PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Mangun, Jean C.]On: 28 February 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 909147065]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural ResourcesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713667234

Neighbors Yet Strangers: Local People's Awareness of Cypress Creek NationalWildlife Refuge, Southern Illinois, USAJean C. Mangun a; Chandra A. Degia b; Mae A. Davenport c

a Department of Environmental Studies, Siena College, Loudonville, New York, USA b EnvironmentalManagement Unit, Department of Geography and Geology, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus,Kingston, Jamaica c Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois,USA

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2009

To cite this Article Mangun, Jean C., Degia, Chandra A. and Davenport, Mae A.(2009)'Neighbors Yet Strangers: Local People'sAwareness of Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Southern Illinois, USA',Society & Natural Resources,22:4,295 — 307

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08941920801981931

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920801981931

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Articles

Neighbors Yet Strangers: Local People’s Awarenessof Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge,

Southern Illinois, USA

JEAN C. MANGUN

Department of Environmental Studies, Siena College, Loudonville,New York, USA

CHANDRA A. DEGIA

Environmental Management Unit, Department of Geography and Geology,University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica

MAE A. DAVENPORT

Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale,Carbondale, Illinois, USA

Knowledge and perception of federal land-use decisions and policies among residentsof poor rural areas in the United States have received little attention in the literature.The purpose of this study was to examine awareness of Cypress Creek NationalWildlife Refuge and its programs as reported by the surrounding public in rural south-ern Illinois. A snowball or referral chain sampling technique was used to gain access tominority and low-income segments of a diverse rural population. Study findings revealthat race and distance of residence from the refuge mattered in southern Illinoisresidents’ awareness of the refuge. Lack of broad-based awareness and program atten-dance were assessed in terms of distributive and procedural equity. Comprehensive andsustained efforts at more effective communication with all local residents, particularlyminority residents, will be necessary to achieve the goal of environmental justice inplanning and delivery of future refuge programs and services.

Keywords environmental justice, local residents, protected areas, rural, wildliferefuge

Recent literature on local residents and protected areas appears to focus primarily onissues of indigenous peoples and conservation in the developing world (Walpole andGoodwin 2001; Jim and Xu 2002; Nepal 2002; Holmes 2003; Sekhar 2003; Perez-Verdin et al. 2004; Hill 2006). Durrant and Shumway (2004) observe that much less

Received 27 February 2007; accepted 21 January 2008.Address correspondence to Jean C. Mangun, Department of Environmental Studies,

Siena College, 515 Loudon Road, Loudonville, NY 12211-1452, USA. E-mail: jmangun@siena.edu

Society and Natural Resources, 22:295–307Copyright # 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920801981931

295

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

attention has been given to local people’s knowledge and perceptions of federal land-use decisions and policies in rural areas of the United States. Some exceptionsinclude studies addressing restoration actions taken at the Savannah River reactorsite (Burger 1998, 2000) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) refuge initia-tives in the Midwest (Roberts 1999; Mangun et al. 2000). The common theme inthese U.S. studies, regardless of region, is that local resident responses to agencyactions are typically negative when government initiatives are perceived to haveignored local input. What these studies also have in common is an emphasis on tradi-tional stakeholder groups: hunters, anglers, agricultural interests, agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), with little consideration of underservedpopulations or cultural values and practices (Burger 1999; Phillips 2003; Adamset al. 2005). A more equitable approach to protected areas management, as proposedby Brown and Mitchell (2000), is one that considers and accommodates the interestsand needs of all local residents.

Once a protected area is established and policies are enacted, the importantquestion arises: Who reaps the benefits and who pays the costs? Indeed, Executive Order12898 issued by President Bill Clinton in 1994 requires federal agencies to examine issuesof environmental equity among minority and low-income populations to ensure thatprograms and policies do not disproportionately affect or exclude these groups. None-theless, Floyd and Johnson (2002, 67) note that few studies have examined environmen-tal justice issues in the context of natural resource amenities, outdoor recreation, ortourism. Building upon Floyd and Johnson’s (2002) discussion of recreation allocationdecisions, we suggest that in order to be environmentally equitable, protected areasmanagement needs to recognize and incorporate the environmental perspectives andrecreational preferences of diverse groups early in the planning process.

Studies that have investigated differential visitation to federal recreation areascontinue to document that African Americans are significantly less likely to visit exur-ban, undeveloped natural areas, such as national parks and forests, than Asian, Cau-casian, and Latino respondents of similar socioeconomic status (Tierney et al. 1998;Floyd 1999; Solop et al. 2003). If we similarly consider the remote, rural, and largelyundeveloped Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge (CCNWR) natural area insouthernmost Illinois, what levels of awareness and participation can be expected fromits diverse local population? An observed lack of participation in refuge programs bythe neighboring African American community may stem from a management strategyinitially optimized for resource protection rather than social inclusiveness (Adams2002), and therefore can be framed from an environmental justice perspective (Floydand Johnson 2002, 60). Although awareness and participation are not synonymouswith environmental justice, assessing these characteristics among minority and low-income residents can be a critical first step in developing resource protection programsthat are responsive to and inclusive of all local people (Brown and Mitchell 2000), ulti-mately ensuring environmental equity in federal land-use decisions.

This article identifies factors predicting local resident awareness of CCNWR, anintegral landscape component of efforts to restore the internationally recognizedCache River Wetlands ecosystem (USFWS 1997; Ramsar 2005). Management ofecosystems is a social process (Burger 2000) that transcends ownership and admin-istrative boundaries. Land acquisition efforts to preserve wetland and bottomlandhabitat crucial to migratory bird species of CCNWR and the Cache River Wetlandscan best be accomplished if the social context in which such efforts occur encouragesinclusive local participation in programs, planning, and implementation. Lack of

296 J. C. Mangun et al.

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

awareness regarding this 40,000-ha protected area was assessed in terms of distribu-tive and procedural environmental equity issues as summarized by Floyd andJohnson (2002).

Protected Areas and Environmental Justice

Environmental justice as a social movement is the ideological heir of America’s civilrights movement and related discourse on environmental racism (Benford 2005).Considered a ‘‘collective action frame’’ (Benford 2005, 40), environmental racismfocused on problem identification and attributed blame to racially discriminatorypolicies. Although some authors (Taylor 2000) emphasize the deliberate discrimina-tory intent of environmental racism, Bullard (1994a, 98) defines environmentalracism as any ‘‘policy, practice, or directive that differentially affected or disadvan-taged (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities basedon race or color.’’ Benford suggests (2005) that today’s environmental justice move-ment evolved, at least in part, from a need to appear less radical, more proactive, andmore inclusive of the nuanced dimensions of environmental inequities.

Contemporary environmental justice activists typically work toward reform ofprocedural, geographic (also known as distributive), and social inequities in publichealth as described by Bullard (1994b). The few studies which address environmentaljustice and natural resource amenities (Aldy et al. 1999; Tarrant and Cordell 1999;Floyd and Johnson 2002) primarily address distributive equity or equitable allocationof goods, services, and burdens, and, to a much lesser extent, procedural equity orfair access to information and representation in meaningful decision-making pro-cesses. Floyd and Johnson’s (2002) recommendation that future research effortssimilarly examine both distributive and procedural equity also applies to researchon the siting and governance of protected or conservation-focused lands.

Blaustein observes (2007, 217), ‘‘Protected areas, for the most part, are estab-lished in the most biodiverse areas of the world.’’ In this context, Bryant’s (1995,6) community-based definition of environmental justice works particularly well:‘‘Environmental justice . . . refers to those cultural norms, values, rules, regulations,behaviors, policies, and decisions to support sustainable communities where peoplecan interact with confidence that the environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. . . .These are communities where both cultural and biological diversity are respected andhighly revered and where distributive justice prevails.’’ While protected areas wouldseem to embody Bryant’s (1995) balanced conceptualization of environmental justice,in reality governance of many such areas has been fraught with disparities and conflicts(Blaustein 2007). Establishing legitimate and effective protected areas governance(Paavola 2004) requires recognizing both the distributive and procedural justiceexpectations of all local residents and stakeholder groups.

Research Setting and Methods

Study Area

Established in 1990 in response to the Emergency Wetlands Resource Act of 1986(PL 99-645), CCNWR is typical of recent USFWS efforts to assemble new wildliferefuges in a piecemeal fashion with land parcels obtained from conservation partnersand willing sellers. The surrounding Cache River Watershed is a 216,408-ha drainage

Local Awareness of Wildlife Refuge 297

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

located in the southern tip of Illinois, 644 km south of Chicago. A diverse flora andfauna is supported by the convergence of four physiographic zones: Illinois Ozarks,the Shawnee Hills, the Upper Gulf coastal plains, and the Mississippi alluvial basin(Duram et al. 2004). The Cache River Wetlands ecosystem has been designated aRamsar Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar 2005) because of criticalwaterfowl breeding habitat and diverse, migratory assemblages of waterfowl andshorebirds. Preservation and restoration efforts for the Cache River Wetlands com-plex as a whole are managed by a Joint Venture Partnership that includes the IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, andthe USFWS.

Extreme southern Illinois is a land of contrasts—natural resource gems setagainst persistent rural poverty. The land acquisition boundary of CCNWR(USFWS 1997) follows the lower Cache River and its tributary Cypress Creek asthey meander through Union, Johnson, Pulaski, and Alexander counties(Figure 1). Excluding Union, the latter three counties have been designated a U.S.Department of Agriculture Delta Empowerment Zone (USDA 2004) in an effortto revive the depressed local economy. Census data indicate that these same threecounties are home to a sizeable African American population (U.S. Census Bureau2000).

Figure 1. Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge purchase boundary (shaded area) insouthernmost Illinois.

298 J. C. Mangun et al.

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

The CCNWR conservation plan specifies goals of resource protection, biodiver-sity maintenance, and environmental education opportunities for local residents.Although great strides in wetland restoration efforts have occurred since 1990,Adams (2002) has called into question the degree to which local residents have beeninformed and engaged in watershed-wide planning processes. As is often the case inrural settings, decision-making authority in Cache River Watershed planning issueshas rested in the hands of government agencies, environmental NGOs, and narrowlydefined stakeholder groups (Adams et al. 2005). The present study surveyed residentsof the Cache River Watershed to provide empirical evidence of a persistent lack ofawareness regarding CCNWR and its programs by underrepresented segments ofthe diverse local population.

Quantitative Data Collection

As part of a study exploring racial differences in antecedents to responsible environ-mental behavior in the Cache River Watershed (Degia 2000), a survey was distribu-ted to residents of the four counties adjacent to CCNWR. A snowball or referralchain sampling technique (Henry 1990) was used to gain access to local minorityand low-income communities. Questions addressed participation in resource-basedoutdoor activities and knowledge of wetlands in general, and CCNWR in particular.We examined the individual and combined influence of sociodemographic (e.g., age,race, distance of residence from refuge) and outdoor experience backgroundvariables on whether or not an individual was aware of CCNWR.

The original sampling scheme planned for this study was a stratified randomsample telephone survey. This scheme was abandoned early on as it provedinadequate in securing participation from minority, low-income, and seniorcitizen groups. Southernmost Illinois Delta Empowerment Zone (SIDEZ) staff (D.Raynalds, phone conversation with author, 19 July 1999) described a local popula-tion that showed signs of ‘‘research fatigue’’ from being subject to several earliersocioeconomic studies. In addition, a high percentage of area households were foundto be without telephone access, with estimates of households without phones as highas 1 in 8 in Alexander and Pulaski counties. Guidelines for conducting communityresearch in unique cultural settings (Santiago-Rivera et al. 1998) and for accessingmarginalized populations (Faugier and Sargeant 1997; McAvoy et al. 2000;Atkinson and Flint 2001) recommend alternative sampling methods. We elected toadapt and adopted a snowball (also known as referral chain) sampling approach(Henry 1990).

Sampling began by consulting with educators and leaders considered community‘‘gatekeepers’’ (McAvoy et al. 2000) to build project legitimacy, identify potentialparticipants, and establish venues for questionnaire distribution. The process contin-ued throughout the spring and summer of 2000. Identification of key communityleaders and outreach centers proved critical to securing study subjects. Data werecollected at various locations (e.g., a community college, elementary schools, seniorand employment training centers, a Natural Resources Conservation Service out-reach meeting) in several towns (e.g., Ullin, Tamms, Karnak, and Cairo, IL) withinthe Cache River Watershed. A diverse, three-member field research team was headedby a female, black Caribbean national who was then a graduate research assistant atSouthern Illinois University Carbondale.

Local Awareness of Wildlife Refuge 299

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Subjects who volunteered to participate were asked to fill out a hand-deliveredquestionnaire. Although background questions on education and occupation wereincluded, questions about income levels were deemed too invasive in an area report-ing a 31% poverty rate (USDA 2004) and therefore were omitted. Low educationalattainment levels also have been reported throughout the Cache River region(USDA 2004). In cases in which respondents were unwilling or unable to completethe questionnaire, the research team member present would offer to read surveyquestions and record respondent answers. Subjects were encouraged to completethe questionnaire on site, but could elect to do so at a time of their own choosing,returning the completed form by mail. Of 160 questionnaires distributed, 119 werereturned completed and usable, for a 79.3% response rate.

Variable Measurement

Attribute VariablesSeven sociodemographic characteristics were examined: age, gender, race, employ-ment status, education level, years of southern Illinois residence, and distance ofresidence from refuge. Outdoor experience was measured by asking whether respon-dents were active in resource-based outdoor activities as a youth, were active as anadult, cared about the environment, and felt knowledgeable about wetlands.

Behavioral VariablesAwareness was defined as the ability to report knowledge or realization of an entityor event. Local residents’ awareness of CCNWR was assessed by five questionsaddressing having heard of the refuge, its wetland of international importance des-ignation, site visitation, and refuge event knowledge or attendance. Response tothe single awareness question ‘‘Have you ever heard of a place called Cypress CreekNational Wildlife Refuge?’’ was coded as ‘‘1’’ (Yes) or ‘‘0’’ (No) and used as thedependent variable for an exploratory logistic regression.

Analysis

Two-way contingency-table analyses with the chi-square test statistic examined theassociation between categorical sociodemographic variables and variables measuringrefuge awareness. Two binary logistic regression models were created to predictwhether respondents had heard of CCNWR as a function of two sets of independentvariables (i.e., sociodemographics and outdoor experience). A third logistic regres-sion model was constructed that included all significant independent variables simul-taneously.

Justification for use of a logistic regression analysis with a nonrandom samplecan be found in the epidemiology and health education literature, where it isroutinely applied in examinations of substance-related disorders and therapeuticreadiness or compliance, particularly in at-risk or minority populations (Goldet al. 2000; Rivers et al. 2006; Wiefferink et al. 2007). Keeping in mind the limita-tions and inherent bias of a personal network sample (Atkinson and Flint 2001),our analysis used logistic regression as an exploratory means to identify predic-tors of CCNWR awareness specifically among residents of the Cache RiverWatershed.

300 J. C. Mangun et al.

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Study Findings

A Snowball Sample

To assess regional representativeness of our findings, sample sociodemographicswere compared with county data readily available from Census 2000 Illinois Quick-Facts online (U.S. Census Bureau 2000) for the four counties of interest. Reflectingthe venues where surveys were distributed, our sample was older, more female, andof a significantly higher educational attainment level than the regional populace(Table 1). Figures from Southernmost Illinois Delta Empowerment Zone progressreports (USDA 2004) indicate an 11% unemployment rate for the tricounty empow-erment zone (Johnson, Pulaski, and Alexander counties); our four-county sample(Union, Johnson, Pulaski, and Alexander counties) reported a 9.2% unemploymentrate. Although not completely representative of the regional population, the snow-ball sampling technique did provide access to previously undersampled seniorsand African American residents.

Respondent Characteristics

Survey respondents, who were all residents of the Cypress Creek–Cache RiverWatershed, ranged in age from 19 to 92 years old and had lived in the area an aver-age of 39 years (Table 2). In addition, 5% were members of the Friends of the CacheRiver Watershed NGO; all of these Friends of the Cache River Watershed respon-dents were Caucasian.

Awareness of Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Respondents were asked five questions directly related to the refuge, its location, andits programs (Table 3). Although 82% of respondents indicated that they had heardof CCNWR, only 57% were sure that they had visited refuge land after reading (orbeing read) a nontechnical description of refuge boundaries based on familiar roadsand water bodies. Bivariate analyses identified race as a sociodemographic variablesignificantly associated with refuge awareness. Although few respondents (22.7%),regardless of race, had attended any refuge events, African American respondents’awareness of CCNWR was found to be significantly lower than that of their Cauca-sian neighbors on four measures (see Table 3).

Table 1. Comparison of snowball sample (n¼ 119) sociodemographics with 2000Illinois county census data

Parameter Alexander Johnson Pulaski Union Mean Sample

Percent 65 years and older 16.9 13.6 17.4 17.5 16.4 26.7Percent female 50.4 40.2 52.2 51.4 48.6 60.7Percent African American 34.9 14.2 31.0 0.8 20.3 25.2Percent GED or high

school diploma67.0 67.1 70.7 74.8 69.9 82.4

Percent bachelor’s degree 6.9 11.7 7.1 15.8 10.4 27.7Mean persons per household 2.36 2.43 2.44 2.38 2.41 2.45

Local Awareness of Wildlife Refuge 301

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Table 2. Characteristics of Cache River Watershed survey respondents (n¼ 119)

Attribute Category Percent

Age (years) 18–34 25.735–49 18.150–64 29.565 and older 26.7

Race African American 25.2American Indian 0.9Caucasian=white 73.0Other 0.9

Gender Male 39.3Female 60.7

Highest education level Elementary=some high school 17.6High school diploma=GED 13.4Some college=associate’s degree 41.2Bachelor’s degree 9.2Some postgraduate 18.5

Years residing in southern Illinois 1–20 25.921–35 27.836–50 24.151 and longer 22.2

Employment status Student 14.3Unemployed 9.2Employed 50.4Retired 26.1

Table 3. Respondents’ awareness of Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge(n¼ 119)

Attribute CategoryPercent

totalPercent African

American

Heard of a place called CCNWR?a No 17.6 42.9Yes 82.4 57.1

Ever visited within CCNWRboundaries?a

No 21.8 28.6

Unsure 21.0 46.4Yes 57.1 25.0

Know CCNWR and surroundings a No 49.6 71.4wetland of international importance?a Yes 50.4 28.6Know of refuge events?a No 58.8 78.6

Yes 41.2 21.4Attend refuge events? No 77.3 85.7

Yes 22.7 14.3

aStatistically significant bivariate association with race (p� .05).

302 J. C. Mangun et al.

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Logistic Regression Models

The first binary logistic regression model examined the influence of seven selectedsociodemographic variables on awareness of CCNWR (Table 4). Of the seven socio-demographic predictors, only race and distance residing from refuge had significanteffects. Awareness of CCNWR as a function of outdoor experience comprised thesecond binary logistic regression model (see Table 4). Whether or not a respondentwas at least somewhat active in resource-based outdoor recreation activities andwhether or not a respondent had prior knowledge of wetlands were both found tobe significant predictors.

The final logistic regression model examined the combined influence of signifi-cant sociodemographic and outdoor experience variables (see Table 4). The twoindependent variables found to be significant predictors of awareness of CCNWRin the combined model were race and distance of residence from refuge. Residentsof the Cache River Watershed who lived less than 10 miles (16 km) from refugeboundaries were 4.6 times more likely to have heard of CCNWR than those livingfurther away; Caucasian residents were 5.2 times more likely to have heard of therefuge than their African American neighbors.

The initial sociodemographic model explained the most variance (R2¼ .47) andcorrectly classified 88% of respondents by refuge awareness overall. The outdoorexperience model accounted for just 32% of the variance yet correctly classified83% of respondents. The final combined model, which had an R2 value explaining43% of variance, correctly classified 83% of respondents overall.

Table 4. Logistic regression models predicting local resident awareness of CypressCreek NWR

Partial models Full modela

Model and parameter b WaldOddsratio

pValue b Wald

Oddsratio

pValue

Sociodemographics modelAge �1.36 0.88 0.26 0.347Race 2.06 6.81 7.82 0.009 1.64 7.17 5.15 0.007Gender �0.27 0.10 0.77 0.752Employment status 0.60 0.43 1.82 0.514Education level 2.44 3.36 11.45 0.067Southern Illinois native �0.58 0.45 0.56 0.500Distance from refuge 3.05 5.10 21.11 0.024 1.52 4.30 4.58 0.038

Outdoor experience modelActive as youth 0.25 0.19 1.29 0.665Active as adult 1.95 5.47 7.03 0.019Care about environment 2.45 2.21 11.64 0.137Knowledgeable about

wetlands1.32 4.62 3.72 0.032

aOnly statistically significant (p� .05) variables are shown for the full model.

Local Awareness of Wildlife Refuge 303

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Discussion

Reaching Communities of Color

A nonrandom referral chain approach was successful in gaining purchase with thelocal African American community. Building project legitimacy and rapport throughcommunity ‘‘gatekeepers’’ (McAvoy et al. 2000) also was critical to identifyingparticipants and appropriate venues for distributing questionnaires. We suggest thatresearchers concerned with hearing the full range of ‘‘voices’’ expressed by diverselocal stakeholder groups should consider exploring purposive sampling techniquesas insights emerge over the course of a study.

Neighbors, Yet Strangers

The study’s findings reveal that race and distance of residence from the refuge matterin southern Illinois residents’ awareness of CCNWR. At the most basic level, beingwhite and living near the refuge mean one is more likely to have heard of the refuge.Yet this finding provides further evidence of how awareness and participation arestill shaped by initial refuge planning and decision-making processes that focusedexclusively on traditional stakeholder groups, particularly landowners with holdingsnear the refuge. As argued by Paavola (2004, 61), environmental justice in a pro-tected areas context, such as CCNWR and the Cache River Wetlands, shouldaddress not only the incidence of beneficial and adverse consequences of decisions,but also the implications of the ways in which decisions were made.

While site designation of a protected area such as a federal wildlife refuge shouldbe based on geographic location of scarce resources, when a protected area is estab-lished in a remote rural region, consideration must be given to potential cultural dis-placement and exclusion of minority and low-income residents (Brown and Mitchell2000; Degia et al. 2000; Phillips 2003; Blaustein 2007). African American residents ofthe counties adjacent to CCNWR may be benefiting from certain off-site ecosystemservices such as clean air and clean water just the same as their Caucasian neighbors.At the same time, our findings suggest that in general, these nearby residents are lessaware of the refuge and potentially less likely to accrue benefits CCNWR providesthrough on-site programs and services, such as enjoying and learning about nature,or off-site programs and services, such as technical assistance in private lands con-servation. Furthermore, a lack of awareness certainly implies a lack of participationin past and present planning and decision-making processes.

Also important to note is that racial differences aside, respondents overallreported little attendance at refuge events—despite being an older and more edu-cated sample of the regional population. This finding underscores a real need forCCNWR and its partners to find better venues for communicating social and bio-physical values and implications of wetlands restoration to the broader community,beyond what Adams (2002) refers to as the ‘‘propertied elite’’ (p. 6). A new focus onredressing distributive and procedural inequities will be necessary to bring environ-mental parity to all local residents.

CCNWR and its land management partners have acknowledged this need andexpressed a desire to be more inclusive of diverse local populations and to fostercommunity-based partnerships in future conservation efforts. A Community Part-nership Assessment, commissioned by the Joint Venture Partners and conductedby the Southern Illinois University Carbondale Department of Forestry, is currently

304 J. C. Mangun et al.

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

underway to identify opportunities and barriers to community involvement in CacheRiver Wetlands ecosystem restoration. An important first step for managers will beto build awareness among residents and particularly, minority residents.

Allison and Hibbler (2004) stress the need for effective communication inovercoming barriers to inclusion of minority populations. Traditional methods ofcommunication typical among dominant groups may not be effective amonglow-income or racial=ethnic minorities. Refuge managers may also need to buildlegitimacy and rapport through community gatekeepers. Allison and Hibbler(2004, 271) encourage managers to identify the particular needs and interests ofminority groups and make comprehensive and sustained efforts to plan ‘‘creativeand alternative program service delivery.’’ As agency staff and local residents getto know one another as welcoming neighbors rather than strangers, both groups willhave increased confidence that the refuge supports environmental equity as itsustains both the social and ecological integrity of the area.

References

Adams, J. 2002. Class—An unspoken aspect of watershed planning. Paper presented at theSociety for Applied Anthropology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA. http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/adams/pages/watershed_pg_3.html (accessed 30 May 2005).

Adams, J., S. E. Kraft, J. B. Ruhl, C. Lant, T. Loftus, and L. Duram. 2005. Watershedplanning: Pseudo-democracy and its alternatives—The case of the Cache RiverWatershed, Illinois. Agric. Hum. Values 22(3):327–338.

Aldy, J. L., R. A. Kramer, and T. P. Holmes. 1999. Environmental equity and the conserva-tion of unique ecosystems: An analysis of the distribution of benefits for protectingSouthern Appalachian spruce–fir forests. Society Nat. Resources 12:93–106.

Allison, M. and D. Hibbler. 2004. Organizational barriers to inclusion: Perspectives from therecreation professional. Leisure Sci. 26(3):261–280.

Atkinson, R. and J. Flint. 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowballresearch strategies. Social Research Update 33(Summer). http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SUR33.html (accessed 30 May 2005).

Benford, R. 2005. The half-life of the environmental justice frame: Innovation, diffusion, andstagnation. In Power, justice and the environment: A critical appraisal of the environmentaljustice movement, eds. D. N. Pellow, and R. J. Brulle, 37–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Blaustein, R. J. 2007. Protected areas and equity concerns. Bioscience 57(3):216–221.Brown, J. and B. Mitchell. 2000. The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected

landscapes. George Wright Forum 17(1):70–79.Bryant, B. 1995. Introduction. In Environmental justice, issues, policies and solutions, ed.

B. Bryant, 1–7. Washington, DC: Island Press.Bullard, R. D. 1994a. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.Bullard, R. D. 1994b. Overcoming racism in environmental decisionmaking. Environment

36:10–34.Burger, J. 1998. Environmental perceptions and attitudes at the Savannah River Site: Are

there racial differences? J. Toxicol. Hum. Health 53:255–262.Burger, J. 1999. American Indians, hunting and fishing rates, risk and the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Environ. Res. 80:319–329.Burger, J. 2000. A comparison of on-site hunters, sportsmen, and the general public about

recreational rates and future land use preferences for the Savannah River Site. J. Environ.Planning Manage. 43(2):221–233.

Local Awareness of Wildlife Refuge 305

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Degia, C. A. 2000. Responsible environmental behavior of African Americans in the Cache RiverBasin. Master’s thesis, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale,Carbondale, IL.

Degia, C. A., J. C. Mangun, and A. D. Carver. 2000. Federal land acquisition and potentialcultural displacement of African Americans in southern Illinois (abstr.). In Book ofabstracts, 8th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Transcend-ing Boundaries: Natural Resource Management from Summit to Sea, USDA Forest ServiceGeneral Technical Report PNW-GTR-497, eds. R. Burdge, J. Miles, D. Alper, andL. Kruger, 80. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.

Duram, L. A., J. Bathgate, and C. Ray. 2004. A local example of land-use change: SouthernIllinois—1807, 1938, and 1993. Prof. Geogr. 56(1):127–140.

Durrant, J. O. and J. M. Shumway. 2004. Attitudes toward wilderness study areas: A survey ofsix southeastern Utah counties. Environ. Manage. 33(2):271–283.

Faugier, J. and M. Sargeant. 1997. Sampling hard to reach populations. J. Adv. Nurs. 26:790–797.

Floyd, M. F. 1999. Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System. Social Sci. Res. Rev.1(3):1–23.

Floyd, M. F. and C. Y. Johnson. 2002. Coming to terms with environmental justice in outdoorrecreation: A conceptual discussion with research implications. Leisure Sci. 24:59–77.

Gold, E. B., B. Sternfeld, J. L. Kelsey, C. Brown, C. Mouton., N. Reame, L. Salamone, andR. Stellato. 2000. Relation of demographic and lifestyle factors to symptoms in a multi-racial=ethnic population of women 40–55 years of age. Am. J. Epidemiol. 152(5):463–473.

Henry, G. T. 1990. Practical sampling (Applied social research methods series, Vol. 21).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hill, R. 2006. The effectiveness of agreements and protocols to bridge between indigenous andnon-indigenous toolboxes for protected areas management: A case study from the wettropics of Queensland. Society Nat. Resources 19:577–590.

Holmes, C. M. 2003. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes andresource use patterns: A case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37(3):305–315.

Jim, C. Y. and S. S. W. Xu. 2002. Stifled stakeholders and subdued participation: Interpretinglocal responses toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in south China. Environ. Manage.30(3):327–341.

McAvoy, L., P. L. Winter, C. W. Outley, D. McDonald, and D. J. Chavez. 2000. Conductingresearch with communities of color. Society Nat. Resources 13:479–488.

Mangun, J. C., D. E. Bray, and W. R. Mangun. 2000. The public and the commenting processfor the proposed Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Trans. North Am.Wildl. Nat. Resources Conf. 65:453–464.

Nepal, S. K. 2002. Involving indigenous peoples in protected area management: Comparativeperspectives from Nepal, Thailand, and China. Environ. Manage. 30(6):748–763.

Paavola, J. 2004. Protected areas governance and justice: Theory and the European Union’sHabitats Directive. Environ. Sci. 1(1):59–77.

Perez-Verdin, G., M. E. Lee, and D. J. Chavez. 2004. Outdoor recreation in a protected area insouthern Durango, Mexico: Analysis of local residents’ perceptions. Society Nat.Resources 17:897–910.

Phillips, A. 2003. Turning ideas on their head: The new paradigm for protected areas. GeorgeWright Forum 20(2):8–31.

Ramsar, The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. 2005. The Ramsar list of wetlands of Interna-tional importance. http://www.ramsar.org (accessed 15 May 2005).

Rivers, B., L. Green, D. Arekere, D. Rivers, and K. Rowell. 2006. Factors influencing theinformed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening in black men. Paperpresented at the American Public Health Association 134th Annual Meeting, Boston.http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_142131.htm (accessed 4September 2007).

306 J. C. Mangun et al.

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009

Roberts, S. E. 1999. The Kankakee wetlands: A case study in ethics and public policy. Polit.Life Sci. 18(2):191–200.

Santiago-Rivera, A. L., G. S. Morse, and A. Hunt. 1998. Building a community-basedresearch partnership: Lessons from the Mohawk nation of Akwesasne. J. Commun.Psych. 26(2):163–174.

Sekhar, N. U. 2003. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourismaround Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manage. 69:339–347.

Solop, F. I., K. K. Hagen, and D. M. Ostergren. 2003. Racial and ethnic diversity of nationalpark system visitors and non-visitors, Technical report. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Social Science Program. http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/pdf/Ethnic_and_Racial_Diversity_Report_12_2003.pdf (accessed 27 December 2006).

Tarrant, M. A. and H. K. Cordell. 1999. Environmental justice and the spatial distribution ofoutdoor recreation sites. J. Leisure Res. 31:18–34.

Taylor, D. E. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and thesocial construction of environmental discourses. Amer. Behav. Sci. 43:508–580.

Tierney, P. T., R. F. Dahl, and D. J. Chavez. 1998. Cultural diversity of Los Angeles Countyresidents using undeveloped natural areas. Research paper PSW-RP-236. Albany, CA:USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Illinois QuickFacts from the USBC. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.html (accessed 15 October 2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. Rural empowerment zone and enterprise communityprogram: Southernmost Illinois Delta Empowerment Zone. http://www.ezec.gov/communit/illinois.html (accessed 15 October 2004).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Conservationmanagement plan. http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/Planning/cypresscreek/cmp/cmp.pdf(accessed 13 August 2007).

Walpole, M. J. and H. J. Goodwin. 2001. Local attitudes towards conservation and tourismaround Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environ. Conserv. 28(2):160–166.

Wiefferink, C. H., S. B. Detmar, B. Coumans, T. Vogel, and T. G. W. Paulssen. 2007. Socialpsychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym users.Health Educ. Res. http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/cym004v (accessed13 February 2007).

Local Awareness of Wildlife Refuge 307

Downloaded By: [Mangun, Jean C.] At: 04:24 28 February 2009