BCCER PUBLIC AWARENESS
This study examined the relationship between public perceptions of Big
Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) management, public levels of involvement
with BCCER and/or its management, place attachment, environmental attitudes,
and several demographic variables. The goal of this study was to add to the
understanding of public perceptions of natural resources management in a place
specific context. The results of this study may be used by the managers of
BCCER in understanding public preferences, attitudes, and perceptions so that
decisions can be made which promote positive public relationships.
Data were collected by a self-administered
mail survey. The survey was sent to individuals who
have had some level of involvement with BCCER and/or its managers. Of the 364
individuals mailed the survey, 227 collected cases were valid and useable.
Useable cases represent complete, or mostly complete, surveys that were
returned by individuals with a valid mailing address. The eligible respondents
were over eighteen years of age and returned their surveys between
Demographic Profile
The demographic profile of the sample population considered
respondent’s gender, age, years lived in current community, place of residence,
children under the age of eighteen living at home, education level, employment
status, and income. See Appendix D for all of the demographic and
socio-economic information. Of the valid cases 135 (61.1%) were male and 86
(38.9%) were female. Ages of respondents ranged from 19 to 85 years of age with
a median of 54 years old. Of the respondents, 56 (25.8%) respondents have
children under the age of eighteen living at home.
An overwhelming 99 (44.4%) of the respondents
have a graduate or professional degree (masters or Ph.D.), 84 (37.7%) have a
bachelors or associates degree, 33 (14.8%) have had some college but no degree,
and 7 (3.1%) have a high school or lower education level. Most of the
respondents work full-time 132 (60%) or are retired 50 (22.7%). An additional
20 (9.1%) work part-time, are not working 5 (2.3%), are semi-retired 8 (3.6%),
or are students 5 (2.3%). The model respondent income was $50,000-$74,999 with
53 (26.6%) of the valid responses. The income range of the respondents was
fairly high with only 52 (26.1%) earning less than $49,999 annually. Of the
respondents, 94 (47.2%) of the respondent’s annual household income was $75,000
or greater.
Additional descriptive statistics include length of residency in
current community and location of current residence (by zip code). The
respondents have lived in their current communities from
These demographic results show that the sample population is somewhat
different than a national profile. According to the results of the United
States Census 2000 the population surveyed for this study is older by 19 years
(as shown from a comparison of median ages), has more males and fewer females
by +/- 10%, has more individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher by 57.7%,
works more, and has a significantly higher annual household income. Both the
national and California Census results reveal similar patterns in demographic
differences. Some of these differences may be attributed to the different dates
of the individual studies. However, these results indicate that the findings of
this study cannot be generalized to other populations.
Test of Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis was derived from research question one. Research
question one asked: Do environmental attitudes influence public perceptions of
Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) management? Hypothesis one stated
that: There will be a positive association between pro-environmental attitudes
and improved public perceptions of BCCER management.
The two equal interval scales used to measure environmental attitudes
(Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) and public perceptions
of BCCER management (Krannich & Smith, 1998)
showed high internal validity. The internal consistency of the environmental
attitudes scale is confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha of
.8991. The perceptions of BCCER management scale also showed internal validity
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .8754.
Both scales were adjusted for missing items, and reverse worded items
were normalized. The results of a Pearson’s correlation comparison were based
on the scale mean scores after normalization and missing item adjustments (see
Table 1). The mean value was assigned for missing items in the public
perceptions of BCCER management scale if three or more of the six items were
answered. Seventy-two cases were adjusted for the public perceptions of
management scale bringing the number of valid cases (n) from 60 to 132. The
mean value was assigned for missing items in the environmental attitudes scale
if six or more of the twelve items were answered. Seventeen cases were adjusted
for the environmental attitudes scale bringing the number of valid cases (n)
from 207 to 224.
Table 1
Environmental
Attitudes, Public Perceptions of Management, and Place Attachment Scales.
_______________________________________________________________________
Scale Nature
of Data M SD n
_______________________________________________________________________
Environmental Attitudes Unadjusted 2.91 .70 207
(Score range: 0 to 4) Adjusted 2.92 .69 224
Perceptions of Management Unadjusted 6.77 1.99 60
(Score range: 0 to 10) Adjusted 7.07 2.12 132
Place Attachment Unadjusted 4.22 1.32 197
(Score range: 0 to 6) Adjusted 4.10 1.34 222
_______________________________________________________________________
Note: M = Mean (arithmetic average); SD = Standard deviation; n = Number
in subsample.
The large number of missing or "don’t know" responses to
items in the public perceptions of BCCER management scale may be attributed to
the infancy of the Reserve and the lack of interaction people have had with the
area and its managers. Many
individuals indicated a lack of knowledge about the area and its management by
making statements similar to the following: "I’ve only used this
area once and I do not feel qualified to answer any of these questions
regarding the reserve".
The adjusted environmental attitudes scale mean score (n = 224)
and the adjusted public perceptions of BCCER management scale mean score (n
= 130) were compared using a bi-variate correlation
comparison. The results of a Pearson correlation coefficient were r = .460, p
= .001, and accounts for r2 = .2116 (21.16%) of variance. This showed that there was
significance between the two scales’ mean scores because correlation is
significant at the .05 level (p <
.05). These findings support the hypothesis that positive environmental
attitudes result in better perceptions of BCCER management.
Test of Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis was derived from
research question two. Research question two asked: Is there a correlation
between environmental attitudes and levels of public involvement? Hypothesis
two stated that: There will be a positive association between pro-environmental
attitudes and increased levels of public involvement.
Hypothesis two compared the adjusted environmental attitudes scale with
two of the levels of public involvement items. The levels of public involvement
items are item 10: number of days indicated by the respondent spent interacting
with the Reserve and its management, and item 12: the respondents’ feeling of
involvement with the Reserve and its management. Item 10 was recoded to
represent number of days spent at BCCER or interacting with BCCER management to
"contact" (n = 167) or "no contact" (n = 60)
as indicated by the respondents on items 10 and 11 of the survey. So if the
respondent indicated zero, or blank, interaction for item 10 or 11 of the
survey they were coded as a "no contact" individual.
The recoded item 10 (n = 227) was compared to the adjusted
environmental attitudes scale mean score (n = 224) using an independent
sample t-test. The results indicated a significance with t (df
= 222), p = .012. This showed a significant
difference in means between "contact" and "no contact"
respondents because p <
.05 indicates a significant difference. The differences for the adjusted
environmental attitudes scale mean scores and respondents who indicated
"contact" or "no contact" was: 2.99 (contact) and 2.73 (no
contact) on a 0 to 4 scale (see Table 2).
Table 2
Environmental
Attitudes Scale vs. Levels of Involvement
_______________________________________________________________________
Source of data Nature of data Statisticsl analysis Results
_______________________________________________________________________
Days interacting with the Recoded t-test t
(df = 222), p = .012
reserve and/or management
(Item 10)
Respondent's feeling of Original Pearson's r
= .18, p = .008
involvement with BCCER
(Item 12)
_______________________________________________________________________
Note:
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (p≤ .05). See Appendix
C for complete survey.
Item 12 was compared to the adjusted environmental attitudes scale mean
score using a Pearson’s bi-variate correlation
comparison. A Pearson’s test was used
because both the
environmental attitudes scale (n = 224) and the respondent’s feeling of
involvement with the Reserve (item 12, n = 219) used equal interval
measurement scales. The results of the Pearson’s correlation comparison were
significant with an r = .18, p = .008, which accounts for r2 = .0324 (3.24%)
of variance. These findings showed a significant correlation between
interaction with BCCER and/or its management and pro-environmental attitudes,
thus, supporting hypothesis two.
Test of Hypothesis Three
The third hypothesis was derived from
research question three. Research question three asked: How do demographic
variables and place attachment relate to levels of public involvement?
Hypothesis three stated that: Place attachment, length of residency, and
location of residence will correlate with levels of public involvement.
Hypothesis three was tested using a series of statistical analyses to
determine the affect of several independent variables on place attachment.
Initially, the internal validity of the place attachment scale was confirmed by
a Cronbach’s alpha of .9091. The place attachment
scale was recoded to adjust for missing items and reverse worded items were
normalized (see Table 1). The mean value was assigned for missing items when
three or more of the six scale items were complete. 25 items were adjusted for
the place attachment scale resulting in an increase of valid number of cases (n)
from 197 to 222. The adjusted findings vary little from comparisons using
unadjusted data because there was only a .12 decrease in the scale mean and a .014
increase in the scale standard deviation.
Length and location of residence were tested
against the recoded place attachment scale mean score. Length of residency was
determined by asking participants how long they have lived in their current
community. Length of residence (n = 219) was compared to place
attachment (n = 222) using a Spearman’s
Location of residence was
determined by recoding all of the zip codes provided by respondents into
"local" and "non-local" categories. "Local"
respondents consisted of those individuals who resided within the six
Location of residence was compared to mean
place attachment scores using an independent sample t-test. The t-test compared
differences in means between "local" and "non-local"
respondents. The "local" respondents showed significantly higher
levels of place attachment with a mean of 4.37 (local) compared to 3.53 (non-local)
on a 0 to 6 scale. The results for this t-test were t
(df
= 220), p = .001. This is a significant
difference in mean place attachment scores.
These findings support the statement that the
longer individuals live in one location the stronger their attachment to the
place. Also, these findings demonstrate that respondents within the
Length of residence and location of residence
were also compared to levels of public involvement. A low number of respondents
indicated that they have interacted with the Reserve or its management over the
past two years. As a result, the number of days respondents indicated they have
spent at the Reserve or interacting with its management (item 10), was recoded
to better represent the distribution of interactions. Item 10 was recoded into
five categories as follows: 0 days (26.4%), 1 day (25.6%), 2 days (16.3%), 3
days (6.6%), and 4 or more days (25.1%). This distribution provides a better
representation of this measure of levels of public involvement.
Length of residence was compared to items 10
(recoded into 0 through 4 or more categories), 12, which was survey
respondent’s feeling of involvement with BCCER, and 17, which was how well the
survey respondent feels they know BCCER. Results of a Spearman’s
Location of residence (recoded as "local" or
"non-local") was compared to the levels of public involvement
questions mean scores (item 10 recoded into 0 or 4 or more
Table 3
Place
Attachment, Length of Residency, and Location of Residence vs. Levels of
Involvement
_______________________________________________________________________
Levels of Involvement Item 10 Item 12 Item 17
Item Recoded
Days Involvement Knowledge
_______________________________________________________________________
Place attachment scale Test t=Test Pearson's Not
(Items 25a-f adjusted) Results p = .002 p
= .037 Relevant
Length of residence Test Spearman's Spearman's
Spearman's
(Item 30 recoded) Results
Location of residence Test t-test t-test t-test
(Item 31 recoded) Results p
= .029 ns ns
_______________________________________________________________________
Note:
The tests shown here are the most relevant to hypothesis three. Correlations is significant at the .05 level (p≤
.05). See Appendix C for complete survey.
categories, 12, and
17). Results of an independent sample t-test showed no significant difference
in mean scores for items 12 and 17, but did for item 10. The difference in mean
scores for recoded item 10 (n = 227) and the recoded location of
residence (n = 155 local vs. n = 72 non-local) was t (df = 225), p = .029. The difference in mean
days between "local" and "non-local" residents for item 10
was: 1.94 (local) and 1.46 (non-local) (see
Table 3). These findings
suggest that respondents who reside in
The affect
of public levels of involvement on place attachment were analyzed by recoding
the number of days spent at BCCER and/or interacting with BCCER management to
"contact" (n = 164) or "no contact" (n = 58)
as indicated by the respondents on items 10 and 11 of the survey. So if the
respondent indicated zero, or blank, interaction for item 10 or 11 of the
survey they were categorized as a "no contact" individual. The
results of an independent sample t-test showed a significant difference with t (df
= 220), p = .002. The difference in adjusted
place attachment mean scores for respondents who have had "contact"
and those who have "no contact" was: 4.27 (contact) and 3.63 (no
contact) on a 0 to 6 scale (see Table 3).
Place attachment was also compared to item 12 of the survey using a
Pearson’s bi-variate correlation comparison. Item 12,
survey respondent’s feeling of involvement with BCCER (n = 221), was
shown to correlate with the adjusted place attachment scale mean score (n
= 217) at a significance of p = .037, r = .142, which accounts for r2 = .020164
(2.02%) of variance (see Table 3). These findings support the statement that interaction
with an attitude object (BCCER and/or its management) may result in stronger
place attachment at a general level (Bonnes, Carrus, Bonaiuto, in press; Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002).
Finally, a Pearson’s bi-variate analysis was
performed to see if there was a correlation between the adjusted place
attachment mean score (n = 222) and the adjusted public perceptions of
Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) mean score (n = 130). Both of
the equal interval scales used for this comparison were adjusted as discussed
previously. The results revealed r = .082, p = .353. These findings do not show
a strong association between place attachment and improved perceptions of BCCER
management.
Hypothesis three was supported by the analyses of relevant data in two
of three tests performed (see Table 3). The three tests look specifically at a
correlation between place attachment, length, and location of residence and
levels of involvement. Test one showed no correlation between length of residence
and public levels of involvement. Test two showed a significant difference
between location of residence and number of days respondents indicated they had
interacted with BCCER and/or its management. Finally, test three showed a
significant correlation between levels of public involvement and place
attachment.
The additional analyses applied to the tests for hypothesis three help
to better understand the relationship between length and location of residence
and place attachment. They show that length (r
= .174, p = .01) and location (t (df
= 220), p = .001) of residence do have a
significant impact on place attachment mean scores. The final test was
performed to determine if there was a significant correlation between the place
attachment mean score and the perceptions of BCCER management mean score. This
was done to further understand the relationship, if any, between place
attachment and perceptions of management. The last test was also performed to
determine if results of hypothesis three were similar to those of hypothesis
four. The results are similar to those of hypothesis four and thus further
support hypothesis three.
Test of Hypothesis Four
The fourth hypothesis was derived from research question four. Research
question four asked: How are public perceptions of BCCER affected by levels of
public involvement? Hypothesis four stated that: Increased levels of
involvement will positively affect perceptions of Big Chico Creel Ecological
Reserve (BCCER) management.
Hypothesis four was tested using bi-variate
correlation analyses of the ordinal measures of levels of public involvement
and the equal interval scale, public perceptions of BCCER management. Items 12
and 17 of the survey were also compared to perceptions of BCCER management to
provide a more thorough representation of levels of public involvement. Item 12
is the survey respondent’s feeling of involvement with BCCER, and item 17 is
the survey respondent’s indicated feeling of how well they know the Reserve.
The public perceptions of BCCER management scale was
adjusted for missing items. As discussed in the analysis of hypothesis one, 72
cases were adjusted for the public perceptions of management scale bringing the
number of valid cases (n) from 60 to 132 (see Table 1). The results shown here
are based on the public perceptions of BCCER management scale mean scores after
the missing item adjustment. Days interacting with the Reserve and/or its
management (item 10) was also recoded into five categories (0 to 4 or more
days), as discussed in the analysis of hypothesis three.
The results of bi-variate correlation tests
showed no significance (p <
.05) between the adjusted public perceptions of BCCER management scale mean
score, the respondent’s number of days involved with the Reserve (Item 10
recoded), the respondent’s feeling of involvement with the Reserve (Item 12),
or the respondent’s feeling of how well they know the Reserve (Item 17). (See Table 4).
Table 4
Levels of
Involvement vs. the Perceptions of Management Scale
_______________________________________________________________________
Source of data Nature of data Statisticsl analysis Results
_______________________________________________________________________
Days interacting with the Recoded Spearman's
reserve and/or management
(Item 10)
Respondent's feeling of Original Pearson's ns
involvement with BCCER
(Item 12)
How well respondent Original Pearson's
ns
feels they know BCCER
(Item 17)
_______________________________________________________________________
Note:
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (p ≤ .05). A
Spearman's
The results of a Spearman’s
When the public perceptions of BCCER
management mean scores were compared to respondent’s feeling of involvement
with BCCER the result was a Pearson correlation r
= .017, p = .849. The correlation between
the BCCER management scale mean score and respondent’s feeling of how well they
know the Reserve was r = -.108, p = .222. A Pearson correlation
comparison was used for these tests because the perceptions of BCCER management
scale and items 12 and 17 used equal interval measurement scales.
Hypothesis four was not supported by the results of the bi-variate correlation tests (see Table 4). The levels of
public involvement questions did not reveal any significance or affect on the
perceptions of BCCER management. These are similar findings to the analysis of
place attachment and perceptions of BCCER management at the end of hypothesis
three. This may be attributed to the low level of involvement respondents have
had with BCCER so far.
Summary of Results
This study examined the relationship between public perceptions of Big
Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) management, public levels of involvement
with the Reserve and its management, place attachment, environmental attitudes,
and several demographic variables. Four hypotheses were tested to identify the
most influential dimensions on public perceptions of BCCER management. The
first, second, and third hypotheses were supported by the results of the data
analysis. The fourth hypothesis was not.
The first and second hypotheses were supported because significant
correlations between environmental attitudes, public perceptions of BCCER
management, and levels of public involvement were found to exist. The results
of the statistical analyses performed for hypotheses one and two allow us to
adopt the alternate hypotheses proposed. The third hypothesis was supported
because a significant correlation and influence exists between several factors
relative to levels of public involvement and place attachment.
Length and location of residence were found to have a significant
association with place attachment. Location of residence was found to
significantly influence the levels of public involvement. Most importantly,
levels of public involvement were found to significantly influence respondents
place attachment. The fourth hypothesis was rejected because levels of public
involvement were not found to affect public perceptions of BCCER management.
To summarize, environmental attitudes were found to be the only
influencer of public perceptions of BCCER management. Environmental attitudes
were also shown to correlate with levels of public involvement. This suggests
that individuals with a pro-environmental attitude are more supportive of BCCER
management. Also, the more involved these individuals become with BCCER and its
management the greater their pro-environmental attitude.
Length and location of residence show an influence on place attachment.
However, place attachment did not show significant correlation with public
perceptions of BCCER management. Location of residence did show a significant
correlation with levels of involvement. This can easily be understood by
considering that people who reside close to a specific resource are more likely
to get involved with it and/or its managers. Like place attachment, there was
no significant correlation between levels of involvement and public perceptions
of BCCER management. Some of the hypotheses and tests that did show a
significant relationship accounted for a small percentage of variance. These
relationships should be considered tenuous at best. Tenuous results and
insignificant findings may be attributed to the infancy of the Reserve and
people’s limited number of interactions so far.
This chapter reviewed the statistical findings for each hypothesis and
offered an elaborate demographic profile of the study population. The next
chapter will combine these findings with the relevant literature and conceptual
framework outlined in chapter two. Conclusions, limitations, and suggestions
for this study are discussed in chapter five.