Geology topics

Holly M. Miller

Publications and source records attributed to Holly M. Miller.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2019

Rural-urban differences in hunting and birdwatching attitudes and participation

Outdoor recreation facilitates important connections to nature and wildlife but is perceived differently across population segments. As such, we expected that current and past socio-demographic characteristics of individuals would influence intention to participate in outdoor recreation. We solicited 5,000 U.S. residents. (n = 1,030, 23% response) to describe their perceptions of hunting and birdwatching. The influence of current and childhood community size (i.e., urban-rural residence gradient) was examined as a potentially important predictor of intention to participate in hunting and birdwatching within the context of theory of planned behavior. Hunting attitudes and personal behavior control were more positive when respondents maintained a residence in rural areas. Alternatively, birdwatching attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control did not differ with community size. Therefore, programs aimed at increasing participation in outdoor recreation should carefully consider the importance of socio-demographic variables in the context of their objectives, especially for recruiting urban hunters.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife↗

USGS2018

Communicating information on nature-related topics: Preferred information channels and trust in sources

How information is communicated influences the public’s environmental perceptions and behaviors. Information channels and sources both play an important role in the dissemination of information. Trust in a source is often used as a proxy for whether a particular piece of information is credible. To determine preferences for information channels and trust in various sources for information on nature-related topics, a mail-out survey was sent to randomly selected U.S. addresses ( n = 1,030). Diverse groups of people may have differing communication preferences. Therefore, we explored differences in channel preferences and trust by demographics using regression models. Overall, the most preferred channels were personal experience, reading online content, and watching visual media online. The most trusted sources were science organizations, universities, and friends/family. Channel preferences varied the most by education level and age, while source trust was most influenced by education, race, age, and size of current residence (rural-urban). The influence of demographics varied depending on the individual channel and source, with some groups preferring certain channels or sources but not others. Results are useful to consider when disseminating information on nature-related topics to a general public audience. More broadly, results also suggest spreading information using different channels and sources depending on the specific audience being targeted.

PLoS ONE↗

USGS2018

Does proximity to wetlands matter? A landscape-level analysis of the influence of local wetlands on the public’s concern for ecosystem services and conservation involvement

The success of landscape-level conservation depends on public support and an understanding of public opinion. However, perceptions of wetlands’ importance may differ based on proximity to a wetland. This study used a mail-out survey across the entire U.S. (n=1,030) to investigate the public’s knowledge of local wetlands, visitation to wetlands, concern over losing ecosystem services provided by wetlands, and involvement in wetlands conservation. Regression models were run to explore the impact of proximity to the nearest wetland on wetlands visitation, concern, and conservation involvement. Additionally, sociodemographics and outdoor recreation participation were tested as predictors. While proximity to wetlands did impact knowledge of wetlands in the local area and wetlands visitation, it was not directly a significant predictor of concern for wetlands ecosystem services or conservation involvement. However, wetlands visitation did increase concern for ecosystem services and conservation involvement. Furthermore, participation in birdwatching, wildlife viewing, and fishing were correlated with higher concern for ecosystems services provided by wetlands and involvement in wetlands/waterfowl conservation. Results suggest that fostering awareness of wetlands, encouraging visitation, and promoting outdoor recreation opportunities may increase support for wetlands regardless of individuals’ proximity to wetlands.

Wetlands↗

USGS2018

Public views of wetlands and waterfowl conservation in the United States—Results of a survey to inform the 2018 update of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

Executive Summary This report provides information from a general public survey conducted in early 2017 to help inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 2018 update. This report is intended for use by the NAWMP advisory committees and anyone interested in the human dimensions of wetlands and waterfowl management. A mail-out survey was sent to 5,000 addresses in the United States, which were selected randomly in proportion to the population of each State. A total of 1,030 completed surveys representing 49 States were returned, resulting in a 23 percent overall response rate. When comparing the demographics of the respondents to the U.S. census data, this sample overrepresented people who are male, older, highly educated, and white. Data were weighted on gender and age to make the results more representative of the overall U.S. population. Additionally, this sample had higher participation rates in all wildlife-related recreation activities than has been found in previous studies; this indicates there may have been selection bias, with people interested in nature-related topics more likely to complete the survey. Therefore, results likely represent a segment of the U.S. public that is more oriented toward and aware of wildlife and conservation issues than the general public as a whole. Because of this bias, responses for each question were also broken down by recreationist type (hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, and no wildlife-related recreation). Additionally, responses for each question were split by administrative flyway (Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, Pacific) and residency (urban, urban cluster, rural) to better understand the different groups. Most respondents knew of wetlands in their local area or community, and more than half had visited wetlands in the previous 12 months. Of those who had visited wetlands, the most common reasons were for walking/hiking/biking and enjoying nature/picnicking. In addition, this sample was very concerned about the reduction or loss of ecosystem services resulting from wetlands degradation or loss. A majority of respondents were somewhat or very concerned about 9 out of 10 wetlands benefits, with hunting opportunities being the only benefit the majority of people were not concerned about. People were the most concerned about clean water, clean air, and providing a home for wildlife. In contrast, people were least concerned about hunting opportunities and wetlands providing scenic places for inspiration or spiritual renewal. Communication about wetlands that focuses on habitat, clean air, and clean water may resonate with the widest variety of people. However, if communication is targeted toward wildlife-related recreationists, including more information about the recreation benefits of wetlands and emphasizing habitat benefits may be the most effective. Many people reported having participated in conservation behaviors in the last year. The most popular activity was making the yard more desirable to wildlife, with more than three-fourths of respondents participating, followed by donating money to support wildlife/habitat conservation and talking to others in their community about conservation issues. There was lower participation in conservation behavior specifically related to wetlands and waterfowl, with two-fifths of respondents voting for candidates or ballot issues to support wetlands/waterfowl conservation and one-third advocating for political action to conserve wetlands/waterfowl. In order to better understand how to reach out to the public on nature-related topics, preferences in information channels and trust in information sources were explored. Respondents were mostly likely to want to receive their information through personal experience, by reading or accessing online content, and through watching visual media online. People were least likely to want to receive information through listening to recorded audio media, attending educational opportunities, and listening to live audio media. These results emphasize the importance of having content available online in an easily accessible and appealing format. Visual media in particular seems to be preferred across a wide variety of people. Additionally, people had the highest trust in scientific organizations, universities/educational organizations, and friends/family/neighbors/colleagues. The least trusted sources were national media/news, religious organizations, and local media/news. Urban respondents had higher trust levels overall, particularly for the government. Hunters and those in rural areas had lower levels of trust in the government but higher trust in family/friends. In this sample, few respondents reported hunting waterfowl (5 percent) or hunting other game (16 percent) in the last year. Additionally, few respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to hunt waterfowl in the following 12 months. Even after considering that self-selection bias would make it more likely for hunters to respond to the survey, the relatively small number of respondents who identified as hunters reinforces that engagement of other wildlife-related recreationists is critical to meeting the third goal of the NAWMP 2012 revision—to increase numbers of wetlands/waterfowl conservationists. Many people also had negative perceptions of hunting. Half of the respondents stated that hunting would be unpleasant, and two-fifths believed hunting would be boring. In contrast, people had more favorable attitudes toward birdwatching, with only one-sixth saying it would be unpleasant and less than one-third saying it would be boring. A majority of respondents thought they could easily go hunting or birdwatching in the following 12 months. Overall, people had much more positive views toward birdwatching and expressed fewer barriers to participating in it. When asked what would prevent them from hunting, the most frequently stated reasons were moral opposition, no interest, personal health, and time constraints; for birdwatching, the most popular responses were nothing, no interest, and time constraints. These responses indicate it may be beneficial to move beyond hunting and find ways for other groups, such as birdwatchers, to play a more active role in conservation. Although not many people hunted and many people tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting, over three-fourths of people said they knew a hunter. Given that wildlife viewers, those who did not participate in wildlife-related recreation, and urban residents tended to have negative attitudes toward hunting and (or) were not interested in participating, attempting to recruit them to participate in hunting may not be effective. However, given how many people across all groups knew a hunter and the relatively high levels of trust people had in their friends/family, hunters may be effective ambassadors for promoting waterfowl and wetlands conservation among nonhunters. Additionally, because people had less preference for viewing waterfowl and other game birds compared to their preference for seeing hummingbirds and birds of prey, conservation efforts that extend beyond waterfowl and include other species that benefit from wetlands may have more appeal to a broader range of people.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Landsat and agriculture—Case studies on the uses and benefits of Landsat imagery in agricultural monitoring and production

Executive Summary The use of Landsat satellite imagery for global agricultural monitoring began almost immediately after the launch of Landsat 1 in 1972, making agricultural monitoring one of the longest-standing operational applications for the Landsat program. More recently, Landsat imagery has been used in domestic agricultural applications as an input for field-level production management. The enactment of the U.S. Geological Survey’s free and open data policy in 2008 and the launch of Landsat 8 in 2013 have both influenced agricultural applications. This report presents two primary sets of case studies on the applications and benefits of Landsat imagery use in agriculture. The first set examines several operational applications within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the second focuses on private sector applications for agronomic management. Information on the USDA applications is provided in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Uses of Landsat Imagery for Global and Domestic Agricultural Monitoring section of the report in the following subsections: Estimating Crop Production .—Provides an overview of how Landsat satellite imagery is used to estimate crop production, including the spectral bands most frequently utilized in this application. Monitoring Consumptive Water Use .—Highlights the role of Landsat imagery in monitoring consumptive water use for agricultural production. Globally, a significant amount of agricultural production relies on irrigation, so monitoring water resources is a critical component of agricultural monitoring. National Agricultural Statistics Service —Cropland Data Layer.—Highlights the use of Landsat imagery in developing the annual Cropland Data Layer, a crop-specific land cover classification product that provides information on more than 100 crop categories grown in the United States. Foreign Agricultural Service —Global Agricultural Monitoring.—Highlights Landsat’s role in monitoring global agricultural production. The USDA has been using Landsat imagery to monitor global agricultural production since the launch of Landsat 1 in 1972. Landsat imagery provides objective, global input for a number of USDA agricultural programs and plays an important role in economic and food security forecasting. U.S. Department of Agriculture —Satellite Imagery Archive.—Highlights a number of the experiences of the USDA in acquiring, sharing, and managing moderate resolution imagery to support the diversity of USDA operational programs. Private sector applications using Landsat imagery for agricultural management are discussed in the Landsat Imagery Use and Benefits in Field-Level Agricultural Production Management section of the report in the following subsections: Field-Level Management .—Provides an introduction to what field-level production management is and how it can be applied to agricultural management. This section explores the concept of zone mapping and how Landsat imagery can be used to identify different conditions within a field. The section also provides a case study of zone-mapping software, developed by GK Technology, Inc., that is used by numerous agricultural consultants. Putting Zone Maps to Work .—Highlights several case studies of private agricultural consultants who have been using Landsat imagery to develop zone maps for farmers. Landsat imagery is helping consultants and farmers optimize agricultural inputs, including fertilizer and seed, which leads to higher yield and economic return for the farmer. Increasing Yield .—Highlights the primary benefit of zone mapping using Landsat imagery. Using 5-year market average prices for a number of commodities, this section provides examples of how yield increases translate into higher returns for farmers.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Users and uses of Landsat 8 satellite imagery—2014 survey results

Executive Summary In 2013, Landsat 8 began adding high quality, global, moderate-resolution imagery to the more than 40-year archive of Landsat imagery. To assess the potential effects of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on users and their work, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Land Remote Sensing Program (LRS) initiated a survey of Landsat users. The objectives of the survey were to 1. Characterize various Landsat user groups, such as United States (U.S.) and international users and Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users; 2. Identify any differences among user groups in uses and preferences; 3. Measure the importance of and satisfaction with Landsat 8 attributes; 4. Assess the importance to users of the frequency of usable imagery; and 5. Determine any challenges in using Landsat 8. The online survey was sent to 51,617 Landsat users registered with USGS in May 2014. Almost 13,000 people responded to the survey for a response rate of 25 percent (n = 12,966). Current Landsat users (users who had used Landsat in their work in the year prior to the survey) composed 89 percent of the sample (n = 11,549) and past Landsat users composed 11 percent (n = 1,417). The results reported here apply to current Landsat users registered with the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Users from 161 countries responded to the survey. Of those, 19 percent were citizens or permanent residents of the United States and 81 percent resided in other countries. More than 70 percent of current users had used Landsat 8 in the year prior to the survey. The majority of Landsat 8 users (65 percent) were established users who used Landsat imagery regularly both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available. The average current Landsat user was male, 36 years old, and highly educated, with 9 years of experience using satellite imagery or geographic information system (GIS) software. Landsat 8 users had, on average, two more years of experience than non-Landsat 8 users. Users were employed predominantly by academic institutions (65 percent), followed by private businesses (13 percent), Federal governments (10 percent), State and local governments (6 percent), and nonprofit organizations (6 percent). Of the Landsat imagery obtained in the past year by current users, on average 31 percent came from a Landsat 8 sensor. An equivalent amount came from the Landsat 7 ETM+ sensor (33 percent); slightly less came from Landsats 4 and 5 TM sensors (27 percent). Much less came from Landsats 1 through 5 MSS sensors (5 percent). Overall, more than a third of users’ work used Landsat imagery (38 percent). Of this work, on average, 37 percent of the work was operational. Landsat 8 users considered a greater proportion of their work operational than non-Landsat 8 users (39 percent compared with 29 percent). Environmental sciences and management were the most commonly selected primary applications (selected by 42 percent of users). Land use/land cover (23 percent) was the second most commonly selected primary application, followed by education (12 percent), agriculture (9 percent), and planning and development (6 percent). Landsat 8 users were asked to rank the importance of certain attributes in determining whether to use Landsat 8 imagery in their work. The archive was ranked most important, followed by cost, spatial resolution, extent of coverage, data quality, and frequency of revisit. Users were asked how satisfied they were with these same attributes as they currently apply to Landsat 8 imagery. On average, users were most satisfied with lack of cost, extent of coverage, data quality, and the archive, but they were satisfied with all attributes. Users were asked how often they needed Landsat imagery to meet various requirements for their primary application. The survey question specifically asked how often users needed usable imagery, which differs from how often they would like the Landsat satellites to acquire an image. Users were asked to identify their needed frequency of usable imagery for the following levels: 1. Threshold level—the minimum frequency of usable imagery needed to be of any value to their primary application. 2. Breakthrough level—the frequency of usable imagery that would result in a significant improvement for their primary application of the imagery. 3. Target level—the frequency of usable imagery that would only provide a limited additional increase in the expected performance for their primary application. To meet the threshold level, three-quarters of users needed usable imagery every 17 days or less frequently. At the breakthrough level, two-thirds of users (64 percent) needed a usable image every 5–16 days. The current constellation of two satellites (Landsat 7 and 8) is capable of meeting the threshold and breakthrough needs of most users at least some of the time, but a single satellite would be highly unlikely to do so. Two-fifths of users (40 percent) felt that usable imagery provided every 4 days or more frequently would meet their target level which the current Landsat constellation cannot provide. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than non-Landsat 8 users to need usable imagery more frequently to meet their target levels. Additionally, U.S. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than other Landsat users to need usable imagery more frequently in order meet both their breakthrough and target levels. To explore the effect of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on Landsat imagery use in general, established users (those who had consistently used Landsat imagery both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available) using Landsat 8 imagery were asked about changes in the amount of Landsat imagery they used. The majority of established users using Landsat 8 imagery (60 percent) reported an average increase of 51 percent in the number of scenes obtained after Landsat 8 imagery became available. Landsat 8 users were asked if they had encountered challenges in using Landsat 8 whereas non-Landsat 8 users were asked if such challenges had played a role in why they were not using Landsat 8 imagery. Although many users did not encounter challenges when using or trying to use Landsat 8 data, slightly less than 30 percent did encounter issues with processing the data to a usable point. The most common issue reported was not being able to create or have access to a surface reflectance corrected product. Other challenges were related to the file sizes of images being too large to download, store, or analyze. There were no statistically significant differences between Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users in terms of challenges encountered when using or trying to use the imagery, which indicates that users were not unduly discouraged by the challenges they may have encountered. When asked about potential consequences of not using Landsat 8, more than half of the non-Landsat 8 users did not report detrimental effects on their work from not using the imagery. Of those who did report detrimental effects, decreased quality of work, decreased scope of work, and increased time spent on work were the most common.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

The value of earth observations: methods and findings on the value of Landsat imagery

Data from Earth observation systems are used extensively in managing and monitoring natural resources, natural hazards, and the impacts of climate change, but the value of such data can be difficult to estimate, particularly when it is available at no cost. Assessing the socioeconomic and scientific value of these data provides a better understanding of the existing and emerging research, science, and applications related to this information and contributes to the decision making process regarding current and future Earth observation systems. Recent USGS research on Landsat data has advanced the literature in this area by using a variety of methods to estimate value. The results of a 2012 survey of Landsat users, a 2013 requirements assessment, and 2013 case studies of applications of Landsat imagery are discussed.

Book chapter↗

USGS2015

Valuing geospatial information: Using the contingent valuation method to estimate the economic benefits of Landsat satellite imagery

While the U.S. government does not charge for downloading Landsat images, the images have value to users. This paper demonstrates a method that can value Landsat and other imagery to users. A survey of downloaders of Landsat images found: (a) established US users have a mean value of $912 USD per scene; (b) new US users and users returning when imagery became free have a mean value of $367 USD per scene. Total US user benefits for the 2.38 million scenes downloaded is $1.8 billion USD. While these benefits indicate a high willingness-to-pay among many Landsat downloaders, it would be economically inefficient for the US government to charge for Landsat imagery. Charging a price of $100 USD a scene would result in an efficiency loss of $37.5 million a year. This economic information should be useful to policy-makers who must decide about the future of this and similar remote sensing programs.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗

USGS2014

Landsat and water: case studies of the uses and benefits of landsat imagery in water resources

The Landsat program has been collecting and archiving moderate resolution earth imagery since 1972. The number of Landsat users and uses has increased exponentially since the enactment of a free and open data policy in 2008, which made data available free of charge to all users. Benefits from the information Landsat data provides vary from improving environmental quality to protecting public health and safety and informing decision makers such as consumers and producers, government officials and the public at large. Although some studies have been conducted, little is known about the total benefit provided by open access Landsat imagery. This report contains a set of case studies focused on the uses and benefits of Landsat imagery. The purpose of these is to shed more light on the benefits accrued from Landsat imagery and to gain a better understanding of the program’s value. The case studies tell a story of how Landsat imagery is used and what its value is to different private and public entities. Most of the case studies focus on the use of Landsat in water resource management, although some other content areas are included.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

Users, uses, and value of Landsat satellite imagery: results from the 2012 survey of users

Landsat satellites have been operating since 1972, providing a continuous global record of the Earth’s land surface. The imagery is currently available at no cost through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Social scientists at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center conducted an extensive survey in early 2012 to explore who uses Landsat imagery, how they use the imagery, and what the value of the imagery is to them. The survey was sent to all users registered with USGS who had accessed Landsat imagery in the year prior to the survey and over 11,000 current Landsat imagery users responded. The results of the survey revealed that respondents from many sectors use Landsat imagery in myriad project locations and scales, as well as application areas. The value of Landsat imagery to these users was demonstrated by the high importance of and dependence on the imagery, the numerous environmental and societal benefits observed from projects using Landsat imagery, the potential negative impacts on users’ work if Landsat imagery was no longer available, and the substantial aggregated annual economic benefit from the imagery. These results represent only the value of Landsat to users registered with USGS; further research would help to determine what the value of the imagery is to a greater segment of the population, such as downstream users of the imagery and imagery-derived products.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. This data series consists of 53 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. * Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. * Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: - Visitor and Trip Characteristics - Visitor Spending in the Local Communities - Visitors Opinions about This Refuge - Visitor Opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System Topics * Conclusion * References * Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with the frequency results for this refuge. * Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for this refuge. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.

Data Series↗

USGS2012

National wildlife refuge visitor survey results: 2010/2011

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. The survey was conducted on 53 refuges across the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. A total of 14,832 visitors agreed to participate in the survey between July 2010 and November 2011. In all, 10,233 visitors completed the survey for a 71% response rate. This report provides a summary of visitor and trip characteristics; visitor opinions about refuges and their offerings; and visitor opinions about alternative transportation and climate change, two Refuge System topics of interest. The Refuge System, established in 1903 and managed by the Service, is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. These combined results are based on surveying at 53 participating refuges during 2010/2011 and contain the following information: * Synopsis: Brief summary of the survey results. * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Survey Results: Key findings from the survey, including: - Visitor and trip characteristics - Visitors opinions about refuges - Visitor opinions about alternative transportation - Visitor opinions about climate change * Conclusion * References Individual results for each of the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643.

Data Series↗

USGS2011

Appropriate uses and considerations for online surveying in human dimensions research

Online surveying has gained attention in recent years for its applicability to human dimensions research as an efficient and inexpensive data-collection method; however, online surveying is not a panacea. In this article, we provide some guidelines for alleviating or avoiding the criticisms and pitfalls suggested of online survey methods and explore two case studies demonstrating different approaches to online surveying. The first was a mixed-mode study of visitors to 52 participating National Wildlife Refuges. The response rate was 72%, with over half of respondents completing the survey online, resulting in cost-savings and efficiencies that would not have otherwise been realized. The second highlighted an online-only approach targeting specialized users of satellite imagery. Through branching and skipping, the online mode allowed flexibilities in administration impractical in a mail survey. The response rate of 53% was higher than typical for online surveys. Both case studies provide examples of appropriate uses of online surveying.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife↗

USGS2011

The users, uses, and value of Landsat and other moderate-resolution satellite imagery in the United States-Executive report

Moderate-resolution imagery (MRI), such as that provided by the Landsat satellites, provides unique spatial information for use by many people both within and outside of the United States (U.S.). However, exactly who these users are, how they use the imagery, and the value and benefits derived from the information are, to a large extent, unknown. To explore these issues, social scientists at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center conducted a study of U.S.-based MRI users from 2008 through 2010 in two parts: 1) a user identification and 2) a user survey. The objectives for this study were to: 1) identify and classify U.S.-based users of this imagery; 2) better understand how and why MRI, and specifically Landsat, is being used; and 3) qualitatively and quantitatively measure the value and societal benefits of MRI (focusing on Landsat specifically). The results of the survey revealed that respondents from multiple sectors use Landsat imagery in many different ways, as demonstrated by the breadth of project locations and scales, as well as application areas. The value of Landsat imagery to these users was demonstrated by the high importance placed on the imagery, the numerous benefits received from projects using Landsat imagery, the negative impacts if Landsat imagery was no longer available, and the substantial willingness to pay for replacement imagery in the event of a data gap. The survey collected information from users who are both part of and apart from the known user community. The diversity of the sample delivered results that provide a baseline of knowledge about the users, uses, and value of Landsat imagery. While the results supply a wealth of information on their own, they can also be built upon through further research to generate a more complete picture of the population of Landsat users as a whole.

Open-File Report↗