Private landowners perceive positive impacts to their land stewardship following involvement in a conservation research program
Funding information: Jacquemin Family Foundation; Smithsonian Conservation Commons Working Land & Seascapes Amplification and Innovation Award, Grant/Award Number: WLS-2019-010
Abstract
Conservation research programs can encourage conservation of biodiversity of working landscapes by influencing the conservation behaviors of private landowners who participate in the program. However, specific conservation behavior outcomes following landowner participation in a conservation research program, as well as the drivers that influence their engagement in these behaviors, remain unclear. We interviewed landowners that had provided property access to a Smithsonian conservation research program to conduct ecological research. We investigated (a) how landowners perceived participation in a conservation research program influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors and (b) how landowners perceived characteristics of the program influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors. We found that interviewees' perceived participation in a conservation research program influenced their engagement in land stewardship behaviors more commonly than social environmentalism or environmental citizenship behaviors. Interviewees perceived that program characteristics such as events, on-site survey interactions, and landowner reports most frequently influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors. Our findings suggest that conservation programs may increase their influence on landowner conservation behavior engagement through fostering direct interactions among landowners, their peers, and researchers; training staff and citizen scientists in effective science communication skills; and tailoring program communications to their target audience.
1 INTRODUCTION
Over half of the United States is privately owned (North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S.Committee, 2013) and approximately 90% of federally threatened and endangered species spend a portion of their life cycle on private lands (General Accounting Office, 1995). Despite the important role private lands play in conserving biodiversity, only 2% of this land is formally protected (North American Bird Conservation Initiative U.S. Committee, 2013) and private lands continue to be understudied in the conservation literature (Hilty & Merenlender, 2003; Smith et al., 2021). Conservation research programs that study biodiversity on private lands not only help to fill this research gap but may also contribute to private lands conservation by directly influencing the conservation behaviors of landowners that participate in the program (Lutter et al., 2018). For example, landowners may adopt conservation land management practices, become more involved in other conservation research, vote in favor of environmental policies, or donate money to environmental organizations (Larson et al., 2015). Although many studies have reported conservation behavior outcomes following landowners' participation in a conservation research program (e.g., Brenner et al., 2013; Coovert, 2019; Farmer et al., 2016; Graham & Rogers, 2017; Johansson et al., 2013), studies typically do not investigate multiple categories of conservation behavior outcomes simultaneously to elucidate which conservation behaviors are more commonly associated with participation. Furthermore, there is limited literature that explores which characteristics of a conservation research program may influence this behavior change in participants. Identifying conservation behavior outcomes associated with landowner participation in a conservation research program and the characteristics of the program that influence these outcomes may provide valuable insights to conservation programs aiming to increase their influence on participants' conservation behaviors.
Conservation behaviors refer to behaviors that produce tangible impacts that benefit the environment (Cooper et al., 2015) and can be organized into the following three categories: social environmentalism (e.g., behaviors that focus on social engagement), land stewardship (e.g., actions that directly or indirectly benefit wildlife or their habitat), and environmental citizenship (e.g., civic engagement behaviors such as supporting environmental causes through voting or donations) (Larson et al., 2015). Participation in conservation research may influence private landowners' social environmentalism behaviors, such as landowners sharing research findings with peers (Hilty & Merenlender, 2003; Lutter et al., 2018) or utilizing research findings to collaborate with peers on conservation land management practices (Graham & Rogers, 2017). Landowners may also recruit new members to participate in ongoing research projects or mentor less experienced landowners (Graham & Rogers, 2017). In addition to educating others, landowners may be influenced to educate themselves about species found on their property (Lutter et al., 2018). This increase in knowledge about wildlife may lead to conservation outcomes by increasing landowners' intentions to alter their land management practices to benefit wildlife (Dayer et al., 2016). Land stewardship behaviors associated with landowner participation in conservation research include modified mowing and grazing schedules (Coovert, 2019), removal of invasive plant species (Graham & Rogers, 2017), and habitat restoration (Lutter et al., 2019). Environmental citizenship behaviors following participation in conservation research have not been well-documented. Available information on this topic suggests that landowners may donate to environmental organizations or contact government representatives regarding conservation issues (Cooper et al., 2015). Although studies have reported conservation behavior outcomes following private landowners' participation in conservation research (e.g., Coovert, 2019; Farmer et al., 2016; Graham & Rogers, 2017; Johansson et al., 2013), studies often do not broadly investigate multiple categories of conservation behavior outcomes simultaneously to elucidate which conservation behaviors are more commonly associated with participation. Understanding the dimensionality of conservation behaviors is imperative to understanding the drivers of these behaviors (Larson et al., 2015).
Furthermore, certain characteristics of a conservation research program may influence landowner conservation behavior outcomes. Direct interactions with researchers have been shown to influence landowners' engagement in conservation behaviors (Lutter et al., 2018; O'Brien et al., 2021) and researchers may directly interact with landowners through one-on-one conversations (Lutter et al., 2018), sharing research findings (Hilty & Merenlender, 2003), or participating in community discussions (Graham & Rogers, 2017). Peer interactions may also influence landowners' conservation behaviors (Graham & Rogers, 2017; Niemiec et al., 2019) by establishing social norms surrounding conservation behaviors (McKiernan, 2018). Direct landowner-researcher and landowner-peer interactions may be fostered during conservation related events (Singh et al., 2018). Events may also influence landowners' conservation behaviors (Burton, 2004; Ranjan et al., 2019; Sliwinski et al., 2018) by illustrating the feasibility of land management practices (Newton, 2001) and building social relationships (Graham & Rogers, 2017). Program communications such as newsletters may influence landowner conservation behavior outcomes by providing information on conservation issues (Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2017), ecological study results (Lutter et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2001), and insights into the program (Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2017). Understanding which specific characteristics of a program are commonly associated with landowner conservation behavior engagement may benefit conservation programs aiming to increase their influence on conservation outcomes.
In this study, we investigated how conservation research programs may contribute to private lands conservation through influencing the conservation behaviors of individuals that participate in the program. Specifically, we ascertained conservation behavior outcomes of private landowner participation in a conservation research program and identified characteristics of the program associated with landowners' engagement in conservation behaviors. We interviewed landowners that previously participated or are currently participating in a Smithsonian conservation research program, Virginia Working Landscapes, to explore (a) how private landowners perceive participation in a conservation research program influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors (i.e., social environmentalism, land stewardship, environmental citizenship) and (b) how private landowners perceive characteristics of the program (e.g., on-site interactions, program events, program communications) influenced their engagement in these conservation behaviors.
2 METHODS
2.1 Virginia working landscapes
Virginia Working Landscapes (VWL) is a conservation research program based at the Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal, Virginia, USA. While VWL's research primarily focuses on conservation biology and community ecology, this is the program's first study focusing on the human dimensions of conservation. VWL collaborates with landowners and citizen scientists to conduct ecological research on private forests and grasslands. The program's main focus is to produce scientific knowledge that informs best management practices for regenerative land management and biodiversity conservation through studies on grassland restoration and management, regenerative grazing, and species-habitat relationships. VWL's current research network includes approximately 180 landowners and land managers and over 80,000 acres of private lands (Figure 1).

Landowners that participate in VWL may be involved with the program in a variety of ways. Landowners may grant VWL researchers, interns, and citizen scientists access to their property to conduct ecological research. While their property is being studied, landowners may interact with these individuals such as chatting with VWL researchers, interns, and citizen scientists as they come and go from the property or accompanying them while they are conducting research. Annual research updates are shared with landowners in the form of landowner reports. From these reports, landowners are informed about the diversity of species observed on their land. VWL also communicates with landowners via monthly newsletters and annual reports. Monthly newsletters contain summaries of recently published literature pertinent to mid-Atlantic working landscapes, research updates, and notices of upcoming events. Annual reports provide more in-depth information on the program, updates on recent projects, donor contributions, and financial summaries. If a local university or organization is conducting ecological research in the region, VWL connects landowners who are willing to participate in additional research projects on their land. Additionally, all landowners who participate in research activities have opportunities to attend VWL events, including educational trainings, expert-led workshops, public lectures, farm tours, management demonstrations, and guided nature walks. Through these events, VWL aims to engage participants in conservation science and to promote best management practices for conserving biodiversity on their properties (Virginia Working Landscapes Annual Report, 2020).
VWL's survey network encompasses 16 counties in northern Virginia. Nearly all counties within this region are classified as rural by the U.S. Census Bureau (2019), with the exception of Prince William County. The average per capita income in the region is $36,930 (range: $25,170 Page County—$58,522 Loudoun County) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The average median household income in the region is $79,715 (range: $51,792 Page County—$151,800 Loudoun County) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The average poverty rate within this region is 8% (range: 3% Loudon County—15% Page County). According to the 2017 USDA National Census of Agriculture, 2,106,571 acres of land is in farming or ranching within VWL's region. This makes up 27% of the total acres of land in Virginia used for farming or ranching, even though this area is only 17% of the total landmass of Virginia. These farms and ranches are owned by 8,971 landowners with 1.299 hired farm managers in the region (USDA NASS, 2017). On average across the counties, 60% of producers in this region identify as male and 39% of producers identify as female, with nearly all producers identifying their race as white (range: 90% Prince William County—99% in Page and Frederick Counties) (USDA NASS, 2017). In most counties in this region, the majority of producers are between 55 and 64 years of age and have been present on the farm for an average of 20 years (USDA NASS, 2017) (see Appendix A).
2.2 Interview design and implementation
We conducted semi-structured interviews with landowners and land managers who granted access to VWL to conduct ecological research on their property between 2010 and 2020 (N = 124). As the majority of VWL participants are landowners (73%), we will refer to both landowner and land manager participants as VWL landowners henceforth. The Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (Protocol #19-1018) and Smithsonian Institutional Review Board approved the project protocol, interview questions, and recruitment materials. Because the population of VWL landowners was relatively small, we contacted each of the 124 eligible participants. Recruitment was conducted by email using contact information from VWL's property database. Eligible participants received an initial contact email and non-respondents received no more than two follow-up emails. The lead author (REG) conducted interviews until all eligible participants had been contacted at least twice and data saturation had been reached (i.e., no new themes were being generated and information discussed during interviews was redundant with information already collected) (Saunders et al., 2018).
Prior to interviewing study participants, REG reviewed the interview script with social scientists from Virginia Tech and members of VWL's steering committee to obtain their feedback. REG conducted all interviews over Zoom (Zoom Video Communications Inc., 2021) or over the phone. Verbal consent to participate in the research study was obtained from each landowner before the start of the interview. Although interviews were semi-structured, all interviews were conducted following the same script to ensure replicability.
Interview questions focused on interviewees' engagement in conservation behaviors, involvement in the program, and information about their properties (see supporting information for interview script). Specifically, interviewees were asked about their engagement in social environmentalism, environmental citizenship, and land stewardship behaviors since they first became involved with VWL. We did not ask interviewees about their engagement in the fourth category discussed in Larson et al., 2015 (i.e., conservation lifestyle behaviors). VWL promotes conservation behaviors that directly relate to the program's research on species populations and conservation land management. As such, the program's communications do not focus on conservation lifestyle behaviors and are not an overall goal of the program. Interviewees were then asked to elaborate on their motivation to engage in each behavior and, specifically, if their involvement in VWL had any influence on their engagement in each behavior. Questions regarding interviewees' involvement in the program explored interactions with peers and researchers in the program, attendance at program events, and reading program outreach materials such as landowner reports, annual reports, and monthly newsletters. Interview questions regarding interviewees' properties were used to determine how representative interviewees may be to landowners within the 16 counties in which VWL operates.
Transcripts were created using Zoom's automatic transcription function. REG reviewed transcripts for accuracy and qualitatively coded transcripts using Dedoose software (Version 4.12) (SocioCultural Research Consultants LLC, 2021). Deductive codes were created for interview questions related to interviewees' engagement in conservation behaviors following the framework laid out in Larson et al. (2015). All other codes were inductively coded following a thematic analysis approach. Data were first compiled and emergent codes were used to inform themes which, in turn, aided the interpretation of the data (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). The codebook and code definitions (see Appendix B) were reviewed with a co-author before the second round of coding. The second round of coding ensured all transcripts were analyzed with the same set of codes.
Interviews took place from March to May of 2021 and lasted an average of 45 minutes. REG conducted interviews until data saturation had been reached. Of the 124 landowners and land managers that were contacted, REG conducted 56 interviews of which 45 interviewees were landowners and 11 interviewees were land managers. Property sizes ranged from smaller than 50 acres to larger than 5,000 acres, with approximately half of interviewees having properties of 300 acres or smaller. Interviewees ranged from being relatively new landowners of less than 5 years to having family-owned land going back multiple generations. Approximately half of interviewees had been on the land between 5 and 25 years. Most of the properties were mixed-use, used primarily for conservation, pasture for livestock and horses, row crops, and timber. All but three interviewees did not rely on their property as their primary source of income, with over half stating they either made no money or lost money from the property.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Perceived conservation behavior outcomes
Interviewees perceived that participation in the conservation research program Virginia Working Landscapes (VWL) positively influenced their engagement in each of the conservation behavior categories we investigated. However, participation was perceived to influence interviewees' land stewardship behavior of managing their property for conservation purposes (95%) at a much higher rate than all other conservation behaviors. For social environmentalism, learning more about the plants and animals on one's property (45%) was somewhat more commonly influenced through participation in the program than mentoring or seeking mentorship from other landowners (36%). For environmental citizenship, donating to conservation organizations (21%) was the most common behavior that was positively influenced through participating in the program (Figure 2). None of the interviewees stated that their participation in the program had a negative influence on their engagement in the conservation behaviors we investigated.

3.2 Land stewardship
For the land stewardship behavior of participating in non-VWL affiliated research projects, few interviewees perceived that participation in VWL positively influenced their engagement in this behavior. Rather, the majority of interviewees that participated in non-VWL affiliated research projects stated that their participation in the program had no impact on their engagement in this behavior. Interviewees that were influenced by VWL to participate in additional research projects most often did so through local universities.We've made investments in trying to manage our natural grasses and areas for pollinators and we've added a lot of native plant plugs into those natural grass systems. We've changed our mowing schedule to try and tamp down the fescue and non-native plants. We've removed invasives. We've done a number of things.
3.3 Social environmentalism
When interviewees sought more formal mentorship, they often reached out to local biologists, environmental consultants, or other professionals in the field. Participation within the program appeared to serve as the nexus of both casual and formal social connections. Most interviewees stated that they met mentors and mentees through the program and much of the advice interviewees gave to these individuals stemmed from knowledge they had gained through participation. As one interviewee described, “I've pointed people to VWL… and I've been mentored by people like [redacted name of another VWL landowner]. If I'm somewhere and I overhear people talking about productive farmland, bird habitat, or something like that… I will often point them to VWL.”I have a brother who has a big piece of property. It's a classic pine plantation… and he has continued to try and manage the pines so that he gets some income out of them. But, at the same time, he saw the success I had with the native grasses and he wanted to do that at his property. So I helped him get native grasses started on his property.
Interviewees also described independently searching for information on the internet, in books, or utilizing nature identification apps such as iNaturalist. One interviewee described how the program motivated them to look up additional information on their own, “I read on the internet a lot. That's how [VWL's] newsletters motivate me. I would read something and then try to figure out what I should do and what other people have done.” In general, relatively few interviewees stated that participation in the program had no influence or an indirect influence on their engagement in social environmentalism behaviors, compared to landowners whose participation in the program led to a positive influence on their social environmentalism behaviors.The question I ask more than what have [other landowners] done, is what have they done that didn't work? Because if it didn't work there's no sense in me trying. I think that's probably the biggest thing that I've learned from VWL, to interact with other people and know… what was better for the habitat and the world I live in.
3.4 Environmental citizenship
Overall, landowners perceived participation in the program was the least influential on their environmental citizenship behaviors, with monetary donations to conservation organizations being the most common in this category. Few interviewees stated that they were positively influenced through participation in the program to volunteer for other conservation programs or contact government representatives regarding environmental issues. Interviewees that were positively influenced to engage in these behaviors stated that participation in the program increased their knowledge of local conservation issues. Thus motivating them to volunteer in their community and making them more comfortable contacting local government representatives. Overall, the majority of interviewees stated that participation in the program had no influence on their engagement in environmental citizenship behaviors.
3.5 Program characteristics perceived influence on conservation behaviors
3.5.1 Attending program events
Field-based events such as nature walks and farm tours were also frequently attended. Interviewees discussed how nature walks provided opportunities to learn bird identification skills and how to discern native from invasive plant species. Through tours of neighboring farms interviewees described how they were exposed to other properties and observed how other landowners implemented conservation land management practices.I would say it's almost more of the workshops and exposure to other people who are in the process of trying to convert and manage these fields that influenced us. We cut [our cattle operation] down to 750 acres so we could try to manage, on some level, the other 750 acres for wildlife… The main influence VWL had were the workshops and the exposure to other people who were doing this sort of thing.
Interviewees also appreciated sharing common interests and ideas with event attendees. One interviewee expressed how attending events left them with a sense of “being encouraged and heartened by the fact that other people out there were developing the same goals of protecting our natural ecosystems.”I think the relationship with [redacted name of another VWL landowner] was based on the events themselves. I did establish one or two relationships where we've had communication about how to get rid of the unwanted grasses and bring in the warm season grasses. I learned what a tough job that really is and I've gotten help from some of the other members.
For some interviewees these events were equally motivating but they had not yet implemented any changes on their property. Rather the information they learned from events helped them to formulate future plans for their land. As one interviewee explained, “…one thing that is always in the back of my mind is the possibility to turn this farm into more of a wildlife refuge. It's a work in progress in my mind, but it's like these are all little stepping stones that might take me there eventually.” A small group of interviewees stated that they had no outcomes from attending program events. This was mainly due to the information disseminated at the event being of interest to them but not directly relevant to their property.Well, the bird [research] makes you entirely aware of how what you do on the land affects the bird population. You can't just mow, and mow, and mow without understanding the seasonal patterns of the birds that are coming through and their breeding season. So, it's been essential for me to know… which fields are more predominant for specific species of birds that are living here and are vulnerable.
3.5.2 On-site survey interactions with staff and citizen scientists
Nearly all interviewees had interacted with both program staff and citizen scientists while they were conducting research on the interviewee's property. Interactions most frequently consisted of interviewees either accompanying staff and citizen scientists while conducting research or conversing with staff and citizen scientists as they were coming and going from the property. For both types of interactions, program staff and citizen scientists often spoke with interviewees about the research they were conducting on the property.
Several interviewees remarked how impressed they were by the researchers' ecological knowledge. As one landowner recalled, “their knowledge of not just visually identifying birds but identifying them by song and by flight patterns. I've been an outdoorsman all my life but I certainly learned a lot during those couple of days they spent with us.” Researchers' ecological knowledge often motivated interviewees to independently seek out additional information on the species identified on their property, “just going out with [the VWL staff and citizen scientists] when they did their surveys here and seeing what was here motivated me to study those a little bit and try to get those things in my head.” These interactions with staff and citizen scientists during site visits also increased interviewees' knowledge of the species on their property, “I wouldn't know half of these things if it weren't for [VWL] coming out to identify them for me in the first place. Lots of little, tiny things, low down which you have to get on your hands and knees in the meadows to find. I would never have known they were there.”
3.5.3 Reading landowner reports
For interviewees that had already implemented conservation land management practices, they often found the results of the landowner report encouraging as they were able to quantify the conservation outcomes of their land management practices.I read [the landowner report] and see what kind of wildflowers, for example, were identified and in what areas… so I know when we should bush hog it, disk it, and go back and overseed it. So, any of that information I put in my basket to help me manage or decide what to attack next.
Interviewees also enjoyed discussing their reports with other landowners that had participated in the program and comparing the species abundance and diversity of each property. Some interviewees had shared their reports more broadly by sharing results of their landowner reports in local newsletters or community email listservs.I was giving advice to friends of mine who are doing similar things and with the Virginia Working Landscape reports that I get I can speak with more specificity. Not just [tell them] you ought to do this but here's the reasons why you should do it.
3.5.4 Reading program communications
Other times interviewees used the information in the monthly newsletters and annual reports as a “jumping off point” to do more research on topics of interest and to integrate that information into their own property management. Information from the newsletters and reports was often shared casually or over email with friends, neighbors, and peers. Some interviewees stated that they had not shared any of the information; yet, many said that they would share the information with someone if they were asked to or if they thought the information was relevant to that person.[VWL] has some good articles on building brush piles for birds and what's neat to me is when I'm out early I find that around the different piles there are lots of birds. Now whether they're actually using them to nest or whether it's just a place that attracts bugs… I really don't know, but the birds are there.
4 DISCUSSION
We investigated the perceived conservation behavior outcomes of private landowner participation in a Smithsonian conservation research program, Virginia Working Landscapes (VWL), and identified characteristics of the program associated with private landowners' engagement in conservation behaviors. Interviewees perceived their participation in VWL influenced their conservation behaviors across multiple categories (i.e., land stewardship, social environmentalism, and environmental citizenship).
Participation in the program was perceived to positively influence interviewees' land management practices more than all other conservation behaviors we investigated. This may be due to the program's research focus on the effectiveness of conservation land management practices for conserving biodiversity. Additionally, program events such as farm tours, management demonstrations, and workshops focused on implementing conservation management practices. Our findings are in line with other studies of landowners' conservation behaviors that have similarly found a higher engagement in land stewardship behaviors compared to other conservation behavior categories; yet our findings showed an even stronger preference for land stewardship behaviors (e.g., Larson et al., 2015). Interviewees' income may also play a role in their engagement in conservation land management practices. While we did not ask interviewees to disclose their annual income, it was noted that the majority of interviewees did not rely on their land as a primary source of income. This suggests that interviewees may have alternative income sources which may, in turn, lower financial constraints and increase adoption of conservation land management practices (Prokopy et al., 2019). Low engagement in participation in non-VWL affiliated research projects on landowners' properties may be attributed to limited opportunities for landowners to be involved compared to the more ubiquitous nature of the other conservation behaviors.
Participation in the program influenced approximately half of interviewees' social environmentalism behaviors, with the other half stating that participation in the program had an indirect influence or no influence on their engagement. Typically, social environmentalism behaviors are relatively common because they are comparatively easier to engage in than other types of conservation behaviors (Larson et al., 2015). This may again be attributable to the program's primary focus on research and sustainable management practices. VWL had previously begun hosting landowner gatherings that allowed landowners to share their land management experience with other landowners and network with other participants. Unfortunately, landowner gatherings were halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Re-implementing landowner gatherings in the future may increase interviewees' engagement in social environmentalism behaviors.
Participation in the program was the least influential on interviewees' engagement in environmental citizenship behaviors, with the majority of interviewees stating that participation in the program had no impact on their engagement in these behaviors. Environmental citizenship behaviors following participation in a conservation research program have not been well-documented, but other studies have similarly found a lower engagement in environmental citizenship behaviors compared with other conservation behaviors (e.g., Cottrell, 2003; Grooms et al., In Review; Larson et al., 2015). VWL is a program of the federally funded Smithsonian Institution and is not permitted to actively encourage participants to engage in political actions. Therefore, it is not surprising that participation in the program influenced interviewees' environmental citizenship behaviors to a lesser degree than other conservation behaviors. Other studies have also noted that environmental citizenship behaviors such as contacting government representatives or voting for environmentally favorable policies may be constrained by the frequency of voting cycles (Larson et al., 2015). Furthermore, monetary donations to environmental organizations are typically low compared to other conservation behaviors (Cooper et al., 2015) and may be constrained by individuals' available financial resources (Larson et al., 2015). Again, we did not ask interviewees to disclose their average annual income; however, most interviewees did not derive income from their property, suggesting alternative income sources. Future studies may benefit from a more in-depth exploration of conservation research program participants' perceived constraints to environmental citizenship behaviors.
Interviewees recounted various aspects of the program that positively influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors. Firstly, interviewees attended field-based (e.g., farm tours and nature walks) and lecture-based (e.g., seminars and presentation) events; these events served as valuable opportunities for interviewees to expand their environmental knowledge and cultivate social relationships with peers and program staff. Social relationships can be strengthened through direct interactions (Graham & Rogers, 2017) which, in turn, positively influence conservation behavior engagement (Lutter et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018). Additionally, in comparison with lecture-based events, field-based events allowed landowners to observe conservation land management practices as they are being implemented.
Therefore, we suggest that conservation research programs foster opportunities for direct interactions during events and expose landowners to different types of land management practices. For example, including field demonstrations with lecture events can optimize opportunities for participants to engage with conservation practices on the ground, especially when demonstration sites engage in multiple conservation strategies. Incorporating a field component also provides participants with a more casual space to discuss challenges and opportunities associated with conservation management as experienced by other landowners and managers. As such, event organizers should ensure that events provide the necessary time and space to build effective relationships and exchange knowledge between attendees and program staff. Incorporating meals, group activities, and roundtable discussions can help facilitate this if visits to demonstration sites are not feasible.
Secondly, interviewees frequently interacted with program staff and citizen scientists while having their properties studied. These on-site interactions served as valuable learning opportunities and interviewees often spoke with staff and citizen scientists about the research taking place on their land, with many even accompanying staff and citizen scientists into the field for data collection. On-site interactions mainly motivated interviewees to engage in social environmentalism behaviors such as educating themselves about the plants and animals found on their land and sharing this knowledge with peers. These findings corroborate other studies that have found a positive relationship between direct interactions with program staff and conservation behavior engagement (Singh et al., 2018). It may also be that VWL site visits increase landowners' trust in and positive impressions of the program as found in another study of the impact of biologist interactions on landowners (Lutter et al., 2018).
We suggest that staff and citizen scientists visiting properties to conduct research are also trained in effectively interacting with private landowners. Strong science communication skills may increase a program's influence on landowner conservation behavior engagement. One method programs may employ this to follow a three-pronged approach described in O'Brien et al. (2021). Prior to visiting the property program researchers could share information about a research study's aims and plans for how the research will be implemented on the property with the landowner. While the study is being conducted researchers could encourage landowners to accompany them so landowners can observe the research methods. At the conclusion of the study researchers could provide landowners with study results in lay terms and suggestions for where they could find technical support if interested in implementing changes on their properties based on results. Sharing research findings with landowners is a best practice when conducting research on private lands; however, researchers often neglect to share their findings with landowners (O'Brien et al., 2021). Furthermore, research studies may take several years to complete and consistent contact is needed in order to maintain a working relationship with landowners (Hilty & Merenlender, 2003). If a program is not able to provide study results to landowners right away, then we suggest sharing preliminary results, species lists, or management recommendations in order to keep landowners engaged while the study is taking place.
Lastly, nearly all interviewees read the year-end landowner reports provided to them in years their property was used for research and many used these reports as a tool to guide management actions on their land. Yet, other research has shown that mailed program communications have limited effects on conservation behavior engagement (Lutter et al., 2018). In contrast to the landowner reports, we found that interviewees typically did not perceive reading the program newsletters and annual reports led to conservation outcomes. Landowner reports may have been more effective at influencing conservation behavior engagement than newsletters and annual reports because landowner reports are more personally relevant to readers (Stern et al., 2014). For example, VWL landowner reports contain ecological study results that directly pertain to interviewees' land, while newsletters and annual reports are relevant to readers on a broader spatial scale.
We suggest that conservation programs tailor communications to their target audience by incorporating locally relevant content that appeals to readers on a personal level. For communications such as landowner reports, this could include property maps with research locations, species highlights from the farm, and photos taken on the landowner's property. In broader communications such as newsletters and annual reports, this could include direct quotes from project participants, photos of participating landowners in the field, or listing farm names in acknowledgements and photo captions. If including site-specific information is not feasible programs could alternately include seasonably appropriate, small calls-to-action, such as informing readers to remove an invasive plant that is currently prevalent in the area and identifiable or advising readers on locally relevant dates to harvest hay to promote grassland bird nesting. These calls-to-action could serve to tie into the research being done on local properties while providing readers with ways to contribute to conservation even if their properties are not currently part of a research study. Ultimately, conservation programs may find it pertinent to implement a combination of the above suggestions that are best suited for the specific program, as hybridized approaches are often the most suitable technique for engendering public participation (Rowe & Frewer, 2000).
5 FUTURE RESEARCH
As we did not have a measure of landowners' conservation behavior engagement before participating with the program, we relied on self-reported measures. There is mixed evidence in the conservation literature on how well self-reported measures reflect actual measures (Kormos & Gifford, 2014; Steg & Vlek, 2009). However, self-reported measures allow researchers to gather data on behaviors that may be difficult to observe or that occur over a large timescale (Kormos & Gifford, 2014; Larson et al., 2015). Self-reported measures are the most common methods for measuring conservation behavior engagement because they are unobtrusive (Fries et al., 2020), relatively easily to implement (Kormos & Gifford, 2014), and cost-effective (Kormos & Gifford, 2014). Future research that has the capacity to measure conservation behaviors directly (e.g., direct observations, pre and post program participation surveys) may provide deeper insights into the impact of participation in a conservation research program on conservation behavior engagement (e.g., Crall et al., 2012).
Interview questions focused on interviewees' perceptions of how their participation in the VWL program specifically influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors. Interviewees were not asked if they perceived their participation in other conservation programs or conservation easements influenced their conservation behavior. Future research may benefit from including a question that asks if interviewees participate in other conservation programs and, if so, they perceive that their participation in these programs also influenced their engagement in conservation behaviors. Additionally, we did not gather information on participants' demographics during the interview. Demographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Agricultural Statistics Service provides an overview of farmers' and ranchers' demographics in the 16-county region in which VWL operates.
6 CONCLUSION
Through influencing the conservation behaviors of private landowners, conservation programs may engender far-reaching conservation outcomes that extend beyond private lands alone. The private landowners we interviewed may have already been conservation minded, as they independently chose to participate in a conservation research program; nevertheless, our findings demonstrate the vital role program characteristics such as events, on-site interactions, and landowner reports play in influencing landowner conservation behavior engagement. Conservation programs may increase their influence on landowner conservation behavior engagement through fostering direct interactions; training staff and citizen scientists in effective science communication skills; and tailoring program communications to their target audience. Furthermore, some of the findings from this study may be broadly applicable to any program that collaborates with private landowners and is working toward increasing their influence on conservation behavior outcomes.
Our results also highlight the need for conservation research programs to engage with the broader community, such as landowners who may not currently be engaged in conservation behaviors or policy makers. In the future, conservation research programs may work with local partners or existing networks to co-design research, promote local conservation practices, and engage with landowners that may not have previously engaged in conservation behaviors. Similarly, conservation research programs could partner with organizations that have the capacity to advocate or inform policy in order to influence conservation change on a larger scale. Through building effective working partnerships with organizations that work directly with policy makers, conservation programs can ensure that research is used to implement and refine existing conservation programs. In summary, our findings could not only be applied to private landowners but could also be used to communicate with policy makers to increase adoption of science-based conservation practices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank all VWL landowners and land managers who shared their experiences with us and contributed to this study. We would also like to thank Jordan Coscia for creating the map used in this manuscript. This study was reviewed and approved for human subject research by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (Protocol #19-1018) and [Redacted] Institutional Review Board. Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from each individual at the beginning of the interview. One author (Amy E.M. Johnson) was employed by Virginia Working Landscapes during the duration of the project and one author (Rachael E. Green) was employed by Virginia Working Landscapes during part of this project. This research was funded by the Jacquemin Family Foundation and the Smithsonian Conservation Commons Working Land & Seascapes Amplification and Innovation Award (grant no. WLS-2019-010).
APPENDIX A
Demographic information from the 16-county region in which Virginia Working Landscapes Operates
County | Per capita income (USD)a | Median household income (USD)a | Poverty ratea (%) | Lands in farms (acres)b | Number of farm ownersb | Percentage of male producersb (%) | Percentage of female producersb (%) | Percentage of white producersb (%) | Average number of years on farmb | Average age groupb |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Albemarle | 49,352 | 86,399 | 6.2 | 182,781 | 704 | 58.62 | 39.80 | 97.41 | 20.2 | 65–74 |
Augusta | 30,228 | 62,668 | 5.6 | 290,911 | 1073 | 62.67 | 35.97 | 98.26 | 21.6 | 55–64 |
Clarke | 41,332 | 80,026 | 7.6 | 66,641 | 325 | 54.46 | 45.13 | 98.19 | 19.3 | 65–74 |
Culpeper | 32,028 | 77,935 | 7.8 | 124,390 | 507 | 57.33 | 42.25 | 93.61 | 19.3 | 55–64 |
Faquier | 46,149 | 104,809 | 6.5 | 216,666 | 891 | 56.61 | 42.06 | 93.51 | 17.5 | 55–64 |
Frederick | 35,457 | 86,229 | 5.9 | 409,907 | 547 | 60.54 | 39.15 | 98.90 | 20.7 | 55–64 |
Greene | 32,508 | 67,398 | 6.4 | 28,518 | 173 | 56.82 | 41.19 | 94.03 | 20.7 | 65–74 |
Loudoun | 58,522 | 151,800 | 3.0 | 121,932 | 1026 | 55.20 | 44.02 | 95.51 | 18.9 | 55–64 |
Madison | 30,777 | 57,895 | 6.6 | 6584 | 367 | 63.54 | 36.00 | 94.02 | 20.7 | 65–74 |
Orange | 32,292 | 71,548 | 8.2 | 95,246 | 285 | 60.70 | 39.30 | 94.65 | 18.0 | 55–64 |
Page | 25,170 | 51,792 | 15.1 | 72,041 | 346 | 61.10 | 38.22 | 98.65 | 22.7 | 55–64 |
Prince William | 41,988 | 106,861 | 6.3 | 22,874 | 257 | 54.11 | 42.41 | 90.49 | 18.2 | 55–64 |
Rappahannock | 41,792 | 74,284 | 8.8 | 70,182 | 339 | 55.40 | 44.46 | 96.44 | 20.9 | 65–74 |
Rockingham | 32,317 | 69,423 | 7.1 | 228,542 | 1272 | 63.86 | 34.09 | 97.03 | 21.0 | 55–64 |
Shenandoah | 28,882 | 57,252 | 11.5 | 130,659 | 623 | 63.26 | 34.71 | 96.89 | 21.1 | 55–64 |
Warren | 32,086 | 69,116 | 9.9 | 38,697 | 236 | 66.23 | 32.83 | 98.11 | 18.1 | 55–64 |
Virginia | 40,635 | 76,456 | 9.9 | 7,797,979 | 30,128 | 63.20 | 35.76 | 95.39 | 21.0 | 55–65 |
APPENDIX B
Inductive and deductive codes used in the thematic analysis of interviewee responses
Source | Parent code | Child code 1 | Child code 2 | Child code 3 | Child code 4 | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deductive (Larson et al., 2015) | Environmental citizenship | Environmental citizenship category of conservation behaviors | ||||
Inductive | No contact gov reps | Had not contacted a government representative regarding environmental issues since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | No donate | Had not donated to an environmental organization since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | No volunteer | Had not volunteered for another conservation program since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Yes contact gov reps | Had contacted a government representative regarding environmental issues since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact contact gov reps | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee to contact a government representative regarding environmental issues since | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact—contact gov rep | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on their motivation to contact government representatives regarding environmental issues | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—contact gov reps | Participating with VWL had no impact on their motivation to contact government representatives regarding environmental issues | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—contact gov reps | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on their motivation to contact government representatives regarding environmental issues | ||||
Inductive | Yes donate | Had donated to an environmental organization since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact donate | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee donating to an environmental organization | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact—donate | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on their motivation to donate to an environmental organization | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—donate | Participating with VWL had no impact on their motivation to donate to an environmental organization | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—donate | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on their motivation to donate to an environmental organization | ||||
Inductive | Yes volunteer | Had volunteered for another conservation program since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact volunteer | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee volunteering for another conservation program | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact—volunteer | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on them volunteering for another conservation program | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—volunteer | Participating with VWL had no impact on them volunteering for another conservation program | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—volunteer | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on them volunteering for another conservation program | ||||
Deductive (Larson et al., 2015) | Land stewardship | Land stewardship category of conservation behaviors | ||||
Inductive | No land management | Had not managed their land for conservation purposes since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | No science projects | Had not participated in any additional science projects on their land since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Yes land management | Had managed their land for conservation purposes since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact land management | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee managing their land for conservation purposes | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact—land management | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on them managing their land for conservation purpose | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—land management | Participating with VWL had no impact on them managing their land for conservation purpose | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—land management | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on them managing their land for conservation purpose | ||||
Inductive | Type of land management | Specific land management practices interviewees implemented on their land | ||||
Inductive | Birds/delayed mowing/haying | Delayed haying and mowing to accommodate for breeding grassland birds | ||||
Inductive | Clean up property | Removing trash, old tires, soil tailings | ||||
Inductive | Farm management | Employ pro-environmental management practices such as rotational grazing or organic practices | ||||
Inductive | Habitat restoration | Restoring native grasslands or wildflower fields | ||||
Inductive | Invasive removal | Removal of invasive species from property | ||||
Inductive | Less/no herbicide/pesticide | Decreasing or eliminating the use of pesticides on the property | ||||
Inductive | Plant natives | Planting native species on the property | ||||
Inductive | Support stream health | Ex: Fencing off streams to keep the cows out or putting in riparian buffers | ||||
Inductive | Type land management—no comment | Did not give example of what land management practices they employ | ||||
Inductive | Wildlife support | Ex: putting up bird boxes, turtle logs, taking animal to rehabilitation center | ||||
Inductive | Yes science projects | Had participated in any additional science projects on their land since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact science projects | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee participating in additional science projects on their land | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact—science projects | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on them participating in additional science projects on their land | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—science projects | Participating with VWL had no impact on them participating in additional science projects on their land | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—science projects | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on them participating in additional science projects on their land | ||||
Deductive (Larson et al., 2015) | Social environmentalism | Social environmentalism category of conservation behaviors | ||||
Inductive | No learning | Had not educated themselves about the species found on their property since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | No mentor | Had not sought mentorship or mentored others since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Yes learning | Had educated themselves about the species found on their property since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact learning | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee educating themselves about the species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact—learning | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on them educating themselves about the species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—learning | Participating with VWL had no impact on them educating themselves about the species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—learning | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on them educating themselves about the species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | Type of learning | Specific ways in which interviewees educated themselves about the species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | Yes learning casual | Ex: Talking with other friends, family, or peers; asking questions; searching for information online or in a book | ||||
Inductive | Yes learning formal | Ex: Enrolling in environmental or conservation classes, attending academic seminars or presentations on conservation topics | ||||
Inductive | Yes learning no comment | Did not give an example of how they educated themselves about the species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | Yes mentor | Had sought mentorship or mentored others since first participating with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Impact mentor | Perceived impact that VWL had on interviewee seeking mentorship or mentoring others | ||||
Inductive | Indirect/partial VWL impact | Participating with VWL had an indirect impact on interviewee seeking mentorship or mentoring others | ||||
Inductive | No VWL impact—mentor | Participating with VWL had no impact on interviewee seeking mentorship or mentoring others | ||||
Inductive | Positive VWL impact—mentor | Participating with VWL had a positive impact on interviewee seeking mentorship or mentoring others | ||||
Inductive | Type of mentor | Specific ways in which interviewees ought mentorship or mentored others | ||||
Inductive | Casual | Ex: mentoring or seeking mentorship from friends, neighbors, or other landowners | ||||
Inductive | Friend | A friend of the interviewee's | ||||
Inductive | Neighbor | The interviewee's neighbor | ||||
Inductive | Other landowner | Another landowner that the interviewee knows | ||||
Inductive | Unspecified | Interviewee did not specify their connection to the individual | ||||
Inductive | Formal | Ex: mentoring or seeking mentorship from local biologists, environmental consultants, or other professional in the field | ||||
Inductive | Local biologist | A biologist that lives or works within the 16-county region in which VWL operates | ||||
Inductive | Environmental consultant | An environmental consultant that lives or works within the 16-county region in which VWL operates | ||||
Inductive | Other professional | Another type of conservation professional that is neither a local biologist nor an environmental consultant | ||||
Inductive | Land use | What interviewees' lands are primarily used for | ||||
Inductive | Conservation | Interviewee's land is primarily used for conservation purposes | ||||
Inductive | Forested/timber | Interviewee's land is primarily used to harvest timber | ||||
Inductive | Garden | Interviewee's land is primarily used as a fruit, vegetable, or flower garden | ||||
Inductive | Hay | Interviewee's land is primarily used to cultivate hay | ||||
Inductive | Horses | Interviewee's land is primarily used for horses | ||||
Inductive | Livestock | Interviewee's land is primarily used for livestock, ex: chickens, goats, cows | ||||
Inductive | Recreation | Interviewee's land is primarily used for personal recreation | ||||
Inductive | Residence | Interviewee's land is primarily used as a personal residence | ||||
Inductive | Row crops | Interviewee's land is primarily used to grow crops | ||||
Inductive | Off-farm income | Average percentage of interviewee's household's annual income that is derived from activities on their land | ||||
Inductive | <25% | Interviewee answered 25% or less or gave a more subjective answer such as “a small amount”, “very little”, or “not very much” | ||||
Inductive | >25% | Interviewee answered 25% or greater or gave a more subjective answer such as “the majority” or “almost all” | ||||
Inductive | Do not know | Interviewee did not know how much of their household's annual income was derived from activities on their land | ||||
Inductive | Negative | Interviewee's household lost income from the activities on their land | ||||
Inductive | Zero | Interviewee's household derived no income from the activities on their land | ||||
Inductive | Property size | Size of interviewee's property in acres | ||||
Inductive | <100 acres | <100 acres | ||||
Inductive | 100–300 acres | 100–300 acres | ||||
Inductive | 300–500 acres | 300–500 acres | ||||
Inductive | 500–700 acres | 500–700 acres | ||||
Inductive | 700–900 acres | 700–900 acres | ||||
Inductive | 900′+’ acres | 900‘+’ acres | ||||
Inductive | Time on property (years) | Number of years interviewee had lived or worked on the property Looking for how many years owned, does not matter if they have not lived there for that whole time period | ||||
Inductive | <5 years | <5 years | ||||
Inductive | 5–15 years | 5–15 years | ||||
Inductive | 15–25 years | 15–25 years | ||||
Inductive | 25–35 years | 25–35 years | ||||
Inductive | 35–45 years | 35–45 years | ||||
Inductive | 45–55 years | 45–55 years | ||||
Inductive | 55–65 years | 55–65 years | ||||
Inductive | >65 years | >65 years | ||||
Inductive | Events | Attendance at VWL events | ||||
Inductive | No event | Interviewee had no attended a VWL event | ||||
Inductive | Yes event | Interviewee had attended a VWL event | ||||
Inductive | Event type | Specific VWL events interviewee had attended | ||||
Inductive | Annual meeting | VWL's annual meeting | ||||
Inductive | Appreciation dinner | Landowner appreciation dinner | ||||
Inductive | Do not recall | Interviewee did not recall which VWL event they had attended | ||||
Inductive | Farm demonstration | Demonstration of conservation land management techniques at a participating landowner's farm | ||||
Inductive | Fundraiser | VWL fundraising event | ||||
Inductive | Non-VWL event | Interviewee mentioned attending an event that was not affiliated with VWL | ||||
Inductive | Picnic | VWL picnic | ||||
Inductive | Plant/nature walk | Guided plant or nature walk | ||||
Inductive | Seminar/talk/workshop | VWL seminar, talk, or workshop lead by a professional in the field | ||||
Inductive | Steering committee meeting | Meeting of VWL's steering committee | ||||
Inductive | Interactions—events | Individuals interviewee interacted with while attending a VWL event | ||||
Inductive | Citizen scientist | VWL citizen scientist | ||||
Inductive | Landowner/land manager | Participating VWL landowner or land manager | ||||
Inductive | No interactions | Did not interact with any of the other event attendees | ||||
Inductive | Other | Individual that was not a VWL citizen scientist, landowner, land manager, researcher, or intern | ||||
Inductive | VWL researcher/intern | VWL research or intern | ||||
Inductive | Yes interact—no comment | Did not give example of who they interacted with | ||||
Inductive | Impact—interaction events | Perceived impact of event attendance | ||||
Inductive | Advice/encouragement | Received advice and encouragement on conservation land management practices | ||||
Inductive | Learn new information | Learned new information about conservation or environmental issues | ||||
Inductive | No impact | Event attendance had no impact | ||||
Inductive | Shared interests | Connected with individuals that had a shared interest | ||||
Inductive | Use learned | Interviewee planning on using anything they learned from attending VWL event | ||||
Inductive | No use learn but intend to | Have not used what they have learned from the event but plan on using this information in the near future | ||||
Inductive | No use learned | Have not used what they have learned from the event | ||||
Inductive | Yes use learn | Have used what they have learned from the event | ||||
Inductive | Landowner report | Interviewee reading landowner report | ||||
Inductive | No read landowner report | Had not read a landowner report | ||||
Inductive | Yes read landowner report | Had read a landowner report | ||||
Inductive | Impact | Perceived impact of reading landowner report | ||||
Inductive | Educational | Found the landowner report to be educational | ||||
Inductive | No impact/cannot remember | Reading landowner report had no impact | ||||
Inductive | Re-affirm/unsurprised | Landowner report re-affirmed what the landowner already knew about their property | ||||
Inductive | Surprised/excited by info | Pleasantly surprised and excited by the information in the landowner report | ||||
Inductive | Thought interesting | Found the landowner report to be interesting | ||||
Inductive | Disappointed by lack of diversity | Disappointed in the low number of plant and animal species found on their property | ||||
Inductive | Outcomes of landowner report | Outcomes of reading landowner report, using information from the reports to make management decisions on their land | ||||
Inductive | Direct management action | Implementing conservation land management practices on their property | ||||
Inductive | Intentions to do direct management | Intend to implement conservation land management practices on their property | ||||
Inductive | No outcome | No outcome from reading the landowner report | ||||
Inductive | Share info | Sharing information from the report with interviewee's friends, family, or neighbors | ||||
Inductive | Casually shared info | Interviewee had casually mentioned information from the report to friends, family, or neighbors | ||||
Inductive | Formally shared info | Interviewee shared information from the report in a newsletter, newsletter post, or more formal manner | ||||
Inductive | Have not shared but willing to | Interviewee had not shared information from the report but would do so if asked | ||||
Inductive | Have not shared info | Interviewee had not shared information from the report | ||||
Inductive | Shared info—no comment | Interviewee had shared information from the report but did not specify how | ||||
Inductive | Newsletter/annual report | Reading the monthly newsletters and/or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | No read newsletter/annual report | Had not read the monthly newsletter or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Yes read newsletter/annual report | Had read the monthly newsletter or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Which read | Did the interviewee read only the monthly newsletter, only the annual report, or both the newsletters and the annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Not sure | Interviewee was unsure | ||||
Inductive | Read annual report only | Read annual report only | ||||
Inductive | Read both | Read newsletters and annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Read newsletter only | Read newsletter only | ||||
Inductive | Impact newsletter/annual report | Perceived impact of reading the newsletters and/or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Educational | Found them to be educational | ||||
Inductive | Get info on VWL | Keeps them up to date about the program | ||||
Inductive | No impact/ cannot remember | No impact | ||||
Inductive | Re-affirm | Re-affirmed what they already knew | ||||
Inductive | Thought interesting | Found them to be interesting | ||||
Inductive | Outcome—newsletter/annual report | Outcomes from reading the newsletters and/or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Cannot remember | Could not recall any outcomes | ||||
Inductive | Direct management actions | Implementing conservation land management practices on their property | ||||
Inductive | Intentions to do direct management actions | Intend to implement conservation land management practices on their property | ||||
Inductive | No outcome | No outcomes | ||||
Inductive | Share info | Sharing information from the newsletter and/or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Casually shared info | Interviewee had casually mentioned information from the newsletter and/or annual reports to friends, family, or neighbors | ||||
Inductive | Formally shared info | Interviewee shared information from the report in a newsletter, newsletter post, or more formal manner | ||||
Inductive | Haven't shared but willing to | Interviewee had not shared information from the newsletter and/or annual reports but would do so if asked | ||||
Inductive | Haven't shared info | Interviewee had not shared information from the newsletter and/or annual reports | ||||
Inductive | Shared info no comment | Interviewee had shared information from the newsletter and/or annual reports but did not specify how | ||||
Inductive | Survey | Interacting with program staff and citizen scientists while they were conducting research on the interviewee's property | ||||
Inductive | No survey interactions | Had not interacted with program staff and citizen scientists while research was conducted on their property | ||||
Inductive | Yes survey interactions | Had interacted with program staff and citizen scientists while research was conducted on their property | ||||
Inductive | Number of interactions | Number of interactions with program staff and citizen scientists while research was conducted on their property | ||||
Inductive | 0 | 0 | ||||
Inductive | 1–5 | 1–5 | ||||
Inductive | 1–10 | 1–10 | ||||
Inductive | 10‘+’ | 10‘+’ | ||||
Inductive | Not sure | Not sure | ||||
Inductive | Talk about research | Did program staff or citizen scientists talk to the interviewee about the kind of research they were doing on the property? | ||||
Inductive | No talk | No talk | ||||
Inductive | Yes talk | Yes talk | ||||
Inductive | Type of interaction | Type of interaction among program staff, citizen scientists, and interviewee | ||||
Inductive | Accompany one or more surveys | Interviewee accompanied the program staff and/or citizen scientists during one or more surveys | ||||
Inductive | Accompany during survey prep | Interviewee accompanied the program staff and/or citizen scientists before the survey began, while getting set up | ||||
Inductive | Chat when coming/going | Interviewee spoke with the program staff and/or citizen scientists as they were entering or leaving the property | ||||
Inductive | Show them around/first time | Interviewee gave the program staff and/or citizen scientists a tour of the property on their first visit | ||||
Inductive | Wasn't present | Interviewee was not present while the survey was being done on the property | ||||
Inductive | Which survey accompanied | Type of survey interviewee accompanied the program staff and/or citizen scientists on | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—bird | Bird survey | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—camera trap | Camera trapping | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—cannot remember | Could not recall which type of survey | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—mammal | Mammal survey | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—no comment | Did not specify which type of survey | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—plant | Plant survey | ||||
Inductive | Accompany—pollinator | Pollinator survey | ||||
Inductive | Who interact | Did the interviewee interact with program staff, citizen scientists, or both during the interaction | ||||
Inductive | Both | Both | ||||
Inductive | Cannot remember/do not know | Could not recall | ||||
Inductive | Citizen scientist | Citizen scientist | ||||
Inductive | Staff Biologist/Intern | Staff Biologist/Intern |
- Note: Source describes the deductive or inductive source of the code, parent codes include subsequent child codes, and descriptions are listed.