual knouflledge concerning the potential audience, the instructor must ap- Proacfli his job equipped with little more than a "scattergun" technique. The Study Area The Lansing, Michigan Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) \vas selected as the study area for this investigation. Several factors were involved in this choice: M_ “— Olof Henell, Marketing Aspect of Housewive's Knowledge of “300?: (Goteborg, Sweden: A. - B. John htonsons Boktryckeri, 19S'§), 94 1. Being a full-time graduate student with limited research funds, the researcher chose this area in or er to minimize travel costs associated with data collection. Michigan State University is located within the Lansing SMSA. 2. A review of past research revealed that very little ef— fort has been made in the past to identify potential audiences for specific educational programs within metropolitan areas. As the researcher wished to undertake a research project which dealt with potential audiences in urban areas, while simultaneously holding to a regional approach, the Lansing SMSA was chosen. Geographically, the SMSA encompasses all of three contiguous counties which are urbanized to various degrees. 3. Very recently (during the winter of 1968), the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service has begun a series of regional land-use conferences for private citizens and lea ers through~ out the state. These conferences draw audiences from county or multi-county areas. Too, the Michigan Extension Service held a series of 1and~use education conferences in the Detroit Metro~ politan Area during the fall of 1967. These meetings were de~ signed specifically to reach urban residents who own vacation or seasonal-use property in the northern portion of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Consequently, the researcher can foresee some direct application for the type of research being undertaken in this study. In identifying and describing the study area, three general fac- torws will be considered: (1) location and size, (2) population numbers, and (3) income and employment. Licat ion and Size . 1 The Lansing SMSA is located in South-Central Michigan. The City Of Lalising—-central city of the SMSA—~is approximately 85 miles north~ WeSt (3f Detroit, and 63 miles southeast of Grand Rapids on Interstate Highwa)’ 96. Figure 1 shows the relative location of the Lansing SMSA to other SMSA's in Michigan. Statistics cited in this section are from the U.S. Department of(hmmmerce, Bureau of the Census, Areas of the United States (Washing- ton: LLES. Government Printing Office, 1940). 95 Fig. 1. Map Showing Location of Lansing, Mich. SMSA. w sunn- LEGEND , 7 an «no. ""7 .tflIDII. IITIO'OLIT‘. T‘YI.TUC‘L l.“.' . a“? um: no no on Io" manna-u .al/ . mu 0 f/ / Inn “0.00. to 100.000 Inn-nun at “too «can no! I. 0 IO 88”“ Ill. Source: U.S. Census of Population. 9r The geographical area covered by the Lansing SMSA encompasses 2111 of three contiguous counties: Clinton, Eatcn and Ingham. The ziggregated lanfi area of the SMSA totals 1,086,080 acres, or 1,697 square niiles. This Ian; area is distributed among counties as follows: Clin- t:on County- 571 square miles, Eaton County-~567 square miles, and Ingham (Sounty--SS9 square miles. Pigpulation Numbers. In 1960, the total population of the Lansing SMSA was placed at £298,949. The urban population (population of the central city--Lansing» IEast L1nsing--and within defined census tracts on the urban fringe) tcytailed 196,770. The population for the remainder of the SMSA (un~ txracted area) totalled 102,179. Thus, 65.8 percent of the population “was classified as urban.1 A further comparison of the distribution of inhabitants within the: SMSA is presented in Table 1. Intercensal estimates place the popul'tion of the SMSA at absut 32S),000 by 1965; and the best projections available indicate that by 19753 the number of inhabitants may increase to 360,055, an‘ that by 1980 the SMSA may have a total population of 422,251.2 1 Cf. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census IEEEEch3£§; The Lansing_SMSA (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1960). . Cf. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Graduate School $f B9511uess Administration, Michigan Statistical Abstract (6th ed.; East lensing, lWichigan: Michigan State University, 1966), p. 32. 97 Tiable 1. Percentage Distribution of Population by Residence Class for the State of Michigan, and Counties Within the Lansing SMSA, 1960 .- Percent of Population Whose Place of Residence is (Steographical Urban Rural Rural Total Area Non~farm Farm The State 73.4 21.0 5.6 100.0 Ingham County 82.1 13.8 4.1 x 100.0 fiaton County 38.8 40.2 21.0 100.0 (Ilinton County 21.8 50.4 27.8 100.0 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1960. Iiicome and Employment. In 1960, the Lansing SMSA ranked seventh among the ten Stanlard hketropolitan Statistical Areas in Michigan as regards median family in— come.1 In that year median family income for the Lansing SMSA was plcced at 136,177. However, there were some differences in income levels as be- tweten counties. Table 2 shows the median income of families by county. By 1965, income levels had increased substantially within the SHSAH. In that year the effective buying income per household was placed at $9,653 for Ingham County, $8,339 for Eaton County, and $7,536 for Clintxan County.2 The weekly and hourly wages of production workers in the Iuansing SMSA are well above average in the state. In 1965, the average weekly earnings of production workers was $149.40, anf hourly earnings averaged $338.3 These wages were bettered only by workers in M 11pm, p. 100., 2 Ibid., p. 96. 3 . Ibid., p. 104. 98 the Flint and Detroit SMSA's. Table 2. Median Income of Families for the State of Michigan, and Counties within the Lansing SMSA 1960 T Median i Percent of families " ! With incomes of Geographical income of c_ n__-_u_llw . . area 3 under $10,000 ; families L_ $3,000 and over The State ; $6,256 ? 15.7 17.4 Ingham County 9 6,393 . 12.8 18.2 Eaton County : 5,821 17.6 12.7 a , Clinton County 5,636 1 18.7 11.3 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1960. Employment patterns in the Lansing SMSA suggest that the area might best be considered a manufacturing-political region. Manufactur- ing is the largest industry group, employing neatly 27 percent of the workers in 1960. The City of Lansing is the Michigan State Capitol, and a large number of area residents obtain employment with various state agencies. Michigan State University is another large employer within the region. In general, however, manufacturing firms engaged in the alssembling and production of motor vehicles, or component parts thereof, repuesent the dominant employment outlet within the region. Some se~ le<:ted employment characteristics of the labor force in the Lansing SMSA are present in Table 3. Unemployment does not appear to be a serious problem in the La“Sing SMSA, relative to other areas in Michigan. On April 1, 1960, 4-4Qercent of the civilian labor force in Ingham County was unemployed. 99 This contrasts with 4.7 percent in Eaton County, and 5.6 percent for . 1 Clinton County on the same date. Table 3. Selected Employment Characteristics of Employed Persons for CQunties within the Lansing SMSA 1960 . . Percent I Percent Percent in Percent in . . . . working out- uSing pub~ County manufacturing white collar . . . . . Side county of lic trans~ industries occupations . . residence portation Ingham 24.5 49.4 5.0 3.2 Eaton 33.6 34.8 42.8 0.2 Clinton 31.4 30.0 p 47.7 0.2 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1960. Sampling Procedures The population or universe which was sampled in this study con- sisted of all persons who owned land within the geographical area in- cluded in the Lansing, Michigan SMSA during the month of October in 1967. This delimitation obviously excludes renters, persons living within nursing homes and public institutions, and all others who do not own landed property within the region. It was felt that the difficul- ties involved in sampling the entire adult population of the SMSA could riot be overcome because of a lack of detailed mailing lists, and espe- cizally since few research fUnds were available. By limiting the universe to actual landowners, one broad assump— tion was made; namely, that property owners, because of their vested 1Ibid., p. 101. 100 interest in land, would be considered as a primary audience for land-use education programs. This does not mean that non-landowners should be excluded from consideration in devising an actual program. However, in view of the exploratory nature of this investigation, the researcher made the decision to concentrate Upon landowners. During the early stages of the study, the researcher decided to draw a sample of 500 landowners within the Lansing SMSA. This decision was reached after considering two major factors: (1) it was felt that the researcher could not assemble mailing lists, attend to the prepara- tion and reproduction of questionnaires, and distribute them within a reasonable period of time if a much larger sample was drawn; and (2) in view of the possible problem of nonvresponse among land-owners included in the sample, it was felt that a sample of this si7e might be necessary in order to obtain sufficient data for analysis. In drawing the sample, the sampling frame used consisted of the complete tax roll for the three counties within the Lansing SMSA. These tax rolls are maintained in the county treasurer's office in each county. The tax rolls provide a comprehensive listing of all real and personal property owners, their address, a legal description of property owned, the assessed valuation of the property, and the amount of tax due and payable during the current year. A non—proportional sampling procedure was used. First, a deter~ mination was made concerning the extent of the universe, i.e., an at— tempt was made to determine the total number of landowners within the entire SMSA. This information was provided by the respective county treasurers in Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties. It was learned that, ‘101 as of October 15, 1967, there were approximately 128,006 individual landowners within the Lansing SMSA. The 500 sampling units (landowners) to be polled in the survey were next apportioned among counties on the basis of the percentage of total landowners in the SMSA who owned land witnin each of the three counties. Following these steps, the researcher received permission to as- semble mailing lists from the tax rolls in each county. A systematic selection system was used in choosing individual names from the sample frame. A fixed sampling interval was computed by dividing the tctal num- ber of property owners in the county by the number of sampling units as~ signed. Following this, every §£h_name was selected throughout the en- tire tax roll for that particular county. One particular adjustment was made in this procedure during the selection process. It was desired to confine the population sampled in this study to private landowners who make their permanent residence within the Lansing SMSA. Therefore, in selecting individual names from the tax rolls, the researcher discarded the names of industrial and commercial corporations, churches and reli- gious groups, civic and social clubs, government agencies, local busi- nesses and educational institutions whenever the §£h_interval coincided with landowners of these types. Instead, he selected the name of the pri- vate landowner which was nearest (either beyond or behind) the §£h_name. The final mailing list included the names of 353 landowners in Ingham County, 80 landowners in Eaton County and 67 landowners in Clin— ton County. The Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this investigation was divided into 102 two parts: (1) the first section dealt with basic questions related to the location of property owned, present land use, problems related to ownership rights, knowledge of edu ational organizations, interest in learning, and readiness to participate; (2) the second section was de- signed as a personal data sheet. Several steps were involved in the preparation of the question- naire used in this study. They are outlined as follows: 1. Preparation of a series of rough drafts by the researcher under the direction of his major professor and members of his thesis committee. 2. After an acceptable draft of the instrument had been prepared, the researcher interviewed the county agents in charge of county extension programs in the three counties within the Lansing SMSA: Ingham, Eaton and Clinton. The questionnaire content was discussed individually with these agents in order to obtain their views on the type of information needed with respect to the administration of land-use education programs within counties, and the broader metropolitan region. A draft of the questionnaire was left with each of these agents, which' was returned with a critique on content by mail. 3. Another revision in questionnaire content and arrange- ment was made at this point. 4. The questionnaire was next distributed among several Extension Natural Resource Agents of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service at a program planning meeting held on the cam— pus of Michigan State University. Too, c0pies were sent to ex- tension administrators on campus, to members of the faculty of the Department of Resource Development, and to about ten graduate students within the Department of Resource Development. About 15 copies of the questionnaire, in this form, were critiqued and returned. 5. Another alteration and rearrangement of questions and format was undertaken by the researcher. 6. Finally, the questionnaire was pre~tested by mailing 30 copies to a randomly selected sample of landowners within Ingham County, Michigan. This sample was drawn from the Ingham County Tax Rolls by using a systematic sampling interval. The Eth_in— terval used in this procedure was different from that used in drawing the SOD-name sample for the final mailing list. The 103 names on the two mailing lists were cross-checked to avoid du~ plications. 7. Thirty copies of the questionnaire were mailed to the pre-test sample of landowners on November 16, 1967. By Decem- ber l, 1967, seven questionnaires had been completed and re- turned, giving a total response of 23.3 percent. 8. Final revisions in the questionnaire were made following the return of completed copies by landowners in the pre-test sample.1 The final mailing of questionnaires to the BOO-landowner sample took place on December 8, 1967. The mailing was accomplished through the use of ”franked" envelopes provided by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. A stamped, pre-addressed envelope was included with each questionnaire mailed for the use of respondents in returning the completed copy.2 A post care follow up was mailed to each landowner in the sample on January 2, 1968.3 This was done to improve the overall response. Overall, 160 or 32 percent of the questionnaires mailed were returned. A detailed analysis of the response obtained in the mail sur» vey will be undertaken in Chapter V. In its final form, the questionnaire was designed to obtain par- ticular information about individual landowners. The following is a sum- 4 mary of the information which the questionnaire was designed to obtain: 1. Information on the location and use of land owned by residents 1A sample cover letter, and the questionnaire draft used in this pre-text are enclosed in Appendis A. 2A copy of the questionnaire, in final form, is exhibited in Appendix A. 3All correspondence in included in Appendix A. 4See the questionnaire in Appendis A. 10. 104 of the Lansing SMSA, (a) The county, township and/or city where land owned was located. (b) The present use(s) of each parcel of land owned. Personal questions and/or problems involving property rights of individual landowners. (a) Past assistance received by landowners with these problems. (b) The identity of the organization, agency or individual pro— viding such assistance. Landowner interest in learning more about land use. Landowner knowledge of organizations providing educational pro— grams on land and water use within their area. Landowner interest in attending and p rticipating in actual edu- cational meetings or conferences on land use. Information concerning the work status and occupation of land- owners. Leadership positions held by landowners. Information about the age, sex and size of family of individial landowners. Years of school completed, and special vocational training obtained by landowners. The current annual family income of landowners. CHAPTER V RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION This chapter will be devoted to a summarization and analysis of the information gathered by the questionnaire. Respondent replies to the various questions included in the questionnaire will be tabu— lated, and particular emphasis will be given to the appraisal of poten- tial participants in land—use education programs. Overall, the material in this chapter will be presented in the following sequence: (1) re- sponse to the questionnaire, (2) characteristics of respondents, and (3) presentation and analysis of respondent replies.1 Response to the Questionnaire A total of 500 land~use education questionnaires were distri- buted among landowners within the Lansing SMSA. As was noted in the previous chapter, the number of questionnaires mailed to landowners within the three individual counties was determined on the basis of the proportion of total SMSA landowners who owned land within these respec- tive political units. Out of the total number of landowners included in 1In analyzing the data from the questionnaires returned, the re- searcher first placed respondent replies on punch cards. A computer pro- gram was then developed for data analysis by the CDC 3600 computer which is owned and operated by Michigan State University. The program used was developed by the Computer Institute for Social Science Research, and is available upon request. The program is known as "Routine Act," Anal~ Ysis of Contingency Tables. The coding system used in preparing respon- dent replies for computer analysis is enclosed in Appendix B. 105 106 the sample, 353 or 70.6 percent, were selected from the tax rolls in Ingham County. Eaton County was allocated the next highest number, with 80 landowners or 16.0 percent; and Clinton County followed closely with 67 landowners and 13.4 percent. Overall, the response to the mail questionnaire was distributed quite uniformly between counties. Out of the 500 questionnaires origi- nally mailed, 160 or 32 percent, were actually completed and returned by respondents. Table 4 gives a tabular summary of the number of question- naires distributed, the number returned, and the percentage response by county. Table 4. Number and Distribution of Response to the Mail Questionnaire, by Counties, in the Lansing SMSA February 5, 1968 Number of Number of . . . . Percent County Questionnaires Questionnaires Res onse Mailed Returned p Ingham 353 110 31.2 Eaton 80 i 27 33.7 I Clinton 67 1 22 34.3 Total 500 160a 32.0 aTwo questionnaires were later discarded because of the inade— quacy of the information provided. Thus, 158 questionnaires were used in the data analysis. The original mailing of the questionnaire took place on December 8, 1967 at 10:00 a.m. By December 27, 1967, a total of 111 completed questionnaires had been returned. A post card follow-up was sent to the entire mailing list on January 2, 1968 at 8:00 a.m. A total of 49 addi- tional questionnaires were received following the mailing of the post 107 card reminder. Returns ceased entirely on February 5, 1968.1 Characteristics of Respondents What types of people responded to the questions posed in the land-use education questionnaire? What is their residence background? Were the respondents generally from high or low income classes? What kind of an educational background do they possess? Are they generally representative of all landowners in the Lansing SMSA? This section will be chiefly concerned with seeking answers to these and similar questions. In developing this section, a two-fold framework will be used, analyzing respondent characteristics in terms of (1) specific personal characteristics, and (2) some general social characteristics. Personal Characteristics of Respondents. . Here, the characteristics of age, sex, income, occupation, edu- cation and place of residence will be explored. Later in the chapter the apparent differences in response to specific questions in the ques— tionnaire will be examined with respect to these personal traits and characteristics. For now, however, a crude comparison of respondent characteristics will be attempted in an effort to determine what types of people took the time to complete and return the land-use education questionnaire. Age of Respondents} Generally, those responding to the mail questionnaire were predominantly in the middle-age classes. A total of 47.8 percent of the respondents fell within the range of age classes between 35 and 54 years (23.9 percent of the respondents fell within 1A tabular summary of response, both before and after the post card follow-up, is enclosed in Appendix B. 108 each of the age classes 35-44 years, and 45-54 years). Table 5 portrays the range of age classes of the respondents. Table 5. Age Class Distribution of SMSA Landowners Who Responded to the Mail Questionnaire February 5, 1968 -~—-— Age Class Number of Percent of (years) Respondents Total 18 to 24 3 1.9 25 to 34 21 13 6 35 to 44 37 23.9 45 to 54 37 23.9 55 to 64 27 17.4 65 and above 30 19.3 Total 1558 100.0 aDoes not total 158 as 3 respon-ents failed to indicate their age in the questionnaire. These data tend to indicate that few adults in their early years, say between 18 and 24 years of age, actually own land. The gen- eral trend indicated by these data tends to show that the in idence of land ownership gradually increases with age, reaching a high point in the middle age classes and then gradually decreasing as the retirement years approach. Sex of Respondents; A total of 147 reSponients gave their sex as male. This contrasts with 11 female respondents. This gives a dis— tribution of 93 percent male and 7 percent female. One should be cautious in generalizing about this distribution between sexes, however. First. most addresses on the mailing list used 109 included both the names of husbands and wives. Too, a number of ques- tionnaires were mailed to single addresses which included two separate family names. This indicates that the land was owned jointly under some type of partnership arrangement, and that husband and wife or two or more unrelated individuals were co~owners of the property. Perhaps the most significant implication which can be made con— cerning the disproportionate representation of male respondents is that under the co-ownership arrangements encountered, the males responded to the questionnaire more freely than females. That is, when a question» naire was mailed to an individual address which listed co—owners, theo- retically at least, both the husband and wife had an equal opportunity to read and complete the land-use education questionnaire. That most of the questionnaires were considered, completed and returned by males seems to indicate that they were generally more interested in matters concerning land than females. Virtually all of the questionnaires returned which gave the sex of the respondent as female, it was nOted, involved addressees on the mailing list which were individual female landowners. Occupation of Respondents: In general, the occupations given by respondents tended to follow the pattern established by the Census of Population in 1960. The occupation class most frequently cited by re- spondents involved jobs or positions related to manufacturing firms en- gaged in the production and assembling of motor vehicles. A total of 25.7 percent of the respondents were classified as craftsmen, and most of these were employed by the Oldsmobile Division of General Motors. The Professional group ranked second in frequency, accounting for 19.1 _110 percent of the respondents. This group was followed closely by respon— dents engaged in sales or clerical work; this class involved 16.4 per- cent of all reSpondents. In general, the distribution of respondents among occupation classes coincided rather closely with the findings of the 1960 Census of Population. These were that manufacturing, other servizes (including medical and health, educational, and professional positions with govern- ment), and retail and wholesale trade were the predominant employment outlets in the Lansing SMSA. Table 6 gives a tabular summary of the distribution of respondents among occupation classes. Table 6. The Distribution of Respondents Among Occupation Classes February 5, 1968 Occupation Class Number of Percent of Respondents Total Farm operators 14 9.2 Laborers 18 11.8 Service Workers 10 6.6 Craftsmen 39 25.7 Sales Personnel, Clerical 25 16.4 Managers, Officials 17 11.2 Professional 29 19.1 Total 152a 100. o a . . . Does not total 158 as 6 respondents did not give their occu— pation in the questionnaire. Respondent Education: In analyzing the educational attainment of respondents, the investigator found it desirable to condense (111 individual replies on the mail questionnaire into explicit educational classes. The educational classes used in this investigation are pat- terned after those used by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com; mission.1 This was done in order to insure uniformity in data presenta- tion, and to facilitate the comparison of study results with those of a national study with somewhat similar objectives. The educational attain~ ment classes, and the distribution of questionnaire respondents among them, are presented in Table 7. Table 7. The Distribution of Landowner Respondents among Educational Attainment Classes in the Lansing SMSA February 5, 1968 Educational Number of Percent of Class Respondents Total Grade School, None 20 13.0 Some High School 12 7.8 Completed High School 68 44.1 Some College 26 16.9 Has College Degree 28 18.2 Total 154"1 100.0 _ 3Does not total 158 as 4 respondents failed to give their educa» tional background. As can be seen, nearly 21 percent of the landowner responients who returned the questionnaire did not finish high school. On the other 1Age, occupation and income classes were similarly structured. For complete details, consult: The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American AdJltS, ORRRC Study Report 20 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. lO—14. 112 hand, more than 35 percent of the respondents had completed some study at the college level, with about 18 percent of them holLing a degree from a four-year university or college program. These data indicate that a public educational program in land use would likely be attended by people having varied and different educational backgrounds. The 1960 Census of Population gave the median years of school completed for inhabitants of the Lansing SMSA, by counties, as follows: Ingham County —12.1 years, Eaton County--ll.3 years, and Clinton County - 10.5 years. The median school years completed figures for respondents to the land-use education questionnaire differed slightly from those computed for the entire adult population. Median school years completed by respondents was computed (using the same base as the Census of Popu» lation, i.e., persons 25 years of age and older), on a county basis, as follows: Ingham County -12.5 years, Eaton County~-12.8 years, and Clin- ton County- 11.2 years.1 These data indicate that the respondents from 1Median years of school completed was computed fzr respondent groups from each county for comparison with 1960 census data. The forv mula used in these computations is as follows: Md 2 L + i(n/2 - F) f where Md the median, the lower limit of the median clfss, the width of the median class, the frequency for the median class, the cumulative frequency for all classes below the median class, the total number of values of X (the sum of all frequencies). :J‘TJH‘aH'f" This formula is recommended for use with grouped data by William A. Spurr, et.a1., Business and Economic Statistics (rev. ed.; Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1961), p. 187. .113 Eaton County were from somewhat more highly educated groups; and that respondents from Ingham County are likewise slightly above the general level of educational achievement shown by the SMSA population as a whole. However, it should also be remembered that the median represents only a crude indicator; and further, that the educational level of the overall population within the SMSA has probably moved upward during the nearly eight years since the last general census. Therefore, broad generali7a- tions in these matters appear fraught with some risk. Curiously, Clinton County respondents generally showed the low- est level of educational attainment among the three counties. Not one of the respondents reported that he held a college degree. However, four respondents reported that they had completed one to two years of college level work. Interestingly, Clinton County respondents appeared most frequently in the farm operator and laborer occupation classes. In general, the researcher concludes that the respondents to the land-use education questionnaire are fairly representative of the adult population in the Lansing SMSA as regards educational attainment. Re- Spondents show a slightly higher level of educational attainment than was estimated by the Bureau of the Census in 1960. However, these dif- ferences cannot be considered significant because of the elapsed time since the Bureau of the Census prepared the estimates. In addition to these considerations, some attention should be devoted to the specialized vocational training received by respondents. A total of 52 respondents (about 37 percent) reported receiving some Specialized training other than public school courses. Virtually all of the respondents who acknowledged participation in vocational training 114 programs either (1) terminated formal education upon graduation from high school, (2) dropped out of high school before the twelfth year, or (3) did not progress beyond grammar school in the public school system. Residents in Ingham County predominated overwhelmingly among those reSpondents reporting vocational training. Only 3 responfents (2 from Clinton County, and 1 from Eaton County) reported participation in vocational training programs in the less urbanized counties. Only one farm operator reported participation in a vocational training program. This tends to indicate that adult vocational training programs are less available to residents in the rural portions of the SMSA. Participation in vocational training programs, as reported by respondents, is summarized in Table 8. Income of Respondents: Among those respondents who completed and returned the land-use education questionnaire, response to the ques- tion on current family income was quite good. A total of 141 respondents (about 89 percent) devulged their incomes.1 The computed median income for all respondents (see formula on p ge 112) was $12,842 per family per year. The most current data located on median family income within the Lansing SMSA, places "effective buying income per household" at $9,726 annually.2 Direct comparisons between these two figures should be made cautiously. Median family income, as computed from data returns in the questionnaire reflect "gross" incomes by family. The figures on effec- tive buying income per household, on the other hand, represent ”disposable l . . . . . . . . For the definition of "income," see questionnaire in Appendix A. 2"Survey of Buying Power,” Sales Management, Vol. 98, No. 12 (June, 1967), pp. D 136~38. 115 income" per family after deductions for federal, state and local taxes, adjustments on living quarters, foodstuffs grown and consumed personally, and the like Table 8. Specialized Vocational Training Reported by Questionnaire Respondents February 5, 1968 .— . . . Number of Percent of Type of Focational Training Responients Total Onmjob Training: Tool and Die or machinest 12 23.1 Business College 8 15.4 Management Training Programs: Insurance and Real Estate 6 11.5 Apprenticeship PrOgrams: Carpentry, Masonry, Plumbing 6 11.5 Correspondence School Courses 6 11.5 Armed Services Schools 5 9.6 Onujob Training Schools: Electronics 2 3.9 Apprenticeship Programs: Printing 2 3.9 All Others 53 9.6 Total 52 100.0 '— a . . Includes one respondent each for Barber School, OU-JOb train~ ing in computer programming, police academy, agricultural short course at Michigan State University, and public school adult edu» cation programs. Even with these considerations acknowledged, the incomes of re- spondents appear to be somewhat higher than those of the adult popula tion of the SMSA as a whole. That is, the reSpondents to the land use education questionnaire appear to be heavily weighted by people from 116 higher income classes. Part of this difference may be explained by the larger representation of Ingham County- specifically, Lansing ani East Lansing- residents among the respondents. Family incomes are substan- tially higher among residents in the central city. In 1966, the effective buying income per householl was placed at $10,030 for Ingham County residents on December Slst. This contrasts with $8,963 per household in Eaton County, and $8,412 per household in Clinton County on the same date.1 Analysis of income data from the questionnaire reveals that 53.9 percent of all respondents have an estimated gross family ingome of $10,000 per year or more. Only 13.5 percent of the respondents reported gross family incomes of less than $5,000 per year. The distribution of respondents among income classes is portrayed in Table 9. Place of Residence: A total of 109 reSpondents (69.0 percent) gave Ingham County as their place of residence. Eaton County residents numbered 26, or 16.5 percent; and Clinton County accounted for the re- maining 23 respondents, or 14.5 percent. In ad ition to the breakdown of respondent residence between . . . 2 . counties, each person was placed in a reSidence class. ReSidence lIbid. 2Residence classes were established as follows: (1) central city w all respondents residing in Lansing-East Lansing, Michigan, (2) urban4rura1 fringe a respondents residing in incorporated and uninccr~ porated places on the perifery of the central city which qualified as urban area according to census definition in 1960, (3) satellite city — respondents who lived in SMSA cities h1ving 2,500 to 10,000 inhabitants, (4) rural non-farm « respondents living in incorporated and unincorpor~ ated villages and/or cities having less than 2,500 inhabitants, and (5) farm — all respondents living on farms, regardless of size. 117 classes were used in order to provide a more refined appraisal of re- spondent residence. For example, fringe growth of the central city has extenled well into Clinton and Eaton Counties. A classification of re~ spondent residence along county lines woul fail to show what proportion of the respondents lived in urbanized areas. Table 9. The Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents among Income Classes February 5, 1968 Inc°me Class Rizggifeifs Per¥23210f Less than $3,000 12 8.5 $3,000 to $4,999 7 5.0 $5,000 to $7,499 20 14.2 $7,500 to $9,999 26 13.4 $10,000 to $12,499 40 2:.4 $12,500 to $14,999 7 5.0 $15,000 and above 29 20.5 Total 141a 100.0 aDoes not total 158 as 17 respondents withhel. data on family income. It was found that 69 respondents, or 43.7 percent, made their permanent residence in the central city. Rural non—farm was the next highest classification, accounting for 36 respondents and 22.8 percent of the total. The place of residence of all respondents is presen ted in Table 10. Other Social and Economic Characteristics of Respondents. Here we will consider some other general characteristics of the 118 respondents to the land-use education questionnaire. Respondent charac- teristics to be considered include (1) absentee ownership status, (2) work status, (3) community lea ership status, and (4) si"e of family of respondents Table 10. The Distribution of all Respon ents among Selected Residence Classifications February 5, 1968 Residence Class Number of Percent of Respondents Total Central City (:9 43.7 Urban-rural fringe 27 17.1 Satellite city 10 6.3 Rural non farm 36 22.8 Farm 16 10.1 ‘HTotal 158 100.0 Absentee Ownership Status: A total of 42 respondents to the mail questionnaire reported that they owned land in counties outside the Lansing Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. This number represents 26.6 percent of all respondents. The characteristics of this sub—group will be explored in this section; and also, attention will be devote; to a determination of the location of land owned by all respondents. Most of the absentee landowners make their permanent residence within Ingham County~ 78 6 percent of them. Within Ingham County, the absentee owners originate predominantly from urban areas~ 72.7 percent of them reside in either the central city or on the urban-rural fringe. Eaton an. Clinton Counties accounted collectively for only 21.4 percent of all absentee landowners. Absentee landowners who gave these 119 counties as their permanent residence were fairly evenly divided among urban-rural fringe, satellite city and rural non farm residence classi- fications. Two farm operators reported owning land in counties outside the SMSA (one each from Clinton and Eaton Counties), but a close check (on the location of the ownership revealed that both owned land in the t:ier of counties immediately outside the SMSA. The use of the land, in 130th cases, was given as farming. Slightly more than 64 percent of the absentee owner groups re IJCirted gross family incomes of $10,000 or more annually; and 30 percent rwaported family incomes of $15,000 and greater. Absentee owners, as a (:Itass, appear to be clearly among the higher—income classes within the Lansing SMSA. Surprisingly, the occupations reported by non resident land (mvruers were heavily weighted as between three occupation classes: a totxal of 42.8 percent of all absentee owners were classified as crafts— merl, Inost of whom were employed by motor vehi 1e manufacturing firms; abOLAt 21.4 percent were classified as managers or officials; and the Prefiesusional group accounted for 16.6 percent of all absentee owners. AV‘uiIJat)le data indicate that service workers were least represented, fOIIJDMHBd by laborers, farm operators and the sales personnel clerical groups in that order of ascending ownership incidence. About 33 percent of the absentee owners reported either com- pleting some college work or receiving a college degree. However, the b . . . , Illk CVE' the absentee owners terminated their formal education upon grau~ u . . . atlcn‘ iirom high school——53.8 percent of all absentee owners were in thi 5 educational class. . 120 Generally, the absentee owners were full time workers in their midile age years~ when asked to furnish information c ncerning their employment status, 69.2 percent in icated that they worked full time. However, another 25.6 percent indicated that they were retired or were working only part time. Respondents in the latter group were generally aiove 60 years of age. All respondents were asked to indicate the precise location of all individ-al land parcels owned. Respondents reported owning a total of 344 individual parcels of land, and of this total 286, or 83.1 per- cent, were located within the counties inclu ed in the SMSA. The re maining parcels (58) were located in counties outside the SMSA, aCCount- ing for 16.9 percent of all land parcels owned by respondents. These data indicate that the respondents owned an average of 2.18 individuxl land parcels per person. A summary of the location of individual land parcels owned by all respondents is presented in Figure 2. The data in this figure show that reSpondents to the land-use education questionv naire own land in 23 counties outside the area included in the Lansing SMSA. Most of these counties are located in the central and northern half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Work Status of Respondentg; The majority of respondents re- portei that they worked full time at a job or occupation. A total of 76.1 percent placed themselves in this classification. The retired group ranked next in order of magnitude, representing 13.2 percent of all respondents. Other categories inclu ed part time employment, repre- senting 6.6 percent of the respondents, and part—time farmers, who come prised 3.9 percent of all responients. 121 l3 Ll ROYAL I me: an - "I ouourou ' 3 I f- - ' one «can L. I ,1 L‘ r-ll Inn“ r" I OOOEMC ,_ ‘_ I l mucus": I LUCE 'I I I I 0 '_ _ _ _I I I I- - 4- - — — fl I I I I I. - - 1 IIOII , IALOEI I I IcIIInem r - - I I--- — -1 : .scuoomnrr L _ _ - J ., 1 b I ,mcmsoul r__ _ _ 4 1 I uacmnc I. ._ _ _ - 1 ' I I ' DCLY‘ ‘ : L 1 I I-- r 4 I Q h _ I" I"I I, O I I I 0 o .I ' 0 b I ruuztu I. Q 'cuaovcu usuoum: I meson: I ,m. I R CHARLE ouL-.. : — u. 3 '- ————— — — Qtse- L _ - r9755“ acumen, ALP!“- 0 U" U mum I ' I 3 1 ' l I --.._'___-.'...__|.___._ 'xALxAsmcu'mmI oscooa . maul l I I I , I ‘ 1 I - - _ “NISTEE'flmw luIssAIIIIEEI "036°“ :oozuu I I I 1 I 4 : I —----b ---------- ' 6 I 3 .L I I_ _ _ _ L- T- --f' ‘ :uoutc LII IGRATIOTI sum v «1:; -1 3 I I :—— “4. I .. _. _,:—OE ESEE : 1 | IONI-A |CLlI-TO-N ”INA". I I I | ' 1 ' 45 I 2 I ’L' 'ncoun -—-'-—I—-‘—‘T-L‘. _______ I__1OAKLAND| I ALLEG‘N ' BARRY ' EATON : 'ugu‘. :LWIW'M| || ' I . I 54 : 187 . 1 , . - - — — — - - - - — - - l- — — VIN DUKE“ :KALAIAZ.: CALHOUN I J‘CKSO-N -T"s;f;~"l 'AYIE I IERIIEII 4———:———TJ__I_-I--_-—|-—— ' I I I I I I I I 1 I Figure 2. Location of Individual Land Parcels Owned by Respondents, By County, February 5,1968. 122 A total of 33 respondents (20.8 percent) reported that they were self employed. The insurance and real estate and farming groups ranked first and second, respectively, among responlenis in this cate~ gory. Community Leadership Status: A total of 36 responcents indi~ cated that they held elected or appointed offices in a variety of organ- izations, clubs and agencies. Overall, this group represents 22.8 per— cent of all respondents. The majority of the respondents who reported holding community lezadership positions held either elected or appointed political offices-— tfiis group accounted for 50 percent of all respondents holiing leadership positions. Most of these people were past or present school board offi- cials, P.T.A. officers, city councilmen, township or county supervisors, members of regional or city planning boards, or appointees to specific study commissions. Persons holding appointed or elected offices in civic and social clubs accounted for 36.1 percent of all respondents holding leadership Positions. The majority of these people held offices in service clubs such as Rotary or Kiwanis; others held offices in volunteer organiza- tions such as the Community Chest, the Red Cross, Parent Teachers Asso-I Ci'l-tions (P.T.A.), historical societies and garden clubs. Finally, 13.9 percent of the community leadership group held offices affiliated with churches and religious organizations. All of the reSpondents in this category were affiliated with churches among the PrOteStant Denominations. Most reported that they were members of offi- ci -- . a1 --hurch boards, served as church elders, or were chairmen or members 123 of specific church program committees. Size of Family: A total of 39.5 percent of all respondents re~ ported two members in their family. The next largest group consisted of respondents having families with four members (22.4 percent of all re- .spondents). The median family size for all respondents was computed as 3.54 persons. Among all respondents, 75.7 percent reported having four persons (TI less in their immediate family. As a class, then, the respondents to tlie land-use education questionnaire appear to have fairly small fami~ lines. The computed median family size of 3.54 generally indicates that mcost reSpondents have less than two children. Respondent Replies to General Questions In this section, reSpondent replies to general questions posed iri the mail questionnaire will be summarized and tabulated. Questions wi 1.1 be examined individually, and in ascending order, as they appear in sew:t:ion I of the questionnaire (see pages 1 and 2 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). Question 1: Please give the primary uses made of each land Parcel that you own. First, it should be noted that all respondents to the mail ques- tionnaire were landowners. This was one of the major criteria used in 591<3C:t:ing the sample originally. However, when the sample of landowners was drawn, the researcher possessed no knowledge concerning the location of tllee lproperty owned outside the SMSA, nor did he know much about its currwar1t; use. We have seen in a previous section (see page 120) that SMSA 1Eil'ldowners own property in a large number of counties outside the 124 SMSA. The task to be undertaken here is to determine how the respon» dents actually use their land, both domestically (within the SMSA) and in rural areas which are far removed from the influence of the urban area. In asking respondents to give the current use(s) made of land which they own, it should be noted that many tracts will be devoted to That is, it is possible to use a given piece of land for This, Inultiple use. more than one purpose, with both uses taking place simultaneously. of course, presupposes that a certain degree of compatibility exists as between the separate uses. Thus, certain tracts may be used simultan— eously for residential uses and business uses if such practice does not conflict with public policies regarding such use at that time, and in that particular location. Similar examples may be cited which involve re creational uses . The tabular summaries of land use which have been prepared from respondent replies involve multiple land uses on many of the parcels. Therefore, the total number of land parcels, when aggregated by use classes, will not correspond to the total number of land parcels which are actually owned by respondents. Two separate tabular summaries h;.ve been prepared: (1) the first gives the land use of tracts owned by re~ SPODde’nts which lie wholly within the political bzundaries of the Lan- Sing SMSA; (2) the second gives the present use made of land parcels owned in counties outside the SMSA. These data indicate that respondentvowned land within the SMSA is uSed primarily for family residences, and for the purpose of making a living either by business activity or by tilling the 15nd. Too, the 125 respondents appear to be holding some land vacant either for speculative purposes, or for the future construction of new family dwellings (the latter was cited numerous times in the questionnaire). As can be seen in Table 11, the respondents use land within the SMSA very little for outdoor recreation activities. Table 11. Present Use Made of Land Owned by Respondents which is Located within the Lansing SMSA February 5, 1968 Reported Percent of I’resent Land Use Number of Land Parcels Total F’earmanent Residence 158 48.9 [thsiness Property 65 20.1 lrzirming 46 14.3 lic>lding Vacant for Future Use 41 12.7 Hlariting and/or Fishing 5 1.6 Sanuner Home or Cottage 3 0.9 Home Gardening 2 ' 0.6 A11 Other 3a 0.9 Total 323 100.0 aIncludes one parcel each for the categories of camping, tim- be I‘ m anagement and wildlife management. Next, our attention will switch to the land owned by respondents ”h113}1 is located in counties which are some distance away from the in— fhierlce of the Lansing SMSA. Table 12 summarizes land use for respondent- OWDEBCI Iaroperty which is held under absentee ownership conditions. As can be seen, the majority of this land is presently devoted t ~ . . . . . . . . O S"’"€3 type of use 1nvolv1ng recreation. A $1gn1f1cant quant1ty 15 126 presently being held vacant. However, respondent replies indicate that some of the land in this category is alss used for hunting, fishing, camping and other outdoor recreatinn activities. Some of it, undoubt- edly, is being held speculatively, to be sol at some future time when land values have ripened. Table 12. Present Use Made of Land Owned by ReSpondents Whick is Located in Counties Outside the Lansing SMSA February S, 1965 Reported Percent of Present Land Use Number of Total Land Parcels Summer Home or Cottage 29 39.7 Holding Vacant for Future Use 21 28.7 Hunting and/or Fishing 14 19.2 Camping 4 5.5 Business Property 3 4.1 All Other 261 2.8 Total 73 100.0 —.~ a O 0 Includes one parcel each for timber management and farming. No land was reported in the permanent residence and wildlife manage« ment use classes. Question 2 £11: De yzu have any particular questions concerning your personal rights as a property owner? Respondent replies to this question are tabulated in Table 13. This question failed to invoke much response from the landowners samPled. The only areas which drew much attention were those involving owner liability, trespass upon land by others, and matters concerning land“USe zoning. Matters concerning natural resvurce use failed to 127 interest a vast majority of the respondents. Is this a reflection of public apathy toward resource conservation? It may be that the poor re— sponses obtained on this question reflect a lack of public understanding about property rights associated with the ownership of land (this would be significant to educators). It may be, on the other hand, that the landowners sampled misunderstood the question as posed in the question~ naire. Table 13. Number of Respondents Having Questions Concerning Property Rights by Selected Categories February 5, 1968 Number of Percent of Response Category Respondents Respongents Understanding what my neighbors and I can do to protect our ownership rights . 52 32.93 Understanding how zoning affects or con— trols the use of my land . . . . . . . . 52 32.9 The extent of my rights in using the natural resources of the land . . . . . 31 19.6 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13.3 Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C.9 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.7 Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4 Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 My rights in controlling trespass upon my property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 41.1 The extent of my liability if people are injured while on my land . . . . . . . . 87 55.1 8The percentage computations in this column reflect the pro~ portion of the total number of respondents to the mail question- naire (158) who indicated that they had questions concerning pro- perty rights involving certain aspects of land resource use. 128 Question 2 (b): Have you ever received assistance with any of these problems (land problems involving property rights)? If yes, which ones? Only 14 respondents gave an affirmative answer to this question; 131 respondents answered no, and 13 gave no answer. The following is a list of problems given by respondents for which they have, at some time, received assistance: 1. Tree removal problem affecting several neighboring landowners. 2. The drainage of agricultural land. 3. Leasing and management of apartment buildings. 4. City and township zoning regulations (three respondents). S. Controlling trespass on farmland. 6. Domestic use of public water supplies. 7. Taxes on recreational land owned by absentee owner. 8. Timber cutting practices. 9. Landowner liability for injury to persons while on or using private lands. 10. Construction of artificial surface water areas. 11. Readjustment of public school district area. 12. Establishing a minimum flow level in a river. Question 2 (c): From whom did you receive assistance? The responses to this question were made by the same 14 land- owners who gave affirmative replies to question 2 (b). The sources of assistance for the problems outlined above were given by the respondents as follows: 1. The City of Lansing (two respondents). 2. The East Lansing City Clerk. 129 3. The Clinton County Prosecutors Office. 4. The Soil Conservation Service (two responlents). 5. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 6. The State Conservation Department (tw: respondents). 7. The Michigan State Tax Commission. 8. Township zoning hard. :3 9. Licensed Attorneys (three respondents). , 10. Insurance agent. Question 3: Would you be interested in learning more about land r 1 use, property taxes, water rights, owner rights in property, and other matters related to land ownership in Michigan? A total of 114 respondents, or 72.2 percent, answered yes to this question; 28 respondents (17.7 percent) answered no, and 16 respon- dents (10.1 percent) gave no answer. This question is of particular interest to the researcher. It was included in the measuring instrument as one of two major criteria to be used in identifying the size of the potential audience for a landvuse education program. The researcher takes the position that, above all else, a person should demonstrate an interest in learning more about a particular subject before he may be considered as a potential partici— pant in an actual educational program. Expressed citizen interest in land use will be examined here by cross—correlating interest in learning with selected sociOweconomic gharacteristics of respondents, e.g., age, education, occupation, income, sex, place of residence and absentee own— ership status. Table 14 shows the influence of age, sex and education upon learning interest. 130 Table 14. The Influence of Age, Sex and Education on Interest in Learning More About Land Use February 5, 1965 ReSpondent Interested in I Not Non- Total Characteristic Learning ’Interested Response (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Age: 3 l 18 - 24 . 100 ‘ 0 O 100 25 ~ 34 71 29 0 100 .35 — 44 70 22 8 100 45 — S4 81 S 14 100 SS - 64 74 15 11 i 100 65 and above 63 23 14 i 100 E Sex t Men 75 17 8 g 100 Women 36 27 37 i 100 1 Education i Grade School, None ; 65 20 15 l 100 Some high school i C3 9 8 i 100 Completed high school! 7o 15 9 T 100 Some college ' as 4 11 100 Has college degree , 61 32 7 100 3Indicates that there were 10 or less respondents within a particuv lar class. Table 15. The Influence of Occupation, Income, Place of Residence and Absentee Ownership Status on Interest in Learning More about Land Use February 5, 1968 Responoent (Interested in, Not Non- 5 Total Characteristic I Learning jInterested response (Percent) Ii(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Occupation E , Farm operators 1 72 14 14 100 Laborers ‘ 72 6 22 E 100 Service workers ' 80a 20 O 100 Craftsmen ? 85 ; 13 2 100 Sales Personnel, Clerical 64 i 24 12 g 100 Managers, Officials ‘ 32 1 6 , 12 g 100 Professional I 66 i 24 10 f 100 Income 1 E 1 Less than $3,000 . 59 ; 33 8 i 100 $3,000 to $4,999 ' 100a ; 0 0 100 131 Table 15. Continued Respondent iflnterested in' Not ‘ Non— ' T t 1 Characteristic 1 Learning JInterested response 1 o a j (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)i(Percent) $5,000 to $7,499 3 70 10 20 ; 100 $7,500 to $9,999 1 77 23 0 f 100 $10,000 to $12,499 70 15 15 100 $12,500 to $14,999 sea 0 , 14 100 $15,000 and above ; 80 17 . 3 . 100 Place of Residence Central city 67 l7 l6 1 100 Urbanurledge of existing educational organizations, or chose not to com~ mit ‘tlicemselves on this question. Farmers accounted for 40 percent of resporldents indicating a knowledge of existing agencies. Rural non—farm residents accounted for 20 percent. Urban and urban fringe respondents accounted collectively for 33 percent of all persons indicating a know-- ledge or existing organizations, and the majority of these P8 "P19 were 3150 ,2, dbSentee landowners. ‘ .2..me g" 133 Question 5 (a); If a meeting, or several meetings, were held on land and water use in the community, county or region where you live, would you feel inclined to attend and actively participate? If your an- swer is no, please give your reasons for not desiring to participate. This is another of the "key" questions inserted in the question- naire. The rationale for using this particular question centers ETOUDJ identifying potential participants in a land-use education program. That is, the researcher takes the position thit an individual landowner, having demonstrated an interest in learning, should also give some indi- cation of a readiness to take action to satisfy his learning interest before he may be considered a potential participant. A total of 98 respondents, or 62 percent, answered yes to this question; 49 respondents (31 percent) answered no, and 11 responients (7 percent) gave no answer. Out of the total number of respon‘ents answering no to this question, 44 of them took the time to list a reason, or reasons, for not desiring to participate in a land-use education program. These replies are interesting and important to this study, and will be considered here in some detail. 1 The majority of the reSpondents who gave reasons for not desir- ing to participate cited "a lack of time" as the major obstacle. Seven- teen respondents gave this reason. Typical replies were: "By the time I work all day, come home and fix dinner, take care of the children and other household duties, I have no time avail~ able for meetings." "Mainly the time and convenience factor would deter me from real— izing these meetings." 134 ”Business obligations leave little time for family life at pre— sent time, unable tc add any additional activities.” "I have too many meetings now." "Too busy." Another major reason cited was the "age factor." Many of the reSpondents thought that they were too old to contribute or learn, to - 1.1“. wit: "1 am too old to attend." ”I expect to retire early this year." , Other respondents cited a lack of interest in land~use study and education. Typical reasons given were as follows: "For my purposes I believe I have studied enough and un erstand water needs so that other problems would be of greater interest." "Not interested in anything that I can alrea y find out " "Lack of interest." "I cannot see any benefits personally." A small number of respondents, whose land is located in single— family residential sections of the central city, felt that land~use education "did not apply to them." Typical replies were that: "Property holdings are too small." "My property is strictly residential." The remainder of the respondents who answered no to this ques- tion gave a variety of general reasons for not desiring to participate. (Some, in fact, seemed to be downright irascible about the whole mat— ter.) Some of the general replies are as follows: "I'm afraid that it's getting too late to control pollution prob~ lems on our rivers. Lakes are becoming the same way. Sportsmen have no respect for water, property or wildlife." 135 "I don't know what I could do personally to help the situation." "Would any remuneration be involved?" "Meetings of this sort too often get bogged down in theory." ”If I need help I go to my lawyer." "You people are getting rather nosey to what people do.” Expressed citizen readiness to participate in land—use education programs will be examined here in the same manner as was interest in learning. Specific respondent socio economic characteristics will be cross-correlated with expressed propensity for participation. The char~ acteristics of age, sex, education, occupation, income, place of resi- dence and absentee ownership status will be used for comparison with trends indicated in correlations with citizen interest in learning. The influence of these chrracteristics upon propensity for participation in land-use education programs is summarized in Tables 17 and 18. Table 17 shows the influence of occupation, income, place of residence and absentee ownership status; while Table 15 gives the effects of age, sex and education. Some interesting relationships appear to exist within and be- tWeen the socio economic classes used in comparing the incidence of learning interests and the propensity for participation among adult landowners in the Lansing SMSA. The researcher will attempt to point out some of these apparent differences, and attempt to focus upon some 0f the possible reasons for their existence in the summary and conclu~ sions sections of Chapter VI. 136 Table 17. The Influence of Occ.pation, Income, Place of Resi~ dence and Absentee Ownership Status upon Propensity for Participation in Land—Use Education Programs February 5, 1968 Not Ready Respondent Ready to Non- . . . . to Total (Hiaracterlstic Part1c1pate P . . response art1c1pate (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Occupation Farm operators 72 l4 14 100 Laborers 61 28 11 100 Service workers 603 40 0 100 Craftsmen 75 . 15 10 100 Sales personnel, Clerical 52 40 8 100 hkariagers, Officials 53 47 0 100 Professional 65 3S 0 100 Income Less than $3,000 50 42 8 100 $3, 000 to $4,999 863 14 0 100 $5,000 to $7,499 70 20 10 100 $7 .500 to $9,999 69 27 4 100 $10 ,000 to $12,499 63 32 5 100 $12,500 to $14,999 573 29 1:5. 100 $15,000 and above 62 , 31 7 100 Place of Residence Central city 52 e. 4 100 Urban-rural fringe 67 22 11 100 Satellite city 30a 70 0 100 Rurail non-farm 72 22 6 100 Farm 69 12 19 100 Absentee Ownership Status espondents owning land in counties outside the SMSA 81 17 2 100 espondents who do not own land in counties outside the SMSA 55 3(3- 9 100 Indicates that there were 10 or less respondents within a particu- lar Q 1 ass. 137 'Table 15. The Influence of Age, Sex and Education upon Propensity for Participation in Land-Use Education Programs February 5, 1968 Respondent 1 Ready to Net Ready None ; (Hiaracteristic 'Participate ‘P F0. , response Total . art1C1the l i (Percent) (Percent) (Percent i(Percent) lAger l 1 , I la — 24 ' 100a 0 1 o 100 25 34 r 57 ‘ 29 , 14 100 35 —. 44 I 60 ~ 32 1 2 100 45 - 5; T 70 27 3 100 55 _ 64 67 26 7 1 100 65 and above ‘ 54 43 : 3 _ 100 1 : Sex ' § Men ’ 64 29 " 7 l 100 Women ‘ 36 64 ‘ 0 1 100 Education 1; Grade school, None 55 30 i 15 f 100 Some high school 75 17 1 8 F: 100 Completed high school 63 29 t 8 ‘ 100 Some college 73 23 i 4 ‘ 100 Has college degree 54 436 J 4 J 100 \ £1 1 ndicates that there were 10 or less respondents within a pcrticu— lar C1 ass. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will be devoted to the presentation of (l) a sum— marvrlaf study findings concerning the potentixl audien e for a land use edacation program; (2) various conclusions suggested by the information and data collected; (3) the limitations of the study findings; and (4) recommendations for future research in this area. Summary In this section a summarization of research findings regarding the identification and delimitation of a potential audien e will be undertaken. Such a summary should inclu e three p rts: (1) interest in learning, (2) rea iness to participate, an” (3) the final audience den lineation. Interest in Learning. The data collected indicate that a majority of the landowners surveyed are interested in learning more about land use. However, they are not, as a group, terribly concerned about matters dealing with pro- perty rights in land ownership (see Table 13). The laniowners genera7ly indicated that they had few questions concerning their personal rights as property owners. The only portion of this question1 which drew mu'h interest by respondents was the portion dealing with liability of 1See question 2 (a) in the questionnaire, Appendix A. 138 139 property owners -55 percent of the respondents checked this part. The remaining sub parts of this question drew little attention. The re- searcher feels, however, that property rights, as an area of subject matter, would be very important in a land-use edufiation program. The lack of response to this question might mean that landowners are gener- ally ill-informed concerning the extent of their rights as property owners, or that they are not interested in this Specific facet of land~ use edu;ation. Responses to the question concerning overall interest in land- use education were quite favorable. A total of 72.7 percent of all reSpondents indicated interest. This question was included in the ques- tionnaire to catch the faintest glimmer of interest. Perhaps what is most remarkable about the response to this question is that 27.3 percent of all respondents gave either a negative answer, or failed to respond entirely. Thus, well over one quarter of the lan owners sampled have no apparent interest in learning more about land use. AlthOUgh the overall response to the questionnaire on interest in land use was favorable, there appears to be some differences in re— sponse as between sub groups. That is, differenues in the incidence of learning interests appeared to vary with specific socioeconomic charac- teristics of the respondents. These differences will be considered here individually. 1. Age of Respondents ~ The available data indicate that learn— ing interest in land use generally tends to increase with a van;ing age through the middle range of years, and then taper off as the retirement age approaches. Landowners with the highest level of interest appear t7 ifllflr 140 be the very young adults (13 ~h24 years of age), and the mi dle~age group between 45 an; 54 years of age. However, only three respondents fell within the young alult group (18m24 years), and the number in- volved may be inadequate to be representative of the population. Adult landowners in the age groups of 25 » 34, 35 ~ 44 and 55 ~ 64 showed an intermediate level of learning interest. The elderly age fill-r group (65 years and older) showed the lowest level of learning interest. Table 19 shows the distribution of age groups between low, intermediate and high levels of learning interest. Table 19. The Interest Level of Respondents, by Age Class February 5, 1968 Level of Learning Interest* Characteristic "‘ High Intermediate Low Age . 18 ~ 24 X** 25 n 34 X 35 - 44 X 45 - 54 X 55 — 64 X 65 and above X *In this table, a high level of learning interest means that 75-81% of the respondents in a particular age class were interested in learning more about land use; intermediate means that 69-74% of the respondents were interested; an: lgw_represents the range of 63-68%. **All of the respondents in this class indicated a positive interest. 2. Sex of Respondents - The information supplied by this par- ticular group of respondents shows that men are generally much more in— terested in learning about land use than are women. A total of 7S 141 percent of the male respondents in icateé a pcsitive interest, while only 36 perrent of the wcmen showed a positive interest. However, only 11 women completed and returned the mail questionnaire. 3. Education « Considerable vari.bility appears to exist in learning interest among adults with varying levels of educational attain— ment. The data gathered in this study indicate that the respondents with some high school level education, and those with some college level education tend to rank highest in interest in learning more about land use. The respondents who completed high school showed an intermediate level of learning interest; and those with only a grade school level and below, and, surprisingly, those holding a college degree showed the low- est level of learning interest. Table 20 shows the distribution of re— spondent educational classes between low, intermediate and high levels of learning interest. Table 20. The Interest Level of Respondents, by Educational Class February 5, 1968 ’- Level of Learning Interest* Characteristic High Intermediate Low Education _ Grade school, None X Some high school X f Completed high school X Some college X Has college degree i X *A high level of learning interest means that 79~8S% of the re~ spondents in a particular class were interested in learning more about land use; intermediate means that 70 78% of the respondents were in— terested; and lgw_means that 61 69% were interested. Curiously, the college graduates hai the lowest level of 142 learning interest among all edscational classes. The grade school and/or non—educated class was also very lOW. The available data are not such that any explanation can be made based upon fact. However, it does seem that, in this particular case, br.th low and high levels of education are associated with a generally low level of interest in la*-.i~use education. 4. Occupation Respondents classified as craftsmen, manager/ officials, and service workers generally showed the highest levels of learning interest. Farm operators and laborers were intermediate in their demonstrated level of interest in land use; and the sales person— ne 1/clerical, and the professional groups showed the lowest levels of learning interest. Table 21 shows the distribution of respondent occu~~ pation classes among low, intermediate and high levels of learning in- terest. Table 21. The Interest Level of Respondents, by Occupational Class February 5, 196? 7 . Level of Learning Interest* R N. Characteristic A High Intermediate Low \ —4>--—1 oncupation 1 Farm operators 1 Laborers x l e‘I‘vice workers ' Craftsmen Salees personnel, Clerical 1 x l X ><>< anagers , Officials I‘Ofessional \ X S *A high level of learning interest means th.t 78-85% of the re» pon'fients within a particular class were interested in learning more about land use; intermediate means that 71~77°6 of the respondents Were interested: and 121 means that 61-69% were interested. 143 5. Income - There is a hint that learning interest may increase directly with increasingly higher levels of family income. However, learning interest seems to taper off among the highest income classes. But such generalizations should be mae cautiously as tw- of the income classes contain 10 or less respon;ents. Table 22 shows the distribution of income classes among high, low and intermediate levels of learning interest. Table 22. The Interest Level of Respondents, by Income Class February 5, 1968 I Level of Learning Interest* Ch zracteristic .L ; High Intermediate . Low Income ‘ Less than $3,000 X $3,000 to $4,999 X** $5 , 000 to $7,499 , x $7,500 to $9,999 x $10,000 to $12,499 I x $12,500 to $14,999 I X $15 ,000 and above ‘ X \ *A high level of learning interest means that 77~86% of the re- Spondents within a particular class were interested in learning more about land use; intermediate means that 68- 76% of the reSpondents were interested; and L0}: means that 61-69% were interested. **All of the respondents in this class in'iicated an interest. 6. Place of Residence ~ Respondents residing on the urbanurural fringe, and rural non—farm residents, showed the highest level of inter- est in learning more about land use. Satellite city residents and those on farms showed an intermediate level of interest, relative to all other classes. central city residents, who comprised the largest group of re- spondents, generally showed the lowest level of interest in learning 14' about land use. Table 23 compares tie level of learning interest of all respon- dents by residence classification. Table 23. The Interest Level of Respondents by Place of Residenpe February 5, 1968 a Level of Learning Interest* g”, (Iharacteristic ; ' High Intermediate Low = f’lace of Residence ,.. Central city X [ Ieran—rural fringe X Satellite city X Ithal non-farm X** Farm X *A hi h level of learning interest means that 71% or more of the Iwesgaondents within a particular class were interested in learning nuarwe about land use; intermedixte means that 69~70% of the respon« cieritrs were interested; and lgw_means that 67 68% were interested. **The actual interest in learning shown by this class was much higfluerr than all others-~86% indicated an interest in learning. 7. Absentee Ownership Status ~ Learning interest among the ab~ Sentkee: owners was extremely high (93 percent of all absentee owners in~ dicated a positive interest in lane-use education)- The resident land~ OWHGfrws, on the other hand, indicated that only 65 percent were inter esteh; in learning more about land use. 33351313955 to Participate. Overall, 98 respondents, or 62 percent, indicated a readiness to Eitrteni and participate in a land use education program of the type d . . . . . . escribed in the questionnaire This contrasts with the figure of 72 perCent which was computed in determining the overall interest among 1.5 respondents in learning more about land use Thus, there was an attri~ tion of about 10 percent between the interest and action steps. (At least we assume that this is the case, for without a controlled meeting ‘NhiCh could be used to determine actual attrition there appears to be little other basis for making such an estimate.) Some differences in respondent readiness to attend and partici— Iaate in actual land use education classes or meetings were noted when cietermining participation readiness by sorioeconomic class (see Tables £17 and 18). One way to compare these differences is to determine the Irelative participation readiness shown by sub-groups within each sociow ecnonomic class. These differenres may then be compared with the level ()f' learning interest of the respondents, as shown in the preceding sec~ tion. 1. Age of Respondents — Generally, the very young adults (18 ~ 24d), and the late middle-age respondents showed the highest levels of IxirT icipation readiness. Table 24 shows the relative participation reaxiiJiess indicated by respondents, by age class. The early middle age respondents (35 ~ 44 years of age) showed EN‘ i“termediate level of participation realiness. Young adults between 25 Elrhl 34 years of age, and the elderly (65 years or older) generally Shfnvead.the lowest levels of participation readiness relative to the 0th er age groups. 2. Sex of Respondents — Men showed a markedly higher participa- tloq‘ :readiness level than did women. Fewer men indicated a participation readiness (81 percent) than they did learning interest (95 percent). A total of 36 percent of the women respondents indicated a 156 rea iness to particip te in land use education prygrams. This rate is identical with that shown for interest in learning. Table 24. The Level of Participation Rea iness Shown by Respondents, by Age Class February 5, 1968 ,. Level of Participation Readiness* Characteristic High Intermedirte Low .Age 18 - 24 X** 25 ~ 34 X 35 —.44 X 45 - 54 X 55 - 64 X 65 and above X *A high level of participation readiness means that 65-7 % of tlier respondents within a particular class were ready to attend and participate in a land-use education program; intermediate means that 6C)~€&4% of the respondents were ready to participate; and low means tliai: 54-59% of the respondents were ready to participate._fi_' **All of the respondents in this class were ready to participate. 3. Education - While fewer of the respondents were ready to paTWIiwzipate in a land-use education program than the number that showed a“ lirLitial learning interest, the overall distribution of educational Cl‘iSSes among participation readiness levels (low, intermediate and big?!) was identical with that shown for levels of learning interest. The highest levels of participation readiness were demonstrated by 3r€33pondents having ”some high school,” and those with "some college" 1eVel education. High school graduates demonstrated an intermediate lveal. of participation reaiiness; while respondents having only grade SCI-1°01 education or none, and respondents having college degrees indi- c l . . . . . at‘3éi the lowest level of part1c1pation readiness. In other words, 147 responients having the highest an. lowest levels of education were the least favorable to participating in a prOgram of land-use edu.ation. Table 25 shows the relative participation readiness of all re- spondents by educational cl.ss Table 25. The Level of Participation Reariness 3: Shown by Respondents, by Educational Class ,j February 5, 1968 .. Level of Participatian Readiness* Characteristic vr High Intermediate Low 5 Edueation I Grade school, None X Some high school X Completed high school X Some college X Has college degree X L *A high level of participation readiness means that 68w75% of the respondents within a particular class were rea:y to attenu and participate in a land-use education program: intermediate means that 61-67% of the respondents were ready to participate; and low means that S4~60% of the respondents were ready to participate. 4. Occupation « There were snme apparent changes as between the relative levels of learning interest and p"rticipation readiness shown by reSpondents by occupation classes. The farm operator and craftsmen classes incidated a higher relative level of participation readiness than all other classes. Laborers, service workers and the professional group showed an intermediate level of participation readiness; and the managers/officials and sales personnel/clerical cl sses showed the low~ est relative level of participation readiness. Table 26 shows the relative level of participation readiness shown by respondents, by occupational class. 1.; 8 Table 26. The Level of Participation Readiness Shown by Respon ents, by Occupational Class February 5, 1968 A .— Level of Participation Readiness* Characteristic . High Intermediate Low Occupation Farm operator X ”i Laborers X ,E Service workers X 31 Craftsmen X ” Sales personnel, Clerical X . Managers, Officials X t Professional X ‘ *A high level of participation readiness means that 68-75% of the respondents in a p“rticular class indicated a readiness to parti- cipate in a land-use education program; intermediate means that 60~ 67% of the respondents are ready to participate; and lgw_means that 52-59% of the respondents are ready to participate. 5. Income - Respondents in only one of the income classes used showed a high relative level of participation reaniness. Respondents reporting family incomes of $3,000 to $4,999 annually showed a high level. People in the three income classes between $5,000 an; $12,499, and those with incomes of $15,000 and greater, showed intermediate levels of participation readiness. Respondents having incomes less than $3,000 annually, and those with incomes of $12,500 to $14,999, showed the lowest relative readiness to participate. This information is sum- marized in Table 27. 6. Place of Residence ~ The rural non-farm and the farm resi- dents demonstrated the highest relative perticipation readiness. Resi- dents on the urban-rural fringe showed an intermediate level of partici— Pation readiness. Central city and Satellite city residents showed the lowest relative participation readiness of all groups. h 149 Table 27. The Level of Participati n Readiness Shown by Respondents, by Income Class February 5, 1968 Level of Participatidn Readiness* Characteristic 4 High Intermediate Low Income Less than $3,000 X $3,000 to $4,999 X $5,000 to $7,499 x $7,500 to $9,999 X $10,000 to $12,499 X $12,500 to $14,999 x $15,000 and above X *A high_level of participation readiness means that 74 86% of the respondents within a particular class indicated a readiness to participate in a land-use education prOgram; intermediate means that 62-73% of the respondents were ready to participate; and 12w means that 50~61% of the respondents were ready to participate. These data tend to indicate that participation reaciness may be related to the "degree of urbanization" existing at, and in the vicinity of, the place of residence of respondents within a metropolitan region. The available data show thft participation readiness among respondents was lowest within the central cities and the satellite cities where the highest degree of urbanization exists (in terms of persons per square mile, building density, and other urban characteristics). Residents on the rural urban fringe showed an intermediate level of participation readiness. Moving further outward into the farming and open space areas (and the smaller communities and villages), the participation readiness 0f residents classified as rural non-farm and farm increased. Particiw Pation readiness may increase directly with increasing distance outward from the city core of the central city and satellite cities. The appar- ent effect of place of residence upon participation readiness of the 150 respondents is summarized in Table 28. Table 28. The Level of Participation Readiness Shown by Respondents, by Place of Residence February 5, 1968 .. Level of Participation Rea iness* Characteristic High Intermediate Low Place of Residence Central city ? X Urban-rural fringe X ; Satellite city 1 X** Rural non-farm X 9 Farm X g L I *A high level of participation readiness means that 68-72% of the respondents in a particular class indicated a readiness to par-- ticipate in land use education programs; intermediate means that 63-67% of the respondents were ready to participate; and low means that 58—62% of the respondents were ready to participate.."*_ **Only 30 percent of the reSpondents in this class indizated a readiness to participate. 7. Absentee Ownership Statg§_- The respondents who owned land in counties outside the metropolitan area showed a very high level of participation readiness~ 81 percent of them indicated a readiness to participate in land-use education programs. Only 55 percent of the resi- dent owners, on the other hand, indicated a readiness to participate. Final Audience Delineation. Based upon the information supplied by the 158 respondents to the mail questionnaire, about 62 percent of those replying would actu- ally be considered as potential participants in a land~use education program for the Lansing Metropolitan Region. Although 72 percent of the respondents indicated an interest in learning more about land use, not all of them indicated that they wnuld actually take action to satisfy lSl their learning interest. If the names of the respondents who replied to the mail ques- tionnaire were used in assembling a mailing list to advertise a specific meeting on land use, we would expect, based upon the .vailable informa tion, the following types of landowners to attend: I. A heavy representation of young acults (this may be some- 3“ what questionable because of limited data), and middlevaged respondents {£1 between 45 and 64 years of age. E 2. Highest overall attendance by persons having some college :,- level education, and those having less than a high school education, ' but with some secondary level education. Lesser numbers of people with high school diplomas, and fewer still having college degrees. A small number of poorly edicated people might alsu attend (those with grade school education or none). 3. A large number of skilled and semi-skilled craftsmen woul; probably attend, and farmers wculd show a high rate of attendance. (In- dications are that a large portion of the farmers asked to attend wsuli do so, but because of their smaller total numbers, relutive to urban, rural non~farm and satellite city residents, they might well comprise only a small percentage of the total audience in attendanae.) Smaller representations of the laborer, service worker and professional classes would be eXpected; and the smallest representation would be expected among the sales personnel/clerical and managers/officials clssses. 4. Respondents having relatively low incomes indicated that they would be heavily represented in a land-use education program. Re- spondents reporting annual family incomes of $3,000 to $4,999 showed 152 the highest propensity for participation among all income classes. How- ever, only a few respondents (less than 10) were included in this income class, and it may not be representative. Respondents in the intermed- iate income ranges (between $5,000 and $12,499) would probably make up the bulk of the attending audience. People in the high income brackets would show about the same prOportional representation as those within the three middle income classes just noted. People with family incomes of less than $3,000 annually, and those with incomes between $12,500 and $14,999 would be least represented. 5. Men would attend land—use education programs in substan— tially higher numbers than women. 6. Rural nonafarm and farm peaple would be represented well in the attending audience. People residing an the urban-rural fringe would show a fairly high level of attendance. The lowest rate of attendance would be shown by central city residents and satellite city residents. However, because of their higher representation within the total popula~ tion of the SMSA, they might well comprise the largest portion of the attending people at a land~use education meeting. 7. Indications are that absentee landowners might well be among the groups most highly represented at the land-use education meeting. They showed very high levels of interest in learning and participation readiness. 8. The community leadership group showed a level of participa— tion readiness which was identical to that of all respondents collec- tivelyv-62 percent indicated a readiness to participate. Because the leadership group was rather small in comparison to all respondents-~ --~ ‘: Ls! - .._>_ . mama 153 about 23 percent of the totale-they would probably be represented in small numbers at an actual meeting. That is, a fairly small percentage of the total audience attending would be classified as community leaders, but, as a group, they would be most influential. Conclusions Considerable variation exists among respon ents regarding both .4 interest in learning about land use and readiness to participate in land- I use education programs. The hypothesis that "the demand for land-use education programs within urban and urbanizing areas is positively re» ’” lated with selected socioeconomic characteristics of adult property owners" was not substantiated entirely. There is a hint that participation readiness and learning inter~ est may increase directly with the distance of the place of residence from the city core; although this generalization is largely speculative as the data obtained are somewhat limited, and the working definition of the place of residence used is not wholly compatible with a generaliza- tion of this type. There is also a hint that learning interest may increase di- rectly with the level of family income, becoming curvilinear, however, in relation to the highest income levels of landowners. This relation- ship is not suggested, however, in relation to the participation readi- ness of the respondents. Again, limitations in the data available for analysis do not allow a rigorous generalization on this point. The available data indicate that men are clearly more interested in learning about land use, and exhibit a higher level of participation readiness, than do women. 154 Absentee landowners who resided within the Lansing SMSA during the period of this study, and who responded to the questionnaire, showed both a higher learning interest and a higher propensity for participa- tion in land use programs than did resident owners. The available data suggest that a positive relationship may exist between age learning interest, and age~participation readiness. Both learning interest and participation readiness tended to increase with advancing age through middle age, and drop off gradually during late middle age into the retirement ages. The very young adults (18 to 24 years of age) showed the highest levels of learning interest and par- ticipation readiness of all age groups, but only 3 persons were repre— sented in this age class. Discounting this class, the relationship cited above holds true. The characteristics of Education and occupation proved to be highly variable in their effect upon both learning interest and partici— pation readiness. No positive relationship was suggessted when these variables were isolated separately. Limitations There is reason to question the validity and accurateness of the conclusions drawn in this investigation. In the researcher's opinion, the data drawn from the questionnaires returned by respondents suggests the relationships cited above. However, it should also be remembered that only 32 percent of the landowners included in the original sample actually completed and returned the questionnaires mailed to them. The purpose of the investigation was to point out possible relationships which may exist among adult landowners in relation to 155 their receptiveness to land~use education programs. Indications are that the respon.ents to the questionnaire are fairly typical of the uni— verse of landowners within the SMSA. However, we cannot be entirely sure that this is true because 68 percent of all landowners sampled failed_to return a completed cepy of the questionnaire. Thus, questions can be raised con erning the attitudes and disposition of these non~ respondents toward land-use education. For example, are the non- reSpondents more or less interested in learning about land use than actual respondents? Would they, if included in the group of respondents who actually completed and returned the questionnaire, have a noticeable effect upon the findings cited previously in this investigation? No precise answers are available for these and numerous other questions. Therefore, the researcher feels that the conclusions drawn as a result of this investigation are actually only tentative generali- zations which appear to exist at this time and place (the Lansing SMSA), and for this particular group of respondents. Further research, using more precise research methodology (data collection through interviewing, for example), may either substantiate or disprove the conclusions drawn in this investigation. If, however, the findings of this study are ac- cepted for what they are, tentative generalizations calculated to point out possible relationships upon which more concentrated study is needed, then the researcher will feel that this study was justified. Recommendations The researcher feels strongly that further research will be needed in this general area, particularly if a wideSpread effort is to be undertaken in public education programs in urban and urbanizing *! ' v“ ?,-‘ .—~—.'..au. 156 areas. In view of the tremendous numbers of urban people which will be involved in the decision-making process regarding land resource use in the future, it seems inevitable the conservation and land-use education programs will have to be designed to reach urban audiences to a consid- erable degree. As program planning and budgeting requirements become more stringent (and it is likely that this will be the case), the public agencies and institutions engaged in conservation and land use educa‘ tional activities will be faced with the necessity of justifying the ex- penditure of funds upon edutation programs of all kinds. Research of this type can be used to substantiate the claim that (l) a public remand for specific educational programs actually exists; (2) that certain num- bers of people are actually interested in the program, and have indi- cated a rea iness to participate if the program is offered; (3) that the potential audience has certain differences such as age, residence back- ground, education, and the like, which will influence their participa- tion in such programs; and (4) that the educator has information readily available which will allow him to tailor an educational program to the Specific needs and capacity of his potential audience. In the researcher's opinion research of this type will be needed before any widespread efforts are undertaken among urban and suburban audiences. He feels that this will be necessary to avoid "buckshotting" information which may or may not be of interest to the audience, and which may leai to failure of the educational program thus conceived and administered. FUture research should attempt to pin-point the characteristics Of the p0tential audience for land use education programs. Sound I, ‘5 l . A!’ 157 research methodology should be used in order to avoid the non-response problems inherent in the use of mail questionnaires. The collection of data should be un ertaken through a series of interviews in order to ensure the representativeness of the sample population. Some effort should also be made to reach the non~landowner classes. Renters and other people were not involved in this survey. It seems important that they be included, however, if generalizations about the entire popular tion in urban and urbanizing areas are to be made. Future research in this area could be made much more detailed and revealing if catographic presentations were utilized extensively in the data analysis and presentation phases. It is felt that this type of presentation would be particularly important in pin pointing the loca~ tion of the potential participants in an educational program throughout the metropolitan region. A more sophisticated statistical approach is needed in future research in this area. More precise hypotheses should be developed, and they should be rigorously tested, using sound statistical techniques. APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE AND QUESTIONNAIRE 159 [COVER LETTER FOR QUESTIONNAIRE PRETEST] MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN 48823 DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ° NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING November 16, 1967 Dear Property Owner: . Almost everyone, it seems, has s desire to own property. Land ownership seems to give us a feeling of security and stability. Most of us have found that there are problems associated with land ownership as well. Simple answers for these problems are usually hard to find. This questionnaire is being distributed to a random sample of 500 landowners in the Lansing Metropolitan area, including Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties. we would like to know how you feel about land use problems. Your name was obtained from the Ingham County land ownership records. A land-use education questionnaire is enclosed. You may assist us with this study by completing the short-answer questions included therein. The information which you supply will be combined with that returned by other landowners for general analysis. It is not necessary for you to sign the questionnaire, or otherwise identify yourself. If there is sufficient interest indicated by landowners, some land-use education workshops may by held in this area. we will appreciate your cooperation in this study. Very truly yours, William J. Kimball Professor, Resource Development WJR/sj Enclosure ’“7hfigW (a) (b) (a) [PRETEST] LAND—USE EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURN IN THE STAMPED, PRE ADDRESSED ENVELOPE BY NOVEMBER 24, 1967 In the spaces below, please give the location(s) of all pro— perty that you own: TOWNSHIP SECTION COUNTY OR CITY OR WARD Parcel # l: Parcel # 2: Parcel # 3: The following list describes various types of land use. Con; sider all_tracts Of land that you own, and indicate the primary uses made of your property. (Select as many uses as apply in your case.) Permanent residence Business Property Summer home or cottage Hunting and/or fishing Farming Camping Timber management Wildlife management Holding vacant for future use Other (specify): r‘sf‘fiflflr“ UVVVV f-‘flflflfl VVUUV DO you have any particular questions concerning your personal rights as a property owner? If so, please indicate the nature of your questions below. (Check as many as apply) ( ) Understanding what my neighbors and I can do to protect our ownership rights. ( ) Understanding how zoning affects or controls the use of my land. ( ) The extent of my rights in using the natural resrurces of the land: (Check those resources which apply in your case) ___Water ___Minerals Trees Soils *Wildlife *"Air My rigfits in controlling trEEEass upon my property. The extent of my liability if people are injured while on my land. ( ) Other (specify): firm V‘s—J 160 161 (b) Have you ever received assistance with any of these problems? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, which ones? (c) From whom did you receive assistance? (Ple se identify below) I gygg; ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY —— Would you be interested in learning more about land use, property taxes, water rights, owner rights in prOperty, and other matters related to land ownership in Michigan? ( ) Yes ( ) No (a) Do you know of any organization within your county which offers educational programs for private citizens on land and water use? (Check one) ( ) Yes ( ) No: There are none ( ) No: Don't know of any (b) If your answer was yes, please write the organization's name below. (Include the name of any other organization which you are sure would offer similar services.) (a) If a meeting, or several meetings, were held on land and water use in the community, county or region where you live, would you feel inclined to attend and actively participate? ( ) Yes ( ) No If your answer is no, please give your reasons for not desiring to participate: 162 IN ORDER THAT WE MAY MAKE FUTURE PLANS FOR ARRANGING MEETINGS ON LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW MORE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF QUESTIONS. 8. (1) Please check the single item which best describes the work sit- uation of the head of household in your family: Works part time only Works full time Works part time on farm and part time off farm Works part time/homemaker Works part time/attends school Full time homemaker Goes to school only Retired Unemployed Other (specify): flflflflflfif—‘flflfi (b) Please give the occupation of the head of household in your family in the space below. (If retired or unemployed, what was your occupation?) ( ) Please check here if head of household is selfwemployed. In the spaces below, please list any elected and/or appointed offices held by the head of household. (Such offices should not be connected with your occupation— would include offices in civic or social clubs, religious groups, township supervisor, city council member, etc.) (a) Please give the age and sex of the head of household in your family. Age: Years Sex: Circle one MALE FEMALE (b) How many persons are there in your immediate family? (Include yourself, spouse, and all chiliren living with you.) 10. 11. (a) (b) (C) 163 Please gircle the highest grade completed in public school: GRADE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 IS 16 Did you receive a college degree? ( ) Yes ( ) No Have you received other specialized vocational training? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please give the LENGTH and KIND of training below: Please estimate your tital family income this year, upon which income taxes are paid: 3 Please indicate who completed this questionnaire below. (Check the single best answer.) () () () Head of household Spouse Other (specify): ***THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT*** 164 [COVER LETTER FOR FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE] COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN 48823 Department of Resource Development AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Natural Resources Building December 8, 1967 5 I Dear Property Owner: Almost everyone, it seems, has a desire to own property. Land owner- ship seems to give us a feeling of security and stability. Most of us have found that there are problems associated with land ownership as well. Simple answers for these problems are usually hard to find. This questionnaire is being distributed to a random sample of 500 landowners in the Lansing Metropolitan area, including Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties. Your name was obtained from the Ingham, Eaton and Clinton County land ownership records. We would like to know how you feel about land use problems. A land-use education questionnaire is enclosed. You may assist us with this study by completing the short-answer questions included therein. The information which you supply will be combined with that returned by other landowners for general analysis. It is not necessary for you to sign the questionnaire, or otherwise identify yourself. If there is sufficient interest indicated by landowners, some land—use education workshops may be held in this area. We will appreciate your cooperation in this study. Sincerely, . /(/;5/‘ f‘ fl/flf” 1/ e - WAX/ W ~ 4' ‘7'th w111idE/J. Kimball Einer G. Olstrom Extension Leader, Program Director, Community Resource Development Natural Resources WJK/jd Enclosure LAND USE EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE_ PLEASE COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURN IN THE STAMPED, PRE ADDRESSED ENVELOPE BY DECEMBER 15, 1967. In the spaces below, please give the location(s) of all property that you own: Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel # # 4: 5: *PRESENT TOWNSHIP OR CITY LAND USE (If township, place T after name; 3 use §:if city) p_“ _ o—— *The following list describes various types of land use. Please indicate the primary uses made of each land parcel listed above by entering the appropriate number(s) in the PRESENT LAND USE column. (Select as many uses as may apply for each parcel of land.) U'I-hblNr—a Permanent residence Business property Summer home or cottage Hunting and/or fishing Farming l OKOOOVO) Camping Timber management Wildlife management Holding vacant for future use Other (specify) (a) DO you have any particular questions concerning your personal If so, please indicate the nature rights as a property owner? of your questions below. (Check as many as apply.) (,J Understanding what my neighbors and I can do t. protect our ownership rights. ( ) Understanding how zoning affects or controls the use of my 13.11:]. ( ) The extent of my rights in using the natural resources of the land. (Check those resources which apply in your case) Trees Wildlife 165 Minerals Soils Air c—-—.—_ 166 ( ) My rights in controlling trespass upon my property. ( ) The extent of my liability if people are injured while on my land. ( ) Other (specify): (b) Have you ever received assistance with any of these problems? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, which ones? (c) From whom did you receive assistance? (Please identify below) oNAME ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY m Would yea be interested in learning more about land use, property taxes, water rights, owner rights in property, and other matters related to land ownership in Michigan? ( ) YES ( ) No (a) Do you know cf any organization within your county which offers educational programs for private citivens on land and water use? (Check one) ( ) Yes ( ) No: There are none ( ) No: Don't know of any (b) If yOOr answer is yes, please write the organization's name below. (Include the name of any other organization which you are sure would offer similar services.) (a) If a meeting, or several meetings, were held on land and water use in the community, county or region where you live, would you feel inclined to attend and actively participate? ( I Yes ( ) No If your answer is no, please give your reasons for not desiring to participate: 1’" 167 IN ORDER THAT we MAY MAKE FUTURE PLANS FOR ARRANGING MEETINGS ON LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT we KNOW MORE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF QUESTIONS. (8) (b) Please check the single item which best describes the work situation of .he heaa of household in your family: Works part time only Works full time Works part time on farm and part time off farm Works part time/homemaker Works part time/attends school Full time homemaker Goes to school only Retired Unemployed I Other (specify): VUVVVVVVVV Please give the occupation of the head of household in your family in the space below. (If'retired or unemployed, what was your occupation?) ( ) Please check here if head of household is self—employed. In the spaces below, please list any elected and/or appointed offices held by the head of household. (Such offices should not be connected with your occupatione—woul; include offices in civic or social clubs, religious groups, township supervisor, city council member, etc.) (a) (b) Please give the age and sex of the head of househol. in your family. Age: Years Sex: Circle one MALE FEMALE How many persons are there in your immediate family? (Include yourself, Spouse, and all children living with you.) 10. 11. 168 (a) Please circle the highest grade completed in public school: GRADE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (b) Did you receive a college degree? ( ) Yes ( ) No (c) Have you received other specialized vocational training? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please give the LENGTH and KIND of training below: Please estimate your total family income this year, upon which income taxes are paid: 3 Please indicate who completed this questionnaire below. (Check the single best answer.) ( ) Head of household ( ) Spouse ( I Other (specify): ***THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT*** "l """ 9}}.3 '_ My 169 (POST CARD FOLLOW UP TO QUESTIONNAIRE) COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS U.S. Department of Agriculture and Michigan State University Cooperating January 2, 1968 Dear Property Owner: Over 100 Land Use Education questionnaires have already been returned. If yours is not among them, we would like to have it as soon as possible. If you have misplaced the questionnaire which was sent to you, (one of a random sample in Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties), on December 8, 1967, we will be happy to send you one. Just contact my office. Sincerely, William J. Kimball Extension Leader, CRD Natural Resources Bldg., MSU East Lansing, Michigan Phone: 353-0797 APPENDIX B COMPUTER CODING SYSTEM COMPUTER CODING LAND~USE EDUCATION DEMAND STUDY Columns: Col. 1 - Var. 1 (Place of Residence) C01. 2 — Var. 2 (County 3f Residence) Col. 3 - Var. 3 (Land Ownership Status) Col. uses of land - parcels owned 9 within SMSA Col. l3 16 uses of land 17 - parcels owned 18 outside SMSA Col. 22 C01. 23 171 y— U‘I-D-(NNv—o Description Central City Urban—rural Fringe Satellite City - Rural Non—farm Farm ~ Ingham . Eaton Clinton Owns land in counties outside SMSA ~ Does not own land in counties outside SMSA ~ Permanent residence Business property Summer home or cottage Hunting and/or fishing . Farming Camping Timber management v Wildlife management Holding vacant for future use Permanent residence Business property Summer home or cottage I Hunting and/or fishing Farming - Camping Timber management Wildlife management Holding vacant for future use "Blank" Understanding what my neighbors and I can do to protect our ownership rights. - Understanding how zoning affects or controls the use of my land. T7 \Y III.Y.IIIU Columns: Col. 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31‘ 32 33 C01. 34 Col. 35 (Assistance with Problems) Col. 36 C01. 37 Var. 4 (Interest in land-use Education) Col. 38 C01. 39 (Knowledge about org. offering land-use education program) C01. 40 C01. 41- Var. 5 (Propensity for participation) Col. 42 C01. 43 (Work status of respondents) Col. 44 y-o NH (ANT—- HHHI—IHI—‘h—i tooouoxme- Description - The extent of my rights in using the natural resources of land. Water . Trees - Wildlife Minerals , Soils u Air - My rights in controlling tres- pass upon my property The extent of my liability if people are injured while on my land. ”Blank" Yes No "Blank” Yes No "Blank" Yes No: There are none. No: Don't know of any. "Blank" Yes No "Blank" » Works part time. - Works full time. Works part time on farm and part time off. Works part time/homemaker. - Works part time/attends school. Full time homemaker. Goes to school only. Retired. Unemployed. "Blank Columns: Col. 45 - Var. 6 (Occupation of Respondents) Col. 46 C01. 47 C01. 48 C01. 49 - Var. 7 (Elected/appointed offices) Col. 50 Col. 51 ~ Var. 8 (Age of respondents) Col. 52 Col. 53 — Var. 9 (Sex of Respondents) Col. 54 C01. 55 (Size of family) Col. 56 C01. 57 » Var. 10 (Education of respondents) 173 p-a NH OUT-bCNNr—i C‘U‘l-hCNNH Description Farm operators Laborers - Service workers Craftsmen Sales personnel, Clerical ~ Managers, Officials Professional "Blank" Self-employed respondents "Blank" Elected/appointed religious offices. Elected/appointed civic and social offices. Elected/appointed political Offices. "Blank" 18 to 24 25 to 34 - 35 to 44 - 45 to S4 55 to 64 6S and above IIBln_nkI1 Male - Female "Blank" One member v Two members ~ Three members - Four members - Five members Six or more members "Blank" ~ Grade school, None a Some high school Completed high school , ”I!" _ ‘V 174 Columns: Col. 58 C01. 59 (ReSpond. w/ other voc. training) Col. 60 C01. 61 ~ Var. 11 (Income of respondents) Nb—n \IO‘U‘I-D-(NNH Description - Some college Has college degree "Blank" Yes No "Blank" Un er $3,000 - $3,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 to $9,999 . $10,000 to $12,499 $12,500 to $14,999 $15,000 and above "an—- BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents National Resources Planning Board. A Report on National PlanningAand Public Works in Relation to Natural Resources. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Federal Agencies and Outdoor Recreation. ORRRC Study Report 13. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults. ORRRC Study Report 20. Washingh ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Projections to the Years 1976 and 2000: Economic Growth, Population, Labor Force and Leisure, and Tran5portation. ORRRC Study Report No 23. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Proceedings of the National Conference on Land Utilization, November 19:21, 1931. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932. U.S. Congress. Area Redevelopment Act: Public Law 87~27, 87th Con- gress, 1961. U.S. Congress. Norris-Doxey Farm Forestry Act. Public Law 95, 75th Congress, lst Session, 1937. U.S. Congress. The Capper-Ketchum Act of 1928. 70th Congress, lst Session, 1928. U.S. Congress. The Purnell Act of 1925. 68th Congress, 2nd Session, 1925. U.S. Congress. Smith Lever Act of May 8, 1914. amended, Public Law 83, 83rd Congress, lst Session, 1953. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. Joint Committee Report on Extension PrOgrams, Policies and Goals._ Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948. 175 I76 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Report of the Secretary, 1931. ’Tsh- ington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931. U.S. Department of Agriculture. You and the USDA. Public Affairs Bull. No. 542. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. U.S. Department of Agriculture. A Summary of the Activities of the Production and Marketing Administration. Washington: U.S. Department Of Agriculture, 1948. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. The Conservation Reserve Program of the Soil Bank. AgricultuEEI Information Bull. No. 185. WaShington: U.S. Government Print- ing Office, 1958. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Highlights in the History of Forest Conservation, Agricultural Information Bull. No. 83. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Land and Water Policy Committee. Land and Water Resources, A Policy Guide. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1962. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Areas of the United States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing'Office, 1940. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of ngula- tion. Number of Inhabitants. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census Tract Data; The Lansing SMSA. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960. Books Ackerman, Joseph. "Agricultural Adjustment: A Challenge and Oppor- tunity for the Land-Grant College System." Increasing Under— standing of Public Problems and Policies. Chicago: Farm Foundation, 1960. Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1958. Bell, Wendell; Hill, Richard J.; and Wright, Charles R. Public Leader- ship: A Critical Review with Special Reference to Adult Educa~ tion. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1961. ‘2 “- 177 Brockman, C. Frank. Recreational Use of Wild Lands. New York: McGraw— Hill Book Co., 1959. Buckholtz, Paul. Political Geography. New York: The Ronald Press, 1966. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Graduate School of Business Administration. Michigan Statistical Abstragif 6th ed.; East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1966. Chapin, F. Stuart. Urban Land Use Planning. 2nd ed.; Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965. Clawson, Marion. Lgpd for Americans. Chicago: Rand—McNally 6 Company, 1963. ; Held, R. Burnell; and Stoidard, Charles H. Land for the Future. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960. Man and Land in the United States. Lincoln, Nebriska: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. and Held, R. Burnell. The Federal Lands, Their Use and Management. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1957. Crow, Lester D., and Alice. Human Development and Learning. New York: American Book Company, 1965. Gaus, John M., and Wolcott, Leon 0. Public Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1940. ; White, Leonard 0.; and Dimock, Marshall E. The Frontiers_gf Public Administratiopf, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936. Green, James L. Metropolitan Economic Rgpublic. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1965. Hardin, Charles M. The Politics Of Agriculturg. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Havighurst, Robert J. Education in Metropolitan Aregg. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966- Henell, Olof. Marketing Aspect of Housewive's Knowledge of Goods. Goteborg, Sweden: A.-B. John Antonsons Boktryckeri, 1953. Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961. flow. ' 178 James, Preston E. An Outline of Geography. Boston: Gin and Company, 1935. ” Johnstone, John W. C., and Rivera, Ramon J. Volunteers for Learning. Chicago: Aluine Publishing Company, 1965. Kelsey, Lincoln 0., and Hearne, Cannon C. Cooperative Extension Work. Ithaca, New York: Comstock Publishing Co., 1949. Kidd, James R.- How Adults Learn. New York: Association Press, 1959. Landstrom, Karl 5. "How We Acquired Our Landed Estate." Land, Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958. Leonard, Olen E., and Lewry, Sheldon. "Continuation Education Colleges and Universities." Rural Social Systems and Adult Edu’ation. Edited by C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Press, 1953. Lively, Charles E., and Preiss, Jack J. Conservation Education in American Colleges. New York: The Ronald Press, 1957. Longmore, T. Wilson. "Special Agencies Within the Department of Agri- culture." Rural Social Systems and Adult Education. Edited by C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, Michigan?* Michigan State College Press, 1953. Loomis, Charles P., and Beegle, J. Allan. Rural Sociology: The Stga; Eggy of Change. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice~Hall Inc., 1957. Matthews, Joseph L. ”The Cooperative Extension Service in the United States." Rural Social Systems and Adult Education. Edited by C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, MiChigan: Michigan State College Press, 1953. McArdle, Richard E. "Cash Crops from Small Forests,” Trees, Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949. Motheral, Joseph R. "Land and Our Economic Development.” Land, Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958. Reagan, bkark M., and Wooten, Hugh H. "Land Use Trends and Urbaniza— tion." A Place to Live, Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Rogers. Everett M. Social Change in Rural Society. New York: Appleton" Century—Crofts, Inc., 1960. 179 Rovetch, Warren. "Cooperative Extension and the Land—Grant System in University Adult Education.” University Adult Education, A Guide to Policy. Edited by aefié and William Peterson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Shepherd, Geoffrey S. Mgrketing Farm Products. 4th ed.; Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965.V Shuman, Charles B. "Organized Agriculture Looks at Extension.” Ap_ Image of Cooperative Extension. Edited by E. J. Boone and C. M. Ferguson. Madison, Wisconsin: National Agriculture EX« tension Center for Advanced Study, 1962. Smith, Frank E. The Politics of Conservation. New York: Pantheon Books, 1966. Sparhawk, W. N. "The History of Forestry in America." Trees, Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949. Spurr, William A., et a}, Business and Economic Statistics. rev. ed.; Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 196l. Zimmerman, Erich W. World Resources and Industries. rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Reports Barlowe, Raleigh. "Some Policy Considerations in the Taxation of Agricultural Lands." Land Use Study, Education and Planning. Proceedings of a Seminar Sponsored by the Department ovaesource Development, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Cooperative Extension Servire, 1966. Fenton, Earl E., and Hill, Russell G. Watershed Projects Under Public Law 566, Questions and Answers. East Lansing, Michigan: MiChigan Cooperative Extension Service, 1965. Hidy, Thomas F., and Stinson, Thomas F. Taxation of Farmland on thg Rural Urban Fringe. Agricultural Economic Report No. 119. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Pine, Wilfred H. A Review of Land Classifications in the United States. Agricultural Economic Report No. 94. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1947. The Extension Committee on Organi7ation and Policy. The Cogperative Extension Service Today ~ A Statement of Scope and Responsi» bility. Raleigh, North Carolina: Publisher Unknown, 1958. -—-. 190 True, Alfred C. A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States, 1785-1923. USDA Miscellaneous PUblication No. 15. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1928. Wooten, Hugh H.; Gertel, Karl; and Pendleton, William C. Major Uses of Land and Water in the United States. Agricultural Economic Report No. 13. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959. The Land Utilization Program, 1935 to 1964. Agricultural Economic Report No. E1. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Unpublished Material Ball, Nelson E. "The Role of the Cooperative Extension Service in Land Use Programs." Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Bartlett, Francis K. "The Role of the Cooperative Extension Service in Urban and Urbanizing Areas." Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. Cornett, Elgin M. "A Study of Public Concepts Related to the Role of Cooperative Extension Service." Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1958. George, Robert W. "A Comparative Analysis of Conservation Attitu?es in Situations Where Conservation Education is a Part of the Edu- cational Experience." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Hazlitt, James R. "A Study Indicating the Future Direction of the Cooperative Extension Service in Order to Meet the Problems and Needs of the People.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1961. Kaufman, Charles R. "The Responsibility of the Extension Servize in Urban Areas ” Unpublished research, Michigan State University, 1957. Miller, Mason E. Teaching~Learning Process and Methods for Extension Workers. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Extension Personnel Development, Michigan State University, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Wievel, Bernard F. "Attitudes Towards and Knowledge of Conservation Possessed by Students in Iowa High Schools." Unpublished Ph D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 1947. 181 Other Sources Davis, Lloyd H. ”Extension Opportunities " County Agents Directory. Flosmoor, Illinois: "Survey of Buying Power." 1967). C. L. Mast and ASSUL1.tGS, 1967. Sales Management. Vol. 98, No. 12 (June, Zeidler, Frank P. "The Role of Government in Social Action." Community Resource Development. Preceedings of the First Na- tional Extension Workshop. Edited by W. J. Kimball. East Lansing, Michigan: 1965. Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, ER ”'Tlltllllluslfllljlfillfllllll'llllljflilllit'Es