A Survey of Seasonal and Permanent Landowners in Wisconsin's Northwoods: Following Dillman and Then Some

Abstract

This article demonstrates the importance of obtaining high response rates for surveys of the general population while illustrating that survey design and procedures that adopt and modify factors known to positively affect survey returns can lead to high response rates, even for a lengthy survey of the general population. Using an expanded version of Dillman's “tailored design method,” we achieved an 82.8% response rate for a general population survey of landowners. When comparing early respondents to late respondents we found significant differences on several sociodemographic variables as well as a number of attitudinal measures central to the research project. In addition, costs are compared between this methodology and a more typical four-wave mailing. Our survey further highlights the importance of improving our understanding of the social changes taking place in rural communities and the implications these changes can have on natural resources management.

This article originally published in Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 17, Issue 5, pages 431–442, 2004. DOI: 10.1080/08941920490430223

Keywords:

• natural resources management
• response rate
• self-administered questionnaire
• survey methodology

Notes

Note. Data were compiled from U.S. Census (1970; 1980; 2001), Burnett County (2001), NWRPC (2000), and Washburn County (2001).

^a The number of outstanding surveys did not include undeliverable surveys or refusals. Refusals were blank surveys returned by members of the sample.

^a P, permanent resident; S, seasonal resident.

^a P, permanent resident; S, seasonal resident.

^a P = Permanent Resident; S = Seasonal resident.

^b Respondents were asked to agree or disagree on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree = 1, strongly disagree = 5) with the following statement: “Use of private land should be based on what the owner wants without being restricted by regulations”.

^c Respondents were asked to rate the Importance of management goals for public lands on a 5-point scale (very important = 1, very unimportant = 5). The management goals in this table were listed as: “Hunting opportunities”; Endangered species protection; Beauty and aesthetics.

Note. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of management goals for public lands on a 5-point scale (very important = 1, very unimportant = 5).

The studies reviewed were Bright et al. (2002), Carr and Halvorsen (2001), Connelly and Knuth (2002), Lauber et al. (2001), Nelson (2002), and Vaske et al. (2001).

For the duration of this article, we use the following terms interchangeably: seasonal, second, and recreational homes; seasonal and recreational homeowners; seasonal and recreational residents.

Sample questions that demonstrate the visual elements of the survey are available from the authors upon request.

For more details about the sampling frame, please contact the authors.

Two versions of the survey were used, one for seasonal residents and one for permanent residents. Question and instruction wording were slightly modified for seasonal residents because many of the questions of our survey were pertinent to both their permanent residence and their recreational homes.

The population contains approximately 55% permanent households and 45% seasonal, while our sample consists of 53% permanent households and 47% seasonal.

Standard deviations were also compared and many significant differences were found. They are not reported here in an effort to save space and are available from the authors upon request.