quantifying the effectiveness of public meetings to ... · development while seeking progress in...

QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS TO GENERATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

by

Jennifer Kingsley

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NATURAL RESOURCES Waters Emphasis

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Stevens Point, Wisconsin

May 2008

iii

ABSTRACT

Public involvement has been identified as one of the key aspects of successful

watershed management by professionals and researches in the field and is particularly

important in the initial phases of management. In the Little Plover River Watershed,

in central Wisconsin, stakeholders expressed a need to initiate watershed management.

At this early stage in the process public involvement is seriously lacking. The goal of

this study was to assess the effectiveness of public meetings to determine if public

informational meetings increase a meeting attendee’s willingness to participate in

future watershed management activities. A series of eight public informational

meetings about the Little Plover River were hosted by several community

organizations. A survey was developed to gauge respondent knowledge, behaviors,

and demographics. At four of the meetings a survey was given to the respondent

prior to the meeting. At four other meetings, the survey was given out after the

meeting. A random sampling of the public not attending a meeting was used for a

comparison. The study found that meeting attendees had a better understanding of

watershed concepts then the public. Post-meeting respondents were better able to

identify current issues within the Little Plover River Watershed. It was also found

that pre-meeting respondents were more willing to participate in planning for future

watershed management then post-meeting respondents were. Overall the public

meetings served as a good source of information and education but were not effective

at generating increased public participation in planning for watershed management.

iv

Understanding the effectiveness of public informational meetings is critical for

planners and managers that must use public participation methods for management

but have time and budget constraints that force them to choose only the public

participation methods they feel will provide the biggest outcome.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the assistance of many

people. First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Katherine Clancy,

for her support, contribution, and commitment to this project. Without her, this

project would have only ever been a dream. I would also like to thank Dr. George

Kraft and Dr. Anna Haines for their continued support and interest in this project.

My husband, Matt, was with me from the beginning of this project always

providing a helping hand and much needed support whenever it was needed. Thanks

to his love and encouragement along the way. A big thank you also goes out to my

entire family for their love, encouragement, support, and editing talents on this

project.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ V

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...........................................................................VIII

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 2 Watershed Management ..............................................................................................................................2 Watershed Management Strategies .............................................................................................................3 Public Participation .....................................................................................................................................5 Forms of Public Participation......................................................................................................................6 Evaluating Public Participation .................................................................................................................10 Use of Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................13 Public Participation in Wisconsin .............................................................................................................14 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................15

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 16 Objectives..................................................................................................................................................16 Site Description .........................................................................................................................................16 Experimental Design .................................................................................................................................18 Meetings ................................................................................................................................................18 Surveys ..................................................................................................................................................20 Question Types .......................................................................................................................................21 Answer Types..........................................................................................................................................22 Survey Questions ....................................................................................................................................23 Pilot Testing ...........................................................................................................................................30 Sampling Methods.....................................................................................................................................30

ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 33 Demographic Data.....................................................................................................................................33 Spearman Rank-Order Correlation.......................................................................................................34 Knowledge ................................................................................................................................................36 Chi-Square Test......................................................................................................................................37 Mann-Whitney U Test.............................................................................................................................39 Behaviors...................................................................................................................................................42

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 44 Section A – Background Knowledge ........................................................................................................44 Section B – Actions and Behaviors ...........................................................................................................51 Section C – Demographic Information......................................................................................................60 Survey Revisions and Results ...................................................................................................................67

vii

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 71 Objective 1 ................................................................................................................................................71 Objective 2 ................................................................................................................................................78 Objective 3 ................................................................................................................................................82 Additional Data .........................................................................................................................................87 Overall Findings........................................................................................................................................91 Improvements to Study .............................................................................................................................91 Impacts on Public Participation.................................................................................................................93

LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 96

APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 100 A. Survey..............................................................................................................................................100 B. Chi-Square Test for question a-1 .....................................................................................................107 C. Mann-Whitney U Test for question A-2..........................................................................................110 D. Mann-Whitney U Test for question A-4..........................................................................................121 E. Respondent’s Rankings for question A-5........................................................................................124 F. Respondent’s rankings for question A-6 .........................................................................................129 G. Chi-Square Test for question B-3....................................................................................................131 H. Chi-Square Test for question B-4....................................................................................................133 I. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for willingness to Donate and willingness to participate ..........................................................................................................136 J. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for respondent income and WILLINGNESS TO PARTICipate...........................................................................................................139 K. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for respondent income and willingness to participate..................................................................................................................142 L. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for respondent age and willingness to participate..................................................................................................................145 M. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for respondent residence and willingness to participate..................................................................................................................148 N. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for respondent education and willingness to participate..................................................................................................................151 O. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test for respondent income and willingness to donate........................................................................................................................154 P. Chi-Square Test for revised question A-3 .......................................................................................157 Q. Chi-Square Test for revised question B-3........................................................................................160

viii

TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE

1. Ladder of public participation ..............................................................................................................7 2. Gender demographics of survey respondents ....................................................................................61 3. Age demographics of survey respondents .........................................................................................62

TABLE

1. Watershed Management Unit Characteristics .....................................................................................4 2. Community organizations sampled and size of sample.....................................................................20 3. Example of survey codes used on each survey question ...................................................................31 4. Example of Spearman-Rank Correlation Data and calculation.........................................................35 5. Example of Chi-Square Test calculation...........................................................................................39 6. Example and rank of survey responses for question A-5 and A-6.....................................................41 7. Results of Chi-Square analysis for question A-1...............................................................................45 8. Results of Chi-Square analysis for question A-3...............................................................................49 9. Ranked responses of survey respondent groups for question A-5.....................................................50 10. Ranked responses of survey respondent groups for question A-6.....................................................51 11. Percentage of pre-meeting responses regarding how often respondents participated in the listed activities ..........................................................................................................................52 12. Percentage of post-meeting responses regarding how often respondents participated in the listed activities .............................................................................................................................53 13. Percentage of public responses regarding how often respondents participated in the listed activities...................................................................................................................................54 14. Percentage of pre-meeting respondent’s answers to question B-2 ....................................................55 15. Percentage of post-meeting respondent’s answers to question B-2 ..................................................55 16. Percentage of public respondent’s answers to question B-2 .............................................................56 17. Survey respondent’s willingness to participate .................................................................................56 18. Results of Chi-Square analysis for question B-3...............................................................................58 19. Survey respondent’s willingness to donate money towards watershed management........................58 20. Results of Chi-Square analysis for question B-4 ...............................................................................60

ix

21. Survey respondent’s employment status ...........................................................................................63 22. Survey respondent’s occupational status ...........................................................................................63 23. Survey respondent’s annual income ..................................................................................................64 24. Survey respondent’s home ownership...............................................................................................64 25. Survey respondent’s residence within the Little Plover River watershed .........................................64 26. Survey respondent’s distance of residence from the Little Plover River watershed..........................65 27. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation between survey respondent’s demographics and willingness to participate in future watershed management activities..................................................................66 28. Results of Chi-Square analysis for revised question A-3 ..................................................................68 29. Survey respondent’s willingness to participate with revised categories............................................69 30. Results of Chi-Square analysis for revised question B-3 ..................................................................69 31. Survey respondent’s willingness to participate in future watershed management ............................78 32. Survey respondent’s willingness to participate with revised categories............................................80 33. Age demographics of survey respondent’s and Portage County residents ........................................90

1

INTRODUCTION

Watershed management is the management of natural resources based on

naturally occurring, hydrologically defined boundaries. This type of management

includes the consideration of a wide variety of physical and social variables,

including the public who have a vested interest in the watershed (Sabatier et al, 1999).

Past management efforts have illustrated the important role that the public plays.

Without their acceptance and active participation, management efforts often fail

(Nature, 2000). Public participation begins with knowledge and understanding of the

watershed, the water resources, and the issues that the watershed faces. If the public

has this knowledge it can in turn increases a watershed's value in the public eye

(Council of State Governments, 1999). Without establishing a watershed's value we

cannot expect voluntary cooperation from the public in management efforts.

Public participation has been recognized as such an integral part of the success

of watershed management that it is often required in order to receive funding. The

Environmental Protection Agency, one of the top watershed funding sources, requires

public participation components in both its Section 319 Grants and Targeted

Watersheds Program.

Hundreds of watersheds throughout the United States face an uncertain future

due to the lack of public participation such as the Little Plover River, in central

Wisconsin. Surface water discharges are diminishing and the public has expressed

the need for watershed management but the process has stalled due to the lack of

public involvement.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Watershed Management

Geographer and scientist John Wesley Powell defined a watershed as an “area

of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably

linked by their common water course and where as humans settled, simple logic

demanded they become a part of the community” (U.S. EPA, 2002). This definition

not only serves as a definition of a watershed, but also highlights the principles of

watershed management.

Watersheds, also referred to as drainage basins, are simply an area of land that

captures water in any form and drains it to a body of water (DeBarry, 2004). They are

determined naturally by geology, soil type, and topography and therefore transcend

political and regulatory boundaries. Watersheds acknowledge the connections

between ground and surface water, upstream and downstream areas, and land and

water interface. They provide us with a unique, comprehensive scale on which to

manage our water resources.

Watershed management is the integration, coordination, and management of

human activities within the natural boundaries of a watershed to protect or improve

water quality (Reimold, 1998). The National Research Council (1999) calls

watershed management “an integrative way of thinking about all the various human

activities that occur on a given area of land (the watershed) that have effects on, or

are affected by, water.”

3

Managing water resources on a watershed scale is not a new concept globally.

Indo-Europeans and ancient Egyptians developed complex plans for land

management that included water management methods based on natural watershed

boundaries. In ancient Himalaya, village boundaries were determined by natural

hydrological boundaries (ICS, 1999). In the United States, the watershed concept was

first recognized and became accepted between 1880-1924. It was during this time

that John Wesley Powell urged congress to divide the west into districts that

corresponded to natural drainage patterns (Sabatier, Weible, Flicker, 2005). During

this time Theodore Roosevelt also observed that “every river system, from its

headwaters in the forests to its mouth at the coasts, is a single unit and should be

managed as such” (U.S. Inland Waterways Commission, 1908).

Throughout history, American citizens have demanded economic

development while seeking progress in environmental protection and restoration,

something that can only be accomplished through the integration of ecological,

economic, and social approaches. Watershed management has proven to be one

method for addressing these needs.

Watershed Management Strategies

The process of watershed management includes three basic steps: watershed

assessment, developing a management plan, and implementation of the plan. This

process has been described as assembling a puzzle (DeBarry, 2004). Watershed

assessment collects the biological, physiographic, hydrologic, hydraulic, political and

social puzzle pieces.

4

The watershed management plan takes all of the pieces and puts them together and

implementation of the plan preserves the puzzle and keeps the puzzle from falling

apart (DeBarry, 2004). Beyond this basic framework, there is no consensus on what

the essential components of watershed management should be (Reimold, 1998).

The strategies used in watershed management often vary from watershed to

watershed. Each watershed is unique and must be explored so that specific strategies

can be chosen to meet the management goals. Two of the most recognizable

management strategies are watershed zoning and best management practices

(Reimold, 1998). DeBarry (2004) adds source water identification and protection,

minimizing discharges, managing stormwater, land use regulations, and growth

management to the list of common strategies.

Schueler (1995) goes even further to break a watershed into five units and

outlines the management focus or strategy for each of them (Table 1).

Table 1.Characteristics that define specific watershed management units (Schueler,

1995).

Watershed Management Unit

Typical area, mi2

Influence of impervious cover

Primary planning authority

Management Focus

Catchment 0.05-.50 Very Strong Property Owner (local)

BMP and site design

Subwatershed 1-10 Strong Local government

Stream classification and management

Watershed 10-100 Moderate Local or multi-local government

Watershed based zoning

Subbasin 100-1000 Weak Local, regional, or state

Basin Planning

Basin 1000-10000 Very Weak State, multi-state, or federal

Basin Planning

5

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a Watershed Approach

Framework which was “a coordinating framework for environmental management

that focuses public and private sector efforts to address the highest priority problems

within hydrologically-defined geographic areas, taking into consideration both

ground and surface water flow” (U.S. EPA, 1996) and has served as the guide for

watershed approaches throughout the U.S.

The EPA framework realizes that the individual watershed approach objectives,

priorities, elements, and resources will all be different but they should be based on

three guiding principles:

1) Strategies are conducted at a specific geographic focus;

2) Strategies utilize sound management techniques based on strong science and

data; and,

3) Strategies involve those individuals who are most affected by management

decisions.

Public Participation

Of the EPA principles, watershed managers often struggle with involving the

public who will be affected by the management (Duram and Brown, 1999.) The basis

for involving the public in the watershed management process is that it will help them

understand the problems, identify and buy into goals, select priorities, and choose and

implement the solutions (EPA, 1995; Reimold, 1998; DeBerry, 2004; Sabatier et al.,

2005).

In the past the government attempted to solve problems alone, through a top-

down approach.

6

This was often met with resistance from those who lived, worked, or recreated within

the area. Private individuals who embarked on management alone often did not have

enough time or resources. It is with the combination of these parties that a successful

collaborative effort can be achieved that meets the goals and objectives of all.

Without support, trust, and participation from the public, management efforts

will not be as effective (Nature, 2000; Kerr, 1999). It is widely accepted among

professionals in the field that the public needs to be included in management efforts

(Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Nature, 2000; and Webler and Tuler, 2001). Glicken

(1999) reasons that public participation enhances a decision making process because

information from the public provides a holistic view of issues, public involvement

creates legitimacy, and public involvement upholds democratic ideals. She stresses

that the public is not the decision maker, but rather there to provide input which helps

create a well-balanced, sound plan.

Over the years there has been a greater understanding of the need for public

involvement in management. Managers and planners have seen the increasing value

of the information and perspectives that the public is able to bring to the management

process.

Forms of Public Participation

Choosing exactly how to involve the public can be a difficult task. However,

before any method of participation is chosen an understanding of how citizens

become involved is necessary. There is a clear progression in the levels of

participation that the public goes through.

7

Degrees of Tokenism

Degrees of Citizen Power

Shallow Participation

citizen control

delegated power

partnership

placation

consultation

informing

therapy

manipulation

Arnstein (1969) first described a “ladder of citizen participation”(Figure 1). The

principle behind the participation ladder is that citizens start at the bottom of the

ladder in levels of “shallow participation”. At this rung managers and planners are

imparting information to the public, but there is no feedback or discussion. The

second rung of participation is described as “degrees of tokenism”, in which

managers and planners are still imparting education and information to the public, but

the public is also providing feedback and discussion. Higher rungs move into

increasing “degrees of citizen power”. This is the highest level of citizen

participation. At this level information is not only being exchanged, as well as

discussion and feedback, but citizens are also involved in the decision making process.

The ladder describes a progression of citizen participation because participants start at

the bottom and work their way through each level until they reach the top (Arnstein,

1969).

Figure 1. The ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969).

8

The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) has a similar

ladder of public participation, but it is instead called the “Spectrum of Public

Participation”. IAP2’s spectrum is laid out horizontally, instead of vertically and

citizens start at the inform level and move through consulting, involvement,

collaborating, and finally into empowering. While the levels may be different, the

principal behind each is the same (IAP2, 2007).

While the ladder and spectrum of public participation are relatively well

understood and accepted by professionals, it can be difficult to determine which

specific methods of public participation should be used at various ladder rungs or fall

within the spectrum. Methods of public participation are extremely varied in their

approaches and results. In 1998, a mail survey of 126 federally funded watershed

planning initiatives throughout the U.S. identified newsletters, public meetings, and

informational programs were being used by 75% or more of the respondents.

Pamphlets, door-to-door contact, surveys, and videos were also being widely used,

but to a lesser degree. When respondents were asked what they felt was most

effective, door-to-door contact and informational programs were identified (Duram

and Brown, 1999).

Griffin (1999) wrote a paper that outlined watershed councils as an emerging

form of public participation in western states. These councils are composed of

governmental and non-governmental stakeholders that come together to make

management decisions. Mullen and Allison (1999) outlined several public

participation efforts that were making a difference in Alabama, including the

Alabama Water Watch Initiative.

9

The Alabama Water Initiative includes a volunteer education program in water

resources management, locally led non-point source watershed re-assessments, and

continuing public meetings. Konisky and Beierle (1999) identified three very unique

public participation processes that were being used in the Great Lakes region. These

included study circles, citizen juries or meetings that bring together a statistically

representative sample of citizens to deliberate on technically complex issues, and

round tables.

In 2002, Pierce County Washington used a combination of focused discussion

groups, committees, issue workshops, and public meetings to gain the needed public

support and feedback for a watershed plan that was being developed (Smolko,

Huberd, and Tam-Davis 2002). In the Illinois River Basin, a unique new tool was

created to facilitate public participation in watershed management. A baseline impact

study was conducted and findings were integrated into a computer-based decision

support tool: an interactive, multimedia, impact visualization platform called the

Watershed Management Decision Support System. Aerial and ground photography

was obtained and combined with Geographic Information Systems base maps to

create a background for the visualizations. These backgrounds were then overlaid

with the assessments and animated to produce visual images that simulated impacts

(Meo, et al. 2002). It was also during this time that sixteen planning regions in Texas

had to develop a water plan for the needs of each individual region due to serious

drought issues.

10

In the South Central region, a large focus was placed on developing public

participation through public meetings, audience surveys, and multiple forms of

communication including brochures, newspaper articles, presentations, fact sheets,

and newsletters (Moorhouse and Elliff, 2002).

Webler and Tuler (2001) choose to take a different route. Instead of

identifying specific public participation methods they thought were effective, they

instead highlighted key characteristics that make for a “good” public participation

method. They explained that any public participation method that is credible,

legitimate, competent, information driven, fosters fair democratic deliberation, and

emphasizes constructive dialogue and education should be considered a good public

participation method. Webler and Tuler developed this list after surveying watershed

management planners and activists about what they believed constituted a good

public participation method (Webler and Tuler 2001).

Evaluating Public Participation

It is important for people leading the management process to understand the

“effectiveness”, merit or worth of different participation processes (Chess, 2000).

Evaluation can help determine when and where to use public participation processes,

address criticisms, and help to refine the process and theories for future use (Conley

and Moote, 2003). However, determining what constitutes “effective” is difficult

since there have been no definitive benchmarks to compare different public

participation methods. Efforts to evaluate different methods of public participation

can be divided into categories.

11

Outcome vs. Process

There are those who evaluate public participation based on the outcome of the

method and those who evaluate the process. Process goals are evaluated based on

characteristics of the process (Chess and Purcell, 1999).

Duram and Brown (1999) evaluated public participation based on process

characteristics. They identified five factors that can influence the effectiveness of

the public participation process. These include:

• The approach to management: whether bureaucratic or grass-roots,

• Fourteen different planning stages that can include public participation and

whether they include participation throughout or selectively,

• Methods to solicit participation; either one way communication or two-way

communication,

• The level of participation; whether participation is direct or indirect, and

• The potential positive impacts of participation on watershed.

They claim that a process and its success can be evaluated based on these criteria.

Outcome evaluations are often done by comparing goals of a public

participation method to the success of the result. What is considered successful varies.

Some say that social outcomes such as increased understanding and improved

relationships determine success (Buckle and Thomas-Buckle 1986). Others say that

the ultimate measure of success is whether the effort leads to improved environmental

conditions (Kenney, 1999). Still others stress that it is important to evaluate all of

these outcomes (Innes, 1999).

12

The idea of evaluating based on outcomes can be problematic because there is

no way to determine if the outcome was due specifically to public participation or

other variables (Chess and Purcell 1999). For example, there may be simultaneous

events taking place that can influence the process of public participation, the group of

people involved or where the process is taking place may have an effect, or even the

type of problem that is trying to be solved could have an effect.

Theory vs. User

Some feel that criteria for evaluating public participation methods should

come from theories or from the users themselves. Webler (1995) developed a

framework for public participation based on theory. In this framework he argues that

evaluation should be based on “fairness” the ability for people to communicate,

interact, dialogue, challenge and defend; “Competence” uses the best information

available; and “right discourse” using multiple communication methods. These serve

as normative criteria that can be applied universally to public participation processes.

Others choose to evaluate based on participant’s goals and satisfaction. In this

method the goals and satisfaction of the participants are what dictate the success of

the process (Chess and Purcell 1999). Wondolleck and Yaffee (1994) used this

process in the exploration of U.S. Forest Service efforts. They asked personnel to

reflect on successful situations, decide what made them successful, and then construct

a definition of success based on that.

Blended

Still others think that evaluating public participation should combine all of the

above methods.

13

Chess and Purcell (1999) advocate for evaluation based on “methodological

pluralism”. They suggest that researchers of public participation should solicit from

participants their expectations and criteria for success, compare it to theory, and then

synthesize the outcomes.

In response to Chess and Purcell, Rowe and Frewer (2000) developed what

they consider to be a comprehensive framework for evaluation. They evaluated

multiple public participation methods based on two categories; acceptance criteria,

which evaluates the construction and implementation of the process, and process

criteria, which evaluates the public acceptance of the process. Acceptance Criteria

includes representativeness of the public, independence of the process, early

involvement of the public, influence of the procedure on policy, and transparency of

the process to the public. Process Criteria includes resource availability to public

participants, definition of tasks for public participants, structured decision-making,

and cost-effectiveness.

Use of Evaluation

Interest in evaluating public participation methods is widespread among the

different parties involved in management, but motivations for evaluation vary.

Participants want to evaluate their efforts so they can make improvements and meet

their goals. Managers and planners use evaluations as guidelines to determine which

methods of public participation may be most appropriate for them. Policymakers

want evaluations to help them formulate rules and regulations.

14

Advocates use evaluations to prove their success while critics use them to prove that

their concerns are well-founded (Innes, 1999 and Coglianese, 1999). Ultimately, we

look to evaluations to provide us with three things:

1.) The ability to determine when public participation works;

2.) The ability to address criticisms; and,

3.) The ability to refine methods.

It is through evaluation of public participation efforts that evaluators are

beginning to realize that public participation can, but does not always, work and when

it fails it comes at a potentially heavy cost (Conley and Moote, 2003).

Public Participation and Evaluation in Wisconsin

It is widely accepted that public participation is critical to watershed

management; however, the field is still extremely new.

Many researchers identify additional research into the effectiveness of public

participation as a great need (Margerum and Born 1999). This is especially true on

the local and state scales where many of the theories have not yet been tested,

including Wisconsin.

Without knowing what methods are in use, it’s impossible to determine their

effectiveness. Konisky and Beierle (2001) focused on the Great Lakes Region in

their study of “innovative” participation processes. Duram and Brown (1999), in

their survey of public participation methods in watershed planning initiatives, used a

spatial distribution that focused primarily on the Midwest but no direct focus on

Wisconsin.

15

Margerum and Born (1995) highlighted two planning processes in Wisconsin, but did

not delve deeply into what public participation methods were being used.

Conclusion

Public participation has been shown to be an integral part of the watershed

process. Not only is it desirable, but often mandated. Public participation processes

often vary as do their effectiveness. Watershed managers in Wisconsin need to have

a better understanding of how public participation processes are affecting the

watershed management process within our own state.

They need to identify what processes are being used and to what extent, as well as

evaluating how effective they have been. There is a demonstrated need for this

knowledge on state and local levels. Without this information, watershed managers

within the state may struggle to form integrative public participation processes that

represent all perspectives within a watershed.

16

METHODOLOGY

Objectives

This study was designed to use the Little Plover River Watershed in Plover,

Wisconsin as an example to assess the initial phase of public engagement, the public

informational meeting, as a form of public participation in watershed management.

The goal of this study was to determine if public informational meetings are an

effective form of public participation. Three objectives were identified that would

serve as a measure of the goal:

1) Determine if public informational meetings increase an attendee’s knowledge

about the Little Plover River;

2) Determine if public informational meetings increase an attendee’s willingness

to participate in future watershed management activities; and

3) Determine if there are significant differences in knowledge and actions

between those who attend the public informational meetings and those who do

not.

Site Description

The focus of the public informational meetings was on the Little Plover River

Watershed. The Little Plover River runs southeast of the city of Stevens Point, in

Portage County, Wisconsin.

17

Primary land uses within the watershed are irrigated vegetable farming, forested land,

and residential areas. The Little Plover River is a groundwater fed stream with cold

water that supports a Class 1 Trout fishery.

The Little Plover River gained public notice when stretches of the river ran

dry in the summers of 2005 and 2006, which is something that had never happened

before, even in extreme drought situations according to historical and anecdotal

evidence. The causes of the low-flow situations are still under investigation, but

evidence strongly suggests that agricultural and municipal groundwater withdrawal

has affected the flow regime.

Due to the river drying up, the public urged for management of the river and

the watershed. A workgroup of watershed stakeholders was assembled, which

included members of state and local government, agriculture, environmental groups,

and some concerned citizens.

During the times when stretches of the river ran dry, articles providing

information about the situation were published in the Stevens Point Journal and

Portage County Gazette, two local newspapers. These articles were meant to make

the public aware of what was happening with the Little Plover River, as well as

provide basic information and invite them to become involved.

Discussions of possible management options for the Little Plover River

Watershed have just begun. Participation from the public in the stakeholder

workgroup and management discussion has declined over the last year.

18

This river and its watershed will serve as a case study to assess the effectiveness of

public informational meetings to generate additional public participation in planning

for the management of the Little Plover River.

Experimental Design

A series of eight public informational meetings about the Little Plover River

Watershed were held throughout the Stevens Point community and surrounding area.

At four of these meetings attendees received a survey prior to the start of the meeting.

At four other meetings attendees received a survey after the meeting was completed.

The survey was also administered to a random sample of public who did not attend

any of the meetings.

Surveys conducted before and after the meeting, as well as the random

sampling of the public were compared to determine if the public informational

meeting had an effect on the knowledge, attitudes, values, and perceived future

behaviors of the meeting attendees.

Meetings

Public informational meetings were chosen for evaluation because they are

one of the most widely used forms of public participation (Duram & Brown, 1999)

and because of where they fall on the scale of public participation. Public

informational meetings fall in the category between information and education and

higher levels of involvement in public participation, indicating that they may be one

of the key methods of participation that is able to bring a participant from lower

levels of participation into higher levels, something that watershed managers and

planners strive for, but ultimately struggle with (IAP2, 2007).

19

The series of eight public informational meetings were offered in the fall and

winter of 2007. Each meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes and covered the

following information:

- Introductory information about the water cycle, watersheds, and groundwater

- Background information about the Little Plover River and its watershed; location,

uses, historic and current flows

- Current issues facing the Little Plover River

- Current research on the Little Plover River and the findings

- Possible future scenarios for the Little Plover River

These meetings were presented to eight established community organizations

instead of hosting open public meetings. Presenting to established community

organizations guaranteed attendance at each of the eight meetings and ensured a

large enough sample size for statistical analysis. The established community

organizations also allowed control of a potential source of bias. People who attend

open public meetings may already have a vested interest in the subject matter and

usually have preconceived ideas and opinions when coming to the meeting. By

using the community organizations, individuals attending may or may not have

preconceived ideas and opinions.

Each community organization that was chosen for a presentation had meetings

that were open for the general public to attend. Each meeting was scheduled and

advertised in advance to allow people with an interest in the subject matter to attend.

20

A variety of different organizations were chosen for the meetings so that a wide array

of demographics, knowledge of the Little Plover River, and actions could be sampled.

The eight community organizations that were given a presentation and sampled are

found in Table 2.

Table 2. Community Organizations Sampled and Size of Sample.

Pre-Meeting Survey Post-Meeting Survey Random Survey

Soil and Water Conservation

Society n=13

Rotary Club of Stevens

Point n=21

Amherst County Fair

n=5

Members of the University of

Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Library n=10

Stevens Point Kiwanis

Club n=4

Stevens Point Harvest

Fest n=20

Public Meeting n=5 General Federation of

Women’s Clubs n=6

Downtown Stevens Point

n=17

Leadership Portage County

n=15

Environmental

Educations and

Naturalists Association

n=9

Survey

Surveys were used as the method to gather information from respondents.

Surveys were an appropriate method of gathering information because the

information being collected regards a respondent’s personal knowledge, actions,

behaviors, and demographics (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998).

A written survey was given to each meeting attendee and they were asked to

complete them on site to ensure high rates of return. At four of the meetings the

survey was handed out and completed prior to the meeting starting. At four other

meetings the survey was handed out and completed following the meeting.

21

A random sampling of the public who had not attended a meeting was also required

for comparison. Random surveys were administered at three different locations; the

Amherst County Fair, downtown Stevens Point and the Stevens Point Harvest Fest.

These sample sites allowed for a wide variety of survey respondents who were able to

complete the survey at their leisure.

Convenience samples were used as the sampling method for the surveys.

Samples could only be obtained from those organizations that were willing to

participate in the informational programs and the survey. The random sample of the

public was also a convenience sample, only people who were willing to the complete

the survey did. This type of survey samples has the potential to introduce sources of

bias. Potential bias may include: public respondents who choose to fill out the survey

are more interested in the topic than others, respondents at the already established

meetings may have never chosen to attend an open public meeting on the subject, and

still other respondents may feel the need to exaggerate in the survey.

The survey design is a comparison group design. The control group is the

random sample of the public that was surveyed and the two treatment groups are the

pre-meeting and post-meeting survey respondents. This design is standard in the

social science research when two groups must be compared before and after a

treatment.

Question Types

A variety of different question types were used in the surveys.

22

Seventy-five of the seventy-seven questions asked were forced choice questions,

meaning that survey respondents are presented with a statement, question, or situation

followed by several alternative choices or solutions that they are able to choose from.

This ensures ease of use for survey respondents as well as reliable uniform data for

analysis. When using forced choice questions there are rules that must be followed.

These include:

1) Each question should pertain to the respondent’s own personal experiences,

knowledge, background etc

2) Questions were written using lay language and colloquial wording, for ease of

understanding by respondents of all backgrounds

3) Questions should be concrete

4) Avoid biased words and phrases

5) Check your own bias

6) Use caution when asking about the personal

(Fink & Kosecoff, 1998)

The two questions that are not forced choice are open-ended questions. They

both ask for a specific numeric amount that relates to them personally. These are not

answers that would be possible to bin or separate into categories.

Answer Types

When using forced choice questions there are several different forms of answers.

The first form of answer used was checklist answers. The respondent was provided

with a checklist of answers from which they must choose one or more depending on

the instructions. The other form of answer that was used was scale answers.

23

With scales, the respondent places their answer at some point along a continuum or in

an ordered series of categories. There are four basic types of scales.

These include:

1) Nominal. Nominal scales can also be referred to as categorical scales because

respondents give answers based on a group to which they belong: gender, age,

schooling, etc.

2) Ordinal. Ordinal scales require respondents to place answers in a rank order.

A measure of how strongly a person felt about a statement from strongly

agreeing to strongly disagreeing is an example of an ordinal scale.

3) Interval. In the interval scale the distance between numbers has meaning,

such as the distance between the values of annual income levels.

4) Ratio. A ratio scale has adjoining units that are equidistant from each other,

meaning that you are able to draw comparisons between two values. Surveys

rarely utilize ratio scales.

(Alreck, 1995)

Survey Questions

Survey questions were broken down into three different sections:

1) Knowledge

2) Behavior

3) Demographics

Each of these sections provides valuable insight into aspects of a respondent’s

lifestyle that may influence their willingness to participate in watershed management

activities.

24

It also provides us with data to make comparisons and draw conclusions between pre-

and post-meeting survey respondents as well as between meeting attendees and the

public. From this data conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of public

informational meetings.

Background Knowledge – Section A

The first section in the survey asks questions regarding the respondent’s

background knowledge about general watershed concepts, watershed issues

throughout the state, and specific knowledge about the Little Plover River. Questions

related to background knowledge can be used to determine if public informational

meetings had an effect on the level of knowledge of meeting participants.

Question A-1 is designed to measure the respondent’s awareness of the watershed

concept, the foundation of understanding watershed issues and watershed

management. The question is a multiple-choice question with a single response

answer.

• A-1.) Please put an “X” in front of the statement that best fits your definition

of a watershed.

Question A-2 measures the respondent’s familiarity and awareness of issues

within the Little Plover River Watershed. It uses a Linear-Numeric Scale for the

answers. Respondents must choose an answer from the scale of one to four, one

being “Not a Problem” to four being a “Serious Problem”. Respondents are also

offered a neutral choice of zero, which is “Don’t Know”.

25

• A-2.) Please circle an estimate of how much of a problem you think each of

the following issues currently is in the Little Plover River Watershed.

Questions A-3 through A-5 are indicative of how an individual feels about the

Little Plover River. It is important to determine if the respondent has positive or

negative feeling towards the Little Plover River. The intensity of those feelings must

also be determined.

Question A-3 rates the respondent’s opinion on the perceived condition of the

Little Plover River Watershed. This question will use a multiple-choice format with a

single response from the respondent.

• A-3.) Please put an “X” in front of the statement that best expresses your

opinion on current conditions in the Little Plover River Watershed

Question A-4 utilizes the Likert Scale to obtain the respondent’s degree of

agreement or disagreement with statements regarding the importance of the Little

Plover River. The question uses a scale of one to five, with one indicating strong

agreement, five indicating strong disagreement, and three indicating a neutral opinion.

The respondent will choose a number of one through five for each of the statements.

If the respondent is in strong agreement with the statements, they will generally place

a high value on the Little Plover River Watershed. If a respondent places a high

value on the resource, he or she is more likely to take action to protect or conserve it.

26

• A-4.) Please pick a number from the scale to show how strongly you agree or

disagree with each statement and circle the number to the right of the item.

Questions A-5 and A-6 indicate which groups the respondent perceives as

accountable for issues and management of the rivers and streams in the state of

Wisconsin and specifically for the Little Plover River. Questions A-5 and A-6 both

utilize a rank order scale in which the respondent must rank the listed options from

one through ten, with one being the most responsible and ten being the least

responsible. If respondents list local sources or groups that they are involved in as

responsible, they may be more inclined to take action than if they listed distant groups

or organizations with no relation to themselves.

• A-5.) Please rank the following in the order of who you think should be most

responsible for protecting Wisconsin’s stream and rivers. 1 is the most

responsible, 10 is the least responsible.

• A-6.) Please rank the following in the order of who you think should be most

responsible for protecting the Little Plover River. 1 is the most responsible,

10 is the least responsible.

Behavior - Section B

Section B in the surveys addresses past, present, and future behaviors of the

survey respondent.

27

A respondent’s behaviors may indicate a predisposition to certain types of

involvement or participation in activities related to environmental or watershed

activities. Involvement in these activities may also influence a respondent’s

knowledge and/or attitudes toward the subject.

Questions B-1 and B-2 ask about the type, timing, and frequency of the

respondent’s behaviors and activities. Question B-1 asks about respondent’s

participation in outdoor recreational activities within the Little Plover River

Watershed. Participation in recreational activities within the Little Plover River may

indicate a greater familiarity and background knowledge of the watershed and its

issues.

Question B-2 pertains to the respondent’s participation in activities similar to

participating in watershed management. Past behavior can serve as a potential

indicator of future behavior. Questions B-1 and B-2 use a verbal frequency scale.

Respondents were asked to answer question B-1 using a scale of one through three,

one indicating one to two times a year, two indicating one to two times a month, and

three indicating one to two times a week. A score of zero was also offered, indicating

that they don’t participate in the activity at all. Question B-2 uses a scale of zero, one

to four, and five or more indicating the number of times that respondents have

participated in the activity.

• B-1.) Please indicate how often you partake in each of the following outdoor

leisure and recreational activities in or around the Little Plover River.

28

• B-2.) Please circle your rate of involvement for each of the following

activities.

Questions B-3 and B-4 are questions designed to gauge the respondent’s

willingness to participate. Question B-3 asks the respondents about future

participation in planning for watershed management. It goes on to ask the respondent

to estimate how many hours per month they would be willing to participate. Question

B-4 asks respondents if they would be willing to donate money towards management

and if so, how much. A measure of a respondent’s willingness to participate is

important because it provides a gauge of change between pre- and post-meeting

respondents. A higher rate of willingness in post-meeting respondents indicates that

the informational meetings may have helped to move citizens into higher rates of

participation. A respondent’s willingness to pay may help to explain a respondent’s

unwillingness to participate in watershed management.

• B-3.) How many hours per month would you be willing to participate in

planning for the Little Plover River watershed management?

• B-4.) How much money per year would you be willing to donate towards the

management of the Little Plover River?

Demographics – Section C

The questions in the demographics section were used to identify groups of

respondents who are distinct or who might behave in similar ways.

29

This section of the survey was used to determine if all demographic groups from

within the watershed were represented at the public meetings. Demographic data is

the most sensitive data to obtain from a respondent.

It is placed at the end of the survey to allow the respondent to become familiar with

the survey format and to feel comfortable answering questions, before they are asked

to fill out personal information.

• C-1.) I am Male or Female

• C-2.) Age

• C-3.) Formal education.______ years

(For example, High school graduate=12 years)

• C-4.) Employment Status:

• C-5.) Occupational Status:

• C-6.) Annual Income:

• C-7.) Do you currently own the home you live in? Yes No

• C-8.) If yes, how long have you lived there?

_________________________

• C-9.) Is your residence in the Little Plover River Watershed? Yes No

• C-10.) Please mark the approximate location of your current residence on the

map below

30

Pilot Testing

Survey questions were pilot tested for clarity of the questions, reliability of the

answers, ease of use, and ability to code and analyze. Surveys were first sent through

two reviews to edit questions and answers. Surveys were then randomly provided to

fifteen people to complete and test.

Comments about questions or answers were encouraged. These surveys were

then coded and entered into an Excel spreadsheet to test for any errors in the process.

Survey questions were further refined to meet the needs of the audience to be sampled

and analyzed.

Sampling Methods

The sample population of the survey was all attendees of the informational

meetings on the Little Plover River and the random sampling of the public. The

sample unit of the survey was the individual respondents to the survey.

Survey questions were pre-coded with response and format codes. Response

codes have a number for each alternative response to each structured question.

Questions that did not have listed responses were post-coded, or responses were given

a number after the surveys were returned. Format codes indicate the position in the

spreadsheet where data for each item was entered. The question number corresponds

to the section of the survey where the question is found followed by the question

number (Table 3).

31

Table 3. Example of survey codes used on each survey question.

Surveys were distributed and collected at each of the eight informational

meetings. Surveys were handed out prior to four of the meetings and after four other

meetings. In addition, a random sample of people who did not attend a meeting were

asked to complete a survey. Each survey was given a unique identification number in

the corner.

All surveys were counted and placed in an envelope with the time, date, and

location of where they were administered recorded on the outside. If the surveys

were administered at a meeting, the number of meeting participants and the number

of surveys collected from the meeting were also recorded.

Each survey was evaluated for completeness. If only two to four questions

were left unanswered, the survey was still counted as complete. If entire sections

were left unanswered the survey was not counted. Superfluous or extra data in the

survey was marked out and the survey was still counted.

1 A-1.) Please put an “X” in front of the statement that best fits your definition of a

watershed. 1.) ____ Low area that retains water

2.) ____ An area of land that drains water to a specific river or lake

3.) ____ A reservoir that serves a municipal water source

4.) ____ Don’t know

Response Codes

Question Number Format Code

32

Results from each survey were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Each

sampling location had a separate worksheet within the spreadsheet where data was

compiled. Data was then condensed into responses from pre-meeting surveys, post-

meeting surveys, all surveys from people who went to meetings (pre- and post-

meeting surveys combined), and random samples of people who did not attend

meetings, for further analysis.

33

ANALYSIS

Surveys given before the meeting, given after the meeting, and given to the

public were all independently analyzed for statistically significant relationships of

responses between those factors. All surveys were then compared to one another to

find statistically significant relationships throughout.

Demographic Data

Demographic data (Section C) was the first section of data to be analyzed in

all of the surveys. Demographic data was condensed into three groups, pre-meeting

surveys, post-meeting surveys, and random sampling surveys (the public). Percent of

survey respondents in each gender, age, and income category were compared between

the groups and then compared to Portage County to ensure that each group of surveys

was representative of basic local demographics.

Demographic data was also analyzed to see if it could be used as a predictor

for a survey respondent’s willingness to participate in future watershed management.

A respondent’s willingness to participate was correlated to 4 different factors:

1) Age

2) Education

3) Distance of Residence from Little Plover River Watershed

4) Income

All survey respondents that attended a meeting (both pre and post) were analyzed

to determine if there were significant correlations between the factors and the

willingness to participate, using a Spearman-Rank Correlation Test.

34

Spearman Rank-Order Correlation

Spearman Rank-Order Correlations are used with categorical data, those that

come from nominal or ordinal scales, because it is a non-parametric test. It provides

a measure of the degree of association between two sets of ranks (Hollander and

Wolfe, 1999).

The assumptions associated with this test are as follows:

• The two variables are ordinal or metric variables that have been reduced to an

ordinal scale of measurement,

• The correlation between the variables is linear, and

• If a test of significance is applied, the sample has been selected randomly

from the population.

(Hollander and Wolfe, 1999)

D = Difference between X rank and Y Rank

N = Number of data points

X and Y variables are first ranked. The differences between the X and Y

ranks are calculated for each data point. The difference for each point is squared and

all are summed. The data is then entered into the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation

Equation, which calculates an r-value (Table 4).

35

Table 4. Example of Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Data and Calculation used in the

survey.

X (Years of Education) X rank

Y (Willingness to participate) y rank

x rank-y rank

Difference of ranks^2

18 9 1 1 8 64 14 2 1 1 1 1 18 9 1 1 8 64 18 9 1 1 8 64 12 1 1 1 0 0 17 6 1 1 5 25 14 2 1 1 1 1 18 9 2 14 -5 25 17 6 1 1 5 25 18 9 1 1 8 64 16 5 1 1 4 16 18 9 1 1 8 64 18 9 1 1 8 64 17 6 3 16 -10 100 26 16 1 1 15 225 14 2 2 14 -12 144

Sum 946

An r-value of 1 is a perfect positive correlation (as one variable increases so

does the other) and an r-value of -1 is a perfect negative correlation (as one variable

increases the other decreases). A correlation of 0.5 or -0.5 or higher is considered to

be a significant correlation between a factor and the level of willingness to participate

in future watershed management activities.

It is important to note that while the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation

provides us with a degree of correlation between two variables, it in no way indicates

cause and effect relationships between the variables.

rs = 1- 6*(946) rs = 1- 5676 rs = 1-1.39 rs = 1-1.39 = -.39 16 (162-1) 4080

36

Questions C-7 through C-10 in the demographics section asked about the

survey respondent’s general location of residence compared to the Little Plover River

Watershed.

Survey respondents were asked to mark the approximate location of their residence

on a county map. Responses were binned into categories of distance from the Little

Plover River Watershed.

All questions in the demographic section were also analyzed using counts and

proportions of responses in the categories of pre-meeting attendees, post-meeting

attendees, meeting attendees, and random survey samples.

Knowledge

Questions in Section A evaluated a respondent’s background knowledge of

watershed concepts, awareness, and opinions about local and state watershed issues.

Questions in Section A were analyzed using tallies and frequencies of responses as

well as some specialized tests for comparison.

In question A-1 survey respondents were asked to choose the correct

definition of a watershed from three possible choices. A neutral option of “I don’t

know” was also offered but was discounted from the statistical analysis. The

responses to the question were compared between meeting attendees and the public as

well as pre-meeting survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents using a

Chi-Square Analysis.

37

Chi-Square Test

Chi-Square analysis is a non-parametric test used to determine the probability

that an observed distribution of categorical qualitative data, based on rankings or

distribution is due to chance alone (Levine, 2005).

The Chi-Square statistic used was for two-way tables. A significance value of .05

was used because it is the standard for social science research.

The assumptions for the Chi-Square Test are:

• Data are random

• A sufficiently large sample size (There is no accepted cutoff. Some set the

minimum sample size at 50, while others would allow as few as 20)

• There must be adequate cell sizes (A common rule is 5 or more in each

cell of a 2-by-2 table, and 5 or more in 80% of cells in larger tables, but no

cells with zero count)

• Observations are independent

• Observations must have the same distribution

• Hypotheses are non-directional

• Observations have finite values

• Deviations (observed minus expected values) have a normal distribution

(Chekravert, 1967)

χ2= Σ (ƒ0-ƒe)2 ƒe ƒ0 = Observed cell frequencies

ƒe = Expected cell frequencies

The level of significance α= 0.05

38

Hypotheses are as follows:

H0: There is no relationship between the row variable and the column variable.

Ha: There is a relationship between the row variable and the column variable.

Observed data frequencies are entered into a spreadsheet. Expected

frequencies for each row and column variable are calculated using

(row total)*(column total Sample Size

The difference between the observed frequencies and expected frequencies is

calculated for each row and column variable. The difference is then squared and

divided by the expected frequency. These are all summed to find the Chi-Test

statistic.

The degrees of freedom for the Chi-Square Test is determined by taking the

number of rows minus one and multiplying it by the number of columns minus one

((# of rows-1)*(#of columns-1)). The critical value for the Chi-Square Test is

obtained from a Critical Value Table for x2 using the calculated degrees of freedom

and level of significance. If the Chi-Test statistic is greater then the critical value you

can reject the null hypothesis (Table 5).

39

Table 5. Example of Chi-Square Test Calculation used to compare survey data.

Observed Frequencies Column variable Calculations Row variable 1 2 3 Total fo-fe

Attend 2 52 2 56 -3.33333 6 -2.66667Non 6 17 5 28 3.333333 -6 2.666667

Total 8 69 7 84

Expected Frequencies Column variable Row variable 1 2 3 Total (fo-fe)^2/fe

Attend 5.333333 46 4.666667 56 2.083333 0.782609 1.52381Non 2.666667 23 2.333333 28 4.166667 1.565217 3.047619

Total 8 69 7 84

The second question in the knowledge section asked a person to rate their

perceived seriousness of each of the listed watershed issues. Respondents were able

to respond on a scale of one to four, one being not a problem and four being a serious

problem. A neutral option of zero, don’t know, was also offered. A Mann-Whitney U

Test was used to determine if there was a difference between pre-meeting responses

and post-meeting responses and between meeting attendees and the public who didn’t

attend a meeting.

Mann-Whitney U Test

A Mann-Whitney U test is a non-parametric test used to assess the equality of

two population medians (Helsel, 2002). The responses of the pre-meeting survey

respondents and post-meeting survey respondents were compared as well as meeting

attendee survey respondents and the random survey sample.

40

Where samples of size n1 and n2 are pooled and Ri are ranks.

Assumptions for the Mann-Whitney U test are;

• Random samples from populations

• Independence within samples and mutual independence between samples

• Measurement scale is at least ordinal

(Helsel, 2002)

A significance level of .05 or 95% was used for each comparison. Hypotheses

for this test are as follows:

H0: There is no difference between the medians of the populations being compared.

Ha: There is a difference between the medians of the populations being compared.

Question A-3 in the background knowledge section asks respondents to mark

which statement they feel best describes the current condition of the Little Plover

River Watershed. One is excellent, two is good, three is fair, and four is poor.

Statements from pre-meeting survey respondents and post-survey respondents were

compared as well as meeting attendee survey respondents and the random survey

sample using the Chi-Square Test (See Chi-Square Test for calculation).

Question A-4 asked survey respondents how strongly they agreed or disagreed

with each statement about the Little Plover River. Survey respondents were asked to

provide answers on a scale of one to five, with one being strongly agreed, three was

neutral, and five was strongly disagreed. Responses from pre-meeting survey

respondents and post-meeting survey respondents were compared, as well as

responses from meeting attendee survey respondents and the random survey sample

using the Mann-Whitney U test (See Mann-Whitney U Test for Calculations).

41

Questions A-5 and A-6 asked a survey respondent to order the listed parties in

order of responsibility for watersheds in the state of Wisconsin and the Little Plover

River Watershed itself specifically; one is the most responsible and nine is the least

responsible. Data were condensed into answers for pre-meeting survey respondents,

post-meeting survey respondents, meeting attendee survey respondents and random

survey sample respondents.

The total number of responses for each rank of every listed party was calculated. The

listed party that received the highest number of responses for a rank received that

rank (Table 6).

Table 6. Example of Ranked Survey Responses for Questions A-5 and A-6.

Highlighted box corresponds to the rank listed for that row.

Rank Fed. Gov.

State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munici.

Local Landowners

Industry/ Business

Enviro Groups

Farm Groups Educators

1 0 13 4 5 4 1 1 1 12 5 4 10 4 1 3 0 1 23 2 2 7 8 2 1 3 1 14 6 3 2 4 6 4 1 3 15 2 2 1 2 4 3 8 3 26 3 0 1 1 3 5 7 2 37 0 0 1 4 5 3 4 9 08 3 1 1 0 2 1 3 5 79 5 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 10

Ranking of Parties

1 (most responsible) – State Government 6 – Environmental Groups

2 – County Government 7 – Farm Groups

3 – Local Municipalities 8 - Educators

4 – Local Landowners and Federal Government 9 (least responsible) - Educators

5 – Environmental Groups

42

Behaviors

Section B of the survey asked respondents about past, present, and future

behaviors that may indicate their predisposition towards participating in watershed

management, as well as past experiences with or knowledge of the Little Plover River.

All questions in Section B were analyzed using tallies and frequencies of responses.

Question B-1 asked respondents how often they participated in each of the

listed activities within the Little Plover River Watershed.

Responses were binned into categories of one to two times per year, one to two times

per month, one to two times per week, or not at all. This question was analyzed using

only tallies and frequencies of responses. The question was not analyzed further due

to the fact that it was found not to relate to the data that was needed for the study.

Question B-2 asked respondents how often they participated in each of the

listed activities. Responses were binned into categories of zero, one to four times, or

five or more times. The time period for the responses was indicated in each question

(ex. Over the past month or in the last five years). Responses for these questions

were condensed into pre-meeting responses, post-meeting responses, meeting

attendee responses, and random survey sample responses. Pre-meeting and post-

meeting responses were compared, as well as the meeting attendee responses and

random survey sample responses using the Mann-Whitney U Test (see Mann-

Whitney U Test for calculations).

Question B-3, which asked respondents how many hours per month they

would be willing to participate in future watershed management activities, was

analyzed using the Chi-Square Test (See Chi-Square Test for calculations).

43

Responses from pre-meeting survey respondents were compared to answers from

post-meeting survey respondents and responses from meeting attendees were

compared to the survey of the public.

Question B-4 asked respondents how much money they were willing to

donate towards the management of the Little Plover River Watershed.

Responses for each category were counted. Pre-meeting survey responses were

compared to post-meeting survey responses using the Chi-Square Test (See Chi-

Square Test for calculations).

A Spearman Rank-Order Correlation test was used to determine if there was a

correlation between a respondent’s willingness to participate in watershed

management and a respondent’s willingness to donate money towards watershed

management.

44

RESULTS

Section A – Background Knowledge

Question A-1 asked respondents to choose the correct definition of the term

“watershed”. Ninety five percent of post-meeting survey respondents were able to

correctly identify the definition of a watershed compared to 85% of pre-meeting

survey respondents and just 59% of the public.

Answers were compared between pre-meeting survey respondents and post-

meeting survey respondents, as well as the meeting attendees and the public. The

Chi-Square Test was used to determine if there were significant relationships between

when a meeting attendee filled out a survey and the definition of watershed chosen, as

well as whether a survey respondent attended a meeting or not and the definition of

watershed chosen.

Hypotheses for these tests are:

Pre-meeting respondents vs. Post-meeting respondents

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the definition of watershed chosen

and when the meeting attendee filled out the survey (pre-meeting or post-meeting).

Ha: There is a significant relationship between the definition of watershed chosen and

when the meeting attendee filled out the survey (pre-meeting or post-meeting).

Meeting attendees vs. the Public

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the definition of watershed chosen

and whether a respondent attended a meeting or not.

45

Ha: There is a significant relationship between the definition of watershed chosen and

whether a respondent attended a meeting or not.

At a 0.05 level of significance, the meeting attendees vs. the public had a p-

value of 0.001. Results show that there is a significant relationship between the

definition of watershed chosen and whether the respondent attended a meeting or not

(Appendix B). At the same 0.05 level of significance the comparison between the

pre-meeting and survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents returned a

p-value of 0.561. This indicates that there is not a significant relationship between

the definition of watershed chosen and whether the respondent filled out the survey

prior to the meeting or after the meeting (Table 7 and Appendix B).

Table 7. Results of the Chi-Square analysis for question A-1

Variable 1 Variable 2 Critical Value P-Value

Pre and Post Definition of watershed chosen

0.05 0.561

Public and Meeting Attendee

Definition of watershed chosen

0.05 .0001

Question A-2 asked survey respondents how they perceived water related

issues in the Little Plover River Watershed. Survey respondent’s answers were given

on a Likert Scale of one to four. One indicated that the situation was not a problem

and four indicated that the situation was a serious problem. A neutral choice of zero

was also offered.

46

Respondents were asked to provide an opinion about 18 different situations

which included: nitrate levels in streams, rivers and lakes; nitrate levels in

groundwater; pesticide levels in streams, rivers and lakes; pesticide levels in

groundwater; soil deposition in streams, rivers and lakes; drinking water quality; soil

loss from agricultural fields; rivers and streams with eroding banks; invasive weed

growth; loss of water flows; loss of wetlands; loss of forested or wooded areas; loss

of wildlife; loss of family farms; loss of agricultural land to development; loss of

agricultural land to natural land; loss of natural land to development; and loss of

natural land to agricultural production.

Of the watershed issues listed, the loss of water flows in the Little Plover

River is arguably the largest issue that the watershed faces. Sixty two percent of post-

meeting respondents felt that the loss of water flows was a serious issue compared to

50% of the pre-meeting respondents and 37% of the random public.

The Mann-Whitney U Test was used to compare all 18 proposed situations

between pre-meeting survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents as

well as meeting attendees and the public.

The hypotheses for these tests are:

Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. Post-Meeting Respondents

Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in the responses between pre-

meeting survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents.

Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in responses between pre-meeting

survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents.

47

Meeting Attendees vs. the Public

Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in responses between meeting

attendees and the public.

Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in responses between meeting


At a significance level of 0.05. all of the comparisons between pre-meeting

respondents and post-meeting respondents, as well as the comparisons between the

meeting attendees and the public all returned p-values higher than 0.05. I was able to

conclude from these results that there is not a statistically significant difference

between the population’s responses for any of the 18 listed watershed issues

(Appendix C).

Question A-3 asked respondents to choose a statement that best expressed

their opinions about the current condition of the Little Plover River Watershed.

Thirty five percent of pre-meeting respondents felt that the Little Plover River

Watershed was in poor condition versus 48% of the post-meeting respondents and

38% of the public. Conversely, 65% of the pre-meeting respondents, 52% of the

post-meeting respondents, and 62% of the public felt that the watershed was in good

or fair condition.

The Chi-Square Test was used to determine if there were significant

relationships between when a meeting attendee filled out a survey and the perceived

condition of the watershed as well as whether a respondent attended a meeting or not

and their perceived condition of the watershed.

48


Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. Post Meeting Respondents

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the perceived condition of the

watershed and when the meeting attendee filled out the survey (pre-meeting or post-

meeting).

Ha: There is a significant relationship between the perceived condition of the

watershed and when the meeting attendee filled out the survey (pre-meeting or post-

meeting).


Ho: There is no significant relationship between the perceived condition of the

watershed and whether a respondent attended a meeting or not.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between the perceived condition of the

watershed and whether a respondent attended a meeting or not.

At a 0.05 level of significance the comparison of the pre-meeting respondents

versus the post-meeting respondents had a p-value of 0.06. We can conclude that

there is not a significant relationship between the perceived condition of the

watershed and whether a meeting attendee filled out the survey prior to the meeting or

after the meeting (Appendix D). At the same level of significance, the comparison of

meeting attendees versus the public had a p-value of 0.8. We can conclude that there

is no significant relationship between the perceived condition of the watershed and

whether a respondent attended a meeting or not (Table 8 and Appendix D).

49

Table 8. Results of the Chi-Square analysis for question A-3.

Question A-4 asked respondents how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a

statement regarding the Little Plover River and its watershed. Respondents chose

their answers based on a Likert scale; one indicating that they strongly agreed with

the statement, three was neutral and five indicated they strongly disagreed with the

statement. The Mann-Whitney U-Test was used to compare the seven statements

between pre-meeting survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents as

well as meeting attendees and the public.

The hypotheses for these tests are:


Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in responses between the pre-

meeting survey respondents and the post-meeting survey respondents.

Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in responses between the pre-meeting

survey respondents and the post-meeting survey respondents.


Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in responses between the meeting


Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in responses between the meeting



Pre and Post Perceived condition of the watershed

0.05 0.06


Perceived condition of the watershed

0.05 0.8

50

At a 0.05 level of significance the comparison of the statement responses of

the pre-meeting survey respondents and post-meeting survey respondents and the

statement responses of the meeting attendees and the public all returned p-values

higher then 0.05 indicating that there is no statistically significant difference between

the responses of the populations (Appendix E).

Question A-5 asks survey respondents to rank nine groups in order of who

they felt should be most responsible for protecting Wisconsin’s streams and rivers,

with one being the most responsible and ten being the least responsible. Responses

were compiled into pre-meeting survey respondents, post-meeting survey respondents,

and the public. Each group received the rank that had the highest percentage of

responses (Table 9 and Appendix F).

Table 9. Ranked Responses of all survey respondent groups for question A-5.

Pre-meeting Rank Post-Meeting Rank Public Rank Group

1 1 1 State Government

2 2 4 County Government

3 3 & 4 1 Local Municipality

4 8 3 Federal Government

2 Local Landowner

5 6 5 Environmental Groups

6 5 7 & 8 Industry/Business

7 7 6 Farm Groups

8 & 9 9 9 Educators

51

Question A-6 asks survey respondents to rank the nine groups in order of who

they thought they should be most responsible for protecting the Little Plover River,

with one was the most responsible and ten being the least responsible. Responses

were compiled into pre-meeting survey respondents, post-meeting survey respondents,

and the public. Each group received the rank that had the highest percentage of

responses (Table 10 and Appendix G).

Table 10. Ranked responses of all survey respondent groups for question A-6.

Pre-meeting rank Post-meeting rank Public rank Group

1 3 State Government

2 2 2 County Government

3 1 1 Local Municipality

4 4 & 7 5 Federal Government

5 8 4 Environmental Groups

6 5 8 Industry/Business

7 6 6 & 7 Farm Groups

8 3 Local landowner

9 9 9 Educators

Identified as an extra Identified as an

extra

Self

Section B – Actions & Behaviors

Question B-1 asked survey respondents to indicate how often they participated

in eleven different activities within the Little Plover River Watershed (Table 11, 12,

13)

52

Table 11. Percentage of pre-meeting responses regarding how often respondents

participated in listed activities within the Little Plover River Watershed.

1-2 times per

year

1-2 times per

month

1-2 times per

week

Not at all

Walking/running 37% 18% 15% 30% Nature

Observation 41% 22% 0% 37%

Picnicking 37% 4% 0% 59% Biking 26% 15% 11% 48% Hiking 40% 12% 8% 40% Hunting 7% 22% 4% 67% Fishing 8% 19% 4% 69% Boating 19% 7% 0% 74% Camping 19% 7% 0% 74% Cross-Country

Skiing 19% 0% 0% 81%

Swimming 9% 5% 5% 81%

53

Table 12. Percentage of post-meeting responses regarding how often respondents


1-2 times per

year

1-2 times per

month

1-2 times per

week

Not at all




Skiing 3% 5% 0% 92%

Swimming 16% 5% 0% 79%

54

Table 13. Percentage of public responses regarding how often respondents


1-2 times per

year

1-2 times per

month

1-2 times per

week

Not at all




Skiing 3% 13% 7% 77%

Swimming 13% 20% 7% 60%

Question B-2 asked survey respondents to indicate their rate of involvement

for eight activities that related to public participation, community involvement, or

environmentally related activities. Answers were grouped in categories of zero, one

to four, and five or more. The time period for involvement for each activity was

specified in the question (Table 14, 15, 16).

55

Table 14. Percentage of pre-meeting respondent’s answers to question B-2. 0 1-4 5 or more

Hours per month participated in civic or community

organizations

23% 52% 25%

How many governmental meetings attended in the past year 54% 32% 14%

How many times worked to address a community problem in the

last 5 years.

30% 63% 7%

How many times worked with a neighbor to solve a problem in

the last 5 years.

36% 52% 11%

How many conservation programs have participated in, in the

last 5 years.

27% 52% 21%

How many times talked with public officials about natural

resource concerns in last 5 years.

50% 34% 16%

Next year how many hours per month participating in civic or

community organizations

9% 61% 30%

Next year how many conservation programs will participate in 18% 75% 7%

Table 15. Percentage of post-meeting respondent’s answers to question B-2. 0 1-4 5 or more


organizations

5% 53% 42%



last 5 years.

21% 57% 21%


the last 5 years.

20% 67% 13%


last 5 years.

35% 54% 11%



73% 22% 5%



0% 46% 54%


56

Table 16. Percentage of the public’s answers to question B-2. 0 1-4 5 or more


organizations

33% 53% 13%



last 5 years.

43% 46% 11%


the last 5 years.

41% 50% 9%


last 5 years.

39% 52% 9%



62% 36% 2%



29% 53% 18%


Question B-3 asked survey respondents how many hours per month they

would be willing to participate in planning for future watershed management

activities. Answers were binned into six different categories (Table 17).

Table 17. Survey respondent’s willingness to participate in planning for future

watershed management activities.

0-5

hours

5-10

hours

10-15

hours

15-20

hours

20-25

hours

More then

25 hours

Pre-meeting

respondents 61% 25% 11% 3% 0% 0%

Post-meeting

respondent 85% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Public

respondents 86% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0%

57

A Chi-Square Test was used to determine if there was a relationship between

a respondent’s willingness to participate and whether they attended a meeting or if

they did attend a meeting, whether they filled out a survey prior to the meeting or

after the meeting.



Ho: There is no significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to

participate and whether they filled out a survey prior to or after the meeting.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to

participate and whether they filled out the survey prior to or after the meeting.

Meeting attendees vs. the Public

Ho: There is no significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to

participate and whether they attended a meeting or not.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to

participate and whether they attended a meeting or not.


versus the post-meeting survey respondents had a p-value of 0.04 indicating that there

is a significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to participate and

whether they filled out the survey prior to or after the meeting (Appendix H). At the

same level of significance the comparison of the meeting attendees and the public had

a p-value of 0.37 indicating that there is not a significant relationship between a

respondent’s willingness to participate and whether they attended a meeting or not

(Table 18 and Appendix H).

58

Table 18. Results of Chi-Square Analysis for question B-3.


Pre and Post Willingness to participate in watershed management

0.05 0.04


Willingness to participate in watershed management

0.05 0.37

Question B-4 asked survey respondents how much money per year they would

be willing to donate towards management of the Little Plover River. Answers were

divided into categories of zero dollars, one to twenty dollars, twenty to forty dollars,

forty to sixty dollars, sixty to eighty dollars, eighty to one hundred dollars, and more

then one hundred dollars (Table 19).

Table 19. Survey respondent’s willingness to donate money towards watershed

management. $0 $1-$20 $20-$40 $40-$60 $60-$80 $80-$100 More

then $100

Pre-

meeting 28% 40% 20% 0% 3% 6% 3%

Post-

meeting 19% 39% 19% 3% 8% 8% 3%

Public 33% 46% 14% 5% 0% 2% 0%

A Chi-Square Test was used to determine if there was a significant

relationship between a respondent’s willingness to donate money and when a

respondent completed a survey or if a respondent even attended a meeting.

59



Ho: There is no significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to pay and

whether they filled out the survey prior to or after the meeting.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to pay and

whether they filled out the survey prior to or after the meeting..


Ho: There is no significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to pay and

whether they attended a meeting or not.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between a respondent’s willingness to pay and

whether they attended a meeting or not.


versus the post-meeting survey respondents had a p-value of 0.98 (Appendix I). This

indicates that there is not a significant relationship between a respondent’s

willingness to pay and whether they filled out the survey prior to or after the meeting.

At the same level of significance the comparison of the meeting attendees and the

public had a p-value of 0.30. This also indicates that there is not a significant

relationship between a respondent’s willingness to pay and whether they attended a

meeting or not (Table 20 and Appendix I).

60

Table 20. Results of Chi-square analysis for question B-4.


Pre and Post Willingness to donate money towards watershed managment

0.05 0.98


Willingness to donate money towards watershed management

0.05 0.30

A Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Test was conducted to determine if there

was a correlation between the amount of money a respondent was willing to donate

and the amount of a time a respondent was willing to participate in watershed

management. The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation test returned an r-value of –

0.05 indicating that there is no significant correlation between the two variables or

that a respondent’s willingness to participate is not correlated to a respondent’s

willingness to donate money towards management (Appendix J).

Section C – Demographic Information

Question C-1 asked survey respondents if they were male and female (Figure

2).

61

Gender Demographics of Post Survey Respondents

Male47%Female

53%

Male

Female

Gender Demographics of Pre Survey Respondents

Male50%

Female50%

Male

Female

Gender Demographics for Random Survey Respondents

Male53%

Female47%

Male

Female

Figure 2. Gender demographics of survey respondents.

Question C-2 asked respondents to choose the category where their age fell.

Categories were under eighteen, eighteen to twenty five, twenty six to forty, forty one

to sixty, and older than sixty (Figure 3).

62

Age Demographics of Random Survey Respondents

Under 1817%

18-2519%

26-4019%

41-6030%

Older then 6015%

Under 18

18-25

26-40

41-60

Older then 60

Age Demographics of Pre Survey Respondents

18-2546%

26-4027%

41-6025%

Older then 602%

Under 180%

Under 18

18-25

26-40

41-60

Older then 60

Age Demographics of Post Survey Respondents

Under 180% 18-25

23%

26-4010%

41-6041%

Older then 6026%

Under 18

18-25

26-40

41-60

Older then 60

Figure 3. Age demographics of survey respondents.

Question C-3 asked survey respondents their formal education in years.

Twelve years is equivalent to a high school graduate. Pre-meeting survey respondents

had an average of 16.24 years of education, post-meeting survey respondents had an

average of 16.73 years of education, and public survey respondents had an average of

17.42 years of education.

63

Question C-4 asked survey respondents to choose a response that represented

their employment status or where the majority of their work hours went (Table 21).

Table 21. Survey respondent’s employment status or where the majority of their

work hours went.

Company Employed

Government Employed

Self-Employed

Seeking Employment

Military Retired Student

Pre-meeting respondents

43% 26% 0% 0% 0% 2% 29%

Post-meeting respondents

34% 11% 11% 2% 2% 11% 28%

Public respondents

38% 9% 13% 0% 2% 17% 21%

Question C-5 asked respondents to choose the option that best described their

occupational status (Table 22).

Table 22. Survey respondent’s occupational status.

Professional Managerial Administrative Engineering Marketing Pre-meeting respondent

7% 18% 13% 5% 7%

Post-meeting respondent

13% 26% 11% 3% 13%

Public respondent

14% 5% 2% 2% 2%

Education Agriculture Skilled craft Semiskilled Craft

Student

Pre-meeting respondent

9% 4% 0% 0% 36%

Post-meeting respondent

13% 0% 0% 0% 21%

Public respondent

14% 0% 19% 16% 26%

Question C-6 asked respondents about their annual income (Table 23).

64

Table 23. Survey respondent’s annual income. $0-$10,000 $10,000-

$30,000 $30,000-$60,000

$60,000-$90,000

More then $90,000

Pre-meeting respondents

39% 12% 29% 15% 5%

Post-meeting respondents

15% 6% 26% 21% 32%

Public respondents

41% 11% 33% 6% 9%

Question C-7 asked survey respondents if they lived in their own home (Table

24).

Table 24. Survey respondent’s home ownership. Yes No Pre-meeting respondents 55% 45% Post-meeting respondents 71% 29% Public respondents 53% 47%

Question C-8 asked survey respondents on average how long they had lived in

the residence that they owned. Pre-meeting respondents indicated they lived in their

home an average of 10.14 years, post-meeting respondents lived in their homes an

average of 16.73 years, and public respondents lived in their home an average of

13.62 years.

Question C-9 asked survey respondents if their residence was within the Little

Plover River Watershed (Table 25).

Table 25. Survey respondent’s residence within the Little Plover River Watershed.

Yes No Pre-meeting respondents 12% 88% Post-meeting respondents 15% 85% Public respondents 6% 94%

65

Question C-10 asked survey respondents to indicate the approximate location

of their current residence. The first category of residences identified were those that

lived within the Little Plover River Watershed. Subsequent categories were broken

down into those who lived one mile outside of the watershed, 5 miles outside of the

watershed, ten miles outside of the watershed, fifteen miles outside of the watershed,

or greater then fifteen miles outside of the watershed. A visual map was provided so

survey respondents could either mark their residence on the map or in the box

indicating the distance from the watershed (Table 26).

Table 26. Survey Respondent’s distance of current residence from Little Plover

River Watershed.

Within Watershed

1 mile outside

1-5 miles outside

5-10 miles outside

10-15 miles outside

More then 15 miles outside

Pre-Meeting 9% 6% 76% 6% 3% Post-Meeting

16% 9% 50% 22% 3%

Public 2% 14% 46% 11% 16% 11%

The Spearman Rank-Order Correlation was used to determine if certain

demographic variables; age, education, income, and the distance of a respondent’s

residence from the Little Plover River Watershed, were correlated to a respondent’s

willingness to participate in future watershed management activities (Table 27 and

Appendices K, L, M, and N). Respondent’s income and willingness to participate

had a strongest correlation with an r-value of -0.93.

66

Table 27. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation of survey respondent’s demographic

variables and willingness to participate in planning for future watershed management

activities.

Variable 1 Variable 2 R-value Age Willingness to Participate -0.74 Education Willingness to Participate -0.77 Income Willingness to Participate -0.93 Distance of Residence Willingness to Participate -0.67

67

Survey Revisions and Results

After the original data was compiled and analyzed there was a need for some

revisions and additional analysis for certain questions. The revisions were made and

the analysis was completed.

In Question A-3 respondents were asked to mark the response that best

expresses their opinion about the current condition of the Little Plover River

Watershed. Responses included the options of; Excellent, need no change in

management; Good, but could use some improved management; Fair, in need of more

management; and Poor, in need of urgent management. When the original Chi-Square

Test was conducted, the comparison between the pre-meeting respondents and the

post-meeting respondents returned a p-value of 0.06, which is very close to the 0.05

level of significance. Upon further consideration of the question and responses, it

was felt that the good and fair categories were very similar and that the test may not

have detected the small differences between the two categories. These two categories

were combined and the question was again analyzed using the Chi-square test. The

pre- and post-meeting responses as well as the meeting attendees and the public were

compared again using the same hypotheses as the original test.

At a 0.05 level of significance the comparison of pre-meeting respondents and

post-meeting respondents, using the newly combined categories of excellent,

good/fair and poor, returned a p-value of 0.054, and we were able to conclude that by

combining the categories there was still not a relationship between the perceived

condition of the watershed and whether the meeting attendee had filled out the survey

prior to the meeting or after the meeting (Appendix P).

68

The comparison of the meeting attendees and the public returned a p-value of 0.25,

which was p-value lower then the original test but still did not indicate a significant

relationship between the variables (Table 28 and Appendix P).

Table 28. Results of Chi-Square analysis for revised question A-3.

In Question B-3 the Chi-Square Test returned a p-value that was statistically

significant, indicating that there was a relationship between a respondent’s

willingness to participate in watershed management and whether the respondent filled

out the survey prior to the meeting or after the meeting.

In the analysis of the results it was discovered that there was difficulty

differentiating between the levels of participation in pre-meeting survey respondents

versus post-meeting survey respondents due to the way the responses were binned.

Responses were binned in categories of zero to five hours, five to ten hours, ten to

fifteen hours, fifteen to twenty hours, twenty to twenty five hours, and more then

twenty five hours. Because zero was included in the zero to five bin it is difficult to

distinguish between people who moved from no willingness to participate to some

level of willingness to participate. For that reason, question B-3 was revised and new

bins of zero and one were created and the zero to five bin was revised to two to five.


Pre and Post Perceived condition of the watershed with revised categories

0.05 0.054


Perceived condition of the watershed with revised categories

0.05 0.25

69

The revised survey was given to a sample of the public and a sample of pre-meeting

respondents (Table 29).

Table 29. Survey respondent’s willingness to participate in future planning for

watershed management with revised categories. 0 hours 1 hour 2-5

hours

5-10

hours

10-15

hours

15-20

hours

20-25

hours

More

then

25

hours

Pre-meeting

survey

respondents

6% 20% 60% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Public

Survey

Respondents

13% 40% 27% 13% 0% 0% 0% 7%

Results from the new sample of pre-meeting respondents and public were

compared using the Chi-Square Test to determine if there was a statistically

significant relationship between the respondent’s willingness to participate (with the

new categories) and whether a respondent attended a meeting or not. The hypotheses

for this test were the same as the original test. At a 0.05 level of significance the

comparison of the meeting attendees and the public had a p-value of 0.77. This

indicates that there is not a relationship between a respondent’s willingness to pay

and whether they attended a meeting or not (Table 30 and Appendix Q).

Table 30. Results of Chi-Square analysis for revised question B-3.


Pre and Public Willingness to participate in future watershed management with revised categories

0.05 0.77

70

In section C of the survey, demographic variables were correlated with a

respondent’s willingness to participate. A question arose as to whether a

respondent’s income was correlated to the amount of money that they were willing to

donate towards watershed management. A Spearman Rank-Order Test was run to

determine if there was a correlation between the two variables. The test returned an r-

value of –0.059, which indicates that there is no correlation between respondent’s

income and their willingness to donate money towards watershed management

(Appendix O).

71

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to determine if public informational meetings were an

effective method to generate public participation in watershed management activities.

This was to be accomplished through three objectives;

1) To determine whether public informational meetings increase an attendee’s

knowledge about the Little Plover River;

2) To determine whether public informational meetings increase an attendee’s

willingness to participate in future watershed management activities; and

3) To determine whether there are significant differences in knowledge and

actions between those who attend the public informational meetings and those

who do not

Objective 1

The first objective was to determine whether informational meetings increase

an attendee’s knowledge about the Little Plover River. A survey respondent’s

background knowledge about a subject may be indicative of how familiar he or she is

with the watershed and its associated issues such as water quality, water use, and

current water levels. It can also indicate a level of advanced understanding about

watersheds in general. Often, when an individual understands an issue or subject they

are able to make informed decisions and may be inclined to take action.

72

The survey asked questions regarding the definition of watershed, the seriousness of

issues involving the Little Plover River, and the perceived condition of the watershed.

Responses to question A-1, asking the correct definition of a watershed, were

first to be analyzed for this objective. The results of this question indicated that 84% of

the pre-meeting respondents correctly chose the definition of a watershed compared to

95% of post-meeting respondents.

A chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05 determined that there was no

relationship between the definition of watershed chosen and whether the meeting

attendee filled out the survey prior to the meeting or after the meeting. However, the

sample sizes were so small that even the smallest change in the number of responses in

each category significantly impacts the p-value of the test.

While there was not a relationship between pre and post survey respondents who

chose the correct definition of a watershed, there was a decline from pre-meeting

attendees to post-meeting attendees who did not select a definition. Seven percent of

the pre-meeting respondents did not select a definition compared to zero in post-

meeting respondents. This perhaps suggests that pre-meeting respondents were

uncomfortable choosing a definition of the concept prior to the meeting.

Results of analysis of the responses to this question indicate that all meeting

attendees, whether pre or post, are relatively familiar with the watershed concept. The

meeting itself is not making a notable difference in the understanding of the watershed

concept.

73

The change in percentage of respondents not choosing a definition of watershed

is significant to note because it may indicate that post-respondents were more familiar

or comfortable with the subject matter to try and choose a definition rather then pre-

meeting respondents.

The second set of responses that were analyzed to address the first objective

were from question A-2. This question asked respondents to rate the seriousness of 18

different watershed issues in the Little Plover River watershed. Watershed issues

included nitrate levels in surface water and groundwater, pesticide levels in surface

water and groundwater, soil deposition in surface water, drinking water quality, soil loss

from agricultural fields, eroding banks on rivers and streams, invasive weed growth,

loss of water flows, loss of wetlands, loss of forested or wooded areas, loss of wildlife,

loss of family farms, loss of agricultural land to development, loss of agricultural land

to natural land, loss of natural land to development, and loss of natural land to

agricultural production. Although these issues are common throughout Wisconsin, not

all apply to the Little Plover River Watershed.

The responses to this question allowed analysis of a respondent’s familiarity

with the particular issues that face the Little Plover River. The familiarity with issues

gives insight into how the informational meeting may change the respondent’s

understanding of the issue. It also denotes a sense of understanding and knowledge of

the watershed that may influence a respondent’s decisions and actions in the future.

Of the 18 issues listed, the loss of water flows is arguably the most serious and

pressing issue facing the Little Plover River.

74

Fifty two percent of pre-meeting respondents identified the loss of water flows as

serious compared to 62% of the post-meeting respondents. A Mann Whitney U-Test

was used to determine if the difference in responses between the populations was

statistically significant. At a significance level of 0.05 the test returned a p-value of 0.67,

therefore it was concluded that there was not a statistically significant difference

between the responses of the two populations. In fact, there was not a statistically

significant difference in responses of pre-meeting respondents and post-meeting

respondents for any of the 18 issues.

Results of the Mann-Whitney U-Test indicates that there is not a statistically

significant difference in responses to the question that asked respondents to rate the

seriousness of the loss of water flows within the Little Plover River watershed. This is

an indication that the meeting did not increase a respondent’s awareness about the loss

of water flows. The fact that there was a not a statistically significant difference

between pre-meeting and post-meeting respondents for any of the 18 issues indicates

that the meeting did not increase awareness on any of the issues. It also serves as an

indicator that there may be potential bias among the respondents.

This is contradictory to expectations that the meetings would increase the

awareness of watershed issues from pre-meeting respondents to post-meeting

respondents. One explanation was that media exposure about Little Plover River issues

may have increased public awareness prior to the meetings. Local newspapers and

other media had covered the loss of water flows in the Little Plover River, including

memorable photos of fish kills and dry ups when they occurred the two previous

summers.

75

If a respondent had been exposed to these media sources, they may have already

been familiar with the water loss issues. However, this would not explain the

differences between the 17 other issues that were listed. Respondents may have

guessed at the answers and assumed that all of the listed issues were applicable to the

Little Plover River watershed. Some respondents also may have thought that the

question applied to watersheds throughout the entire state, not just the Little Plover

River watershed.

The responses to question A-3 were also analyzed for this section. This question

asked respondents to express their opinion about the current condition of the watershed.

Respondents were able to choose from categories that included; Excellent, needs no

change in management; Good, but could use some improved management; Fair, in need

of more management; and Poor, in need of urgent management. Twenty seven percent

of the pre-meeting respondents felt that the watershed was in poor condition and needed

urgent management compared to 48% of the post-meeting respondents. Fifty one

percent of pre-meeting respondents felt that the watershed was in fair condition and

22% felt that it was in good condition. Forty five percent of post-meeting felt that the

watershed was in fair condition and eight percent felt that it was in good condition.

A Chi-square test was used to determine if there was a significant relationship

between the perceived condition of the watershed and whether the respondent filled out

the survey prior to the meeting or after the meeting. The Chi-square test returned a p-

value of 0.06 which indicates there is no significant relationship between the perceived

condition of the watershed and when the survey was filled out. However, 0.06 is

relatively close to the 0.05 level of significance.

76

Upon closer examination of the question, the categories of good and fair were

determined to be very similar to each other in meaning.

It was felt that the important difference between categories was not between good and

fair but rather between those two categories and excellent or poor. The categories of

good and fair were grouped together. The resulting responses were that 73% of pre-

meeting respondents felt that the watershed was in good or fair condition compared to

53% of post-meeting respondents. Twenty seven percent of pre-meeting respondents

felt that the watershed was in poor condition while 47% of post-meeting respondents

felt it was in poor condition. The Chi-Square Test was re-run with the revised

categories of good/fair and poor. The test returned a p-value of 0.054, just over the

level of significance set at 0.05. This indicates that there is a relationship even closer

then the original test to being significant between the pre-meeting respondents and post-

meeting respondents and the perceived condition of the watershed.

While the relationship is technically not statistically significant, it is still

important to note. The p-value as well as the percentage of respondents in each category

suggests that post-meeting respondents are more in tune with what is happening within

the watershed. A greater percentage of respondents also indicated that there is an

urgent need for management within the Little Plover River. If the need for management

is recognized, respondents may be more inclined to participate in the management effort.

The reason that the Chi-Square test may not have found the relationship significant is

simply due to the size of samples. Larger sample sizes may have made the distinction

between the categories more dramatic.

77

These three questions indicate that there were some shifts in levels of knowledge

and awareness between pre- and post-meeting respondents.

Question one showed an increase in knowledge and understanding in the watershed

concept between pre- and post-meeting respondents, with a greater percentage of the

sample choosing the correct definition of a watershed in post-meeting respondents. A

drop in the percentage of pre-meeting respondents to post-meeting respondents who

could not choose a definition was also noted.

Question two indicated that both pre- and post-meeting respondents were

familiar with issues facing the Little Plover River watershed. Question three indicated

that there was a shift in the perceived condition of the Little Plover River Watershed.

Pre-meeting respondents felt that the Little Plover River watershed was in good or fair

condition. The majority of the post-meeting respondents felt that the Little Plover River

watershed was in poor condition.

This shift in perceived condition also noted a change in the amount of

management that respondents felt was necessary within the watershed. Pre-meeting

respondents felt that the Little Plover Watershed was in need of some more or improved

management. Post-meeting respondents felt that the watershed was in need of urgent

management. While some of these relationships may not have been as statistically

significant it is still important that shifts were noticed and it suggests that follow up

meetings may be useful in getting the message across.

78

Objective 2

The second objective was to determine if public informational meetings

increased an attendee’s willingness to participate in future watershed management

activities.

An attendee’s willingness to participate is important because it is an indication whether

the informational meetings were merely educational and informational or whether they

began to shift participants into higher levels of involvement, including participating in

management.

The first responses that were analyzed for this objective came from question B-

3, which asked a respondent how many hours per month they would be willing to

participate in watershed management activities. Respondents were able to choose from

six different categories of time (Table 27).


watershed management.

0-5

hours

5-10

hours

10-15

hours

15-20

hours

20-25

hours

More then

25 hours

Pre-meeting

respondents 61% 25% 11% 3% 0% 0%

Post-meeting

respondent 85% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0%

A chi-square test was used to determine if there was a relationship between a

survey respondent’s willingness to participate and whether they filled out the survey

prior to or after the meeting.

79

The chi-square test returned a p-value of .044 indicating that there was a significant

relationship between a respondent’s willingness to participate and when they filled out

the survey.

The respondent’s willingness to donate time shows an unexpected and different

result. A greater percentage of pre-meeting respondents were willing to volunteer more

hours then post-meeting respondents. This is opposite of what was expected. The

difference between pre-meeting respondents and post-meeting respondents may have

been due to a number of different things. As explained in the meetings, the Little Plover

River’s water quantity issues are directly related to municipal and agricultural pumping.

As people sat through the informational meeting they may have begun to feel that this

problem was not within their control or that they would not be able to do anything to

help with the issue.

While it cannot definitively determined what might have caused this difference

from the information gathered in this survey, evidence to support this theory comes

from question A-6 which asks respondents to rank listed groups in the order of who

they think should be most responsible for management on the Little Plover River. Pre-

meeting respondents identified self as one of the groups that should be responsible

while post-meeting respondents did not.

During the analysis of the responses to question B-3 it was noted that there was

no way to determine if respondents had moved from not willing to participate at all to

willing to participate some. This was because the level of no participation or zero was

combined in the zero to five hours per month category. Using this category, there is no

way to differentiate if a respondent is choosing zero or five hours per month.

80

In order to determine if there would be a difference with the zero category separate from

the rest the question had to be re-written. The new categories for the question were divided into categories of zero hours,

one hour, two to five hours, five to ten hours, ten to fifteen hours, fifteen to twenty

hours, and more than twenty five hours. A new survey with the revised categories for

question B-3 was given to a sample of the public and pre-meeting (Table 28).


watershed management with revised categories. 0 hours 1 hour 2-5

hours

5-10

hours

10-15

hours

15-20

hours

20-25

hours

More

then

25

hours

Pre-meeting

survey

respondents

6% 20% 60% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Public

Survey

Respondents

13% 40% 27% 13% 0% 0% 0% 7%

The results indicate that even with the new categories of zero and one hour, over

half of the pre-meeting respondents still chose between two and five hours, which

reflects the results of the original survey. This demonstrates that the revised categories

would not have made a significant difference in the results.

It was also important to determine if any of the demographics could serve as a

predictor of a respondent’s willingness to participate. This would allow a planner or

manager to approach specific demographic groups that might be more inclined to

participate in management in the future.

81

The demographic variables that were examined included: age, education, income, and

the distance of residence from the Little Plover River Watershed. The Spearman Rank-

Order Test was used to determine the strength of the correlation between the

demographic variable and the respondent’s willingness to participate.

The distance of residence from the watershed had the weakest correlation with

willingness to participate, which had an r-value of -0.67. This was expected to be one

of the demographic variables with the highest correlation. However, survey

respondents were asked to mark the approximate location of their current residence.

From this information it is clear that more then 53% of all survey respondents live

between five and ten miles outside of the Little Plover River Watershed, where both the

city of Stevens Point and the village of Plover lie. Very few of the survey respondents

actually resided within one mile of, or within, the Little Plover River Watershed.

The demographic variable with the highest correlation was income and

willingness to participate, with an r-value of -0.93. This indicates a strong negative

correlation between the two variables. As a respondent’s income increases, the

willingness to participate decreases, which may suggest that respondents are already

occupied with things such as work or other volunteer activities and don’t have time to

participate in management.

The relationship between income and willingness to participate was expected to

follow a similar trend as income and participation. The Spearman Rank-Order test was

used to determine the correlation between a respondent’s income and their willingness

to donate money towards management. The test returned an r-value of –0.059

indicating that there is not a correlation between the variables.

82

This result could be related to the specific nature of the Little Plover River’s problem of

water quantity, which may be viewed as a problem government should be required to

deal with directly without financial aid.

When analyzing the responses for objective two, the results were surprising. It

was found that pre-meeting respondents were more willing to participate in watershed

management activities then post-meeting participants, suggesting that the meeting was

no help in generating participation in activities and may have even been detrimental in

this effort. It was also found that income had a strong negative correlation with a

respondent’s willingness to participate.

While these outcomes were not what were originally expected, they helped show

that a respondent’s willingness to participate is extremely variable and can be difficult

to predict or even associate with other variables.

Objective 3

The purpose of objective three was to determine if there were significant

differences in meeting attendee’s knowledge and actions compared to the general public.

In this study, the public had the same opportunities for exposure and education prior to

the meetings as those who attended the meetings. The public also served as a control

group in the study, allowing us to see how people felt and acted towards the Little

Plover River and its associated issues without the information and education provided in

a meeting.

83

Question A-1, from the previous section, asked respondents for the correct

definition of a watershed. However, in this analysis comparisons were made between

meeting attendees and the public. Eighty eight percent of the meeting attendees were

able to correctly identify the definition of a watershed compared to fifty one percent of

the public. A Chi-Square Test was used to determine if there was a statistically

significant relationship between the definition of watershed chosen and whether a

respondent had attended a meeting. The test returned a p-value of .0001 at a

significance level of 0.05, which indicated that there is a strong relationship between the

definition chosen and meeting attendance.

It was expected that meeting attendees would have a better understanding of the

watershed concept because it was a concept that was explained in the meetings.

The second set of responses that were analyzed for this objective came from

question A-2, which asked survey respondents to rate the seriousness of 18 watershed

issues. The loss of water flows was the watershed issue that was focused on for

analysis because it is arguably the largest issue facing the Little Plover River. Thirty

one percent of the public felt that the loss of water flows was a serious issue compared

to fifty seven percent of the meeting attendees. A Mann Whitney U-Test was used to

determine if the differences between answers was statistically significant. At a 0.05

level of significance the test returned a p-value of 0.4, which indicates that the

difference between the two groups is not statistically significant. While the difference

is not statistically significant it is still important to note the difference between 31% of

the public and the 57% of the meeting attendees that felt that the loss of water flows

was serious.

84

The higher percentage of meeting attendees who felt the issues was serious indicates

that meeting respondents may have had a better idea of what was happening in the Little

Plover River Watershed. When the responses to the other 17 watershed issues were

compared between meeting attendees and the public, it was found that none of the

comparisons were statistically significant.

The lack of significant difference in responses regarding the loss of water flows

could be due to exposure on the issues of the Little Plover River, the same reason for

the non-significant difference found between pre-meeting respondents and post-meeting

respondents in objective one. Local newspapers and other sources of media had

covered the loss of water flows in Little Plover River both summers that it took place.

If a respondent had been exposed to these media sources they may have already been

familiar with the issue of water loss. For the other 17 issues that were analyzed,

respondents may have guessed at the answers and assumed that all of the listed issues

were applicable to the Little Plover River watershed. Some respondents may have also

thought that the question applied to watersheds throughout the entire state, not just the

Little Plover River watershed.

The third set of responses that were analyzed for objective three were from

question A-3 regarding the perceived condition of the watershed between meeting

attendees and the public. Survey respondents were asked to indicate what condition

they felt the Little Plover River Watershed was currently in. Respondents were able to

choose excellent, good, fair or poor for their responses.

The data indicated that 31% of the public felt that the watershed was in poor

condition compared to 37% of the meeting attendees.

85

Sixty nine percent of the public felt the watershed was in good or fair condition

compared to 63% of the meeting attendees. A Chi-Square Test was used to determine if

there was a significant relationship between the perceived condition of the watershed

and whether a respondent attended a meeting. At a significance level of 0.05 the test

returned a p-value of 0.8 indicating that there is no significant relationship between the

perceived condition of the watershed and whether a meeting was attended or not. While

there was not a large difference between the percentages of respondents who ranked the

watershed in poor condition, meeting attendees still had a slightly higher percentage of

respondents who ranked the watershed in poor condition.

The fourth set of responses that were analyzed for this objective were from

question B-3, which asked survey respondents how many hours per month they would

be willing to participate in planning for future watershed management. Respondents

were able to choose from six different categories. Eighty six percent of the public were

willing to donate between zero and five hours and fourteen percent were willing to

donate between five and ten hours. Seventy five percent of meeting respondents were

willing to donate between zero and five hours, nineteen percent were willing to donate

between five and ten hours, four percent were willing to donate between ten and fifteen

hours, two percent were willing to donate between fifteen and twenty hours.

A chi-square test was conducted to determine if there was a significant

relationship between a respondent’s willingness to participate and whether a respondent

attended a meeting or not. The chi-square test returned a p-value of 0.37, indicating that

there was no significant relationship between meeting attendance and willingness to

participate.

86

While there was not a significant relationship between the two variables, meeting

attendees were overall willing to volunteer more time towards watershed management

than the public.

During the analysis of question B-3 it was noted that there was no way to

determine whether respondents were not willing to participate at all or were willing to

participate at some level, because the level of not participation or aero was included in

the zero to five hours per month category. Using that category there is no way to

differentiate whether a respondent chose zero or up to five hours per month. The

question had to be re-written to determine whether thee would be a difference with zero

separate from the rest of the category.

The revised categories of responses for the question were zero hours, one hour,

two to five hours, five to ten hours, ten to fifteen hours, fifteen to twenty hours, twenty

to twenty five hours, and more then twenty five hours a month. The percentage of

survey respondents in each revised category is found in Table 28. The new data

indicates that the majority of public respondents chose one hour per month, indicating

that the public may be less willing to participate in management activities.

The Chi-Square Test was run again using the new data from the pre-survey

respondents and the public. This time at a 0.05 level of significance the test returned a

p-value of 0.77 indicating that there is still no statistically significant relationship

between a survey respondent’s willingness to participate and whether they attended a

meeting or not. The seven percent of the public that was willing to participate more

then 25 hours per month was a response from one respondent. This is a highly unlikely

response that is not typical of the data collected.

87

The responses that were used to evaluate objective three indicate that there were

some differences in levels of knowledge, awareness, and actions between meeting

attendees and the general public. Responses to question A-1 indicated a higher level of

knowledge and understanding about the watershed concept between meeting attendees

and the public, with a greater percentage of meeting attendees choosing the correct

definition of a watershed. Responses to question A-2 indicated that both meeting

attendees and the public were familiar with issues facing the Little Plover River

watershed.

Responses to question A-3 indicated that there was not a significant relationship

between the perceived condition of the watershed and meeting attendance. The original

survey data for question B-3 indicated that there were no differences in willingness to

participate between meeting attendees and the public. When the survey was revised and

the new categories of zero and one hour per month were added, the majority of the

public chose the one hour category, indicating that there might be some difference

between the revised and original categories. However, the Chi-Square Test still

indicated that there was no relationship between the variables.

Additional Data

Additional data was collected from survey respondents, but was not used to

analyze any of the objectives. The additional data can be shared with organizations that

are interested in the available information.

Question A-2 asked respondents to rate the seriousness of 18 watershed issues.

Issue 10, the loss of water flows, was used to help determine the background knowledge

of survey respondents.

88

The other 17 issues can be used to help managers and planners determine what were

perceived as serious issues within the watershed. The issues perceived as serious by the

survey respondents had high percentages of responses that rated it as a serious problem.

Sixty three percent of post-meeting respondents identified loss of water flows and

invasive weed growth as serious problems. Fifty five percent of pre-meeting

respondents identified loss of natural land to development as one of the most serious

issues. Fifty four percent of the public identified loss of agricultural land to

development as one of the most serious problems. These issues can then be addressed as

real concerns within the watershed or something that may be perceived as a concern,

but may not be entirely founded in truth. It may also alert planners and managers to

issues within the watershed that they may not have been aware of.

Question A-4 asked respondents how strongly they agreed or disagreed with

statements regarding the Little Plover River watershed. These statements determine

how valued the Little Plover River is as a natural resource, source of economics, and

recreational opportunity. If a survey respondent values the Little Plover River then he

or she may be more inclined to take action towards it.

Question A-5 and A-6 ask respondents to rank who is the most to least

responsible for management of waters in Wisconsin and the Little Plover River. This

determines who respondents think should be in charge of resolving the issue. If

respondents feel local organizations or groups and individuals should be in charge they

may be more likely to participate in management then if they identify the federal

government as the responsible party. Data from question A-6 was also used in the

evaluating question B-3 for objective two.

89

Question B-1 asked respondents about their outdoor leisure and recreational

activities they participated in while on the Little Plover River. This question simply

identifies what activities the Little Plover River is being used for. This question turned

out not to be very influential in the survey and thus was not used in any of the analysis.

The Little Plover River is a relatively small river and is not extensively used by any of

the respondents. That’s not to say it doesn’t have other, more intrinsic values (see

question A-4). Paul Radomski, a local citizen, fondly recalls growing up in the area and

spending time during his childhood playing and exploring along the river.

Question B-2 asked respondents about their involvement in local government,

community organizations, and conservation programs. The question was used to try to

determine if there were any significant relationships between their past activities and

their willingness to participate in future activities. No relationships could be found with

the data gathered.

Question B-4 asked respondents how much money they would be willing to

donate towards management of the Little Plover River. There were no significant

differences in the amount of money that respondents were willing to donate towards

management. A Chi-Square Test was used to determine whether was a significant

relationship between a respondent’s willingness to donate and their meeting attendance,

or when meeting attendees completed the survey before or after the meeting. No

relationship was found. The majority of all respondents were willing to donate between

one and twenty dollars a year. The Chi-Square analysis of this question was not used to

meet any of the objectives of this study. However, a correlation of a respondent’s

income and their willingness to donate was used in objective two.

90

Section C asked questions regarding basic demographics of the survey

respondents. The demographics were not only used as variables to predict a

respondent’s willingness to participate or donate, but were also used to determine

whether the samples were representative of the population. The basic demographics of

gender and age of survey respondents were compared to those of Portage County.

Portage County demographics were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census

Survey. Portage County gender demographics are split 50% male and 50% female. The

survey age demographics were also split 50/50 between male and female. Age

demographics for both the survey respondents and Portage County residents can be

found in Table 29.

Table 33. Age Demographics of Survey Respondents and Portage County Residents.

Under 18 18-25 26-40 41-60 Older then 60

Survey

Respondents 6% 29% 19% 32% 14%

Portage County

Residents 29% 11% 28% 18% 14%

Differences between the ages of survey respondents and residents of Portage

County can be explained by audiences that were targeted for the surveys. Surveys were

not targeted at youth or students under the age of 18. This age group is not likely to

become involved in watershed management activities. Stevens Point is also a college

town. The majority of surveys were conducted while college was in session when there

is a significant increase in college age students (ages 18-25) within the community. We

expected to see a larger number of students in this age group in the survey samples.

91

Overall, the demographics of the survey respondents do not significantly differ from the

population of Portage County.

Overall Findings

The findings of the surveys indicate that the informational public meetings are a

good source of information and education to participants. Survey respondents were

more aware of issues within the watershed and better understood the concepts related to

watershed management after the meetings. However, participants were not more

inclined to participate in future watershed management activities after attending the

meetings.

Referring back to the spectrum of public participation, informational public

meetings fell in the second category of participation, degrees of tokenism or consulting.

It was at a level where the proposed method of public participation could possibly move

participants into higher levels of participation such as degrees of citizen power or

involvement. This study was unable to determine that the informational meetings had

that impact. The surveys indicated that public meetings would be a better method of

distributing information and education, placing it in the first category of shallow

participation or informing the public.

Improvements to Study

There are some changes that should be made if this study were repeated. An

obvious change would be the revisions to the willingness to participate question.

92

Breaking out the zero category would have provided more definitive results as well as a

stronger analysis of the question.

The second improvement would have been sample sizes. While it was a

struggle to obtain the current survey samples, additional samples would have provided

an even better idea of the differences between the public, pre-meeting attendees, and

post-meeting attendees. Larger samples may have also provided more definitive

answers on some of the questions that were very close.

Another change to the study would have been a follow-up survey to meeting

attendees. The follow-up survey could have asked questions about their current

involvement in watershed management activities, how the information from the meeting

has been put to use in their lives, whether they have shared the information from the

meeting, and their current knowledge about watershed issues. The follow-up survey

could have been sent out approximately six months after the initial survey was given.

The additional follow-up survey would not have only provided additional data that

better indicates the impact of the meeting, but it would have also eliminated another

potential source of bias between pre and post meeting respondents.

While analyzing this survey, additional questions about survey respondents were

raised and could have been included in the survey. Identifying a survey respondent’s

level of previous exposure to general watershed issues, as well as specific issues within

the Little Plover River would have been extremely helpful. This information would

have helped to eliminate some speculation surrounding the non-significant differences

in responses about watershed issues. It also would have been helpful to determine what

sources of information survey respondents had utilized.

93

This could have helped determine if respondents were using reliable sources of

information. It also would provide managers and planners with some idea of what

information sources the public uses so that they could make use of those for future

management and public participation efforts.

Impacts on Public Participation

There are a number of characteristics about the watershed that could have

potentially impacted public participation efforts in this study. The Little Plover River is

a small body of water with a small watershed. People may not see a strong value

associated with such a small body of water. There is also not a very clear idea of the

economic impact of this river. Both of these factors create a sense that the river may be

somewhat disposable. In this case the issue becomes one of economic value. The Little

Plover River does not have a clear economic value associated with its dry-up.

In the case of the Little Plover River, the way people view the “worth” or the

economic impact of the river varies greatly, due in large part to a relatively distinct

generation gap. Older individuals remember and relate to the river when it had higher

water levels, more significant flow, hosted a well-known trout fishery, and was in a

more rural area. Younger individual’s have only known the river in an urban setting

and at much lower water flows that limit some uses of the river. The differences in the

perceptions of the river between the two generations impact the individual’s value of

the river and thus might impact their efforts to protect the river.

94

One of the other factors that should be considered is that the loss of water flows

on the Little Plover River is largely an intangible issue. While the diminished flows

themselves are extremely tangible, the underlying cause is not. The Little Plover River

is largely groundwater fed making it a groundwater issue. Getting the public to connect

groundwater pumping to surface water levels is a well-known difficulty. Perhaps it is

difficult for the public to become involved with something that they cannot directly see

or deal with.

Even considering the effect that these factors could have on the study, there still

remains one large issue. The informational meeting was a single event that introduced

most of the participants to the in-depth issues of the Little Plover River Watershed.

Research has shown that while a single event, like a public meeting, may be successful

at increasing short term knowledge, in order to be truly successful they should be linked

with a broader communication strategy. By becoming a part of a continuous series of

events, the same messages can be repeated multiple times (Seevers et al, 1997).

Research has also shown that the more people are familiar with a topic the more likely

they are to become involved. However, in order to become involved the knowledge

needs constant updating and reminders (Coyle, 2004).

This research helps to identify that the true threshold for moving individuals into

higher levels of participation may not lie exclusively in the method of public

participation itself but perhaps in a combination of the method or methods and the

number of times an individual hears the same message.

95

It also shows that these meetings serve as an opportunity to disseminate accurate

information and education to the public in an informal manner as well as allowing

meeting attendees to participate in a dialogue. While public meetings may not be the

key to solving watershed management issues nor the ideal public participation method,

it is certainly a powerful tool that managers and planners should continue to use.

96

LITERATURE CITED

Alreck, Pamela L. and Robert B. Settle. 1995. The Survey Research Handbook. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of

Planners Journal. 35(4): 216-224.

Chakravart, I.M., R.G. Laha and J. Roy. 1967. Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics Volume 1. New York, Wiley

Chess, C. 2000. Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological

Questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 43(6):769-784

Chess, C. and K. Purcell. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment: Do We

Know What Works? Environmental Science and Technology. 38(16):2685-2692

Conglianese, C. 1999. The Limits of Consensus. Environment. 41(3): 28-33 Conley, A. and M.A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource

Management. Society and Natural Resources. 16:371-386 Council of State Governments.1999. Getting in Step: Guide to Effective Outreach

in Your Watershed. Environmental Protection Agency. Coyle, Kevin. 2004. Education – An Essential Ingredient for Successful Water

Management: Opening Keynote Address. Best Education Practices (BEPs for Water Outreach Professionals: Defining BEPs, Refining New Resources and Recommending Future Actions. June 2004 Symposium Proceedings.

DeBarry, P. 2004. Watersheds: Processes, Assessment and Management. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

Dillman, P.A. 1978. Mail & Telephone Surveys: The total design method. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Duram, L.A. and K.G. Brown. 1999. Assessing Public Participation in U.S.

Watershed Planning Initiatives. Society & Natural Resources. 12:455-467 Fiorino, D.J. 1990. Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of

Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 15(2):226- 243

97

Frewer, L.J. and R. Shepard. 1998. Consumer Perceptions of Modern Food Biotechnology. Genetic Engineering for the Food Industry: A Strategy for Food Quality Improvement. New York: Blackie Academic. 27-46

Glicken, J. 1999. Effective Public Involvement in Public Decisions. Science

Communication. 20(3):298-327 Griffin, C.B. 1999. Watershed Councils: An Emerging Form of Public Participation

in Natural Resource Management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35(3): 505-516

Helsel, D.R and R.M. Hirsch. 1993. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Amesterdam, Elsevier Press.

Hollander, M. and D. A. Wolfe. 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods (2nd ed.)

NewYork: Wiley

Innes, J.E. 1999. Evaluating Consensus Building. The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

International Association for Public Participation. 2007. IAP2 Spectrum of Public

Participation.

http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf

International Center for Integrated Studies (ICS). 1999. Integrated Assessment, A

Bird's-eye View. Introductory Guide for European Summer school Puzzle Solving for policy: tools and methods for integrated assessment. The Netherlands: 30 Masstrcht

Kerr, M. 1999. Creating Community Support for Watershed Management. Maritimes.

41(3) Konisky, D.M. and T.C. Beierle. 2001. Innovations in Public Participation and

Environmental Decision Making: Examples from the Great Lakes Region. Society and Natural Resources. 14:815-826

Levine, David M. and David F. Stephan. 2005. Even You Can Learn Statistics.

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

98

Margerum, R.D. and S.M. Born. 1995. Integrated Environmental Management:

Moving From Theory to Practice. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management. 38(3):271-392

Meo, M., W. Focht, L. Caneday, R. Lynch, F. Moreda, B. Pettus, E. Sankowski, Z.

Trachtenberg, B. Vieux, and K. Willett. 2002. Negotiating Science and Values With Stakeholders in the Illinois River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35(2): 541-554

Moorhouse, M. and S. Elliff. 2002. Planning Process for Public Participation in

Regional Water Resources Planning. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38(2):531-540

Mullen, M.W. and B.E. Allison. 1999. Stakeholder Involvement and Social Capital:

Keys to Watershed Management Success in Alabama. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35(3):655-662

National Research Council. 1999. New Strategies for America’s Watersheds.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press Nature. 2000. Benefits of Increased Public Participation. Nature. 45:259 Reimold, R.J. 1998. Watershed Management Practice, Policies, and Coordination.

New York: McGraw-Hill Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public Participation Methods: A Framework for

Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 25(1):3-29 Sabatier, P., C. Weible, and J. Flicker. 2005. Eras of Water Management in the

United States: Implications for Collaborative Watershed Approaches. Swimming Upstream Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. London: MIT Press.

Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Washington:

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Seevers, B., D. Graham J. Gamon and N. Conklin. 1997. Education Through

Cooperative Extension. Albany, New York: Delmar Publishers.

Smith, L.G. 1983. Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Smith, L.G., C.Y. Nell, and M.V. Prystupa. 1997. The Converging Dynamic of

99

Interest Representation in Resources Management. Environmental Management. 21(2):139-146

Smolko, B.A., R.R. Huberd, and N. Tam-Davis. 2002. Creating Meaningful

Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Planning in Pierce County, Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38(4):981-994

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. What is a Watershed?

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/whatis.html U.S. Inland Waterways Commission. 1908. Report to Congress of the Inland

Waterways Commission. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Inland Waterways Commission.

Webler, T. 1995. “Right” Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick.

In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 35-86

Webler, T and S. Tuler. 2001. Public Participation in Watershed management

Planning: Views on Process from People in the Field. Human Ecology Review. 8(2):29-38

Wondolleck, J. and S. Yafee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from

Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

100

Appendix A

Survey

107

Appendix B

Chi-Square Test for question A-1

108

Chi-Square for question A-1 Meeting Attendees vs. Public

Observed Frequencies Column variable

Row variable 1 2 3 Total Attend 4 65 2 71

Non 11 24 7 42 Total 15 89 9 113

Expected Frequencies

Column variable Row variable 1 2 3 Total

Attend 9.424779 55.92035 5.654867 71 Non 5.575221 33.07965 3.345133 42

Total 15 89 9 113

Data Calculations Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe Number of Rows 2 -5.42478 9.079646 -3.65487 Number of Columns 3 5.424779 -9.07965 3.654867 Degrees of Freedom 2

Results Critical Value 5.9915 Chi-Square Test Statistic 18.7227

(fo-fe)^2/fe

p-Value 0.0001 3.122431 1.474239 2.362222 Reject the null hypothesis 5.278396 2.492166 3.993281

Expected frequency assumption is met.

109

Chi-Square for 2question A-1 Pre-meeting respondents vs. Post-meeting respondents


Row variable 1 2 3 Total Pre 3 37 1 41

Post 1 38 2 41 Total 4 75 3 82


Column variable Row variable 1 2 3 Total

Pre 2 37.5 1.5 41 Post 2 37.5 1.5 41 Total 4 75 3 82

Data Calculations

Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe Number of Rows 2 1 -0.5 -0.5 Number of Columns 3 -1 0.5 0.5 Degrees of Freedom 2

Results Critical Value 5.9915 Chi-Square Test Statistic 1.3467 (fo-fe)^2/fe p-Value 0.5100 0.5 0.006667 0.166667

Do not reject the null hypothesis 0.5 0.006667 0.166667 Expected frequency assumption is met.

110

Appendix C

Mann-Whitney U Test for question A-2

111

Results for: Question A-2 Meeting Attendees vs. the Public

Issue A Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 8.00 Public 5 3.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 5.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-7.99,24.00) W = 32.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4034 The test is significant at 0.4020 (adjusted for ties) Issue B Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 6.00 Public 5 6.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 3.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-6.00,28.01) W = 30.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6742 (adjusted for ties) Issue C Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 12.00 Public 5 2.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 5.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,29.00) W = 31.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4647 The test is significant at 0.4578 (adjusted for ties) Issue D Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 11.00 Public 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 6.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-8.01,22.99) W = 31.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4647 The test is significant at 0.4633 (adjusted for ties)

112

Issue E Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 12.00 Public 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 8.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-7.00,22.99) W = 32.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.3472 The test is significant at 0.3457 (adjusted for ties) Issue F Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 18.00 Public 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 7.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-2.99,19.00) W = 34.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2101 The test is significant at 0.2059 (adjusted for ties) Issue G Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 13.00 Public 5 6.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 7.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-8.00,20.99) W = 34.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2101 The test is significant at 0.2073 (adjusted for ties) Issue H Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 17.00 Public 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 8.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-7.01,20.00) W = 34.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2101 The test is significant at 0.2073 (adjusted for ties)

113

Issue I Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 11.00 Public 5 3.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-7.01,33.01) W = 32.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4034 The test is significant at 0.4020 (adjusted for ties) Issue J Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 7.00 Public 5 6.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 4.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-6.00,32.00) W = 30.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6742 (adjusted for ties) Issue K Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 9.00 Public 5 3.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 6.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-9.01,28.00) W = 30.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6015 The test is significant at 0.6004 (adjusted for ties) Issue L Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 10.00 Public 5 8.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 3.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-6.00,23.01) W = 33.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2506 The test is significant at 0.2477 (adjusted for ties)

114

Issue M Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 8.00 Public 5 7.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 5.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-4.01,23.00) W = 33.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2963 The test is significant at 0.2918 (adjusted for ties) Issue N Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 12.00 Public 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 7.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-4.00,19.99) W = 34.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.1745 The test is significant at 0.1732 (adjusted for ties) Issue O Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 10.00 Public 5 2.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 4.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,25.00) W = 35.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.1437 Issue P Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 10.00 Public 5 7.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 4.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-2.00,17.00) W = 34.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.1745 The test is significant at 0.1666 (adjusted for ties)

115

Issue Q Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 7.00 Public 5 3.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 4.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-11.00,30.99) W = 30.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6742 (adjusted for ties) Issue R Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendees, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 11.00 Public 5 7.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 4.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-2.00,21.00) W = 33.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2963 The test is significant at 0.2843 (adjusted for ties)

116

Results for: Question A-2 Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. Post-Meeting

Respondents Issue A Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 3.00 Post-Meeting 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-14.00,9.00) W = 25.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6752 (adjusted for ties) Issue B Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 4.00 Post-Meeting 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-16.00,10.01) W = 27.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 1.0000 The test is significant at 1.0000 (adjusted for ties) Issue C Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 3.00 Post-Meeting 5 9.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-13.99,9.00) W = 26.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.9168 The test is significant at 0.9155 (adjusted for ties) Issue D Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 3.00 Post-Meeting 5 8.00

117

Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-14.00,10.00) W = 25.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.7540 The test is significant at 0.7533 (adjusted for ties) Issue E Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 7.00 Post-Meeting 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-12.99,8.00) W = 26.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.8345 Issue F Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 6.00 Post-Meeting 5 7.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,6.00) W = 25.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.7540 The test is significant at 0.7503 (adjusted for ties) Issue G Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 5.00 Post-Meeting 5 8.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-12.00,7.00) W = 25.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.7540 The test is significant at 0.7503 (adjusted for ties)

118

Issue H Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 8.00 Post-Meeting 5 9.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,8.00) W = 24.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.5309 The test is significant at 0.5258 (adjusted for ties) Issue I Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 6.00 Post-Meeting 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-18.00,7.00) W = 29.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.8345 The test is significant at 0.8330 (adjusted for ties) Issue J Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 4.00 Post-Meeting 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-20.00,10.00) W = 27.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 1.0000 The test is significant at 1.0000 (adjusted for ties) Issue K Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 5.00 Post-Meeting 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-15.00,10.00) W = 28.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 1.0000 The test is significant at 1.0000 (adjusted for ties)

119

Issue L Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 4.00 Post-Meeting 5 6.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-16.00,7.00) W = 27.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 1.0000 The test is significant at 1.0000 (adjusted for ties) Issue M Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 4.00 Post-Meeting 5 6.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-14.00,6.00) W = 25.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6723 (adjusted for ties) Issue N Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 3.00 Post-Meeting 5 9.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,6.00) W = 23.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4647 The test is significant at 0.4578 (adjusted for ties) Issue O Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 4.00 Post-Meeting 5 9.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-11.01,9.00) W = 27.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 1.0000 The test is significant at 1.0000 (adjusted for ties)

120

Issue P Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 4.00 Post-Meeting 5 9.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -3.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,7.00) W = 24.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6015 The test is significant at 0.6004 (adjusted for ties) Issue Q Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 2.00 Post-Meeting 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -0.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-17.01,10.00) W = 26.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.9168 The test is significant at 0.9153 (adjusted for ties) Issue R Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting Respondent, Post-Meeting Respondent N Median Pre-Meeting 5 6.00 Post-Meeting 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-10.00,7.00) W = 25.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6733 (adjusted for ties)

121

Appendix D

Chi-Square Test for question A-3

122

Chi-Square for Question A-3 Meeting Attendees vs. Public


Row variable Good Fair Poor Total Attend 12 39 30 81

Non 8 22 14 44 Total 20 61 44 125


Column variable Row variable Good Fair Poor Total

Attend 12.96 39.528 28.512 81 Non 7.04 21.472 15.488 44

Total 20 61 44 125

Data Level of Significance 0.05 Calculations Number of Rows 2 fo-fe Number of Columns 3 -0.96 -0.528 1.488 Degrees of Freedom 2 0.96 0.528 -1.488

Results Critical Value 5.9915 Chi-Square Test Statistic 0.4427 p-Value 0.8014 (fo-fe)^2/fe

Do not reject the null hypothesis 0.071111 0.007053 0.077657

0.130909 0.012984 0.142959 Expected frequency assumption is met.

123

Chi-Square for Question A-3 Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. Post-Meeting Respondents


Row variable Good Fair Poor Total Pre 9 21 11 41

Post 3 18 19 40 Total 12 39 30 81


Column variable Row variable Good Fair Poor Total

Pre 6.074074 19.74074 15.18519 41 Post 5.925926 19.25926 14.81481 40 Total 12 39 30 81

Data Calculations

Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe Number of Rows 2 2.925926 1.259259 -4.18519Number of Columns 3 -2.92593 -1.25926 4.185185Degrees of Freedom 2


Do not reject the null hypothesis 1.444676 0.082336 1.182315 Expected frequency assumption is met.

124

Appendix E

Mann-Whitney U Test for question A-4

125

Results for: Question A-4 Meeting Attendees vs. the Public

1.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 5.00 Public 5 2.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-15.99,36.01) W = 30.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6015 The test is significant at 0.5888 (adjusted for ties) 2.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 7.00 Public 5 2.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 5.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-9.99,31.00) W = 29.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.8345 The test is significant at 0.8325 (adjusted for ties) 3.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 20.00 Public 5 8.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 11.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-8.00,20.01) W = 32.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.3472 The test is significant at 0.3443 (adjusted for ties) 4.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 16.00 Public 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 8.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-6.00,27.00) W = 33.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.2506 The test is significant at 0.2492 (adjusted for ties)

126

5.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 4.00 Public 5 8.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -4.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-27.00,7.00) W = 22.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.3472 The test is significant at 0.3443 (adjusted for ties) 6.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 8.00 Public 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 3.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-7.00,32.00) W = 30.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6015 The test is significant at 0.5982 (adjusted for ties) 7.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Meeting Attendee, Public N Median Meeting Attendee 5 15.00 Public 5 2.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 8.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-11.01,27.00) W = 31.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4647 The test is significant at 0.4506 (adjusted for ties)

127

Results for: Question A-4 Pre-Meeting Respondent vs. Post-Meeting Respondents

1.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 2.00 Post-Meeting 5 3.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-19.00,13.99) W = 24.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.5309 The test is significant at 0.5284 (adjusted for ties) 2.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 3.00 Post-Meeting 5 4.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -1.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-16.00,11.01) W = 24.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.5309 The test is significant at 0.5258 (adjusted for ties) 3.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 8.00 Post-Meeting 5 10.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-12.00,8.00) W = 23.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.4034 The test is significant at 0.3917 (adjusted for ties) 4.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 5.00 Post-Meeting 5 11.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -6.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-14.00,6.01) W = 22.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.3472 The test is significant at 0.3428 (adjusted for ties)

128

5.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 2.00 Post-Meeting 5 6.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-14.00,11.00) W = 25.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6761 The test is significant at 0.6723 (adjusted for ties) 6.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 3.00 Post-Meeting 5 5.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-16.00,16.00) W = 24.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.5309 The test is significant at 0.5284 (adjusted for ties) 7.) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Pre-Meeting, Post-Meeting N Median Pre-Meeting 5 5.00 Post-Meeting 5 8.00 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -2.00 96.3 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-14.00,6.99) W = 24.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.5309 The test is significant at 0.5258 (adjusted for ties)

129

Appendix F

Respondent’s rankings for question A-5

130

* Highlighted Box is the highest percentage of respondents for the corresponding rank

Question A-5 Post-Meeting Respondents

Rank Federal

Gov. State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munic.

Local Landownders

Industry/Business

Enviro Groups


1 14.3 37.8 15.8 16.2 21.2 2.9 8.8 6.1 3.0 2 0.0 13.5 36.8 18.9 12.1 11.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 3 2.9 8.1 21.1 29.7 12.1 8.6 5.9 15.2 6.1 4 20.0 0.0 2.6 27.0 12.1 17.1 8.8 3.0 6.1 5 0.0 10.8 10.5 0.0 12.1 25.7 14.7 12.1 3.0 6 11.4 13.5 2.6 5.4 12.1 11.4 17.6 12.1 9.1 7 5.7 2.7 7.9 0.0 6.1 14.3 14.7 27.3 12.1 8 14.3 13.5 0.0 0.0 9.1 5.7 14.7 21.2 9.1 9 28.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 45.5


Question A-5 Public Respondents

Rank Federal

Gov. State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munic.

Local Landownders

Industry/Business

Enviro Groups


1 11.1 30.8 10.7 31.0 17.2 6.9 0.0 14.3 3.7 2 7.4 7.7 17.9 6.9 31.0 10.3 17.9 10.7 3.7 3 18.5 15.4 14.3 13.8 13.8 3.4 10.7 7.1 11.1 4 3.7 7.7 25.0 10.3 13.8 17.2 0.0 7.1 0.0 5 3.7 19.2 14.3 10.3 10.3 6.9 21.4 7.1 0.0 6 14.8 7.7 7.1 6.9 10.3 13.8 7.1 17.9 3.7 7 11.1 3.8 3.6 17.2 0.0 17.2 14.3 17.9 3.7 8 3.7 3.8 7.1 0.0 3.4 20.7 14.3 14.3 25.9 9 18.5 3.8 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.4 3.6 0.0 40.7


Question A-5 Pre-Meeting Respondents

Rank Federal

Gov. State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munic

Local Landownders

Industry/Business

Enviro Groups


1 0.0 46.4 14.3 17.9 14.3 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.6 2 17.9 14.3 35.7 14.3 3.6 11.5 0.0 3.8 7.1 3 7.1 7.1 25.0 28.6 7.1 3.8 10.7 3.8 3.6 4 21.4 10.7 7.1 14.3 21.4 15.4 3.6 11.5 3.6 5 7.1 7.1 3.6 7.1 14.3 11.5 28.6 11.5 7.1 6 10.7 0.0 3.6 3.6 10.7 19.2 25.0 7.7 10.7 7 0.0 0.0 3.6 14.3 17.9 11.5 14.3 34.6 0.0 8 10.7 3.6 3.6 0.0 7.1 3.8 10.7 19.2 25.0 9 17.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 3.8 35.7

131

Appendix G

Respondent’s rankings for question A-6

132


Question A-6 Post-Meeting Respondents

Rank Federal

Gov. State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munic

Local Landownders

Industry/Business

Enviro Groups

Farm Group

s Educators 1 3.2 20.0 25.7 33.3 20.6 6.1 9.1 6.5 3.1 2 0.0 11.4 31.4 19.4 17.6 12.1 0.0 6.5 0.0 3 3.2 17.1 11.4 22.2 14.7 18.2 6.1 16.1 3.1 4 22.6 0.0 2.9 13.9 11.8 18.2 6.1 9.7 6.3 5 0.0 17.1 5.7 2.8 5.9 24.2 18.2 12.9 3.1 6 9.7 8.6 8.6 2.8 14.7 6.1 9.1 19.4 15.6 7 16.1 11.4 8.6 2.8 11.8 9.1 12.1 12.9 6.3 8 16.1 14.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.1 24.2 12.9 15.6 9 25.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 3.2 43.8 * Highlighted Box is the highest percentage of respondents for the corresponding rank

Question A-6 Public Respondents

Rank Federal

Gov. State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munic

Local Landownders

Industry/Business

Enviro Groups

Farm Group

s Educators 1 7.4 25.0 14.3 28.6 24.1 6.9 3.4 11.1 0.0 2 7.4 7.1 28.6 14.3 17.2 13.8 10.3 11.1 0.0 3 7.4 14.3 21.4 7.1 24.1 10.3 0.0 7.4 7.4 4 7.4 10.7 7.1 10.7 3.4 6.9 27.6 7.4 11.1 5 18.5 14.3 3.6 14.3 13.8 10.3 10.3 3.7 3.7 6 7.4 7.1 7.1 10.7 3.4 17.2 6.9 22.2 11.1 7 14.8 0.0 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.9 13.8 18.5 7.4 8 0.0 10.7 10.7 0.0 3.4 27.6 17.2 11.1 18.5 9 14.8 10.7 0.0 7.1 3.4 0.0 10.3 3.7 37.0 * Highlighted Box is the highest percentage of respondents for the corresponding rank

Question A-6 Pre-Meeting Respondents

Rank Federal

Gov. State Gov.

County Gov.

Local Munic

Local Landownders

Industry/Business

Enviro Groups


1 0.0 37.5 21.7 34.8 13.6 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 2 8.7 8.3 47.8 13.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 4.3 4.2 3 4.3 29.2 13.0 30.4 13.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4 39.1 8.3 8.7 4.3 13.6 4.3 8.7 8.7 0.0 5 8.7 8.3 4.3 8.7 18.2 21.7 34.8 0.0 0.0 6 8.7 0.0 4.3 4.3 13.6 21.7 17.4 8.7 16.7 7 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.3 18.2 13.0 21.7 30.4 4.2 8 8.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 17.4 13.0 30.4 16.7 9 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 8.7 0.0 8.7 50.0

133

Appendix H

Chi-Square Test for question B-3

134

Chi-Square for Question B-3 Meeting Attendee vs. Public


Row variable 0-5 5-10 10-15 Total Meeting Attendee 48 12 3 63

Public 25 4 0 29 Total 73 16 3 92


Column variable Row variable 0-5 5-10 10-15 Total

Meeting Attendee 49.98913 10.95652 2.054348 63 Public 23.01087 5.043478 0.945652 29 Total 73 16 3 92

Data Calculations

Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe Number of Rows 2 -1.98913 1.043478 0.945652Number of Columns 3 1.98913 -1.04348 -0.94565Degrees of Freedom 2


Do not reject the null hypothesis 0.171947 0.215892 0.945652

135

Chi-Square for Question B-3 Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. Post-Meeting Respondents


Row variable 0-5 5-10 10-15 Total Pre 17 7 3 27

post 31 5 0 36 Total 48 12 3 63


Column variable Row variable 0-5 5-10 10-15 Total

Pre 20.57143 5.142857 1.285714 27 post 27.42857 6.857143 1.714286 36

Total 48 12 3 63

Data Level of Significance 0.05 Calculations Number of Rows 2 fo-fe Number of Columns 3 -3.57143 1.857143 1.714286 Degrees of Freedom 2 3.571429 -1.85714 -1.71429

Results Critical Value 5.9915 Chi-Square Test Statistic 6.2587 p-Value 0.0437 (fo-fe)^2/fe

Reject the null hypothesis 0.62004 0.670635 2.285714 0.46503 0.502976 1.714286

136

Appendix I

Chi-Square Test for question B-4

137

Chi-Square for Question B-4 Meeting Attendee vs. Public

Observed Frequencies Column variable Row variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

attend 15 24 10 0 3 3 55Non 14 20 6 2 0 1 43

Total 29 44 16 2 3 4 98

Expected Frequencies Column variable Row variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

attend 16.27551 24.69388 8.979592 1.122449 1.683673 2.244898 55Non 12.72449 19.30612 7.020408 0.877551 1.316327 1.755102 43

Total 29 44 16 2 3 4 98

Data Calculations Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe fo-fe Number of Rows 2 -1.27551 -0.69388 1.020408 -1.12245 1.316327 0.755102Number of Columns 6 1.27551 0.693878 -1.02041 1.122449 -1.31633 -0.7551Degrees of Freedom 5

Results Critical Value 11.0705 Chi-Square Test Statistic 6.0190 (fo-fe)^2/fe p-Value 0.3044 0.099962 0.019497 0.115955 1.122449 1.029128 0.253989

Do not reject the null hypothesis 0.127858 0.024939 0.148315 1.435691 1.316327 0.324869


138

Chi-Square for Question B-4 Pre-Meeting Respondent vs. Post-Meeting Respondent


Row variable 1 2 3 5 6 Total Pre 7 14 7 1 3 32

Post 10 14 7 1 2 34Total 17 28 14 2 5 66


Column variable Row variable 1 2 3 5 6 Total

Pre 8.242424 13.57576 6.787879 0.969697 2.424242 32Post 8.757576 14.42424 7.212121 1.030303 2.575758 34Total 17 28 14 2 5 66

Data Calculations

Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe Number of Rows 2 -1.24242 0.424242 0.212121 0.030303 0.575758Number of Columns 6 1.242424 -0.42424 -0.21212 -0.0303 -0.57576Degrees of Freedom 5

Results Critical Value 11.0705 Chi-Square Test Statistic 0.6694

(fo-fe)^2/fe

p-Value 0.9846 0.187277 0.013258 0.006629 0.000947 0.136742Do not reject the null

hypothesis 0.176261 0.012478 0.006239 0.000891 0.128699

139

Appendix J

Spearman-Rank Correlation Test for willingness to donate and willingness to

participate

140

X (Willingness to Donate) X rank

Y (Willingness to Participate)

y rank

x rank-y rank

Dif of ranks^2

3 50 2 48 2 4 1 1 3 60 -59 3481 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 22 2 48 -26 676 2 22 2 48 -26 676 3 50 2 48 2 4 2 22 4 63 -41 1681 3 50 1 1 49 2401 2 22 2 48 -26 676 2 22 1 1 21 441 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 58 3 60 -2 4 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 2 48 -26 676 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 1 1 21 441 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 22 1 1 21 441 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 60 1 1 59 3481 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 22 2 48 -26 676 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 1 1 21 441 5 58 1 1 57 3249 3 50 1 1 49 2401 2 22 1 1 21 441 6 60 2 48 12 144 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 2 48 -26 676 1 1 2 48 -47 2209 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 2 48 -26 676 2 22 1 1 21 441

141

2 22 1 1 21 441

1 1 1 1 0 0 3 50 2 48 2 4 2 22 1 1 21 441 3 50 1 1 49 2401 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 1 1 21 441 2 22 1 1 21 441 6 60 3 60 0 0 4 57 1 1 56 3136 2 22 1 1 21 441 6 60 1 1 59 3481 2 22 1 1 21 441 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 22 1 1 21 441 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 50 1 1 49 2401

Sum 44034 r = -0.056883641

142

Appendix K

Spearman-Rank Correlation Test for respondent income and willingness to

participate

143

X (Income) X rank Y (Willingness to participate) y rank

x rank-y rank

Dif of ranks^2

1 2 2 44 -42 17641 2 3 56 -54 29161 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 44 -42 17641 2 2 44 -42 17642 23 2 44 -21 4411 2 4 59 -57 32491 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 44 -42 17642 23 1 1 22 4841 2 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 14 42 3 56 -14 1961 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 44 -42 17641 2 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 0 05 51 1 1 50 25004 42 1 1 41 16815 51 1 1 50 25005 51 1 1 50 25004 42 1 1 41 16815 51 1 1 50 25004 42 1 1 41 16815 51 1 1 50 25004 42 1 1 41 16813 28 1 1 27 7294 42 1 1 41 16815 51 2 44 7 493 28 1 1 27 7293 28 1 1 27 7295 51 1 1 50 25005 51 1 1 50 25003 28 1 1 27 7292 23 2 44 -21 4412 23 1 1 22 4841 2 2 44 -42 17641 2 2 44 -42 17641 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 44 -42 17641 2 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 13 28 1 1 27 729

144

3 28 2 44 -16 2562 23 1 1 22 4843 28 1 1 27 7293 28 1 1 27 7294 42 1 1 41 16813 28 1 1 27 7293 28 3 56 -28 7843 28 1 1 27 7294 42 1 1 41 16813 28 1 1 27 7293 28 1 1 27 7294 42 1 1 41 16813 28 1 1 27 7295 51 1 1 50 2500

Sum 66103

r =-0.931706604

(Excel Equation)

145

Appendix L

Spearman-Rank Correlation Test for respondent age and willingness to

participate

146

X (Age) X rank Y (Willingness to participate) y rank x rank-y rank Dif of ranks^2

2 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 3 61 -60 36002 1 1 1 0 02 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 4 64 -63 39692 1 1 1 0 02 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 1 1 0 02 1 1 1 0 02 1 1 1 0 02 1 1 1 0 05 56 3 61 -5 252 1 1 1 0 02 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 1 1 0 02 1 1 1 0 05 56 1 1 55 30254 34 1 1 33 10893 29 1 1 28 7844 34 1 1 33 10892 1 1 1 0 04 34 1 1 33 10895 56 1 1 55 30254 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10892 1 1 1 0 04 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10895 56 2 49 7 493 29 1 1 28 7844 34 1 1 33 10895 56 1 1 55 30255 56 1 1 55 30255 56 1 1 55 30254 34 1 1 33 10892 1 2 49 -48 23042 1 1 1 0 04 34 1 1 33 10892 1 2 49 -48 23043 29 2 49 -20 4002 1 1 1 0 02 1 1 1 0 02 1 2 49 -48 2304

147

2 1 1 1 0 02 1 1 1 0 04 34 1 1 33 10894 34 2 49 -15 2254 34 1 1 33 10893 29 1 1 28 7842 1 1 1 0 04 34 1 1 33 10893 29 1 1 28 7844 34 3 61 -27 7294 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10894 34 1 1 33 10895 56 1 1 55 30254 34 1 1 33 10895 56 1 1 55 3025

Sum 75824 r = -0.735897436

148

Appendix M

Spearman-Rank Correlation Test for respondent residence and willingness to

participate

149

X (Residence) X rank

Y (Willingness to participate) y rank x rank-y rank

Dif of ranks^2

3 10 2 43 -33 10893 10 3 52 -42 17643 10 1 1 9 813 10 2 43 -33 10893 10 2 43 -33 10893 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 3 52 -42 17643 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 811 1 1 1 0 03 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 814 42 1 1 41 16813 10 1 1 9 814 42 1 1 41 16816 53 1 1 52 27044 42 1 1 41 16813 10 1 1 9 811 1 2 43 -42 17646 53 1 1 52 27041 1 1 1 0 03 10 1 1 9 814 42 1 1 41 16812 7 1 1 6 363 10 2 43 -33 10894 42 1 1 41 16813 10 1 1 9 813 10 2 43 -33 10891 1 2 43 -42 17645 51 1 1 50 25003 10 2 43 -33 10891 1 1 1 0 03 10 1 1 9 815 51 1 1 50 25003 10 2 43 -33 10893 10 1 1 9 811 1 1 1 0 0

150

4 42 1 1 41 16813 10 3 52 -42 17644 42 1 1 41 16813 10 1 1 9 813 10 1 1 9 812 7 1 1 6 364 42 1 1 41 16813 10 1 1 9 814 42 1 1 41 16812 7 1 1 6 36

Sum 43870 r = -0.672193634

151

Appendix N

Spearman-Rank Correlation Test for respondent education and willingness to

participate

152

X (Education) X rank

Y (Willingness to participate) y rank

x rank-y rank Dif of ranks^2

18 45 1 1 44 193614 8 1 1 7 4918 45 1 1 44 193618 45 1 1 44 193612 1 1 1 0 017 40 1 1 39 152114 8 1 1 7 4918 45 2 46 -1 117 40 1 1 39 152118 45 1 1 44 193616 21 1 1 20 40018 45 1 1 44 193618 45 1 1 44 193617 40 3 58 -18 32426 61 1 1 60 360014 8 2 46 -38 144415 13 1 1 12 14415 13 1 1 12 14416 21 2 46 -25 62516 21 2 46 -25 62516 21 1 1 20 40015 13 1 1 12 14416 21 2 46 -25 62516 21 1 1 20 40019 55 1 1 54 291620 57 1 1 56 313616 21 1 1 20 40018 45 1 1 44 193621 60 1 1 59 348112 1 1 1 0 019 55 1 1 54 291616 21 1 1 20 40016 21 1 1 20 40016 21 1 1 20 40017 40 1 1 39 152116 21 1 1 20 40020 57 2 46 11 12117 40 1 1 39 152116 21 1 1 20 40018 45 1 1 44 193620 57 1 1 56 313616 21 1 1 20 40016 21 1 1 20 400

153

18 45 3 58 -13 16913.5 7 1 1 6 36

12 1 2 46 -45 202515 13 1 1 12 14416 21 1 1 20 40015 13 2 46 -33 108913 6 3 58 -52 270415 13 1 1 12 14412 1 2 46 -45 202514 8 2 46 -38 144416 21 2 46 -25 62512 1 4 61 -60 3600

15.5 20 1 1 19 36114 8 2 46 -38 144416 21 1 1 20 40015 13 1 1 12 14416 21 1 1 20 40016 21 1 1 20 400

Sum 67006 r = -0.771708091

154

Appendix O

Spearman-Rank Correlation Test for respondent income and willingness to

donate

155

X (Income) X rank Y (Willingness to donate) y rank

x rank-y rank

Dif of ranks^2

4 64 2 36 28 7843 41 2 36 5 251 1 1 1 0 03 41 2 36 5 251 1 3 73 -72 51841 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 01 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 2 36 -35 12252 34 3 73 -39 15211 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 3 73 -72 51841 1 2 36 -35 12252 34 2 36 -2 41 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 04 64 5 79 -15 2251 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 2 36 -35 12255 76 2 36 40 16004 64 1 1 63 39695 76 1 1 75 56254 64 1 1 63 39695 76 1 1 75 56254 64 6 81 -17 2895 76 1 1 75 56254 64 1 1 63 39693 41 1 1 40 16004 64 1 1 63 39695 76 2 36 40 16003 41 2 36 5 253 41 2 36 5 255 76 2 36 40 16005 76 5 79 -3 93 41 3 73 -32 10242 34 6 81 -47 22092 34 1 1 33 10891 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 01 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 2 36 -35 1225

156

1 1 2 36 -35 12253 41 1 1 40 16003 41 3 73 -32 10242 34 2 36 -2 43 41 3 73 -32 10243 41 2 36 5 254 64 2 36 28 7843 41 2 36 5 253 41 6 81 -40 16003 41 2 36 5 254 64 6 81 -17 2893 41 2 36 5 253 41 1 1 40 16004 64 2 36 28 7845 76 2 36 40 16005 76 1 1 75 56254 64 2 36 28 7841 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 02 34 1 1 33 10891 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 2 36 -35 12251 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 01 1 2 36 -35 12252 34 1 1 33 10893 41 1 1 40 16001 1 1 1 0 03 41 2 36 5 253 41 2 36 5 253 41 1 1 40 16001 1 1 1 0 03 41 1 1 40 16003 41 2 36 5 254 64 1 1 63 39693 41 2 36 5 251 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 0 03 41 1 1 40 1600

Sum 104613

r -

0.059157639

157

Appendix P

Chi-Square Test for revised question A-3

158

Chi-Square for Revised Question A-3 Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. Post-Meeting Respondents

Observed Frequencies Column variable Calculations

Row variable Good Poor Total fo-fe Pre 30 11 41 4.185185 -4.18519

Post 21 19 40 -4.18519 4.185185Total 51 30 81


Column variable Row variable Good Poor Total (fo-fe)^2/fe

Pre 25.81481 15.18519 41 0.678516 1.153478Post 25.18519 14.81481 40 0.695479 1.182315Total 51 30 81

Data

Level of Significance 0.05 Number of Rows 2 Number of Columns 2 Degrees of Freedom 1

Results Critical Value 3.8415 Chi-Square Test Statistic 3.7098 p-Value 0.0541

Do not reject the null hypothesis Expected frequency assumption is met.

159

Chi-Square for Revised Question A-3 Meeting Attendee vs. Public

Observed Frequencies Column variable Calculations

Row variable Good Poor Total fo-fe Attend 51 30 81 -2.77869 2.778689

Non 30 11 41 2.778689 -2.77869Total 81 41 122


Column variable Row variable Good Poor Total (fo-fe)^2/fe

Attend 53.77869 27.22131 81 0.143572 0.283642Non 27.22131 13.77869 41 0.283642 0.560366

Total 81 41 122

Data Level of Significance 0.05 Number of Rows 2 Number of Columns 2 Degrees of Freedom 1

Results Critical Value 3.8415 Chi-Square Test Statistic 1.2712 p-Value 0.2595

Do not reject the null hypothesis Expected frequency assumption is met.

160

Appendix Q

Chi-Square Test for revised question B-3

161

Chi-Square for Revised Question B-3 Pre-Meeting Respondents vs. The Public


Row variable 0 1 5-Feb 10-May Total Random 2 6 4 2 14

Pre 1 3 9 1 14 Total 3 9 13 3 28


Column variable Row variable 0 1 39483 39578 Total

Random 1.5 4.5 6.5 1.5 14 Pre 1.5 4.5 6.5 1.5 14

Total 3 9 13 3 28

Data Calculations Level of Significance 0.05 fo-fe Number of Rows 3 0.5 1.5 -2.5 0.5 Number of Columns 4 -0.5 -1.5 2.5 -0.5 Degrees of Freedom 6

Results Critical Value 12.5916

Chi-Square Test Statistic 3.2564(fo-fe)^2/fe

p-Value 0.7760 0 0.5 0.961538 0.166667 Do not reject the null hypothesis 0 0.5 0.961538 0.166667


quantifying the effectiveness of public meetings to ... · development while seeking progress in...

Documents