The sensitivities and adaptive capacity of public lands visitors

Lands and waters administered by governing entities for public use (i.e., "public lands") are subject to changing social and ecological conditions (e.g., overcrowding, drought). Public lands managers are often tasked with addressing these changes while balancing conservation goals and public use mandates, and their decisions can significantly and inequitably impact visitor sensitivities to different types of exposures. To gain insights into visitor sensitivities and their adaptive capacity to mitigate the impacts of exposures, we draw upon a comprehensive monitoring effort conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to understand visitor experiences on national wildlife refuges (refuges). We collected data from 10,556 visitors to 68 refuges during 2018-2019, then segmented respondents into unique visitor types based on their frequency of visiting "this refuge" where they were contacted, their participation across different activities at that refuge, and visits to other public lands for purposes of their primary activity, all during the 12 months prior to being contacted. We then explored differences among the resulting visitor types in their (a) purpose of visit, (b) satisfaction with opportunities during their visit, and (c) demographic characteristics. Finally, we used external data sources to explore the sensitivities and adaptive capacity of visitors' home communities. Our approach identified eight types of visitors with distinct sensitivities and adaptive capacities. For example, the type categorized as "most sensitive" due to activity specialization and site dependency was more likely to engage in activities (e.g., fishing, hunting) that may be subsistence uses of public lands and more often lived in communities with reduced adaptive capacity. Our assessment supports public lands decision-making by helping to understand and address social inequities that may arise or be exacerbated by rapidly changing conditions.

Is there no "I" in team? Potential bias in key informant interviews when asking individuals to represent a collective perspective

This paper sought to understand the extent to which, and how individuals use personal or collective language when asked to articulate sense of place from a collective perspective. Understanding a collective sense of place could illuminate place-based connections in natural resource industries, where it is as groups or as institutions that organizations interact with the environment rather than as individuals. While there are well known methods for collecting information about sense of place at the individual level, there is a gap in understanding the best method to collect information at a collective level. We examined the use of key-informant interviews as a method to understand collective sense of place. In Bocas del Toro, Panama, ecotourism and environmentally based organizations are becoming more prolific due to abundant natural resources, making it an interesting case study for understanding sense of place from an organizational perspective. The use of personal and collective language is examined though in-depth semi-structured interviews from 15 environmentally-oriented organizations with a total of 17 interviews. This study specifically examined whether and how key informants, when prompted to speak for their organization, spoke collectively, reflecting a collective perspective versus their own. Methods included both quantitative analysis of personal versus collective language use frequency, and qualitative examinations of how individuals used personal versus collective language. Our results indicated no difference in the frequency with which individuals use personal versus collective language. We found that how individuals situated their perspectives into an organization reflects a complex personal and collective point of view reflecting five themes of personal versus collective language use: 1) sole personal perspective, 2) sole collective perspective, 3) distinction between collective and personal perspective; 4) organization perspective with insertion of "I think"; and 5) personal and collective perspective about organization and greater community. Our research identifies a previously undiscussed potential bias of key informant interviews. These findings have implications for how researchers approach collecting information beyond the individual level.

Using cognitive mapping to understand conservation planning

We considered a common research tool for understanding the mental models behind conservation decisions: cognitive mapping. Developed by cognitive psychologists, the elicitation of mental models with cognitive mapping has been used to understand soil management in Spain, invasive grass management in Australia, community forest management in the Bolivian Amazon, and small-scale fisheries access in Belize, among others. A generalized cognitive mapping process considers specific factors associated with the design, data-collection, data-analyses, and interpretation phases of research. We applied this tool in a study about the integration of social data in shoreline master plans of Washington State. Fourteen policy makers and managers (approximately 85% of the region's potential sample) were asked to identify the factors they considered when making their plans. Researchers coded these factors into mental-model objects and summarized mental-object frequency and co-occurrence trends. Although managers prioritized the perceived needs of social groups in their mental model of shoreline master plans, they focused specifically on tribal and private property rights, even though existing social data identified a diversity of interests around timber harvesting, tourism, and agriculture. Understanding their mental models allowed us to more effectively present this social data so that it could fit within their existing thoughts around planning. Although our case study provides a description of the cognition of a particular policy process, cognitive mapping can be used to understand cognitive processes that influence any conservation planning context.