Amy Carrozzino-Lyon

Wildlife professionals and recreational users
of wildlife management areas in Virginia:
An application of co-orientation to evaluate attitudes toward land
management
Amy L. Carrozzino-Lyon
Steve L. McMullin
James A. Parkhurst
Funded in part by Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Project-WE99R.
1

Wildlife management areas
• WMA Mission:
– Create, maintain &
enhance wildlife
habitat
– Hunting & fishing
opportunities and
other forms of wildliferelated
recreation
• Broadening stakeholders = changes in attitudes
toward land management?
2

Managing in the Public Trust
• Natural resources as a
public resource, held in
trust by NR managers
• NR managers make
decisions, conduct
management activities
on behalf of public
– Same values, opinions, &
perceptions?
Absher et al. 1988; Bradley and Kearney 2007; Kearney et al. 1999; Peyton and Langenau 1985
3

Co-orientation theory:
Organization-public relationship
• Beyond audience characterization
– Extent to which parties share views
– Identify and measure similarities and differences
in actual and perceived views and assumptions
• Ask participants to provide
own and predicted responses
Cutlip et al. 2000; Dozier et al. 1995; Grunig 2001
4

Potential co-orientation outcomes
Agreement
Low
High
Accuracy
Low High
False consensus
do not share views, do
not recognize other
group's views
False conflict
share views, but do not
recognize shared views
Dissensus
do not share views, but
recognize differences
True consensus
similar views and
recognize shared views
Broom &
Dozier, 1990;
Dozier &
Ehling, 1992
5

Objective
Apply co-orientation to describe attitudes of agency
managers and a diversity of wildlife management
area recreational users toward land management
Little North Mountain WMA
6

• Paper (n=1,227) and
web-based (n=360)
versions
Survey methods
– User preference
indicated during on-site
interviews (2009-10)
• VDGIF agency survey
– Web-based (n=81)
March- April 2011
7

Co-orientation of managers and
VDGIF’s attitudes toward
land management
Congruency*
VDGIF’s perception of
WMA users’ attitudes
Adapted from McLeod and Chaffee 1973:484
recreational users
Agreement
WMA users’ attitudes
toward land management
Congruency*
WMA users’ perception of
DGIF’s attitudes
*Perceived agreement
8

Results
WMA recreational users VDGIF managers
n = 726 (50% response rate) n = 77 (95% response rate)
94% male, 6% female 90% male, 10% female
Mean age: 49 years
(range: 20-89 yrs.)
85% held a valid VA hunting
and/or fishing license
Mean age: 48 years
(range: 29-63 yrs.)
• WMA respondents were representative of the
user population
9

WMA users: response frequencies
timber harvest, improve habitat
timber harvest, diseased trees
timber harvest, forest unchanged
prescribed burn, risk minimized
prescribed burn, historic role of fire
prescribed burn, habitat diversity
herbicide, invasive species
herbicide, safe for wildlife
herbicide, treat undesirable only
mechanical, open fields and clearings
mechanical, pollution prevented
mechanical, wildlife displaced temp.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10
SA
A
N
D
SD

VDGIF managers: response frequencies
timber harvest, improve habitat
timber harvest, diseased trees
timber harvest, forest unchanged
prescribed burn, risk minimized
prescribed burn, historic role of fire
prescribed burn, habitat diversity
herbicide, invasive species
herbicide, safe for wildlife
herbicide, treat undesirable only
mechanical, open fields and clearings
mechanical, pollution prevented
mechanical, wildlife displaced temp.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11
SA
A
N
D
SD

Did majority agree with VDGIF managers?
(Agreement)
Frequency analysis: WMA user co-orientation
No
Yes
Did majority recognize VDGIF managers’ position? (Accuracy)
No Yes
False consensus Dissensus
timber harvest, forest unchanged timber harvest, improve habitat
timber harvest, diseased trees
False conflict True consensus
prescribed burn, risk minimized
prescribed burn, historic role of fire
prescribed burn, habitat diversity
herbicides, invasive species
herbicides, safe for wildlife
herbicides, treat undesirable only
mechanical, open fields & clearings
mechanical, pollution prevented
mechanical, wildlife displaced temp.
12

Did majority agree with WMA users?
(Agreement)
No
Yes
Frequency analysis: VDGIF co-orientation
Did majority recognize WMA users’ position? (Accuracy)
No Yes
False consensus Dissensus
timber harvest, improve habitat timber harvest, forest unchanged
timber harvest, diseased trees
False conflict True consensus
prescribed burn, risk minimized
prescribed burn, historic role of fire
prescribed burn, habitat diversity
herbicides, invasive species
herbicides, safe for wildlife
herbicides, treat undesirable only
mechanical, open fields & clearings
mechanical, pollution prevented
mechanical, wildlife displaced temp.
13

Frequency analysis summary
• High agreement and accuracy for majority of
both groups
– Timber harvest as exception
• Managers agreed with most practices more
strongly than WMA users
– Timber harvest as exception
• In some cases, WMA users were neutral,
agreed less strongly
– Level of agreement? (Chi-square)
14

Agreement (shared views)
Statistical analysis: WMA user co-orientation
Low
High
Accuracy
Low High
False consensus Dissensus
timber harvest, improve habitat herbicides, treat undesirable only
timber harvest, diseased trees
timber harvest, forest unchanged
prescribed burn, historic role of fire
prescribed burn, habitat diversity
herbicides, invasive species
mechanical, open fields & clearings
mechanical, wildlife displaced temp.
False conflict True consensus
prescribed burn, risk minimized mechanical, pollution prevented
herbicides, safe for wildlife
15

Agreement (shared views)
Low
High
Statistical analysis: VDGIF co-orientation
Accuracy
Low High
False consensus Dissensus
timber harvest, improve habitat timber harvest, forest unchanged
prescribed burn, historic role of fire mechanical, open fields & clearings
prescribed burn, habitat diversity timber harvest, diseased trees
herbicides, invasive species mechanical, wildlife displaced temp.
herbicides, treat undesirable only
False conflict True consensus
herbicides, safe for wildlife prescribed burn, risk minimized
mechanical, pollution prevented
16

Statistical analysis summary
• Low agreement and low accuracy for both
groups
– Statistically different views as a result of level of
agreement, predicted level of agreement
• Managers more accurate at predicting overall
positions of WMA users
17

• Considering either
method of analysis
alone may lead to
different conclusions
Discussion
– Frequencies: optimistic,
may mask potential
issues
– Statistics: statistical
significance may not be
managerial
18

Discussion
• Timber harvest: statistical and managerial
significance
– Disagreement present, sometimes unrecognized
– Area in need of attention, may be difficult to address
• Other practices have potential to become
problematic
– Differences in level of agreement
• e.g., prescribed burning for habitat diversity
– Neutral attitudes may change as a result of new
information and experiences
19

Management implications
• Co-orientation has benefits for agencies
– Recognize disagreement and misunderstandings
– Pro-actively identify areas of controversy
– Effectively engage with broadening stakeholders
• Further application in natural resources
– Appropriate analysis depends on objectives
– Frequency and statistical analyses aided in
identifying managerial importance
20

Goshen WMA
Questions or
comments
21

Literature Cited
• Absher, J.D., L.H. McAvoy, R.J. Burdge, and J.H. Gramann. 1988. Public and commercial managers
predicting recreationist opinions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 6:66-77.
• Bradley, G.A., and A.R. Kearney. 2007. Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber
harvesting: different ways of seeing. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 22:42-54.
• Broom, G.M., and D.M. Dozier. 1990. Using research in public relations: applications to program
management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
• Cutlip, S.M., A.H. Center, and G.M. Broom. 2000. Effective Public Relations, 8th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
• Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us
about their effects. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.). Excellence in public relations and communication management
(pp. 159–184). Hillsdale, New Jersey ,Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Dozier, D.M., L.A. Grunig, and J.E. Grunig. 1995. Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and
communication management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA.
• Grunig, J.E. 2001. Two-way symmetrical public relations: past, present, and future. Pages 11-30 in R.L.
Heath, ed., Handbook of Public Relations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
• Kearney, A.R., G. Bradley, R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan. 1999. Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest
management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45:62-73.
• McLeod, J.M., and S.H. Chaffee. 1973. Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American
Behavioral Scientist 16:469-499.
• Peyton, R.B., and E.E. Langenau. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM biologists and the general
public towards animals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:117-120.
22