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
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)
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
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?
CUIS Case Study
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)
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
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
Defining Treatment Groups Variable Educational Treatment Talk (n = 320) Flyer (n = 363) Control (n = 410) TOTAL (n = 1093) Gender (% male) 52.7 49.3 48.5 50.0 Age (% under 40) * 36.9 44.9 37.2 39.6 Race/Ethnicity (% White) 94.6 92.6 93.5 93.6 Education (% Adv. Degree) 57.6 59.9 53.9 56.9 First Visit to CUIS (% Yes) 69.8 67.4 63.8 66.8 CUIS Stay (% Day Use) *** 63.6 71.5 57.2 63.8 NP Visit Past Year (% Yes) 54.0 55.6 60.8 57.1 Conservation Org. (% Yes) 13.2 15.6 15.4 14.8 Invasive Species Info (% exposed to info in past yr.) 49.2 54.8 52.0 52.1 Chi-square significant at alpha = 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**), and 0.001 (***)
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 70.3 69.1 29.8 Talk 56.6 1.1 2.4 Flyer 0.6 54.3 2.0 Other Ranger Talk 12.2 13.8 26.8
Research Methods Intercept surveys of park visitors (1,093) Response rate = 93% 1 mile N Sea Camp Dock Dungeness Dock
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)
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)
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
Results: Knowledge Correct definition of invasive species χ 2 (df = 8) = 19.1, p = 0.014 Talk (50.3%), Flyer (40.5%), Control (39.8%) General Knowledge t(1075) = 1.50, p = 0.133 Overall Mean = 2.03 (Scale = 1 to 3) Site-specific Knowledge t(1090) = -0.62, p = 0.534 Overall Mean = 0.37 (Scale = 0 to 1)
Results: Knowledge Visitors General Knowledge of Invasive Species by Educational Treatment Group Why species are considered invasive Not Aware 1 1.5 2 2.5 Very 3 Aware Why removal of invasives is important Effects of invasives on native species Control Flyer Talk Invasives' contributions to T&E listings
Results: Knowledge Visitors Awareness of Invasive Species by Educational Treatment Group Feral Horses Not Familiar 1 1.5 2 2.5 Very 3 Familiar Feral Hogs Ambrosia Beetles Tung Oil Tree Bamboo Control Flyer Talk Privet
Results: Perceived Threats Invasive Mammals (Horses & Hogs) t(1065) = 2.08, p = 0.038 Overall Mean = 2.84 (Scale = 1 to 4) Other Invasive Species t(1056) = 1.02, p = 0.309 Overall Mean = 2.35 (Scale = 1 to 4)
Results: Perceived Threats Perceived Threat of Invasive Species by Educational Treatment Group No Threat 1 2 3 4 Severe Threat Type of Invasive Mammals Other Species Control Flyer Talk
Results: Attitudes Adaptive ecocentric t(1075) = 0.53, p = 0.598 Overall Mean = 3.94 (Scale = 1 to 5) Absolute ecocentric t(1075) = -0.13, p = 0.900 Overall Mean = 3.17 (Scale = 1 to 5)
Results: Management Prefs Leave alone t(1052) = 0.13, p = 0.900 Overall Mean = -0.18 (Scale = -2 to +2) Adaptive on-site management t(1070) = -0.47, p = 0.638 Overall Mean = +0.91 (Scale = -2 to +2) Complete eradication t(1057) = -2.33, p = 0.020 Overall Mean = -0.09 (Scale = -2 to +2)
Results: Management Prefs Visitors Support for Invasive Species Management by Educational Treatment Group Management Options Unacceptable Leave Alone On-site Management -1-0.5 0 0.5 1 Acceptable Control Flyer Talk Complete Eradication Flyer group LEAST likely to support management
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
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)
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)
Acknowledgments Ryan Sharp National Park Service Contact Information: Lincoln Larson llarson@uga.edu