Factors for collaboration in Florida's tourism resources: Shifting gears from participatory planning to community-based management

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Similar Documents
Information Report

Short Stories


Views: 12 | Pages: 8

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Factors for collaboration in Florida's tourism resources: Shifting gears from participatory planning to community-based management
  Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 213–220 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect LandscapeandUrbanPlanning  journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Factors for collaboration in Florida’s tourism resources: Shifting gears fromparticipatory planning to community-based management Gabriela E. Yates a , Taylor V. Stein b , ∗ , Miriam S. Wyman b a Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, CW 405, Biological Sciences Bldg., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E9 b School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611-0410, United States a r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 9 July 2009Received in revised form 24 May 2010Accepted 2 June 2010 Available online 7 July 2010 Keywords: Co-managementCommunity-driven conservationEcotourismEnvironmental policyFlorida tourismScenic highways a b s t r a c t Filling gaps in participatory theory is vital as natural resource policy increasingly shifts fromcommunity-based planning to community-based management. This study was designed to identifyhow participatory planning factors (i.e., the perception of non-monetary resources, community own-ership, non-government organization involvement, and local government involvement) contributed toperceived management success in a working example of collaborative management, the Florida ScenicHighways Program. Using a web-based questionnaire, participants in four locally-based scenic highwaygroups were asked to rate their perceptions of success (i.e., dependent variable) and factors that guidedtheirscenichighwaymanagement(i.e.,independentvariables).Resultsshowednon-monetaryresources(i.e., information and skilled personnel) and community ownership most important for managementachievement. Specifically, the study showed that a feeling of community ownership improves the out-comes of a project. This research and other tests of participatory theory will help achieve sustainablemanagement as it pertains to the role communities play in decision-making. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The need to better integrate community residents into naturalresource decision-making is a widely held belief, but the factorsthat underlie effective community-based planning and manage-ment are not well understood (Wilson, 2006). Frameworks for participatory planning often describe the characteristics for com-munity empowerment, beginning with Arnstein’s (1969, p. 217)basic definitions for participation, varying from “manipulation” to“citizenempowerment”orfullparticipation.Muchoftheliterature,from watershed councils to ecotourism cooperatives, supports fullcommunity participation at every stage of decision-making (e.g.,Getz and Jamal, 1994; Chambers, 1994a; Akama, 1996; Scheyvens,1999). 1.1. Community-based planning vs. management  Many participatory planning models that have been developedandimplementedinindustrializedcountriesareusedinshort-termplanning,whichisdefinedasdecision-makingonfutureactionthatoccursinafinitetimeperiod(e.g.,GetzandJamal,1994;Chambers,1994b). Natural resource and tourism policies are undergoing a ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 352 846 0860; fax: +1 352 846 1277. E-mail addresses:  gyates@ualberta.ca (G.E. Yates), tstein@ufl.edu (T.V. Stein), mwyman@ufl.edu (M.S. Wyman). landmark shift from community-based  planning   into community-based  management  , which is decision-making, implementation,and monitoring of actions for indefinite time periods (Wilson,2006). The new application of participatory concepts in ongo-ing management creates a pressing research need. Theory-basedframeworks that define the structure, function, and limitationsof community-based decision-making groups must now addressongoingmanagementsettingsifwearetoexpectappropriateappli-cation of this increasingly advocated practice (Korfmacher, 2000;Steelman and Carmin, 2002; Moore and Koontz, 2003). 1.2. An example of community-based management of tourismresources in the US  The Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) FloridaScenic Highways Program was created to coordinate with the fed-eral National Scenic Byway Program (Transportation ConsultingGroup [TCG], 1998). The FDOT office of Environmental Manage-ment oversees the Florida Scenic Highways Program. Several staterepresentativesassistapplicantsintheset-upoftheirlocalcorridorprogram. The purpose of the Florida Scenic Highways Program isto identify roadways that increase visitor and resident awarenessof Florida’s unique resources, history, and culture and manage thedesignated roadways in a fashion that promotes culturally appro-priate tourism and provides for community enhancement (TCG,1998). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.003  214  G.E. Yates et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning  97 (2010) 213–220 The corridor group (later in the process referred to as theCorridor Management Entity), which is the local unit under theFlorida Scenic Highways Program, creates a vision and plan forthe proposed scenic highway, which is called a corridor manage-ment plan. Corridor groups participate in activities to change landuse categories in the corridor (e.g., restricted development zones),develop signage and landscaping to enhance natural and historicalresources, pursue historical site designations, acquire easementsor land trusts for preservation, and share the corridor’s “story”through various outlets.The Florida Scenic Highways Program has a participatoryprocess that is heavily dependent upon community-based collab-oration and participation throughout planning and management.Scenic highway designation can be initiated by a person, group,or local government department. The application process forscenic highway designation, which includes documentation of resourcesandotherplanningactivities,mustbecompletedthrougha Corridor Advocacy Group that includes representation fromlocal citizens, civic organizations or non-profit groups, businessorganizations, and local government entities. After designation,management activities must continue through the same or similargroup (i.e., the Corridor Management Entity). Corridor group par-ticipation is open to the public, meetings are publicly announcedand a board is elected by corridor group attendees. 2. Theoretical framework Participatoryplanningframeworksdescribeacyclicalprocessof reflectionandaction(EldenandLevin,1991;GetzandJamal,1994;Grudens-Schuck et al., 2003). The collaborative theory framework(CTF)inparticipatoryplanningdescribessuchaprocessthatistyp-ically used in the urban settings of industrialized countries (Getzand Jamal, 1994; Jamal and Getz, 1995). In fact, the process usedin Florida scenic highways management conforms to the majorcomponents of the CTF. The CTF outlines defining a vision, issuingan environmental scan, undergoing issue analysis, and choosing astrategic response in the implementing, monitoring, and adjust-ment stages (Getz and Jamal, 1994; TCG, 1998).Although many variables may be involved in building posi-tive collaborative planning and management, three areas haveemergedfromtheliteratureasimportantandoftenvolatiletopics:(1) accessibility of planning or management resources, (2) issuesofcommunityownership,and(3)maintainingabroadstakeholderbase (Elden and Levin, 1991; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Mohan andStokke, 2000; Stevens et al., 2003; Lachapelle and McCool, 2005).This research focused on testing the basis of the collaborative the-ory framework, which addresses the above topic areas. Here wereviewed the overall structure of collaborative theory and opera-tionalizedfourmajorparticipatoryplanningfactors(non-monetaryresources, community ownership, NGO involvement, and localgovernment involvement). These basic building blocks of the col-laborative theory framework (Getz and Jamal, 1994; Jamal andGetz, 1995) are similarly highlighted in other related discourses(e.g., Elden and Levin, 1991) and are described below.  2.1. Non-monetary resources Accessingtheresourcesneededtomakemanagementarealityisalargechallengeforcommunity-basedprojects(Chambers,1994b;Loker,2000;MohanandStokke,2000;Eversole,2003).Forcommu-nitiestomanagepublicgoodstheymusthaveadequateinformationontheresource(Ostrometal.,1992),adequateexpertise(McCarthy and Zald, 1977), and individuals with adequate time ( Jamal and Getz, 1995). Although local groups often have the resources thatcontributetoplace-specificknowledge,informationonlargerscalephenomenamightbeheldbyupperlevelauthorities(McCarthyandZald, 1977; Pretty, 2003).  2.2. Community ownership Despite the common reference to community ownership inparticipatory planning, the concept is not standardized (Guevara,1996; Sanderson and Kindon, 2004) and is often not explicitlydefined(Chambers,1994b;Eversole,2003).Someresearcherscon- sider it an outcome of successful community participation (e.g.,Bracht and Tsouros, 1991) and others see it as a factor needed forsuccessfulcommunityparticipation(e.g.,Simmons,1994;Guevara,1996). More recently, Lachapelle and McCool (2005) defined com- munityownershipasasharedsenseofproblemandprocesswithina specific context. That context requires community voices to beheard and considered legitimate, community control over the out-come, and a distribution of power that contains both “horizontaland vertical” links (Lachapelle and McCool, 2005). Additionally Bracht et al. (1994) list general criteria for community owner-ship. Based on Bracht’s criteria and previous definitions, we definecommunity ownership as a sense of strong community leadershipand authority in the creation and maintenance of decision-makingstructures and processes, control over the ultimate project direc-tion, and a satisfactory distribution of power at multiple scales(Bracht et al., 1994; Lachapelle and McCool, 2005).Community ownership of a project is a sliding scale dependenton many variables. The perception of a project being “imposedfrom the outside” is not limited to methods with low commu-nitycontrol(Arnstein,1969;Akama,1996;Eversole,2003).Project ownership seems to depend upon the presence of an upwelling of concernwithinthecommunity,theabilityoftheprojecttoaddressissuesthatcauseconcernwithinthecommunity,andanavenueforthe community to exert influence in the planning process (Akama,1996). Community ownership is often cited as important to com-munity empowerment (Guevara, 1996; Eversole, 2003; Sandersonand Kindon, 2004), but has not yet been linked with any measureof success in the current literature.  2.3. Broad stakeholder base: NGOs and local government  All stakeholders bring different, yet equally important knowl-edge bases to the table (Elden and Levin, 1991; Getz and Jamal,1994; Sanderson and Kindon, 2004). The cogenerative dialoguetheory places equal importance on the respective skills andframes of reference of “insider” and “outsider” voices becauseeach group plays a distinctive role that the other cannot share(EldenandLevin,1991).Thistypology,howevergeneral,illustrates the knowledge-sharing and knowledge-creation process that par-ticipatory planning generates through the inclusion of multiplestakeholders.Grassroots organizations, local level NGOs, and regional levelNGOs must be involved to truly claim broad-based stakeholderinvolvement (McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Eversole, 2003). NGOs can provide specific resources or expertise as well as represent opin-ionsthatmightbedifferentthanthoseoflocalresidents,suchastheopinionsofneighboringcommunitiesorbroadersocietalinterests.Community-basedmanagementmustnavigateboththehorizontaland vertical links that NGOs provide to create an interdependentnetwork that can make equitable and well-informed managementdecisions (Grudens-Schuck et al., 2003).Managing a public good involves conserving a resource fornot only a small group of residents, but also for the larger com-munity, with often varied interests among multiple local groups.This suggests the need for local government activity to representthe external or societal interest ( Jamal and Getz, 1995; Singleton,2002).Thiscanalsobeaccomplishedbyhavingrepresentationfrom  G.E. Yates et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning  97 (2010) 213–220 215 regional level government or interaction with surrounding com-munities and their local government entities. Local governmentinvolvement can contribute legitimacy and potentially representviewpoints of the wider society and those of underrepresentedminorities (e.g., diverse races, ages, income groups that might notbeactiveparticipantsintheplanninggroup)( JamalandGetz,1995;Singleton, 2002). Furthermore, research on grassroots art and cul-ture committees have shown that government employees withstrong local ties act as bridges to funding opportunities and can bevital in efforts to integrate community visions into larger planningand management contexts (Eversole, 2003). However, problems can occur when government agencies see community-based col-laborationsasanadditionalbureaucraticobstacle.Researchshowsthat it is not uncommon for government agencies to resist lessfamiliarparticipatorydecision-makingpathwaysandheavilyfavortraditional agency-centered planning (Getz and Jamal, 1994).  2.4. Collaborative management and planning success Success is difficult to define in collaborative planning andmanagement since different parties may harbor different agen-das. Although less objective than an outsider-defined measureof success, past research supports the notion that a self-definedpicture of success is more appropriate in collaborative manage-ment (Chambers, 1994a). Therefore, we operationalized perceived success based on the definitions of the groups participating inthis study. Perceived success was operationalized as having twoelements: (1) progress on highway-specific goals (different andself-defined for every corridor group) and (2) general area eco-nomic,social,andenvironmentalbenefits,whichcouldapplytoallhighwaygroups(self-definedbytheregional-levelscenichighwayplanners).Depending on the program, non-monetary resources, com-munity ownership, NGO involvement, and local governmentinvolvement, among others, are likely to interact in a theoreti-cal sense. Although many suggestions are given in participatoryliterature, practitioners struggle to understand what contributesto productive community-based planning and management. Wedefinedperceivedsuccessinamannerappropriatetocollaborativemanagement and outlined our theoretical framework developedin participatory planning settings. This research tested the con-tribution of major participatory planning factors (non-monetaryresources,communityownership,NGOinvolvement,andlocalgov-ernment involvement) in an ongoing management context. 3. Research question This study’s overall research question asked how community-based planning frameworks apply to ongoing management. Theproblem statement was the need to understand if the major com-ponentsof   planning  frameworks,whichapplytotemporarygroupsand processes that have a definite endpoint, were still presentand applicable in successful  ongoing management   (a process withno endpoint). The goal was to isolate participatory planning fac-tors that contribute to perceived management success. Success, asoperationalized in this study, was determined by Scenic HighwayProgramplannersfamiliarwiththeareasexamined.Toachievethestudy’s goal, participants’ perception of scenic highway manage-ment success, acting as the dependent variable, was analyzed forcovariation with four major participatory planning factors: •  Perception of non-monetary resource availability: the level of personnel and informational resources available to the group. •  Community ownership: the sense of community leadership andauthority in the project. •  Perceived non-governmental organization (NGO) involvement:the presence of a valuable and active NGO. •  Perceived governmental involvement: the level at which localgovernmental departments are involved and whether thatinvolvement helps move the process forward.These factors were chosen for this study based on the previ-ously developed collaborative theory research (Getz and Jamal,1994; Jamal and Getz, 1995). We hypothesized that each of thesevariables(developedinparticipatoryplanningsettings)wouldpos-itively impact perceived success in ongoing management (e.g.,McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Elden and Levin, 1991; Ostrom et al.,1992; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Guevara, 1996; Weaver, 1997). Thisstudy linked the major concepts of planning models, which typi-cally are designed with an endpoint in mind (i.e., a managementplan), to the relatively new context of ongoing management. 4. Methods This research analyzed four Florida Scenic Highways Programgroups to look at how community-based planning frameworkswere reflected in ongoing management settings. The preliminaryresearch activities to identify the final study groups and com-ponents of the questionnaire that measured key variables wereprescreening interviews, Likert scale development that involvedpilot testing, and index development that included interviews anda mini-questionnaire. These activities took place between March2004 and February 2005. Personal observation of scenic highwaymeetings took place between February 2005 and May 2005. 4.1. Prescreening interviews The Florida Scenic Highways Program has 21 corridor groupsat various stages of planning and management (FDOT, 2005). A short telephone interview gathered information from the com-munity leader, or chairperson, of each group to identify corridorsthat fit the selection criteria below. The final study groups wereselected based on similar levels (4–5years) of management expe-rience(notincludingtheapplicationanddesignationstages,whichtakeonetoseveralyears),arangeofsuccess(outcomevariable)anda range of local government involvement (independent variable).Thefourgroupschosenhadbeeninthemanagementstagefollow-ing designation as a scenic highway for 4–5years: (1) Old FloridaHeritage Highway, (2) Indian River Lagoon National Scenic High-way, (3) Florida Keys Scenic Highway, and (4) A1A Ocean ShoreScenic Highway (Fig. 1).Weoriginallydevelopedacase-studydesign,wherecaseswereselected for between-case comparisons using a 2 × 2 factorialdesign: two high success vs. two low success cases and two highgovernment involvement vs. two low government involvementcases. However, as explained later, the responses in the researchquestionnaire invalidated our a priori classification. Therefore, acase-study design was not possible, but we were able to com-bine the cases for quantitative analysis of individual perceptionsof scenic highway management success in groups with 4–5yearsof management experience. 4.2. Data collection Electronic communication (e-mail) is normally used to dis-seminate information to all scenic highway group participantson a regular basis. Therefore, a web-based questionnaire was areasonablemethodtoaccesstheperceptionsofscenichighwaypar-ticipants.Ahyperlinktothequestionnairewasprovidedine-mailssenttothee-mailinformation-sharingnetworkofeachscenichigh-way between March 2005 and April 2005. The Dillman (2000) f our  216  G.E. Yates et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning  97 (2010) 213–220 Fig. 1.  Study site locations of four Florida Scenic Highway groups: (A) Old FloridaHeritage Highway, (B) A1A Ocean Shore Scenic Highway, (C) Indian River LagoonNational Scenic Highway, and (D) Florida Keys Scenic Highway. contactmethodwasused:(1)apre-notice,(2)participationrequestwithaquestionnairelink,(3)areminderwithaquestionnairelink,and (4) a final reminder with a questionnaire link.Potential study respondents were participants in the corridorgroups; specifically those who attended meetings, made deci-sions, and purposefully stayed updated on the activities of thescenic highway group. A sampling frame of the four information-sharinge-maillistsfor2005,themajoravenueusedtodisseminatemeeting notices and other scenic highway related information,was used to attempt a census of current participants. In addi-tion, information-sharing e-mail lists were obtained from thetime period surrounding designation (between 2000 and 2001) toencourage the collection of all opinions. All four scenic highwaystudy groups were active in the 2000–2001 time period due tothe community events surrounding official scenic highway desig-nation.The sampling frame from the four scenic highway groups con-tained 418 e-mail addresses. Sixty-five e-mails bounced backbecause they were no longer valid addresses (mostly individualsfrom the 2000/2001 lists who were no longer available). This left353 e-mail addresses that received the web-based questionnaire.We acknowledge that some of the 353 e-mail addresses might bedual addresses due to a single individual listing a work and per-sonal address; therefore our response rate, based on the numberof email addresses, is a conservative estimate. One hundred andforty-seven individuals responded with an overall response rate of 42%. Response rate varied by highway group: 54% for A1A OceanShore Scenic Highway, 50% for Florida Keys Scenic Highway, 45%for Old Florida Heritage Highway, and 32% for Indian River LagoonNational Scenic Highway. The socio-demographic variables of ageand income were compared between respondents and the generalpopulation.Non-active respondents were not qualified to answer many of the study questions due to a lack of familiarity with the man-agement process and the dynamics of active participation. Twoscreening questions were included in the final questionnaire andwere used to filter out the answers of inactive respondents: (1)those who did not attend any meetings and (2) those who definedthemselvesasnotatallactive.Seventy-twoofthe147respondentswerenotactivelyinvolvedinthescenichighwaygroups.Allstatisti-caltestswereconductedondataprovidedby75activerespondents(inactive respondents were excluded). 4.3. Questionnaire structure4.3.1. Dependent variable We relied on past literature and structured, individual inter-views with scenic highway planners to identify survey questionsused to operationalize success. Scalar response questions askedparticipants to evaluate progress towards (1) specific scenic high-way corridor goals and (2) eight general area benefits that includeeconomic, social, and ecological implications. Based on theseresponses,anindexwasdevelopedthatprovidedacompositescoreof perceived success. All data analysis in this study was done usingthe SPSS version 11.0 statistical program. All questions used in thedevelopment of this index are available upon request. Part 1: highway-specific goal progress.  To measure the per-ception of highway-specific goal progress, each of the highway’scorridorgoalswerelistedinthequestionnaire.Thisvariedbetweenfive to eight goals depending on the corridor group. Participantscould rate each goal from “not at all achieved” to “completelyachieved” (on a 1–5 scale). Examples of goals included “enhancehistoric sites,” “preserve/enhance corridor for motorists, pedes-trians, and bicyclists,” and “pursue extending the corridor intoMcIntosh (adjacent city).” Since each goal could not be assumedto be of equal importance, participants weighted each goal from“notatallimportant”to“veryimportant”(ona1–5scale).Thegoalvalue was multiplied by the weight value and these amounts wereaveraged over the number of goals to represent the goal progresselement of success. Part 2: general benefits.  The second portion of the indexincluded the same eight general benefits that would apply to anyscenic highway. Participants could rate how much their scenichighway program contributed to each outcome from “not atall” to “a large amount” (on a 1–5 scale). Examples included“enhances nature-tourism,” “preserves the character of the area,”and “increases community’s knowledge of environmental issues.”As with the goals, each outcome could not be assumed to be of equal importance; however, participants weighted each outcomefrom “not at all important” to “very important” (on a 1–5 scale).The outcome value was multiplied by the weight value and theseamountswereaveragedtorepresentthe“generalareabenefit”ele-mentofsuccess.Bothelementsofsuccess(partoneandtwo)werethen averaged to give an overall rating of perceived success (ona scale that ranged from 1 to 25) that could be compared acrossparticipants and across highway groups.The above index that measures a composite score of perceivedsuccessisdifferentthanatraditionalscaleduetoitscreationbasedonconstructvalidityoralogicalcombinationofitemsinanoverallcategory (Netemeyer et al., 2003). The set of items under success drives the total index score rather than acting as a scale, whichreflects an  underlying theory-based cause or construct   (DeVellis,2003). Perceived success, as defined by the Florida Scenic High-way Program planners, is different for each scenic highway groupbased on their specific goals and objectives. In essence, the indi-vidual “success measures” do not share the same  causes , but theyhavethesameeffect(DeVellis,2003).Thegroupedresponseregard- ing success measures different parts of the common outcome intwo dimensions: (1) an overall evaluation and (2) importance of the individual item (Swisher, 2003). Therefore, the index value that measures the emergent variable of success is assumed to becomparable across different highway groups based on constructvalidity and not based on the internal consistency (Chronbach’s  G.E. Yates et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning  97 (2010) 213–220 217  Table 1 Statements used in community ownership Likert scale. Chronbach’s alpha=0.81, scale mean=37.04, scale SD=6.83,  n =112.Statements a Chron. alpha if deleted Mean SDThis project has made lots of people feel welcome 0.78 3.21 1.01This project has brought people together like nothing else 0.78 2.71 1.17Management decisions are based almost entirely on the opinions and desires of community members 0.80 2.98 1.07This project is almost entirely run by community residents 0.80 3.17 1.17This project motivated lots of people to get involved who normally do NOT get involved 0.80 2.88 1.00This project reflects some of the interests in this community 0.81 3.74 0.87Regular folks do NOT have much say in this project b 0.78 3.55 1.21This project feels completely unorganized b 0.77 3.79 1.09Participating in this project has become too overwhelming b 0.79 3.79 0.97This is really just a government project b 0.79 3.76 1.05They try to get people involved, but people here just do NOT care b 0.81 3.46 1.04 a How much do you agree with each of the following statements? Use a scale of 1–5 where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. b Negative statements were reverse coded. Alpha statistic), which is only necessary for scales that measure alatent variable (Netemeyer et al., 2003). 4.3.2. Independent variables4.3.2.1. Non-monetary resources.  Information on non-monetaryresources, which included personnel and informational resourceswas measured with the averaged value (on a 1–5 scale) of sev-eral scalar responses based on past research (e.g., Ostrom et al.,1992; Jamal and Getz, 1995). Participants rated how much of thelisted resources were available to their scenic highway programfrom “none” to “a large amount.” Examples of the non-monetaryresources listed included “accurate information to make informedmanagement decisions,” “people with the time and talent to carryoutadministrativetasks,”and“peoplewiththescientificexpertiseto aid in management challenges.” Community ownership.  An original scale of communityownership was created due to the lack of a general pre-existingmeasurement process (Bracht et al., 1994; Akama, 1996; Guevara,1996; Eversole, 2003; Sanderson and Kindon, 2004). Qualitativeexpert interviews for statement development, two quantitativepilot tests to eliminate statements, and post-questionnaire anal-ysis of the inter-item correlation values produced a Likert scaleof eleven statements. The Cronbach’s Alpha statistic of the scalebefore inter-item correlation analysis was 0.65. After the elimina-tion of items with low inter-item correlation values, the final scaleof eleven statements had a Cronbach’s Alpha statistic of 0.81. Thefinallistincludedpositivestatements(e.g.,“managementdecisionsare based almost entirely on the opinions and desires of commu-nity members”) and negative statements (e.g., “this is really justa government project”) (Table 1), which were reverse coded. The averageresponsevalueforthisstatementlist(ona1–5scale)mea-suredparticipants’senseofcommunityownership,whereahighervalueindicatesastrongersenseofcommunityownership.Allques-tions used in the development of this scale are available uponrequest. NGO involvement.  NGO involvement was measured witha nominal and a scalar response question based on past research(e.g.,EldenandLevin,1991;AgrawalandGibson,1999;MohanandStokke, 2000). The nominal question asked which NGO involvedwith the group was the most active (list provided including thecategory “other ”). The scalar response question asked how valu-able that NGO has been to the project (on a 1–5 scale) from “notat all valuable” to “extremely valuable.” The scalar responses weregrouped(1–2asnotvaluable,3–5asvaluable)andfurthercodedasa single dummy variable with a respondent either perceiving thepresence of a valuable and active NGO (active NGO selected, valuelevel3–5)ornotperceivingsuchapresence(noactiveNGOselectedor selected NGO rated as not valuable). This helped to evaluate if oneNGO(ormore)wasindeedactingto“amplifythevoices”ofthelocal community (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Local government involvement.  Local government involve-ment was measured based on past research (e.g., Elden and Levin,1991;GetzandJamal,1994;AgrawalandGibson,1999;MohanandStokke,2000).Athreecategorynominalscalemeasuredthequalityandleveloflocalgovernmentalinvolvementinthescenichighwayproject (helpful, hinders due to low involvement, hinders due tohigh involvement). 5. Results 5.1. Testing case selection: perceptions of success An ANOVA was conducted on the collective perceived successlevels (the index score of perceived success averaged across allrespondentsinaparticularcorridorgroup)todetermineifthefourscenichighwaysuccessratingsweredifferentenoughforbetween-case comparisons. The intent behind the case-selection processwastocomparehighsuccessgroupsqualitativelywithlowsuccessgroups. The assumptions for the ANOVA test were satisfied. TheANOVA showed a  p -value of 0.69 ( F  =0.49, df=3). The members of the four case study groups did not have significantly different per-ceptions regarding the success of their respective corridor group.Thisindicatesthatwecannotqualitativelycomparethegroupsinacase-studydesignandjustifiescombiningtheresponsesofthefourgroups for all further quantitative analysis. 5.2. Socio-demographics in four scenic highway groups Aglimpseintocommunityrepresentationwasgainedbyanalyz-ing the income levels and age categories present in the four scenichighwaystudygroups.Over72%ofparticipantswereover50yearsoldandnorepresentationexistedforagesunder30.Themedianagecategorywas50–59years.Thiscompareswithamedianageof38.7in the state of Florida (US Census Bureau, 2000). Over 53% of par- ticipants were in annual income brackets above $65,000 and themost frequently represented annual income category was above$85,000. This compares with a median income of $38,985 in thestate of Florida (US Census Bureau, 2003).The population of scenic highway group participants repre-sentedauniquesubsetofthestate-widepopulationthatisslightlyolder and more affluent than the average Florida resident. Thesignificanceofthisfindingisthatparticipantsinthesecommunity-based management groups were not average working residents.The older and more affluent residents make up a larger portionof scenic highway management participants, likely due to theirflexibility to allocate time toward non-income-based activities.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!