Comparing the Effects of Two Invasive Species Education Programs at Cumberland Island, Georgia Lincoln R. Larson Ryan L. Sharp Gary T.

Transcription

1 February 27, 2012 Comparing the Effects of Two Invasive Species Education Programs at Cumberland Island, Georgia Lincoln R. Larson Ryan L. Sharp Gary T. Green

2 Introduction Public input = key component of public land management but public perceptions & sound science often clash Education can help resolve problem Programs designed to increase public awareness provide critical support for protected area management (Bright et al., 1993; Powell & Ham, 2008)

3 Introduction On-site interpretive/educational programs often have major impact on knowledge, awareness & attitudes (Henker & Brown, 2011) Two main types (Knudson et al., 2003; Marion & Reid, 2007) Interpersonal Communication Non-personal Communication Example Interpretive talks Flyers, brochures PROs CONs Face-to-face, 2-way interactions, facilitate connections High costs of training & staffing Easy to reach broad noncaptive audience, low cost Relatively inflexible, difficult to convey/adapt messages

4 Introduction Research needed to help managers identify cost-effective strategies for educating visitors & influencing stewardship actions (Coble et al. 2005; Hughes et al., 2009) What types of educational messages are more effective: interpersonal or non-personal?

5 CUIS Case Study

6 CUIS Case Study Core issue = invasive species Ecological impacts well documented Human dimensions not adequately explored NPS working to control invasives Public support & education critical (McNeely, 2001)

7 Research Objective Evaluate effects of two education programs (interpretive flyer & ranger talk) on visitors knowledge of, attitudes toward & support for invasive species management at CUIS

8 Educational Treatments Quasi-experimental design: visitors randomly assigned to certain groups on certain days Talk (interpersonal) (n = 320) 5-7 minute orientation talk by ranger Conducted as visitors arrived on the island Flyer (non-personal) (n = 363) 2 sided, 8.5 x 11 black-and-white, tri-fold Distributed to visitors as they arrived on the island Control (n = 410) Visitors received no education/interpretation

9 Defining Treatment Groups Variable Educational Treatment Talk (n = 320) Flyer (n = 363) Control (n = 410) TOTAL (n = 1093) Gender (% male) Age (% under 40) * Race/Ethnicity (% White) Education (% Adv. Degree) First Visit to CUIS (% Yes) CUIS Stay (% Day Use) *** NP Visit Past Year (% Yes) Conservation Org. (% Yes) Invasive Species Info (% exposed to info in past yr.) Chi-square significant at alpha = 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**), and (***)

10 Validating Treatment Groups Invasive Species Information Sources for CUIS Visitors (by Assigned Treatment Group) Self-reported Source Assigned Treatment Group Talk (%) Flyer (%) Control (%) Info from Any Source Talk Flyer Other Ranger Talk

11 Research Methods Intercept surveys of park visitors (1,093) Response rate = 93% 1 mile N Sea Camp Dock Dungeness Dock

12 Survey Constructs Knowledge General (8 items, Cronbach s α = 0.881) Site-specific (6 items, Cronbach s α = 0.729) Perceived Threats Invasive mammals (2 items, Cronbach s α = 0.669) Other invasives (4 items, Cronbach s α = 0.731)

13 Survey Constructs Environmental Attitudes Adaptive ecocentric (8 items, Cronbach s α = 0.819) Absolute ecocentric (3 items, Cronbach s α = 0.708) Management Preferences Leave invasives alone (1 item) Adaptive on-site management of invasives (7 items, Cronbach s α = 0.784) Complete eradication of invasives (2 items, Cronbach s α = 0.729)

14 Data Analysis 1. ANOVA contrasts Compare aggregate effect of treatments (mean of flyer & talk) vs. control 2. Bonferroni pair-wise comparisons Compare specific effects of each treatment separately

15 Results: Knowledge Correct definition of invasive species χ 2 (df = 8) = 19.1, p = Talk (50.3%), Flyer (40.5%), Control (39.8%) General Knowledge t(1075) = 1.50, p = Overall Mean = 2.03 (Scale = 1 to 3) Site-specific Knowledge t(1090) = -0.62, p = Overall Mean = 0.37 (Scale = 0 to 1)

16 Results: Knowledge Visitors General Knowledge of Invasive Species by Educational Treatment Group Why species are considered invasive Not Aware Very 3 Aware Why removal of invasives is important Effects of invasives on native species Control Flyer Talk Invasives' contributions to T&E listings

17 Results: Knowledge Visitors Awareness of Invasive Species by Educational Treatment Group Feral Horses Not Familiar Very 3 Familiar Feral Hogs Ambrosia Beetles Tung Oil Tree Bamboo Control Flyer Talk Privet

18 Results: Perceived Threats Invasive Mammals (Horses & Hogs) t(1065) = 2.08, p = Overall Mean = 2.84 (Scale = 1 to 4) Other Invasive Species t(1056) = 1.02, p = Overall Mean = 2.35 (Scale = 1 to 4)

19 Results: Perceived Threats Perceived Threat of Invasive Species by Educational Treatment Group No Threat Severe Threat Type of Invasive Mammals Other Species Control Flyer Talk

20 Results: Attitudes Adaptive ecocentric t(1075) = 0.53, p = Overall Mean = 3.94 (Scale = 1 to 5) Absolute ecocentric t(1075) = -0.13, p = Overall Mean = 3.17 (Scale = 1 to 5)

21 Results: Management Prefs Leave alone t(1052) = 0.13, p = Overall Mean = (Scale = -2 to +2) Adaptive on-site management t(1070) = -0.47, p = Overall Mean = (Scale = -2 to +2) Complete eradication t(1057) = -2.33, p = Overall Mean = (Scale = -2 to +2)

22 Results: Management Prefs Visitors Support for Invasive Species Management by Educational Treatment Group Management Options Unacceptable Leave Alone On-site Management Acceptable Control Flyer Talk Complete Eradication Flyer group LEAST likely to support management

23 Conclusions Educational treatments: Knowledge & attitudes: minimal effect Awareness & perceived threats: significant effect Management preferences: unexpected effect Talk generally more effective than flyer, especially for management preferences

24 Discussion Advantages of interpersonal approach: (Henker & Brown, 2011; Knapp & Benton, 2004) Clarity of message Ability to present issue & check for understanding Short-term interventions may not produce affective change (DiMauro & Dietz, 2001; Ham, 2007) Importance of active messaging & repetition (Hughes et al., 2009)

25 Recommendations Utilize integrated approach (audio & visual, personal & non-personal) (Ballantyne et al., 1998: Coble et al., 2005) Design with visitor motivations & preferences in mind (Absher & Graefe, 1997) Capitalize on existing infrastructure (timing, delivery critical)

26 Acknowledgments Ryan Sharp National Park Service Contact Information: Lincoln Larson