Community-Agency TrustVoyageurs National Park - University of

Document Sample
Community-Agency TrustVoyageurs National Park - University of Powered By Docstoc
					        Community – Agency Trust: Voyageurs National Park
        Joseph M. Schertz - Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota
        Dorothy H. Anderson, Ph.D. University of Minnesota
        Jerrilyn L. Thompson, National Park Service

                                                                                                                                   • Respondents agree that par k staff are hon est       Over time r espondent trust in the N ational Par k
Introduction                                                             Trust Dimensions                                                                 self-
                                                                                                                                   and that they are not self - serving in their          Service has not fluctuated significantly; little
Since est ablishm ent in 1975 local support for the                                                                                decision-
                                                                                                                                   decision- making. They slightly disagree that                                       respondent’
                                                                                                                                                                                          difference exists b et ween respondent ’s overall
park and the relationship of the p ark to it s local                                                                               park m anager s r eally car e about what h appens      trust in the NPS at the national level and the
neighbors has been difficult . Communit y m ember s                                                                                to them and that park staff ar e sensitive to lo cal   local level. Ho wever, f ewer respondents at the
and park administrators wou ld like the                                                                                            economic impacts of tourism and recreation             local level report an improvement of their level
relationship of the park to the local communities                                                                                  (range = 2.90 - 3.59)                                  of trust in the NPS than at the national level.
to be a mor e positive one.
                                                                                                                                   • Respondents sho wed a weak agreement or a
                                                                                                                                   weak level of social tru st . Respondents agree
                                                                                                                                                            st.                           Discussion
Purpose                                                                                                                            slightly that mo st people can b e trusted, that if    Respondents believe p ark staff and
This poster d escribes the t yp es and levels of trust                                                                             they have a problem someon e will help them.
                                                                                                                                                                                          administrator s ar e technically and mor ally
communit y members living adjacent to or in clo se                                                                                 They slightly disagr ee that people are interested     competent. Ho wever most respondents do
proximit y to Vo yageur s National Park, Minnesota                                                                                 in others welfar e as well as their o wn, that
                                                                                                                                                                                          not believe the p ark shar es their values or
have toward the National Park Service (NPS) in                                                                                             won’
                                                                                                                                   people won’t take advantage of you, and that you       that park planning processes and
general and to ward local NPS staff and                                                                                            don’t need to be too careful wh en dealing with
                                                                                                                                   don’                                                   managem ent decisions ar e fair . Moreover, a
administrator s at Vo yag eurs.                                                                                                                   (r
                                                                                                                                   other people. ( r ange = 2.59 - 3.62)
                                                                                                                                                                                          large numb er of respondents say that their
                                                          Trust state ments were along a five-point scale ‘1 ’ indica tes strong
                                                                                                                                   • Respondents disagr ee that the park shares                           eur’
                                                                                                                                                                                          trust in Vo yag eur’s staff over time has
Methods                                                   disagreement a ‘3 ’ indica tes neither d isagreement nor agree ment
                                                          and a ‘5’ indicates strong agreement with the s tatemen t.               their values, has similar goals, supports their        wor sened . In 2005 the lead ership at the park
A m ailback survey u sing Dillman’ s Total Design
                           Dillman’                                                                                                                                                       changed. Communit y memb ers and par k
                                                                                                                                   view, is like them , or thinks like them
Method was used to gather d ata for this stud y. Th e    • Respondents agree that par k staff are well                                                                                    staff believe the chang e will allo w them to
                                                                                                                                   (range = 2.45 - 2.70)
sample consisted of communit y m ember s living in       trained and kno wledg eable about technical                                                                                      increase communication, collabor ation, and
International F alls, Minnesota and other smaller        matters, that they gen erally explain things well,                                                                               cooperation on a number of issues of
                                                                                                                                   • Respondents disagree with the statement that
communities adjacent to or in clo se pro ximit y to      and that they are confident park staff will                               the park’ s planning process is fair, p ark
                                                                                                                                       park’                                              concern. Both the park and com munit y
Vo yageur s National Park.                               manage the par k well (rang e = 3.28 - 3.71)                              managem ent decisions reflect public input, and        member s ar e determined to use the r esult s
                                                                                                                                                                                          of this stud y to begin conversations that will
A total of 996 surveys were m ailed and 61.2             • Respondents tend to agree that par k staff                              that citizens h ave a voice in park projects
                                                                                                                                                                                          result in a better und erstanding of the ways
percent were returned as u sable.                        give prompt responses, they kno w who to call                              (range = 2.42 - 2.52)
                                                                                                                                                                                          in which communit y m ember s value the par k
                                                         wh en they h ave a concern about par k projects,                          • Most respondents said they wer e skeptical of        and surrounding ar eas and b etter ways to
                                                         and they have gotten to know staff. They tend
Results                                                  to disagree that the par k service is an
                                                                                                                                   government agencies and did not feel connected
                                                                                                                                   to government (range=1.78 - 2.97)
                                                                                                                                                                                          proactively engage in p ark issu es that
                                                                                                                                                                                          impact the lives and livelihoods of
Demographics:                                            innovative agency (range = 2.82 – 3.26)
                                                                                                                                                                                          communit y members.
Age:       Averag e 57.8, Range 18 - 92 year s
Race:         96.5% W hite, 3.9% Am erican Indian                        Trust NPS: National Level                                       Trust of the NPS: Local Level                            Change in trust over time
Gender:           77% , male; 23% female
Education level: 28.3%    high school/GED,
                 11.2%    tech school,
                 22.6%    some co lleg e,
                 22.6%    college degree,
                 11.8%    advanced degr ee
Income:            47.4% > $50, 000

Shared By: