A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF VISITATION AND INTERPRETATION AT THE LEOPOLD CENTER

By

Jennifer M. Kobylecky

A Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

NATURAL RESOURCES (ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION)

College of Natural Resources

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Stevens Point, Wisconsin

June 2009

APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF:

Dr. Brenda Lackey, Ph.D., Committee Chairperson Assistant Professor of Environmental Education and Interpretation

Dr. Rick Wilke, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor of Environmental Education

Dr. Greg Summers, Ph.D Associate Professor and Chair of History

~;. Jim Buchholz Assistant Director, Schmeeckle Reserve

Ms. Tehri Parker, Ph.D Executive Director, Midwest Renewable Energy Association

ii

ABSTRACT This study aimed to reveal the best ways to connect visitors with history, nature, culture, and sustainability at the Leopold Center. In our increasingly urban society, many people have largely lost their connection to the natural world. In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold writes, “There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace” (Leopold, 1949). Leopold suggests that to avoid these dangers, one must reconnect to the natural world, and treat it with the same love and respect with which we treat other people. This concept, dubbed “the land ethic,” is at the heart of Leopold’s ideas, and is the foundation of the interpretive program at the Leopold Center. Since the center opened in April 2007, visitation has skyrocketed—over 6,000 visitors took part in on-site programming in 2008. Visitation is expected to grow in coming years to nearly 10,000 people annually. Data from this study (demographics and feedback from a representative group of visitors to the center) will inform the development of a successful visitor experience plan for the entire site. The site has always had many layers of information to share—Aldo Leopold’s life and work draw from and impact many disciplines. The addition of a sustainably constructed visitor center adds to the layers of information that can be presented on the site, and present unique challenges for conveying information to a diverse group of visitors. The Aldo Leopold Foundation’s ultimate goal for the interpretive program is to weave the thread of Leopold’s land ethic through the historic Leopold Shack and Farm site, binding it tightly with the modern day applications of conservation ethics on the Leopold land today, also embodied in the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center itself. To achieve this, core messages will remain focused on Aldo Leopold’s land ethic and his concept of land health, allowing ALF to communicate with diverse audiences and engage them as partners who will catalyze change, just as Aldo Leopold did so effectively during his life.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are few things in my life that make me prouder than having completed my master’s degree. Two and a half years of balancing coursework and my research with a full time work schedule presented weekly, daily and sometimes hourly to-do lists that seemed insurmountable at times. I simply would not have been able to do what was required had it not been for the help and guidance of a good number of incredible people. Those people deserve a good chunk of the credit for making this work possible, and I want to acknowledge and express my deep gratitude for their support here. My graduate advisor Dr. Brenda Lackey was welcoming, accommodating and helpful from the very start of my non-traditional graduate study path. Her encouragement, intelligence, and expert guidance kept me focused and motivated through both the best and the most challenging parts of my schooling. The rest of my committee helped in many ways. I feel so lucky to have had Dr. Rick Wilke’s direction and support as I wrote and refined my research proposal at its earliest stages, Jim Buchholz’s thoughts and input on interpretive planning and design, Tehri Parker’s advice on qualitative research and sustainability education, and Dr. Greg Summers’ perspective on conservation history and the significance of Leopold’s land ethic. The group’s suggestions and edits strengthened not only this research project, but my ability to tackle similar work in the future. Since I will continue to research and evaluate interpretation and visitation moving forward at the Aldo Leopold Foundation, I’m sure I will continue to call on my committee members for further assistance as time goes on. I’m so pleased to have worked with such a diverse and experienced group to advise and guide my thesis. Good leadership from our superiors is matched only by a supportive peer environment. Since I began my degree in 2006 and completed it in 2009, I overlapped with several graduate cohorts at UWSP, and it was wonderful getting to know all of my fellow graduate students. They bolstered my spirit with numerous potlucks, shared insider tips on the best pizza and burgers in Stevens Point, and joined me in laughter and commiseration about upcoming deadlines over local brews. These interactions fed my soul, and made me feel like I truly belonged in a community where I was only a part-time resident. The incredibly supportive work environment at the Aldo Leopold Foundation was also a huge part of my success in completing this project, and I can honestly say that I have never worked in a more enjoyable setting. The example and tone set by Buddy Huffaker’s superb leadership feeds the staff a steady diet of respect, insight, intelligence and humility, which pays off in the dividends of a close-knit staff that sincerely enjoy our work and each other. My UWSP degree has most certainly

iv

increased my capacity to be able to serve the growing visitation at the Leopold Center, and I can’t thank Buddy enough for being the one to suggest I expand my own capacity by pursuing a master’s degree with our interpretive planning project. Jeannine Richards, Anna Hawley, and Phyllis McKenzie on the education staff at the Aldo Leopold Foundation were also instrumental in helping me as I took the next steps in my professional and academic career. They continue to be obliging sounding boards, senders of well-timed funny emails, and sources of ideas and inspiration. I don’t know how I’d do most things without them. In the breaks between school and work, I crash landed at home… usually tired, hungry, and in general need of re-charging. My husband Toby Grabs was the vital lifeline of support that helped me persevere, and without him I certainly never would have made it to the finish line. Despite literal and figurative roof leaks springing up over our heads after the literal and figurative storms of winter and of life, Toby faithfully cooked me food, bought me special treats, vacuumed up cat hair tumbleweeds the size of some small children, cut the lawn, fixed things when they broke, read my drafts, shoveled mountains of snow, helped me unwind in front of the TV or on walks, held me, listened to me, and told me the things I needed to hear. Some nights this meant letting me know I could do it when I thought I couldn’t. Other nights it meant saying he would support and love me whether I finished or not. How he knew which one was the right thing to say on any given night is a secret only good husbands know… but regardless, I am forever grateful and blessed to have the gift of our marriage. I learned to be an interpreter by following Toby’s example, and I learn daily what true love really looks like by doing the same. Finally, I need to thank the visitors and supporters of the Aldo Leopold Foundation. Your stories of how the land ethic looks on the ground in your own lives are a constant source of inspiration and hope. Thank you especially to those that participated directly in my research. Your insights form a strong foundation of knowledge, upon which we will continue building. Jennifer Kobylecky Baraboo, Wisconsin June 2009

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 

Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Sub Problems ...................................................................................................................... 1 

The Importance of the Study ............................................................................................... 2 

Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 3 

Definitions........................................................................................................................... 4 

Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 8 

Project Background / Context ............................................................................................. 8  

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 17 

Aldo Leopold’s Place in Conservation History ................................................................ 17 

Characteristics of Effective Interpretive Planning ............................................................ 21 

Best Practices in Interpretive Program Evaluation ........................................................... 22 

Focus Groups as Research Instruments ............................................................................ 27 

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 29  

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 31 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 31 

Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 31 

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 34 

vi

Front-End Data Collection ................................................................................................ 37 

Formative Data Collection ................................................................................................ 38 

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 43  

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...................................................................................... 46 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 46 

Sub Problems .................................................................................................................... 46 

Sub Problem 1 Results ...................................................................................................... 47 

Sub Problem 2 Results ...................................................................................................... 52 

Sub Problem 3 Results ...................................................................................................... 70 

Sub Problem 4 Results .................................................................................................... 107 

Summary of Results ........................................................................................................ 117  

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 123 

Study Sub Problems ........................................................................................................ 123 

Demographics: Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................ 124 

Sub Problem 2 Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................... 126 

Sub Problem 3 Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................... 134 

Sub Problem 4 Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................... 144 

Conclusion and Final Recommendations........................................................................ 146

LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................148

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Visitor-Centered Evaluation Hierarchy. (Wells and Butler, 2002) ............. 23 

Figure 2. Guest book sign-in locations, 2007-2008. ................................................... 47 

Figure 3. Wisconsin cities in guest book. ................................................................... 48 

Figure 4. Other U.S. states in guest book. .................................................................. 49 

Figure 5. Foreign countries represented in guest book. .............................................. 50 

Figure 6. Self-guided visitor group ages. ................................................................... 53 

Figure 7. Self-guided visitor group genders. .............................................................. 54 

Figure 8. Home locations of self-guided visitor group............................................... 55 

Figure 9. Self-guided visitor group responses: overall experience ranking. .............. 56 

Figure 10. Self-guided visitor group responses: interpretive signage ranking. .......... 57 

Figure 11. Self-guided visitor group responses: educational brochure ranking. ........ 58 

Figure 12. Self-guided visitor group responses: time spent on visit. ......................... 59 

Figure 13. Self-guided visitor responses: reading the Almanac after visit. ................ 66 

Figure 14. Guided visitor group ages. ........................................................................ 73 

Figure 15. Home locations of guided visitor group. ................................................... 74 

Figure 16. Sauk county tourist respondent ages. ...................................................... 108 

Figure 17. Sauk county tourist respondent genders.................................................. 109 

Figure 18. Sauk county tourist familiarity with the Aldo Leopold Foundation. ...... 116 

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Drop-in visitor ages and genders, visual estimations. .................................. 51 

Table 2. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: Aldo Leopold. ....................... 60 

Table 3. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: A Sand County Almanac. ...... 60 

Table 4. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: The Leopold Shack. .............. 61 

Table 5. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: The Legacy Center. ............... 61 

Table 6. Responses listing "other" as a subject of interest. ........................................ 61 

Table 7. Subjects listed in order of interest to self-guided visitors. ............................ 62 

Table 8. Self-guided visitor use of welcome video. .................................................... 62 

Table 9. Self-guided visitor use of interpretive signage in the Legacy Center. .......... 62 

Table 10. Use of Self-Guided Shack Tour brochure. .................................................. 62 

Table 11. Categories of visitor comments about educational material helpfulness. ... 63 

Table 12. Categories of visitor comments about what was enjoyed most. ................. 67 

Table 13. Categories of self-guided visitor suggestions for improvement. ................ 69 

Table 14. Focus group participant ages. ..................................................................... 72 

Table 15. Drop-in visitor trip motivations. ................................................................. 79 

Table 16. Sauk county tourist response categories: plans for Baraboo visit. ........... 111 

Table 17. Sauk county tourist interest: cultural and natural history ......................... 114 

Table 18. Sauk county tourist interest: conservation history .................................... 114 

Table 19. Sauk county tourist interest: environmentally friendly buildings ............. 115 

Table 20. Sauk county tourist interest in visiting Leopold Center. .......................... 116 

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Evaluation Plan ........................................................................................1

Appendix B: IRB Approval .........................................................................................11

Appendix C: Front Desk Daily Tracking Form ...........................................................15

Appendix D: Self-Guided Tour Questionnaire Codebook ...........................................16

Appendix E: Baraboo Visitor Center Questionnaire Codebook ..................................20

Appendix F: Listing of Wisconsin Cities in Guest Book ............................................22

Appendix G: Listing of Foreign Countries in Guest Book ..........................................26

Appendix H: Self-Guided Visitor Comments on Helpfulness of Materials ................27

Appendix I: Self-Guided Visitor Comments on Best Components .............................30

Appendix J: Self-Guided Visitor Suggestions for Improvement .................................34

Appendix K: Guided Tour Focus Group Participants ..................................................39

Appendix L: Examples of Relevant Text Coding for Focus Group Participants ........41

Appendix M: Notes on Focus Group Interviews .........................................................46

Appendix N: Sauk County Tourist Plans for Visit Comments ....................................48

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

PROBLEM STATEMENT

This is a study to conduct a front end evaluation of visitation and a formative

evaluation of the personal and non-personal interpretation of the Aldo Leopold

Foundation, based at the Leopold Center in Baraboo, Wisconsin.

SUB PROBLEMS

1: Determine basic demographics and geography (i.e. origin for) the current

population of visitors to the Leopold Center. Since no formal visitor study has ever

been conducted by The Aldo Leopold Foundation (ALF), it must gather information

about who makes up its core audience.

2: Examine the demographic makeup and visitor experience of people taking part in

self-guided tours of the Leopold Center and/or Leopold Shack.

3: Examine the demographic makeup and visitor experience of people taking part in

guided tours of both the Leopold Shack and the Legacy Center. Sub problems two

and three address the need for ALF to gather data through targeted evaluation tools

that determine visitor reactions to current personal and non personal interpretation

efforts, and identify what information visitors seek in the course of a visit.

2

4: Determine the potential interest in Leopold Center programming with a

representative group of Sauk County tourists. To fully understand its potential for

visitation growth in the future, ALF should learn not only about its own visitors, but a

representative sample of visitors to the area as well.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

The Leopold Foundation is the definitive custodian of Aldo Leopold’s legacy,

which is perhaps its most valuable asset. Leopold’s life story, the evolution of his

career as a conservationist and philosopher, and his humility, vision, and the

development of his thinking throughout his life inspire others, and the Leopold

Foundation is uniquely positioned to tell this story. Leopold’s own legacy is enriched

by the remarkable achievements of his family in their continuing commitment to

conservation, science, and civic engagement. A closer connection with Leopold’s

story and the story of his family encourages audiences both to understand the

importance of an ethical relationship between people and the natural world, and to

understand how they may develop and deepen this relationship in their own lives.

Leopold’s vision of a society that cares about people, land, and the connections

between them gives people hope that we can achieve sustainable ecosystems,

economies, and communities. In this way, ALF can keep Leopold’s legacy alive,

vital, and growing. The Foundation has a treasure trove of valuable resources for

3

bringing the Leopold story alive for diverse audiences and creating a sense of

connection between his experiences and their own. ALF’s ability to draw upon assets

such as the Shack, A Sand County Almanac, and the new Aldo Leopold Legacy

Center strengthens the Foundation’s ability to address current issues. Aldo Leopold’s

legacy, his land ethic and his concept of land health allow ALF to communicate with

diverse audiences and engage them as partners who will catalyze change, just as Aldo

Leopold did so effectively during his life. Conducting a front end and formative

evaluation of current interpretation efforts will allow the Leopold Foundation to

better understand the impacts and outcomes it is achieving with its audiences, and

suggest areas to improve or expand on for development of new exhibits and

programs. The staff at the Natural History Museum in San Diego encapsulated the

importance of visitor studies well in one article, concluding, “we want our visitors to

be curious about our collections and ideas. We need to be equally curious about

them” (Renner and Adams, 2003).

LIMITATIONS

1. This study will not attempt to determine the direction of the Leopold

Foundation in terms of all of its programming. It will only focus on the on-site

interpretation effort, through personal and non-personal interpretation at the

Aldo Leopold Legacy Center site and the Shack site, collectively known as

the Leopold Center. Programs excluded from the metrics associated with this

4

study are: The science and stewardship program; the Aldo Leopold

Foundation bi-annual magazine (The Outlook), ALF’s internship program, the

upcoming GreenFire film, the Woodland School, and all off-site outreach

programming. These programs may be impacted by decisions and actions

taken by the education department, and some of those decisions and actions

will be informed directly by data gleaned from this study.

2. The strategic planning process happening in tandem with this study (led by

Leopold Foundation staff) has a close relationship to the interpretive planning

process, and the two will inform one another; however, this study will not

formally attempt to measure results that are meant to plan the direction or

strategy for any programs outside of personal and non-personal interpretation

encountered during on-site visits.

3. Work on this study will not overlap with ALF’s proposal to the National

Endowment for the Humanities to fund exhibits, trails and programs

associated with the Interpreting America’s Historic Places grant program.

DEFINITIONS

Evaluate—Evaluation is the systematic collection of information about the activities,

characteristics and outcomes of programs to make judgments, improve effectiveness

and inform decision makers (Utilization Based Evaluation, Patton, 1997). Evaluation

establishes a dialog with the audience that begins with the inception and continues

5

through the development, production, and use stages. It helps ensure that money and

human resources are being effectively used in the interpretive program and that the

interpretation will work (Gross and Zimmerman, 2002).

Evaluation plan- The evaluation plan lists the evaluation questions to be answered

and specifically identifies how they will be measured in terms of the program inputs,

outputs, and expected outcomes (EETAP, 2007).

Front end evaluation—An evaluation method used to collect information about the

prospective target audience of an exhibition to learn more about their interests and

expectations. (Rubenstein, 1991).

Formative Evaluation— An evaluation method used to improve upon an existing

program. Formative evaluations measure whether the target audience is reached, the

match between the planned and actual program activities and messages, the presence

or lack of progress toward the program’s objectives by the participants, and

identification of strengths and weaknesses in the program overall (EETAP, 2007).

Interpretation—Heritage interpretation is a communication process that guides

visitors in their search for meanings in objects, places and landscapes (Gross,

Zimmerman, Buchholz, 2006). An educational activity which aims to reveal

6

meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand

experience, and by illustrative media, rather than to simply communicate factual

information (Tilden, 1957).

Interpretive Media—Interpretive media is a channel or system of non-personal

communication that guides visitors to discover meanings in objects, places, and

landscapes (Gross, Zimmerman, Buchholz, 2006).

Land health—Leopold wrote "Conservation is a state of harmony between men and

land" (Leopold, 1949). ALF’s education, outreach, and stewardship efforts aim to

show people how to work toward that state, which Leopold called land health.

The land ethic—In his essay “The Land Ethic,” Leopold asserted that the ultimate

causes of human-caused ecological crises were philosophical in nature, and could

only be addressed through a change in ethics. Leopold stated the basic principle of his

land ethic as, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and

beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" (Leopold,

1949).

7

The Leopold Center – A term used to collectively refer to the managing organization

(the Aldo Leopold Foundation) and its two main interpretive resources: the historic

Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm, and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center.

Personal vs. non-personal interpretation—Personal interpretation occurs when the

interpreter interacts directly with the visitor. Non-personal interpretation adds a step

in between, called the non-personal communication system, or interpretive media—

defined above.

Purposive sample – A group of people selected for a study for a particular purpose,

sometimes because they have shared a similar experience (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).

Visitor Experience Plan—The plan detailing personal and non-personal interpretation

which guides the visitor experience from the moment they arrive on site to the

moment they leave, taking into account all interpretive media and messages

encountered, interaction with staff, accessibility issues, safety, and visitor comfort.

ABBREVIATIONS

ALF: The Aldo Leopold Foundation

ALLC: The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center

8

ASSUMPTIONS

1. Interpretive materials and programs at the Leopold Center can serve an

existing receptive audience that already visits the area for attractions such as

Devil’s Lake State Park, Mirror Lake State Park, and The International Crane

Foundation.

2. Well developed interpretive materials and programs can inspire ALF’s

audiences to examine their own relationship with land, and the ways they can

change to positively affect their environment.

3. Visitor evaluation plays an important role in developing effective interpretive

materials and programs.

PROJECT BACKGROUND / CONTEXT

A Brief History of the Aldo Leopold Foundation

The Aldo Leopold Foundation was started in 1982 by Aldo Leopold’s

children, Starker, Luna, Nina, Carl, and Estella. The Leopolds all grew to become

respected conservationists in their own rights, with all but one formally earning

PhD’s in the natural sciences. They decided to establish the Aldo Leopold Foundation

primarily because they realized that the land around the Shack and the Shack itself

would be a focal point for their father’s philosophies for generations to come.

Additionally, sales of A Sand County Almanac had begun to dramatically increase,

9

and the family saw the need to respond to the growing interest in their father’s legacy.

For twenty five years, the Aldo Leopold Foundation has lead interpretive programs at

the Shack and cared for the surrounding landscape. Programs focus on promoting

discussion about people, land and the ethical connections between them. Aldo

Leopold wrote, “I have purposely presented the land ethic as a product of social

evolution because nothing so important as an ethic is ever ‘written.’ …. It evolves in

the mind of a thinking community” (Leopold, 1949). Following that lead, the

foundation works daily to nurture that evolution through its mission: “Fostering the

land ethic through the legacy of Aldo Leopold.”

Today, the Leopold Foundation continues to act as the primary manager for

the original Leopold Shack and Farm, and also acts as the executor of Leopold’s

literary estate. The foundation is the definitive custodian and interpreter of Aldo

Leopold’s legacy, which is perhaps its most valuable asset. ALF also acts as a

clearinghouse for information regarding Aldo Leopold, his work, and his ideas. It

maintains a robust website and countless print resources for learning more about

Leopold. The Shack, a re-built chicken coop along the Wisconsin River where the

Leopold family stayed during weekend retreats, continues to serve as the heart of the

Foundation’s programs. It has recently been designated as a National Historic

Landmark, the highest recognition that can be bestowed upon a historic site. Each

year, thousands of visitors are inspired through tours, seminars, and workshops in the

same landscape that deeply moved Leopold. ALF’s educational outreach programs

10

help people understand and accept their responsibility for the health of the land. Its

stewardship initiatives and research programs encourage ecological and ethical use of

private and public land, and promote an understanding of the total land community.

Building the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center

The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, a new addition to the Aldo Leopold

Foundation, is an educational and interpretive facility that opened to the public in

April of 2007. The building also serves as headquarters for the Aldo Leopold

Foundation staff. The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center provides the infrastructure

necessary for ALF’s operations and serves as the hub for educational outreach, land

restoration initiatives, and research to advance the land ethic. The new center serves

many important functions:

Educational Programming. The ALLC includes classrooms designed to host

semi-formal educational programming.

Tours of the Shack and the Land. The Leopold Shack and the surrounding

landscape provide a window into one of the world’s earliest attempts at land

restoration, and a model for living lightly on the land. The land surrounding the

Shack and the site of the Center provides a living outdoor classroom for

demonstrating conservation concepts. The ALLC serves as the staging area for

field trips to the Leopold forests, savanna, wetlands, and prairies and permit

relevant classroom discussion before and after the tours.

11

Retreats. The ALLC welcomes a variety of people ranging from those newly

acquainted with Leopold to those long familiar with and inspired by him. The

Shack and neighboring Aldo Leopold Legacy Center provide an unequaled setting

for reflection and examination of emerging issues in conservation.

Interpretive Exhibits. An exhibit area in the ALLC has been set aside to interpret

Leopold’s legacy. Currently the space houses a temporary photo exhibit and

several interpretive panels explaining the environmentally friendly components of

the building.

Archives and Library. Many priceless and irreplaceable original Leopold

materials are housed in the ALLC. The Leopold archives are being digitized in

cooperation with the University of Wisconsin-Madison archives and will be made

available in the library as well.

Demonstration of ‘Green’ Form and Function. The Leopold Legacy Center was

designed and built to the highest standards in green building, featuring forward

thinking technologies that allow it to produce nearly as much energy as it

consumes. The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center has received the US Green Building

Council’s Platinum LEED© certification, the highest possible recognition for

green buildings in the United States. Following a rigorous assessment in 2007,

LEED awarded the Legacy Center 61 out of a possible 70 points on the LEED

rating scale, more than any other building yet rated in the world. The Aldo

Leopold Legacy Center’s performance is being closely tracked in real time, and

12

analysis of these results will recommend any needed changes or alterations to the

systems and how they are used in order to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming

the first truly “net zero energy” building in the state of Wisconsin. By

constructing a building that blends into the landscape surrounding it, uses local

materials, demonstrates energy conservation, and showcases alternative energy

technologies, the Aldo Leopold Foundation is able to interpret one way Leopold’s

land ethic can be applied in the 21st century, and inspire others to think deeply

about their own connections to the natural world.

Audiences

Because ALF had no staff or facilities on site until the Aldo Leopold Legacy

Center opened in 2007, prior visitors have been limited largely to those who made

special arrangements in advance. Because of this limitation, ALF impacted only a few

thousand visitors a year through on-site programs. However, in the first year of

operation at the ALLC, ALF hosted about 5,000 on-site visitors, which is a number

expected to increase quickly to about 10,000 a year. This study will help determine

the makeup of that number, as well as determine how well existing interpretation

serves the needs of ALF’s traditional on-site audiences and new audiences.

13

Traditional Audiences

While no formal visitor studies have been conducted, the staff of the Aldo

Leopold Foundation have some ideas about which groups make up its core visitation.

This information is based on anecdotal observation, basic record keeping about group

visits, and the experience of staff that have been working with visitor groups for

several years, and in some cases, since the genesis of the foundation’s programming

in the early 1990s.

People who have been inspired by A Sand County Almanac and Aldo Leopold.

Many people who have read and enjoyed the Almanac make special trips to the Shack

simply to visit the “hallowed ground” that played such a large role in shaping

Leopold's thoughts and writing. Prior to the opening of the Leopold Center, this was

perhaps the largest audience segment identified by ALF. It considers the book to be

such a powerful tool for connecting people to Leopold that it features it strongly in all

interpretive programs and media.

Conservationists, Scientists, Writers, and Natural Resource Professionals. Each

year a subset of the national professional, literary, scientific and conservation

community is brought to Sauk county through major conferences held in Madison,

Milwaukee and Wisconsin Dells, often with special field trips to the Shack. Quite

frequently, ALF staff also interact with these audiences through conference

14

presentations and discussions. Among groups that have organized tours to the Shack

in recent years are the Society for Conservation Biology, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Land

Trust Alliance, and the Society of American Foresters.

Formal and Non-Formal Educators. Leopold’s written works, particularly A Sand

County Almanac, are widely used in teaching all over the world. Educators who use

Leopold as a resource often schedule group visits to the Shack to enrich their

understanding. Among groups that have recently visited the site, in addition to the

annual Leopold Education Project national conference, are the National Association

of Biology Teachers, the Wisconsin Society of Science Teachers, the University of

Wisconsin Extension Basin Educators, the Wisconsin Charter Schools Network, the

Association of Nature Center Administrators, and numerous staffs of environmental

education facilities across the region.

New Audiences

The new Aldo Leopold Legacy Center allows ALF to not only expand its

programming, but also to extend its reach into new audiences. Sauk County,

Wisconsin is known throughout the Midwest as a destination for travelers. The

combination of scenic beauty and cultural resources allow it to rank second in the

15

state for tourism, with over two million visitors and over $1 billion in traveler

spending.

Within this broad group of travelers there are a large number of people that

are attracted to the area strictly because of the natural resources it offers. For

example, the International Crane Foundation, also in Baraboo, draws over 30,000

visitors annually and Devil’s Lake State Park, just outside of Baraboo, attracts 1.2

million visitors annually. The Leopold Center will not only draw its own visitors but

will also “share” visitors who are coming to the area to visit some of these other sites.

This is not a competitive scenario. Instead, the Leopold Center contributes to and

broadens the appeal of the area with its thoughtful interpretation on Leopold.

Less than fifty miles away is Madison, Wisconsin is the state capitol – a city

with a population of 215,697, located in Dane County, which has a population of

449,378. Madison, built around several lakes and with an extensive trail network, is

well known as a city that caters to those that love the outdoors. The foundation has a

growing number of members that reside in Dane County and given the new

programming opportunities planned, this trend should continue.

Just 10 miles to the northwest of the Leopold Center, Wisconsin Dells hosts a

wide array of family-friendly recreation attractions. These attractions include indoor

and outdoor water parks, game rooms, guided boat tours, live performances,

adventure rides, shopping, and themed restaurants. Because of the intensely cluttered

and commercial landscape of attractions in the Wisconsin Dells experience, targeting

16

visitors to this region has not been a goal of the Aldo Leopold Foundation to date.

Membership to the Wisconsin Dells Chamber of Commerce (the primary route for

marketing to the Dells audience) costs almost double that of affiliations with the

chambers in Madison and Baraboo. Marketing to the Dells may be something for

ALF to consider in the future, once it has refined and established a full set of visitor

services, programs and marketing materials.

17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review begins with an introduction to Leopold’s life and work

and its relevance to the development of conservation in America. It then reviews

books and studies that address best practices for interpretive planning and visitor

evaluation, two key activities associated with this study. It will then wrap up with a

summary of the potential significance of well-planned interpretation about Leopold.

ALDO LEOPOLD’S PLACE IN CONSERVATION HISTORY

Aldo Leopold’s life and legacy are hard to categorize. He is best known as

the author of A Sand County Almanac. Published one year after he died in 1948,

Leopold’s book has become a classic expression of an ecological perspective on

people and land. Aldo Leopold’s work as a forester, writer, educator, and philosopher

places him among the most influential people in the history of conservation in

America (Meine, 2004). He was raised along the banks of the Mississippi River in

Burlington, Iowa in 1887, and he became an early expert in the natural world,

encouraged by a father and grandfather that were both avid outdoorsmen. When he

left Burlington to attend prep school in New Jersey, he began a daily writing habit in

the form of daily correspondence with his mother. He was part of the fifth ever class

to graduate with a degree from the Yale Forest School in 1909, and he immediately

18

landed work with the newly established U.S. Forest Service, first in Arizona and then

in New Mexico. He quickly moved up in the ranks, and had already attained the post

of Supervisor to the Carson National Forest by the age of 24. Leopold was the key

voice in developing the proposal to set aside certain Forest Service lands to be purely

wilderness, and our nation’s first wilderness area (The Gila, established in 1924) was

a direct result of Leopold’s work. It became the model for what are now more than

100 million acres of such areas designated by Congress (Meine, 1988).

Leopold was transferred to an administrative position in Madison, Wisconsin in

1924, where he continued with the Forest Service for a brief time, but to truly pursue

his passion he had to head out on his own to define a whole new area of work and

study: management of game that focused on the health of the entire ecosystem on

which different species depended. In 1933, Leopold published his first book based on

this work, which became the first textbook in the field of wildlife management and is

still used today, Game Management. Leopold had been a very prolific writer during

his time with the US Forest Service, creating and editing several regional newsletters,

and publishing hundreds of articles in forestry journals and other technical

publications about his ideas on game and range management, but it was the

publication of his first book and his appointment as the chair of a brand new

department by the same name at the University of Wisconsin - Madison that allowed

him to truly find his place, establishing an innovative field which truly matched his

interests, which we know today as Wildlife Ecology (Meine, 1988).

19

In 1935, Leopold found a piece of property along the Wisconsin River near

Baraboo, Wisconsin through Ed Oschner, a realtor, archer, and very good friend. He

purchased the initial 80 acres in 1935 and paid no more than eight dollars an acre.

The property truly had been reduced to its basic constituent, sand, with the only

viable structure at the site the farm’s chicken coop, later known as “the Shack”

(Meine, 1988). The Shack served as a weekend and summer retreat for the Leopold

family, as well as a place of calm in Leopold’s busy schedule (Lorbiecki, 1996). It

became a metaphor for living lightly on the land — Leopold called it his “refuge from

too much modernity” (Leopold, 1949). It was a place of hard work, but also a place

filled with music, laughter, and stories. The family experience at the Shack and

transformation of the surrounding landscape inspired Leopold to find a new direction

in his writing (Meine, 1988). During the Shack years, Leopold began to craft and

publish pieces that juxtaposed traditionally opposing perspectives: science and art;

preservation and use; beauty and utility. He also began writing with a more general

audience in mind than he had addressed in past work (Meine, 2004).

His experiences at the Shack were the direct inspiration for most of the essays

that he would package and send out to publishers under the title Great Possessions.

He drew upon both his family’s experiences restoring the Wisconsin river farm along

with significant chapters in his professional career as a forester in the content of the

essays, and did the writing between 1936 and 1947 (Meine, 1988).

20

Unfortunately, just one week after receiving word that his manuscript would

be published, Leopold experienced an assumed heart attack and died on April 21,

1948 while fighting a neighbor’s grass fire that escaped and threatened the Leopold

farm and surrounding properties (Lorbiecki, 1996).

A little more than a year after his death, Leopold’s collection of essays A Sand

County Almanac was published. The publisher suggested the name change because

they felt that Great Possessions sounded a little too much like Charles Dickens. The

children reluctantly agreed to the title change, and helped with the final editing of the

book, which was printed in 1949. With over two million copies sold, it is one of the

most respected books about the environment ever published, and Leopold has come

to be regarded by many as the most influential conservation thinker of the twentieth

century. Leopold’s legacy continues to inform and inspire us to see the natural world

“as a community to which we belong” (Leopold, 1949; Meine, 1988).

In the last essay in A Sand County Almanac, “The Land Ethic,” Aldo Leopold

makes the case for the extension of ethics to the land community—soils, waters,

plants and animals as well as people. He believed it was critical that people have a

close personal connection with land, writing “we can be ethical only in relation to

something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in” (Leopold,

1949). It was this idea that made Leopold truly unique at the time the book was

published, and that gives his work lasting relevance into the 21st century and beyond.

In Leopold’s time, the idea of an ethical relationship to nature was simply not being

21

written about or embraced by society. Today, while environmental awareness is

growing, most of the developed world no longer needs to depend directly on the

natural world for survival, meaning their understanding of how their own needs are

connected to and fed by the need to maintain healthy land can be limited (Cronon,

1996; Louv, 2005, McKibben, 1989; Summers, 2006).

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE INTERPRETIVE PLANNING

Visitors come to educational and interpretive centers seeking meaning, and

good interpretation will help to reveal the true spirit, or “Genus Loci” of a place

(Gross and Zimmerman, 2002). Interpretive planning reveals information that leads to

creative and effective solutions to getting targeted messages out to targeted audiences

clearly and efficiently (Brochu, 2003). The interpretive planning process starts with

the vision phase that includes determining an organization’s mission and goals,

assessing the visitor, analyzing the resource, developing themes and messages, and

getting stakeholder approval of the vision (Gross and Zimmerman, 2002). Once a

vision is determined, interpretive planning moves into the concept phase, where the

vision of the organization is translated into actual interpretive media and visitor

experience narratives by a design team (Gross and Zimmerman, 2002). Once the

concept phase ideas are approved by the stakeholders, interpretive planners move into

the design/build phase, which often involves outside contractors (Gross and

Zimmerman, 2002). The Aldo Leopold Foundation has completed strategic planning

22

to further crystallize its mission and vision, and this study takes the crucial next step

of formal visitor assessment, which will inform this larger process of interpretive

planning.

BEST PRACTICES IN INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM EVALUATION

Visitor studies and evaluation can be of great usefulness to small museums,

historic houses, and non-profit educational centers, and many of the best techniques

employed are easily learned by on-site staff, reducing evaluation costs (Butler and

Loomis, 1993).

There is no one method or approach to program evaluation that is always

correct—each site must determine what it is they want to learn from an evaluation in

order to inform whether formative, front-end, or summative evaluation methods will

best inform decision making (Korn, 1994). Sam Ham’s definition of evaluation (cited

in Moscardo, 1999) is the “process of collecting and analyzing information about [an

interpretive] program, or its impacts on an audience for the explicit purpose of

improving its ability to serve the audience in the intended ways.” In general, front-

end studies are conducted in order to know who the audience is, where they are

coming from, and what their expectations are. Formative studies test specific

interpretive techniques with a known audience, in order to develop targeted

communication strategies to reach them. Finally, summative studies look at the

impacts and outcomes of well-established interpretation efforts (Moscardo, 1999).

23

Several hierarchies exist to help determine the levels of information gathered in

different visitor studies, and assist the researcher with planning an evaluation. This

one (see Figure 1) from Wells and Butler is particularly useful since it clearly defines

goals and recommended approaches for each tier:

Figure 1. Visitor-Centered Evaluation Hierarchy. (Wells and Butler, 2002)

Another useful planning tool is an evaluation proposal, which summarizes the

project background, methods to be used, and goals for the evaluation as a whole

(Diamond, 1999). Evaluation can serve many purposes—by linking interpretation to

the agency’s mission, evaluation can help justify the interpretation program, and

evaluation results can make the administration and planning of interpretation easier

Possible Tools/Strategies: case studies cost-benefrt analysis meta-analysis multi-trait. multi-method repeated measures

oenefits t community of an educat visitor? Visitor Opportunity Spectrum

Possible Tools: concept mapping guided reflection observation surveys and interviews thinK-alouds, trace measures visitor voting vandalism reports

Long-Term Learning­What visitors do as a result of their experience and/or what do they retain from the ex erience.

Possible Tools: concept mapping diaries portofolios surveys and interviews

Short-Term Learning- What visitors do, think, or feel during the experience or as an initital result of the experience.

Possible Tools: Psychographic data. Why visitors concept mapping

h t th I d k focus groups come, w a ey a rea Y now, interviews and surveys and/or what they expect t ·t Possible Tools: pos -1 surveys

archival data (e.g., gift store i----------------,'h.:..in.:..K.:..-a.:.10.:.u.:.d:.:s_.,.... _ _, purchases, computer game/touch screen data, guest logs, membership appplications, polls, etc) interviews surveys visitor counts

Descriptive data - Who are the visitors?

24

for the staff (Ham, 1986). Evaluations that measure whether the interpretation has

achieved its intended purpose are called impact assessments, and generally look at

measuring changes in how the visitor thinks, feels, or behaves as a result of the

interpretation (Hodgson’s 1984 study, cited in Ham, 1986).

Many of the strategies recommended in visitor studies are derived from the

detail-rich approaches found in the social sciences, including sociology, psychology,

communications, and marketing (Wells and Butler, 2002). Because these fields are so

often associated with qualitative research, it only follows that visitor studies share the

same trend. However, staffing structures at museums and non-profit educational

organizations (sites most likely to benefit from the results of visitor studies) very

rarely include full-time evaluators. With tight budgets and limited time, the inputs

necessary to gather, code, and analyze large volumes of open ended data is often

outside of the reach of most non-formal education sites such as the Leopold Center.

Accordingly, visitor studies often include a mix of evaluation approaches that

examine both easier gathered quantitative and detail-rich qualitative data (Wells and

Butler, 2002). In support of the strength of a mixed approach, a curator at the Denver

Art Museum noted, “visitor panels are not a panacea. They cannot and were not

intended to stand alone, but to be considered along with other instruments for

measuring visitor experience. The bigger the issue, the more data is needed. The

larger and the more costly the issue I’d want to measure, the more I’d want to

combine multiple approaches” (Fischer, 1997, p. 61). Other researchers note that

25

even the most complete study design can’t anticipate and measure everything—

formative evaluations in particular nearly always include some component of

researcher intuition, because that is often what informed the starting point for the

interpretation to be evaluated (Scriven, 1989). Accordingly, this study employs both

front-end and formative evaluation approaches, and uses mixed methods to gather

results.

A mixed evaluation strategy employing both front-end and formative style

questions can be efficient and help non formal educators think about the wide range

of impacts and outcomes possible in informal learning. For example, descriptive data

collected in a front end study—total visitation numbers, background demographics,

and geography of visitors—can illuminate ways for non formal educators to better

target their programs. This same data can reveal participation trends in existing

programs which can also meet formative evaluation objectives (Wells and Butler,

2002).

In any scientific research, primary concerns during study design include

addressing reliability and validity (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). In visitor studies,

reliability is obtained by meeting two primary goals: objectivity of the researcher, and

assurance of standardized measurement. For example, reliability would be

strengthened in a study if the researcher could show that every time a question was

asked in a focus group, it was always asked in precisely the same way to each

research subject (Bitgood, 1988). Validity is an intricate subject that is best broken

26

down into many sub-categories, most notably two main divisions of internal vs.

external validity (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Visitor studies may also be judged on

how well they address several sub-categories of validity, such as predictive validity.

Predictive validity examines whether the visitor behavior examined in the study can

be generalized to visitor behavior at other future exhibits or programs (Bitgood,

1988). Internal validity addresses the strength of the research design, and to what

degree it allows the researcher to make conclusions about cause and effect

relationships within the data (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Most visitor studies,

however, are not experimental designs where internal validity is a central concern

(Leedy and Ormrod, 2005); rather they are descriptive or observational research. At

best, visitor studies give researchers information about how visitors behave, but have

limited capacity to allow the researcher to draw causal relationships between

interpretation encountered and visitor behavior (Bitgood, 1988). External validity can

be addressed through visitor studies simply by ensuring that a representative sample

of the intended audience is measured in the course of the research (Bitgood, 1988,

Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).

Evaluation techniques can be direct, in the case of a written survey or spoken

interview, or indirect, in the case of an observation study. Both methods can inform

the researcher about the impacts of the interpretation, but direct methods tend to focus

more on answering the “why” questions, and indirect methods tend to provide more

factual information (Moscardo, 1999).

27

The evaluation of interpretation at the Aldo Leopold Foundation will focus on

direct methods of information gathering, and through them will attempt to present a

snapshot of visitor demographics, and make an impact assessment of current

interpretation efforts on that audience.

FOCUS GROUPS AS RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Focus groups (one of the main data collection strategies employed by this

study) are meant to generate ideas about how to best present information on a topic to

visitors, and work in concert with well-planned surveys (Moscardo, 1999). Outside

facilitators may be hired to conduct focus groups; however, having visitor center staff

complete this task has several attractive advantages. One is purely financial—having

already established staff take on the role of focus group moderation saves

substantially on evaluation costs, and may ultimately be the best way to assure that

the goals of all stakeholders in the study are met (Fischer, 1997). Another benefit is

that through participation in the administration of these focus groups, staff members

are able to learn in-depth information about the opinions, wants and needs of the

population they try to serve daily through personal and non-personal interpretation

(Fischer, 1997). Focus groups typically include eight to ten adults that can be

recruited any number of ways—in this study, they were recruited after having

participated in an interpretive program. Other recruitment techniques include targeted

phone campaigns, newspaper ads or mailings (Rubenstein, 1991). The moderator of

28

the focus group must remain neutral while always keeping in mind the goals of the

planning team. The less that the moderator speaks during the focus group, the

better—the idea is to let the visitors do the talking, and play off of one another in

response to very general questions (Fischer, 1997). Often in the world of marketing,

monetary compensation is offered in exchange for participation in focus groups. In

the world of museums and non-profit educational institutions, a much more common

strategy is to offer a small token to the visitor (a gift certificate to the book shop, or a

pass for future visits) as a thank you for participation (Rubenstein, 1991).

Analyzing focus group results can be cumbersome, since it generally involves

audio recording, then transcription followed by in-depth content analysis (Wells and

Butler, 2002). Some studies actually take carefully edited excerpts of the recorded

interviews and share the audio as part of a presentation of results (Matyas, 2001).

More often, text analysis of focus groups transcriptions results in a grouping of

relevant text into categories that begin to define the emerging themes of meaning in

the content (Auerbach, 2003). However, this text analysis should not be confused

with the much more involved process of grounded theory-building that occurs in

many research projects in the social sciences (Strauss, 1998).

This study also used a written survey that included a mix of open ended and

structured questions. More weight was placed on structured questions, since these

kinds of questions are easier for visitors to answer and easier to record when

synthesizing the data (Moscardo, 1999). Since it will be the first formal visitor study

29

ever conducted of the Leopold Foundation’s audiences, it also collected information

on the audience itself, meaning that both front-end and formative evaluation

characteristics were employed.

SUMMARY

In the 21st century, people have largely lost their connection to the natural

world. Richard Louv’s recent book Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children

from Nature Deficit Disorder brings to light the fact that today’s children are more

interested in iPods, video games and the internet than playing in puddles and picking

flowers. In our increasingly urban society, many adults have lost these connections as

well (Louv, 2005). In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold writes, “There are two

spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast

comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace” (Leopold,

1949). Leopold suggests that to avoid these dangers, one must reconnect to the

natural world… by planting a garden, or building a roaring fire from hand-split

firewood for heat. Leopold’s core concept in A Sand County Almanac is that we

should treat the natural world with the same love and respect with which we treat

other people. This concept, dubbed “the land ethic,” is at the heart of Leopold’s ideas

and the Foundation’s work today. For people to love and respect the natural world,

they must see their connections to it. The Aldo Leopold Foundation believes that on-

site programs and exhibits are some of the most powerful ways it can inspire its

30

audiences with its message and Leopold’s story. Visitors from all over the world

continue to come to visit the Aldo Leopold Shack and the Aldo Leopold Legacy

Center. The evaluation process will help assess who visitors are, what visitors seek in

the course of a site visit, and what they take away from their visits. The evaluation

process will help determine the best direction for improving and expanding upon

interpretive efforts.

31

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This study developed and applied front end and formative evaluation tools

that examined the makeup of visitors to the site, and measured the visitor experience

with current personal and non-personal interpretation at the Leopold Center. The

study mixed the methods associated with a qualitative case study design with those of

quantitative descriptive survey research design. Data was anticipated to be largely

qualitative, but the researcher expected to collect and examine some quantitative data

as well. Evaluation questions, goals for the evaluation, and the evaluation report

format were designed with the guidance of the graduate committee and using

literature that addresses best practices in program evaluation for interpretive and

historic sites. See Appendix A for the evaluation plan, including all survey

instruments.

SAMPLING

Front end demographic visitor data was both data mined from the on-site

guestbook (including data from 2007 and 2008), and compiled by front desk staff

about every public visitor that walked through the door in the 2008 visitation season,

May through October.

32

There were three groups targeted by the survey instruments in this evaluation,

and all evaluation data was collected during the 2008 visitation season, May through

October. The researcher limited participation in all evaluation groups to individuals

over the age of 18.

The first group invited to participate in the study consisted of drop-in visitors

who participated in self-guided programs. They are referred to as Group One

throughout the study. Because of busy schedules, many of the people who visit the

Leopold Center are not able to attend a guided program, relying solely on non-

personal media such as signage or brochures to guide their experience. The researcher

planned to learn more about the general demographics of Group One, what

information they sought during the visit, whether current non-personal interpretation

tools adequately met those needs, and how long Group One spent on an average self-

guided visit. Group One was a purposive sample meant to reflect the general

demographics of all existing guided tour audiences at the Leopold Center. The

representation of the Group One sample was confirmed by comparing demographic

data in the sample to the demographic data gathered for all visitors.

The second group targeted by the evaluation consisted of participants in

guided interpretive tour programs at the Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm (the Shack)

and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center (ALLC). Participants had to attend both guided

tour programs to qualify for participation in the focus group. Also, in all but one case,

the researcher was not the tour guide for group participants. This was done to avoid

33

biasing the group’s responses toward positive comments. In the one case that the

researcher had to act as both tour guide and focus group facilitator, she made special

efforts to emphasize and communicate that both positive and negative feedback were

welcome and equally important in the study. (see Appendix M for a further

explanation of this exception). In addition to encouraging participants in general

public tour programs to participate, the researcher targeted several pre-scheduled tour

groups to participate in the focus groups also. By inviting certain pre-scheduled

groups to participate, the researcher sought to represent some of the key audience

groups identified by casual ALF staff observation prior to this study: teachers,

conservation professionals, college students, and the general public. Collectively, tour

program focus group participants are referred to as Group Two throughout the study.

The researcher planned to learn more about why participants in Group Two decided

to visit, what parts of the program were most meaningful to them, what suggestions

they had for improvement, and how the program did or did not affect their own

attitudes about personal behaviors that affect the environment. The representation of

the Group Two sample was confirmed by the same comparison with general visitor

data used for Group One.

The third group evaluated consisted of visitors to the Baraboo Area Chamber

of Commerce Visitor Information Center. They are referred to as Group Three

throughout the study. By collecting data from a very general group of Sauk County

tourists, the researcher planned to learn more about the kinds of programs and

34

experiences people are looking for when planning environmentally themed vacation

stops such as a visit to the Leopold Center. Group Three was also a purposive sample.

The researcher compared the demographic data of Group Three with the demographic

data from the 2005 Sauk County Tourism Study, conducted by the Wisconsin

Department of Transportation to ensure it was representative.

INSTRUMENTATION

Three data collection tools were developed for surveying the three audience

groups in this study. They included a structured focus group interview guide and two

written questionnaires (see the evaluation plan at Appendix A for the questionnaires

and interview guide). A simple form to record front-end visitor demographic data was

developed for front desk staff use. This form captured estimated information about

visitor ages and genders. The researcher also data mined the on-site guest book,

where visitors voluntarily sign in and record their city or country of origin.

Self Guided Visit Questionnaire

This questionnaire aimed to discover several things about self-guided visitors

to the Leopold Center:

Why do participants visit—what are they interested in?

Do the self-guided tour options meet those interests adequately?

35

How can self-guided tour options be revised to better meet the interests of the

visitor?

How long do self-guided visitors spend on site?

General demographic information about self-guided visitors

Guided Tour Audience Focus Groups

The researcher started the structured focus group interviews by passing around

a form and having participants write down their names, ages, and genders. In addition

to this demographic data, the questions in the structured focus group interview guide

aimed to learn several things about visitors participating in guided tours at the

Leopold Center:

Why visitors decided to take part in ALF programs

How visitors first became aware of Leopold and/or the Leopold Center

What parts of the tour experience visitors enjoyed most

Suggestions for improvement in the visitor experience

How the program did or did not impact visitor attitudes and personal behavior

relating to the tour’s main theme (connection and responsibility between

people and the natural world).

36

Questionnaire Procedures: Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce Questionnaire

Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce staff and prominent signage invited

walk-in visitors to the Chamber visitor center to participate in a short (five to ten

minute) survey. Surveys were only offered to adults over the age of 18, and only one

survey was completed per family group. To determine which adult member of the

group completed the survey, chamber staff asked who in the group had the next

birthday. This assured that selection of survey participants is random and not biased.

After greeting the walk-in visitor with the usual Baraboo Area Chamber of

Commerce protocol, staff asked if the walk-in visitor was interested in completing a

survey in exchange for free tour passes. Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce staff

explained that the survey was being completed by the Aldo Leopold Foundation to

learn about:

Basic background on visitors’ demographics and distance traveled

What visitors hope to do and see while visiting the Baraboo area

Visitor interest about natural and cultural resources in the Baraboo area

Visitor interest in the Aldo Leopold Foundation

Institutional Review

All University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point research projects must follow

protocol established by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human

Subjects (IRB). The researcher took the online training pertaining to research

37

involving human subjects, and subsequently submitted a proposal detailing the

research methodology, which was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Stevens

Point IRB committee in January 2008. See Appendix B for the approved proposal.

FRONT-END DATA COLLECTION

Since the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center is brand new, no formal visitation data

has ever been gathered about public visitors. ALF began formally gathering basic

demographic data on all its on-site audiences during the 2008 visitation season. This

was facilitated by the simple completion of a form which was completed by visitor

desk staff daily (Appendix C). The form gave space to record the approximate

numbers of people that visited each day, categorized by age range and gender. Front

desk staff also asked visitors the question, “how did you hear about us?” and recorded

responses in the age/gender tracking form as visitors walked in. A content analysis of

these responses was performed and is reported in the results section along with

demographic data. Another tool used to gather information on visitor makeup was the

guest book located at the front desk. Every visitor that walks in is asked to sign the

guest book. After the visitation season was complete, the researcher had front desk

staff compile all the entries in the guest book (including entries from the center’s

grand opening in April 2007 through to January 2009) into a list of states and

countries represented. Front end data were also gathered in each of the three research

groups, through basic demographic questions included in the survey instruments.

38

FORMATIVE DATA COLLECTION

For Group One (visitors that took self-guided tours), the researcher gathered

50 responses to a written questionnaire that collected both qualitative and quantitative

data from visitors. Eleven focus group interviews were conducted with Group Two

(guided tour attendees). Most focus groups had 6 to 12 participants. One focus group

only had two participants. The total sample size for Group Two was 68 people. For

the final group (Group Three, the Sauk County tourist audience), the researcher

planned to conduct approximately 20 short individual interviews with walk-in visitors

to the Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce. Due to lower than expected foot traffic

at the Chamber of Commerce on days the researcher planned data collection, the

Group Three instrument was altered mid-study with approval of the graduate advisor.

Instead of conducting individual interviews, the researcher developed a one page

questionnaire that was distributed to visitors and collected by Baraboo Area Chamber

of Commerce staff. Of the 50 surveys distributed, less than half were returned,

making the sample size for Group Three 21 people.

Participants of all three groups were told the objective of the research, which

was to learn more about how visitors interact with programs and exhibits offered by

the Leopold Center. Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to guide

the development of future programs and exhibits. An informed consent form was

developed and collected from all participants in focus groups. An informed consent

section was also included in the questionnaires used for the other participants.

39

Participation in all groups was voluntary. Evaluation results will be made available to

any participants that request them, and instructions for how to do so were included in

the informed consent. A free copy of A Sand County Almanac was offered as a

participation incentive for Groups One and Two. Two free admissions to the Leopold

Center were offered as participation incentives to each respondent in Group Three.

Data collection with the Group One questionnaire was administered by ALF

staff that had been trained by the researcher. The ALF staff trained worked the

information desk/bookstore, and included education interns and a part time

receptionist. The researcher made questionnaires readily available in the reception

area of the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center for easy staff access. The researcher also

placed prominent signage in the bookstore/reception area promoting participation in

the study to passing visitors and mentioning the participation incentive. The

researcher trained information desk staff to verbally promote participation in the

questionnaire. The researcher also trained staff how to decide who would fill out the

questionnaire when the interested party was a family or social group consisting of

more than one person. When this occurred, which it frequently did, ALF staff asked

the group to choose one representative over the age of 18 to complete the survey. To

avoid selection bias, the ALF staff person asked the group to identify who had the

nearest upcoming birthday. That person was asked to be the representative amongst

the group that completed the study. Surveys were returned to the ALF staff person,

who put them in a folder stored securely behind the desk. At the end of each work

40

day, the researcher took completed surveys out of the folder and stored them in a

more secure folder in a locked file cabinet in her office.

Data collection with the focus group guide (for Group Two) was facilitated

through a simple process, followed each time there were participants in attendance for

public tour programs. The researcher or an ALF education staff person explained the

study briefly, explained who qualified to participate, mentioned the incentive for

participation, and invited qualified people to participate both at the start and finish of

the tour program. The researcher conducted focus groups when there were at least

four people present on the Shack and ALLC tour program, representing at least two

different family or social groups. In one case, the researcher conducted a focus group

with just two participants. It was early on in the study, when weather conditions in

spring 2008 were driving tour attendance and public visitation numbers to lower than

average levels. The researcher made this one exception about minimum numbers of

people in a focus group in the interest of collecting data. Once the fall arrived,

visitation levels returned to normal, and focus groups were much easier to conduct.

As indicated previously, the researcher also included pre-scheduled group tours in

focus groups. To identify which groups to approach, the researcher reviewed the

guided tour schedule and identified groups that were the right size for a focus group

(6 to 12 participants), that had scheduled a tour of both the Shack and the center, and

that was made up of adults over the age of 18 in one of the target audiences (natural

41

resource professionals, teachers, and college students were all represented in the

focus groups conducted).

At the beginning of each focus group, the researcher introduced herself

briefly, described the purpose of the focus group, explained how data would be used,

stated the expected length of the focus group, and obtained a signed informed consent

form from all participants.

The researcher attempted to make audio recordings of all of the focus groups,

but due to equipment malfunction, only nine of the 11 focus groups were recorded

and subsequently transcribed. Luckily, one of the members of the graduate committee

(Jim Buchholz) was present as an observer at the first un-recorded focus group, so he

was able to review and confirm the accuracy of the researcher’s written notes from

the session. The second un-recorded focus group also has researcher notes, but these

were unfortunately not able to undergo the same review by a committee member.

However, the researcher was able to have another ALF staff person who had been

present during the focus group in question review the notes and confirm their

accuracy.

Data collection for Group Three had been planned in the form of in-person

interviews led by the researcher in the Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce. As

indicated previously, the foot traffic in this building was dramatically lower than

expected, in part due to the extreme flooding that affected Sauk County and much of

the rest of southern Wisconsin in June 2008. Because the researcher was concerned

42

about the ability to collect the proper amount of data under time constraints, she

decided to alter the strategy for gathering Group Three’s feedback mid-study. After

consulting with Dr. Brenda Lackey (graduate advisor), the researcher developed a

written questionnaire to replace the in-person interviews, using the same questions

(see Appendix A for the evaluation plan, including all survey instruments). The

researcher trained the two full time staff people at the Baraboo Area Chamber of

Commerce on how to administer the questionnaire. Chamber staff were given 50

numbered surveys, paired with the informed consent form, explaining that there were

no risks associated with participating. This form also explained how to obtain survey

results if participants were interested. Surveys had to be completed on site, and

returned to Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce staff after completion.

The researcher provided a prominent sign to display in the lobby that

promoted participation in the survey in exchange for free admission to the Leopold

Center. Staff were trained to follow the same questionnaire procedures that have been

previously described: only people over 18 could complete the questionnaire, and in

the case of a couple or family group, the staff person was asked to identify the person

with the nearest birthday. That person was asked to complete the questionnaire as an

individual representing the group.

43

DATA ANALYSIS

To analyze data for Groups One and Three (measured by written

questionnaire), the researcher created code books for each of the two questionnaires.

Code books help quantify data reported in Likert scale or check box style responses

into simple numbers for easy input into spreadsheet software (EETAP, 2007). See

code books for both questionnaires at Appendices D – E). Using the code books as a

guide, the researcher then inputted questionnaire responses into two separate

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, and used Microsoft Excel’s built in analysis tools to

compile descriptive statistics, information on use or non-use of various interpretive

components, demographic data, and open-ended text responses. Text responses were

copied into a separate Microsoft Word document and grouped into categories by the

researcher, then counted for content analysis. For Group One, all of this data was

synthesized to present a complete picture of the current self-guided visitor experience.

Data from Group Three was compiled to give a small view into motivations and

interests of potential future visitors.

To analyze data for Group Two, the researcher needed to convert the audio

recordings of focus groups into written form. She manually transcribed one of the

recorded sessions, and then contracted with Mim Eisenberg of WordCraft to

transcribe the rest. As indicated previously, two of the focus groups were represented

by researcher notes rather than transcriptions due to audio equipment malfunction.

The researcher organized the transcripts and notes into three separate documents to

44

facilitate analysis. Document one consolidated all responses to question one: “Why

did you decide to make the trip here today?” Document two consolidated all

responses to question two: “How did you get introduced to Aldo Leopold and the

Aldo Leopold Foundation?” Responses to all other questions made up a final

document, consolidating responses to remaining questions which addressed tour

feedback, expectations, suggestions for improvement, and statements reflecting on the

tour’s impact on personal attitudes and behaviors. The researcher reviewed each

document and highlighted relevant text. Relevant text is defined as a list of words and

phrases that are relevant to the focus of the research (Auerbach 2003). The researcher

then copied and pasted all highlighted text into new documents, each given a title

representing the question addressed, like “Relevant text for (question).” Sample

relevant text segments from each of the main categories of questions in the focus

group are listed at Appendix L.

For each set of relevant text, the researcher performed a text analysis to

identify repeating ideas and phrases. She grouped responses into categories by

examining the first block of relevant text, then going through the rest of the document

to find responses that were about that same idea. The researcher color coded the

words and phrases in each category to make it easier to distinguish between them on

the page. When she reached the end of the document, she repeated the same analysis

procedure for the second block of relevant text. This continued until every phrase or

idea in the relevant text was grouped into a category. Categories were used to identify

45

overarching themes in Group Two’s responses. Dr. Brenda Lackey, the researcher’s

graduate advisor, reviewed samples of the data at various stages in the process to

verify the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the researcher’s coding and analysis.

This qualitative analysis led to the synthesis of an overall picture of the

current guided visitor experience at the Leopold Center, reported in the results

chapter.

46

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this study was twofold: to determine demographic

makeup of visitors to the Leopold Center, and to evaluate the interests, demographics,

and opinions of visitors partaking in both self guided and guided tour programs at the

facility. A secondary goal of the study was to measure the interest of potential new

visitors to the center by surveying a group of people who interacted with the Baraboo

Area Chamber of Commerce.

SUB PROBLEMS

The results section is organized by sub problem. The sub problems of the study were

as follows:

1: Determine basic demographics and geography (i.e. origin for) the current

population of visitors to the Leopold Center.

2: Examine the demographic makeup and visitor experience of people taking

part in self-guided tours of the Leopold Center and/or Leopold Shack.

47

3: Examine the demographic makeup and visitor experience of people taking

part in guided tours of both the Leopold Shack and the Legacy Center.

4: Determine the potential interest in Leopold Center programming with a

representative group of Sauk County tourists.

SUB PROBLEM 1 RESULTS

Sub Problem 1: Determine basic demographics and geography (i.e. origin for)

the current population of visitors to the Leopold Center.

Data mining of the on-site guest book (including visitor sign-in information

from 2007 and 2008) reveals that visitors to the center come from all over the nation

and the world. Approximately 63.8% of visitor signatures in the guest book were

from the state of Wisconsin, 11% from the surrounding Midwestern states of Illinois,

Iowa and Minnesota, 21.9% from other US states, and 1.9% were from foreign

countries. See table of results and maps showing geographic representation at Figures

2 – 5.

Figure 2. Guest book sign-in locations, 2007-2008.

Locations listed with guest book sign-ins Total PercentageWisconsin: 1285 63.8%Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota: 249 12.4%Other US States (45 represented) 442 21.9%Foreign Countries (16 represented) 38 1.9%All locations (N=) 2014 100.0%

48

Figure 3. Wisconsin cities in guest book.

Map Source: http://www.batchgeocode.com See full list of cities at Appendix F.

0

0 0

··oo-·-o ......

0 O 0

49

Figure 4. Other U.S. states in guest book.

Alaska and Hawaii not shown on this map, but are included in the data set. The only states not represented were Delaware and Washington. Map Source: http://www.batchgeocode.com

0 D 0

t'(I(

50

Figure 5. Foreign countries represented in guest book.

Map Source: http://www.batchgeocode.com

See the full list of countries at Appendix G.

Front Desk Daily Tracking Form Results

Front desk staff attempted to visually observe and record the ages and genders

of every public visitor that walked through the door. They omitted visitors from the

count that were on site as part of a pre-scheduled group visit (meeting participants,

Woodland school class participants, and pre-scheduled group tour participants.) The

form was very simple, including one page for each day that allowed space to record

the estimated observed age and gender of public visitors, and to record responses to

~:.:.:..:..-:.:ira•5000000~~ Data ©2009 N VIE

N

m - mm

51

an open ended question about how visitors heard about the Aldo Leopold Foundation.

See the form at Appendix C.

Daily staff tracking of visitors’ ages and genders from the 2008 visitation

season (May – October 2008) reveals that visitors are balanced fairly evenly across

gender, with slightly more males in attendance (51%) than females (49%). The largest

age group represented is visitors aged 35-64. By its nature, this age group simply

contains more ages than the other age groups identified. This may mean the results

shown are slightly skewed due to this flaw in chosen age groups, which may favor the

35-64 age group due to the fact that it simply contains more ages than the other

groups. Additionally, visual observation of ages is an imprecise process, and this too

should be considered when interpreting this data. See the age and gender breakout in

Table 1 below.

Table 1. Drop-in visitor ages and genders, visual estimations.

Observed Age Categories M F Total % 17 and under 82 74 156 7.9% 18-34 180 169 349 17.7% 35-64 571 533 1,104 56.1% 65 and up 169 191 360 18.3%

Total public visitation, April 19 - October 31, 2008: N=1,969

52

Noting this data, the researcher has determined that any representative sample

of visitors to the Leopold Center should include subjects with the following attributes:

1. The majority of participants should be from Wisconsin and the

Midwest, with a smaller group of participants representing other US

states and foreign countries.

2. The majority of participants should fall within the ages of 35 - 64, with

a smaller group of participants representing other age groups.

SUB PROBLEM 2 RESULTS

Sub problem 2: Examine the demographic makeup and visitor experience of

people taking part in self-guided tours of the Leopold Center and/or Leopold

Shack.

Some of the questionnaires from Group One were returned with unanswered

questions. These responses were still included in the data analysis, since their

exclusion did not prevent accurate analysis of the rest of the data. Each question was

analyzed separately, therefore not every question has an N value of 50.

Group One Demographics

Group One (self-guided visitors to the Leopold Center), consisting of 50

questionnaire responses, was made up of mostly adults aged 45 and up. While the

data shows that more males responded to this survey than females, this data is slightly

53

skewed since there were also a percentage of completed questionnaires that had both

gender boxes (male and female) checked. It is impossible to assign these responses to

one particular gender. This problem indicates that a certain percentage of the

questionnaire respondents misunderstood the goal of the study, which was to measure

individual responses. Future studies could try to avoid this issue by including the

words “check only one” next to the gender question, or by making the questionnaire a

computer-based form that would allow only one response to this question. See the age

and gender breakout for this group at Figures 6 – 7.

Figure 6. Self-guided visitor group ages.

N=49

18-24 0%

54

Figure 7. Self-guided visitor group genders.

N=49

Group One Geography

Most questionnaire respondents (62%) came from Wisconsin or surrounding

Midwestern states, but there were also 17 responses (34%) collected from other US

states. Two questionnaires were completed by residents of Uppsala, Sweden. The

following map (Figure 8) shows US cities represented by Group One.

55

Figure 8. Home locations of self-guided visitor group.

Two respondents from Uppsala, Sweden not shown. Map Source: http://www.batchgeocode.com

Group One Visitor Experience

Survey questions attempted to determine the visitor experience in a number of

ways. Each question’s results are reported individually here, and results are discussed

and applied collectively in the next chapter.

0 WA

OR

Carson City 0

sa& ,e 0

CA

epue 0

NV

He'ena 0 MT

D

S.h La~Ctty

UT

AZ

OPhoeno<

W'f

l!e9ln• 0

0

DerrQ , 0

co

ND

so

NE

W.mpeg 0

MN CJ)

St Paul 0 0

Lln<gf IA

UNITED STATES MO

OK

ON a mmm

0 Quobec 0

~ Ott.awa

© ,~ Ml Toronto / Vl Q, NH

O)ert cgio {~eland NY ,-,,A

0 Cl:1 ll 0 tP OH

0 PA NJ

Franu-21 0

0 VN l.<D Dover

l<Y VA OV rgin,a B&>eh

TN Charloue O NC

SC

OM~xkalt O

NM

Juarez · Q.,_

Dallas 0 Jackson 'olS

0 LA

AL GA

CNl>Jahua o

L.a Paz -0

CUiacan 0

TX Qiousion

~inM\tonio o 0

Mon~-,

MEXICO C,udiid Vx.tor"a

0

~lahasseeO (i;ad: . .!onv le

0

FL

BA

Nas.!dU ©

56

Question one: Please rate your overall self-guided tour experience today based on the

following rating scale. Likert scale choices from 1 (poor) – 5 (excellent) given.

Results shown in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9. Self-guided visitor group responses: overall experience ranking.

N=49

Average of all responses: 4.24 (Good) Mode: 4 (Good)

Needs Improvement Poor(l) (2)

0% 2%

57

Question two: How would you rate the educational signage you encountered?

Likert scale choices from 1 (poor) – 5 (excellent) given. Results shown in Figure 10

below.

Figure 10. Self-guided visitor group responses: interpretive signage ranking.

N=49

Average of all responses: 3.97 (Good) Mode: 5 (Excellent)

Poor (1) Needs 2% Improvement (2)

8%

58

Question three: How would you rate the educational brochures you

encountered? Likert scale choices from 1 (poor) – 5 (excellent) given. Results shown

in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11. Self-guided visitor group responses: educational brochure ranking.

N=48

Average of all responses: 4.07 (Good) Mode: 5 (Excellent)

Poor (1) Needs 4% Improvement (2)

6%

59

Question four: About how much time did you spend at the Foundation today?

(1= <30 minutes; 2= 30 min – 1 hr.; 3= 1hr – 1.5 hr; 4= 1.5 hr – 2 hr; 5= > 2 hr)

Time spent shown by category in Figure 12 below.

Figure 12. Self-guided visitor group responses: time spent on visit.

N=49 Average of all responses: 3.37 (1 hour – 1.5 hours)

100%

90% 5= > 2 hr, 8

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 3= l hr - 1.5 hr, 24

30%

20%

10%

0%

1

60

Question five: What subjects were you most interested in learning about during

today’s visit to the Aldo Leopold Foundation?

Each subject is discussed separately, examining the average ranking assigned

to it, the range of responses, the median and mode, and total responses ranked in this

subject category. When reviewing the results in Tables 2 – 5, the lower the average

number (the mean), the greater the interest in the subject.

Table 2. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: Aldo Leopold.

Subject rating- Aldo Leopold

Mean (average) 2.2Standard Error 0.17Median (middle) 2Mode (Most frequent) 2Standard Deviation 1.2Minimum 0Maximum 5

Count (N=) 49Table 3. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: A Sand County Almanac.

Subject rating- A Sand County Almanac

Mean (average) 3.0Standard Error 0.17Median (middle) 3Mode (Most frequent) 3Standard Deviation 1.2Minimum 0Maximum 5Count (N=) 49

61

Table 4. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: The Leopold Shack.

Subject rating- Shack

Mean (average) 1.8Standard Error 0.17Median (middle) 2Mode (Most frequent) 1Standard Deviation 1.2Minimum 0Maximum 4Count (N=) 49

Table 5. Self-guided visitor group ranking of subject: The Legacy Center.

Subject rating- Legacy Center

Mean (average) 2.3Standard Error 0.18Median (middle) 2Mode (Most frequent) 1Standard Deviation 1.3Minimum 0Maximum 5Count (N=) 49

Table 6. Responses listing "other" as a subject of interest.

Categories: N=Information on plantings 2Information on wood in building 1Information on ecosystems and restoration 3Seeing the site, connecting to ideas 2Leopold and Forestry 1Blank/”other” not ranked 41“Other” ranked 9Total responses (N=) 50

62

Subject Summary

The most important subjects to self-guided visitors, in order of importance from most

important to least important are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Subjects listed in order of interest to self-guided visitors.

1. The Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm Mean= 1.8 2. Aldo Leopold’s life and family Mean= 2.2 3. The green features of the Legacy Center Mean= 2.3 4. A Sand County Almanac Mean= 3 5. Other (see categories above) Mean = 4

Question 6: Please put a check mark next to all of the educational materials

listed below that you used during your self-guided tour of the Shack and/or

Legacy Center.

The usage of various interpretive components is shown in Tables 8 – 10 below.

Table 8. Self-guided visitor use of welcome video.

Welcome video usage Frequency

Did not use 9Used 40N= 49

Table 9. Self-guided visitor use of interpretive signage in the Legacy Center.

LC interpretive sign usage Frequency

Did not use 7Used 42N= 49

Table 10. Use of Self-Guided Shack Tour brochure.

Shack brochure usage Frequency

Did not use 15Used 34N= 49

63

Question 7: Did the educational materials help you learn about the topics you

were most interested in? Why or why not? (Open ended text response)

Content analysis reveals that most visitors (66%) thought that the educational

materials helped them learn about their topics of interest. About a third of responses

(32%) included suggestions for improvement. Some representative quotes from each

category are included after the content analysis chart to explain further where

appropriate, to highlight components that visitors enjoy, and to reveal components

that visitors feel need improvement. See the categories at Table 11 below.

Table 11. Categories of visitor comments about educational material helpfulness.

Yes (no further comments) 8 Yes (with specifics liked) 25 Yes (with suggestions for improvement) 8 No 0 No (with suggestions for improvement) 8 Total comments 49

Selected quotes highlighting specifics about helpfulness of educational materials

(full set of comments is listed at Appendix H):

“Yes, the educational materials helped display information about the Leopold Shack,

Leopolds beliefs, and his life and family. “ (Category: yes, with specifics liked)

“Yes, the video provides a quick history and starting point for the tour. The signage

around the center is informative and interesting. The brochure for the tour was

64

excellent. The pictures from the past and key points on the tour kept me going, even

with the bugs!” (Category: yes, with specifics liked)

“The few pictures on the construction of the place with their description were very

interesting.” (Category: yes, with specifics liked)

“Yes. I appreciated having period photos to compare with the present.” (Category:

yes, with specifics liked)

“Yes, the materials provided helpful info about the main aspects of the ‘Shack area.’

They gave a good overview.” (Category: yes, with specifics liked)

Selected quotes from visitors who felt self-guided materials were not helpful or

had visitor suggestions for improvement:

“The educational materials did not help us learn about the specific technologies used

in the making of the Legacy Center. (ie green building techniques, etc.) To clarify, we

can see the final product, but not the steps it took to get there, or the pieces ‘hidden’

in the walls/floors.” (Category: no, with suggestions for improvement)

“I would have liked more information about Aldo's life leading up to his purchase of

the farm. Would like to know what motivated him. Self guided tour should give a

65

short description of each building. Its purpose and what makes it environmentally

unique. I was guessing as to the function of the thermal flux zone. Install a visible

meter to show the electricity being generated. Also a temperature gauge showing

temps from hot water panels.” (Category: no, with suggestions for improvement)

“Not really- too brief. More trails. Too short, not enough information” (Category, no,

with suggestions for improvement)

“Need more information- paper brochure, references to website- generally focused

materials and more videos with different topics, esp. details of building construction

and design.” (Category: no, with suggestions for improvement)

“I would like to know more about the local ecology/geography/geology.” (Category:

no, with suggestions for improvement)

Question 8: How likely are you, after visiting the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center,

to read or re-read all or part of the book, A Sand County Almanac? (Response

choices: not likely at all, somewhat likely, very likely)

One of the goals of the Aldo Leopold Foundation’s programming, identified

during the strategic planning process that took place in 2007-2008, is to drive people

to read or re-read all or parts of Leopold’s classic A Sand County Almanac. The book

66

itself is considered to be one of the most powerful tools available to the Leopold

Foundation to help it achieve the goals of the education program and the organization

as a whole. Therefore, this study measured the impacts of self-guided visits on

people’s plans to read or re-read the book. An overwhelming 84% of visitors (see

Figure 13) reported that they were very likely to read or re-read the book after their

visit.

Figure 13. Self-guided visitor responses: reading the Almanac after visit.

Question 9: What did you enjoy most about your visit today? (Text description)

Content analysis of responses shows that most visitors enjoy simply being

able to see the two main interpretive resources on site: The Aldo Leopold Legacy

Center and the Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm. Following the chart of categories,

O = not li kely at all 0%

= very likely

67

several representative quotes are shared to reveal the results of this question further.

The total number of responses here is higher than the number of questionnaires

collected. Since responses to this question were included in a single block of text and

many visitors highlighted more than one idea in their assessment of what they liked

best, comments were separated by subject area to better facilitate analysis and

categorization. See categories at Table 12 below. This means that there were a higher

number of comments (79) than total questionnaires collected (50).

Table 12. Categories of visitor comments about what was enjoyed most.

N= Seeing the Legacy Center 22 Seeing the Shack 15 General 12 Interpretive materials 9 Seeing the land 8 Learning about Aldo Leopold 7 The staff 4 Learning about the Aldo Leopold Foundation 2 Total (N=) 79

Selected quotes highlighting what people enjoyed most about their visit (full set

of comments at Appendix I):

“Seeing the construction of the buildings (foundation) and seeing the original

Shack/land that Aldo Leopold started with.” (Categories: Seeing the Legacy Center,

Seeing the Shack)

“Seeing the design of the building.” (Category: Seeing the Legacy Center)

--

68

“Seeing the Leopold Shack and the surrounding acreage.” (Categories: Seeing the

Shack, Seeing the land)

“Walking at the Shack area.” (Category: Seeing the Shack)

“Pleased to witness continued and expanding environmental movement in the state of

Wisconsin.” (Category: General)

“Brought the book A Sand County Almanac to life. Able to see the land.” (Categories:

General, Seeing the land)

“Learning together with family about the life and legacy of this local Wisconsin

hero.” (Category: Learning about Aldo Leopold)

“We enjoyed the educational signage, and the early blooming flowers, but not the

early blooming mosquitoes.” (Category: Interpretive materials)

Question 10: Please suggest any improvements to our educational materials you

think we should make. (Text description)

69

Content analysis of responses shows that a good number of visitors (43%) felt

that the Leopold Center should have more non-personal media to help guide them in

their visitation experience. Other suggestions are presented in the chart of categories

below, followed by several representative quotes from each category. The total

number of responses here is lower than the number of questionnaires collected. Not

everyone responded to the suggestions question. This means that there were a lower

number of comments (44) than total questionnaires collected (50). See the categories

that emerged in this question at Table 13 below.

Table 13. Categories of self-guided visitor suggestions for improvement.

Categories: Comments:

New media 19 Directional Signage 8 General 8 Good as is 7 More on the land 2 Total comments (N=) 44

Selected quotes highlighting what suggestions people had for improvement (full

set of comments at Appendix J):

“I'd suggest three pamphlets: 1- Aldo, 2- Plants, wildlife and history of area. Impact

of man. 3- Energy efficiency.” (Category: new media)

“Plant ID in garden outside center.” (Category: new media)

70

“More detailed information about air and energy flow and diagrams of the geothermal

system. Of what materials was the roof constructed?” (Category: new media)

“Self guided tour with earphones.” (Category: new media)

“Better signs are needed to make sure you're at the proper spot in the self-guided tour

(for example, we searched a while to find the Good Oak, and weren't sure if we

should find a stump.” (Category: directional signage)

“Informational signage at the Shack area or reflection? Better road signs to find the

center.” (Categories: new media, directional signage)

“Better communication. Center seems better suited for groups than individuals.”

(Category: general)

“You're doing a fine job.” (Category: good as is)

SUB PROBLEM 3 RESULTS

Sub problem 3: Examine the demographic makeup and visitor experience of

people taking part in guided tours of both the Leopold Shack and the Legacy

Center.

71

This sub problem was largely addressed through qualitative research methods

and is therefore presented through direct visitor quotations grouped into meaningful

categories. Information about participant ages, genders, and geography is presented in

qualitative form. The text results were gleaned by analyzing the transcripts and notes

from the focus groups. This process was not truly content analysis, so N values are

not reported with themes found in the data.

Group Two Demographics

Exactly 68 people (Group Two, participants in guided tour programs) took

part in focus groups. Their demographic data was gathered in written form on a sign-

in sheet that was circulated at the beginning of the focus group interview. For the first

two focus groups, the sign-in form unfortunately excluded information on ages due to

researcher oversight. Of the eight participants affected by this omission of written

data, the researcher recalls from visual observation that two of them were senior

citizens, and six were adults approximately aged 45 - 55. The rest of the focus groups

did have a complete sign-in sheet including specific age data, and since respondents

wrote down their actual age, the researcher was able to determine these results for the

remaining 60 participants, shown at Table 14.

72

Table 14. Focus group participant ages.

Focus Group Participant Ages

Mean (average) 54Standard Error 2.08Median (middle) 60Mode (most common) 60Standard Deviation 16.1Minimum 22Maximum 78Count (N=) 60

The researcher also assigned each reported age to the same five age categories

used on the questionnaire for Groups One and Three. These five categories are:

1 = 18-24 2 = 25-34 3 = 35-44 4 = 45-55 5 = Over 55

Here are the results for all 68 focus group participants grouped by age

category. Note that the six adults that had not listed a specific age were assigned to

category four, age 45-55. The two senior citizens were assigned to category five, over

age 55. See Figure 14 for a graphic representation of the ages in Group Two.

73

Figure 14. Guided visitor group ages.

The gender breakout in the focus groups was exactly even, with 34 males and

34 females included in the 68 person total. See a list of participants at Appendix K.

The researcher hoped to represent certain audience groups in this part of the

study, reflecting ALF’s assumptions about what kinds of people make up its target

audience. Of the 11 focus groups conducted, eight were done with a general public

tour audience, and three targeted specific interest groups: teachers, college students,

and conservation/natural resource professionals.

Group Two Geography

Exactly 56 participants came from Wisconsin or neighboring states

(Minnesota or Iowa). A smaller part of the group (12 participants) came from other

S= Over SS 59%

4%

74

US states, including Arizona, California, Washington DC, Missouri, Texas, Virginia,

and Vermont. No participants came from foreign countries. The map below (Figure

15) provides an illustration of US cities represented by participants in the guided tour

focus groups, shown with large dots.

Figure 15. Home locations of guided visitor group.

Source: http://www.batchgeocode.com

Seattle 0

Pc"t land 0

WA

OR

C.HsooCdy

0 0 ° Sa~Jose

0 CA

caw y P.eg.,a

0

He&,na 0 MT

Bone 0

NV

D

Sa~ La eGty 0

UT

AZ

WY

Denver 0

co

Albuquerque 0

o oen NM

0 Me~1cah

Juarez

Chihuahua 0

La Paz O ME.XICO

WIM1)eg 0

NO 0 ~• O

so St Pa ... ~O

NE Lincoln IA

0

UNITED STATES

Tl(

Ciudad v ltt or•a 0

0

MO

LA

0

ON

~bee 0

Ottawa

c:Pc:D 0

0 ,

ti ~· TOJonto Q H

Oetro,t NY '590 C eveland ~•A 0 C:Ji

N OH PA NJ

Fra n on 0

y VA

O o c5'MD DO\ler

O V rg "" Be.ich

TN Cha rlot te O NC

AL GA

T-a !ahas.see O

SC

Ja 0

FL

onv e

Nassau 0

~IE

0 August

75

Group Two Visitor Experience

The focus group interviews included eight questions. See the full set of

interview questions at Appendix A. Results are organized by comment themes in six

major areas addressed by the questions:

1. Why participants decided to make the trip to the Leopold Center

2. Information on how participants became aware of Aldo Leopold

and/or the Aldo Leopold Foundation

3. Information on participant expectations

4. Parts of the program enjoyed most by participants

5. Participant suggestions for improvements to the program

6. Statements that indicate that participants made a connection to

personal behavior as a result of the tour program

Focus group responses to question addressing trip motivations

The exact question asked in focus group interviews was, “why did you decide

to make the trip here today?” Responses were grouped into seven main categories.

Categories are listed here, followed by several representative quotes from each

category. Where possible, categories were titled using select words or entire quotes

that came directly from focus group participants.

76

Category one- Read A Sand County Almanac or related text (and wanted to come as

a result of having read it)

“I read the book years ago, and I’ve been wanting to come see it.”

“Both of us read Sand County Almanac back [in] high school or college age times,

and so it’s just natural to gravitate here.”

Category two- Wanted social interaction outdoors

“To be outside with family”

“I wanted to do something where we had a little activity and could be out of doors in

hopefully a beautiful autumn day.”

Category three- Interest in green building /read an article

“I saw something on PBS about the center and some of the background, so when

Chris said there’s a chance to come, I thought that would be wonderful.”

“We’re a men’s group. We go on outings. Jeff and I were in charge of coming up

with an outing, and Jeff knew of you through the architect. I write a green business

column for Corporate Report Wisconsin, and so I had heard about this. I had heard

about LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] buildings.”

Category four- Reverence for Aldo Leopold and conservation / “this was a

pilgrimage”

77

“I hate to use the term ‘holy’ or ‘sacred,’ but I think in environmental [circles] Aldo

Leopold is kind of one of the prophets, and so going to the place where he did some

of his thinking was kind of my attraction, and then—so I’ve got kind of two reasons:

that, to see the shack and the land there.”

“I’m also a conservationist so this was a pilgrimage.”

“Oh, I was interested in coming here before there was a Legacy Center. I mean I just

wanted to see where... this guy hung out.”

“I think because Leopold is so influential in the world of conservation.”

Category five- Teaching / studying Aldo Leopold formally

“I’ve taught Leopold in my seventh grade English classes for probably ten or fifteen

years and wanted to finally get here to the site.”

“(this class is about studying the) visitor center, the nature center, so this is a good

place for us to visit to kind of grasp how that works.”

“We should go and see some of the places that we are teaching when we start looking

at regional literature or state literature, that we can go out and experience that so that

we would at least have a first-hand knowledge of what we’re talking about, whether it

be the shack or the site of the good oak.”

Category six- Found out about it through another Aldo Leopold related program

“Lodi has a Leopold Day. In fact, I think it’s a whole weekend.”

78

How do visitors become familiar with Aldo Leopold, and the Aldo Leopold

Foundation?

Responses to this question from the focus groups were grouped into seven

main categories. Reviewing these categories shows a strong similarity between this

data and the data gathered by front desk staff on their daily reporting form that

addressed the question, “how did you hear about us?” While the two questions asked

and the data gathered were not identical, in essence they were getting at the same

piece of information. Because of the similarity in these two data sets, both analyses

are reported here for ease of comparison.

Front Desk Daily Tracking Form Results

In addition to making a visual assessment of all on-site visitor genders and

ages, front desk staff also asked people the question, “how did you hear about us?”

Results were recorded in the log book underneath the daily gender and age reporting

information. Data was not collected every day, and every visitor was not polled. This

is due to the nature of most visitor information desks: sometimes staff can spend more

time talking to visitors, and sometimes this is not possible due to other people waiting

in line or limited visitor interest or availability to answer questions. Of 131 comments

recorded, the most common response (35% of comments) was that people heard

about the center through word of mouth. 14% of comments indicated people heard

79

about the center thorough information at area state parks (Devil’s Lake and Mirror

Lake), 12% saw something in the media (newspaper or magazine article, radio or TV

story), and the rest of the comments represented a mix of other sources that people

identified as the source of their knowledge of (and assumed reason for visiting) the

Leopold Center. The full set of results are shown in Table 15 below.

Table 15. Drop-in visitor trip motivations.

N= Word of mouth- person 24 Word of mouth- organization/event 22 State parks 18 Saw in the media 16 Area resident 12 International Crane Foundation 11 Knew about you already- members, Leopold followers 10 Just passing by 6 Saw survey at Baraboo Visitor Center 6 Other 3 Researched the area before visit 3 Total comments = 131

Focus Group responses

The exact question asked in focus group interviews was, “How did you

become aware of Aldo Leopold as a person? How did you become aware of the

Leopold Legacy Center?” Responses to both questions were treated as one group and

categorized together. Results are grouped into seven main categories. Categories are

listed here, followed by several representative quotes from each category. Where

80

possible, categories were titled using select words or entire quotes that came directly

from focus group participants.

Category One: Word of mouth (friend or colleague)

“My associate. We were contemporaries at Madison. She read the book. I got the

trip.”

“My son-in-law was already very involved with the Foundation, and he gave me a

copy of the book, and he talks about Aldo Leopold endlessly.”

Category Two: Heard a speaker at an event

“I learned about this place through a speaker at my woman’s club.”

“And I was also influenced when I heard—at the State Historical Society all his

children gave a tribute to him last year that I attended in Madison.”

Category Three: Through my profession

“My connection with Leopold goes back probably to ’87, when we had our students

do a thing called Project Earth Care, and we were trying to do all kinds of things

connected with nature, and we were building wood duck boxes, and one of the

Leopold family members was still in Burlington at the time, and had this wonderful

wood duck box design, and so we visited his house .”

81

“And as far as the Foundation goes, I guess in working and volunteering in many

different conservation venues, the name has come up a lot.”

“I’ve worked on water resource issues and conservation, and his name has been

brought up as the father of conservation, so I have heard the name.”

Category Four: Through the media (article, radio, web)

“I read about it.... I don't know. You know, I saw it on PBS, or I read about it

somewhere.”

“I think on Earth Day they would often feature it on radio programs.”

Category Five: Didn’t know / very limited knowledge

“I really only learned a lot about the Foundation in the last week or two.”

“Never heard of either one until today.”

Category Six: Part of Wisconsin heritage

“When you live in Madison, you know about Aldo Leopold.”

“I mean, it’s part of the Wisconsin mystique.”

“I just knew about Aldo Leopold and—I lived in Baraboo for a period of time, and I

think I found out about the Foundation living close by.”

82

Category Seven: Through school

“I learned about him in ‘conservation 101.’”

“I don’t know when the first time was that I heard of Aldo Leopold. I think maybe

sometime in college, possibly in high school, kind of synonymous with Rachel

Carson and environmental folks.”

“I first heard about Aldo Leopold in high school ecology class.”

“I first heard about Aldo Leopold in the seventh grade, in a wildlife education course

that I took. It must have been certainly early in my conservation career, and going to

graduate school in natural resource administration and management I saw a list of

really basic books that were the foundation of conservation philosophy, and so that’s

where I first encountered Sand County Almanac.”

What expectations do visitors have?

The exact question asked in focus group interviews was, “what did you hope

to experience during the tour program today, and did we meet your expectations?”

This phrasing of the question and the approach of tackling this information in an

open-ended qualitative way did not draw consistent results. Unfortunately that means

it is difficult to definitively determine whether Leopold Center programs are currently

meeting visitor expectations based on the data collected in this study. However; when

asked this question, people did make general statements about what expectations they

had, but they also often ventured into questions for the researcher during this section,

83

very frequently regarding the goals of the organization. This question also elicited

many suggestions for improvement, especially when statements were made about

expectations not being met. Most of these suggestions were grouped and categorized

separately in these results. Regardless of the success of the study design in clearly

illuminating anticipated information about expectations, the researcher feels it is still

useful for the Aldo Leopold Foundation to review some of the comments that came

up in association with the expectations question. The following comments highlight

some of people’s responses in very general categories that emerged in analyzing

responses to the question about expectations:

Category One- Expected to connect with Aldo Leopold’s ideas

“I mean, I wanted this, part of the shack and farm tour to… I just I like the whole

notion of somebody who lived obviously very simply. And that intimate knowledge

of their parcel of land, you know they were so acquainted with and the hard work that

they put into that. That's just something that always has appealed to me or that kind of

a thing. And the tour doesn't disappoint you at all.”

“I was just looking for it to make connections with the book.”

“I really got this feeling of what his life was like. That was an expectation, a hope that

was met by the tour. I get a feeling of what it was like, what he was doing up here

and how the family lived, and that was neat.”

84

“Yeah, I came here wanting to know about the person and his ethic, and the

surroundings, and it was fulfilling that way because I got to see the way it was, by

way of photos, and the way it is now because it’s that comparison that really makes

the whole thing fit together. And to have the material things, the building and stuff

reflect what is his code of ethics and stuff, I thought was really interesting.”

Category Two- “I wanted to see the Shack”

“I just wanted to see the shack.”

“She said it, like, by getting into the shack and the amount of time you spent with us.”

Category Three- Wanted to see components of the Legacy Center

“Well, I expected to be blown away by the building. I’m just very interested in

architecture and the whole LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design]

thing, so I came with high expectation—and I was. It met my expectation.

“I had an expectation of the afternoon’s tour of the Center here and a resultant

disappointment when the expectations are met with reality, about seeing more of the

technical goodies behind the scene of the heating, cooling, ventilation systems, all the

pipes and valves. I have a mind like that, and I think that would have been the

frosting on the cake, not that I didn’t think anybody needed to understand it, but it

would have been impressive, shall we say?”

85

Category Three- Seeing the land/hiking outside

“I would have liked to walk around more on the land. There’s about 300 acres. I

think there’s a lot of it we didn’t see, and I would like to have seen more.”

“My expectations: We’d be walking when we got here, but it was split up good.”

“Some of us would like to have hiked. Are there trails that we’d do from here?

Category Four- General comments about expectations

“I expected at least a fifteen- to twenty-minute self-guided tour around the site, and I

kind of had my fingers crossed that I might be able to get a guided tour.”

“I thought, Wow, this is really low key. I guess I thought that was really good. I

don’t know of you can keep that or not. I just thought—you know, this is a historical

place. You know, even the other sites in Wisconsin, you drive and there’s a parking

lot and a bathroom and a kiosk and historic site plaque up. I had to kind of make sure

this was the spot. I thought, I’ve driven a ways here. This must be the spot. But this

is really—you just kind of have to take it in. They’re not going to tell you everything

in four-color panels as you’re walking around.”

What did people enjoy most about their visit?

The results presented here include responses taken from all parts of the

interview, but the specific question that addressed this area most directly was, “what

were your feelings about the tour?” Results are grouped into eight main categories.

86

Categories are listed here, followed by several representative quotes from each

category. Where possible, categories were titled using select words or entire quotes

that came directly from focus group participants.

Category One- “One person can make a difference.”

“Someone said today about what one person can do and what one family can do. I

kind of like that message.”

“Sometimes you’re not necessarily the prime mover or the prime participant but that

there’s other ways to fit into the cog by playing more of a supportive role. In this

case, surrounding the property.”

“One of the things that I really liked about it was connecting it with what he and his

family did, because I think it shows, like, this was one family and look how much

they were able to accomplish.”

Category Two- The sustainable/green features of the Legacy Center

“This is a blending of so many technologies. We have visited or been given lectures

on wind or on underground whatever you call them. But here, everything works

together, and you see how—you know, you don’t have just one technology, you have

a whole connected group of things that work together.”

87

“It was really very nice to see how green this building is. And to see it in practice.

And I am going to say this, because when I went into the bathroom and used the

toilet, I said, ‘Oh!’ You know, the dual flush and so forth. You know, it’s things like

that that you really see in practice, and you know what they’re talking about and so

forth. But I was really very impressed. And also seeing the rain—the way they have

it set up so that the rain is going off the roof and then back out into the rain garden

and all that kind of thing, and I was very interested in a lot of the things that you’ve

put to practice in this building. And I think it means a whole lot more when you’ve

seen it than when you’re just reading about them.”

“Well, it’s just a contemporary application of the concepts. The land ethic.”

Category Three- Tour guide technique

“[The] tour guide made the place come alive.”

“She was so genuinely excited about her delivery. She just got you all wrapped up in

everything.”

“Well, and I appreciated that she asked us questions.”

88

“I thought it was good. She’s knowledgeable. She’s personable. She did a good job

in conveying about him, that historic (background).”

Category Four- Links to Leopold past: artifacts, stories, pictures, video, Shack itself

“I mean, it's kind of neat to go in there and hold and touch his cane, and sit where he

sat and that kind of stuff.”

“Hearing the stories, it just makes the place come alive.”

“The photographs were neat. Like, this is, the treeline or that oak was there, and

there's a picture of it from like 1935. You really got a sense of how the terrain

changed.”

“I thought it was excellent. You know, beginning with the video.”

“It felt so really neat, being able to sit in there, with a large group of people, trying to

imagine what it would be like with seven people on a rainy day. I really enjoyed

that.”

“Also, any picture I’ve ever seen of the shack, you see the outside of the shack. I

mean, I was just, Boy, I hope they let us inside the shack.”

89

Category Five- Reading from A Sand County Almanac

“I liked using Leopold's own words and (getting) a little bit deeper entry into the

thought of the man.”

“I just remember when we were reading the book and just sitting outside the Shack,

and I looked across into the forest and was just listening to the words, and I go,

There’s the connecting. It was just kind of, There it is. I know how he felt from

that.”

“That was great, [the] connection with the book.”

Category Six- Enjoyed being out on the land

“[I liked] that there was just some time for quiet walking through the woods.”

“What I’ll probably take away the most is here, the surroundings. I’m really

impressed about everything.”

“And the description of the land. Because you know in a sense there's not a lot to see

you know it's not a big mansion like filled with artifacts, and all that kind of stuff. It's

about the land. The good oak. That was kind of neat.”

90

Category Seven- Connecting to Aldo Leopold’s ideas

“It was kind of equally rolled into one, and you made the connection of why, why he

did this and today, this is why he needed to do what he did to get to this point. I think

you made that connection very clear.”

“It’s not about the building. It's about the idea. Yeah, it's about the ideas and

connecting with someone's ideas. I think he's like, a Rachel Carson like Wendell

Berry or somebody like that who I wouldn't mind visiting.”

Category Eight- General comments reflecting positive feedback

“It was great. It was very interesting, informative, relaxing. I appreciated every part

of it.”

“Tremendous.”

“There’s such a good quality about this place, in the air, everything. There’s a really

good feeling about it.”

“A light bulb really went on when I was reading the storyboards in your exhibit room

out there.”

91

What would people like to see changed about the visitor experience?

The results presented here include responses taken from all parts of the

interview, but the specific question that addressed this area most directly was, “can

you suggest ways we can improve the tour?” Results are grouped into seven main

categories. Categories are listed here, followed by several representative quotes from

each category. Where possible, categories were titled using select words or entire

quotes that came directly from focus group participants.

Category One: Inadequate wayfinding signage

“One improvement I would like to see made would probably be over time and as

money was available, but that’s more signage. Mm-hm. Absolutely. From town out

here. If it hadn’t been for the guy’s [help], we might not have found you. On a road

that they said was closed.”

“I asked a lot of people in town, and they didn’t even know of this place. It wasn’t

until I went to the library and she said, ‘When you turn on Rustic Road, there’s no

sign, but you’re going the right way.’ It was, like you said, so unassuming that I

asked five people in town; they never heard of this place.”

“A sign for the entrance. Down at the bottom where we parked, we weren’t sure

there were all these trails and couldn’t tell where the entrance was. The entrance is

92

around the corner, and you can’t tell. I assume that was purposeful. Was it? Well, I

don’t know, but I assume that’s—environmentally friendly, shall we say?”

“This is pretty much off the subject, and I think he mentioned that this was a difficult

thing to accomplish, but [you should] keep working on it, and that’s getting better

signs to help people find their way here.”

Category Two- Improvements to tour content

“For instance, the material that’s on the walls in there. It would be interesting to—

Might want to do a ‘techie tour’ of building, and make it longer. As landscaping is

developed, the story will get longer and could be very specialized to specific

interests.”

“I personally was really confused about what the mission was here, about, like, is it a

visitor center? It’s called a foundation. So I did the land tour and shack tour in the

morning, and not until just before we saw the video on the Leopold family did I kind

of understand. Just an introduction to what you’re all about maybe earlier on. I had

no idea there was a fee, either.”

“This is not so much the building tour, but the Shack. Aldo’s chair And I was, like—

I was, like, ‘This thing is not gonna hold me. It’s, like, wiggling.’ It was, like, ‘Oh,

93

just sit in it.’ And I’m, like, ‘Well, okay, it’s not original.’ And she’s, like, ‘Actually,

that’s Aldo’s chair.’ What if I would have sat on it and it had broken? [It’s more] than

just seeing it as a museum piece. I think it’s cool, but…”

“Now, I have a suggestion in that I didn’t really know the Wisconsin River was in

close proximity or part of the original Leopold purchase or property, and that’s a

different dimension to me, pleasantly so, in terms of ecology and just as a resource

and as something beautiful to behold. I’m just wondering—and I even picked up

some stones down there that were sort of strange-looking, shiny black stones, and

your compatriot who led the tour didn’t know what they were, sort of metallic

looking. And I thought the geology of this country here, some aspects of that, might

be included in the tour, including the river and its changing direction. That would

seem somehow to blend, to mesh into the whole thing.”

“I have one thought about the people and energy today thing. What I didn’t hear but I

didn’t until you asked the question was, ‘You can try this at home.’ In other words,

‘If you’re interested in [it], we have a way to go here to find out more about

geothermal, go here to find out about solar panels, go here to find out about this kind

of insulation. If you’d like to follow up on any of these things, if you’re building or

remodeling, this is how you would do it.’ And you may have that up front, but I

don’t know that. But we’re from a [different place]—I mean, it couldn’t be, like,

94

Baraboo people because people come here from… Oh, yeah. Well, there’s still

Google addresses and information about it. It wouldn’t be the contractor to do it, but

it would go to focus on energy or go to, I don’t know, geothermal dotcom or

whatever, so you would then find out how to do it. I got to figure out that one.”

“I think drawing a little bit more from the naturalist realm. I mean, the prairie

restoration and pine plantings were mentioned, but there wasn’t a correlation or you

didn’t see that integrated into the feelings that Leopold had. I mean, here’s the shack,

here’s the inspiration, but for the average person, ‘What am I looking at here? It’s

just a bunch of tall grass.’ So of there were more of those types of biota-informative

stuff, the Karner blue butterfly relationship—I saw some lupine someplace along the

way, and so here’s a threatened species now that is regaining territory because of this

prairie restoration type of project. Natural history. Exactly, yeah.”

Category Three- Add new interpretive media: brochures, signage, web content

“Not everyone can tell the difference between a red and white pine. Use Eagle Scouts

to make signs.”

“If you want to promote green building, you should have more information on how

these things relate at the consumer level. You should develop a pamphlet for visitors

to take home that talks about the cost of green living technologies in the home.”

95

“I think what would be helpful, just as a handout, would be—and I joined the tour

late, so maybe I missed comments from [Anna] on this, but I didn’t hear her talking

about the various plants that were planted around.”

“When you get this study on the energy effectiveness at some point of completion,

with real data, I think it would be very helpful to have that as, if nothing else, a poster

session type of display. I’m thinking that in addition to the adults who are in the new

house mood, that there’s a large group of people, probably students, who need to

develop a sense that this is how the world is or this is how it ought to be. And having

something where they can do a project, do an extra credit kind of thing or, in the case

of science fair experiments, we can think of all kinds of questions, stuff of this nature,

which involves the person asking a question and gets them thinking about alternatives

which are not necessarily common. And that expands the number of people that pay

attention, when you have the little handout, where to go to learn about this stuff.”

“Just one thing with the tour of the building. The roof and how there are all these

layers. That’s kind of hard, I think, so even if you have something like a model of it,

just a little model or just a sort of cross-section.”

96

“The story of the wood and the different species, and for each room it would be great

to have some kind of a little sign that says, “On the floor is such-and-such” and the

chairs and the tables and the ceiling, the red maple in the ceiling and all that. That’s

another story that I think is very interesting to people.”

“Do you have the names of the artisans, like the person who did the glass doors? Is

that someplace? That would be great, because I think that’s really important.”

“And I’m a map person, and if there could be a satellite view of the site. Visual

people would get a lot of out of that. A map showing that this is 300 acres or 3,000

acres, and this is where we are in relation to Baraboo and— The whole philosophy

about being local.”

“I think that Anna said that there was going to be more some signs outside, probably,

some day. And it would be neat if there was a striking a balance of some subtle,

informative things that can teach people what they want to learn without having it just

be plastered all over the place. I mean, for me, having no idea—something at the

Shack may have been helpful. But at the same time, I can fully appreciate, you know,

this isn’t the kind of place for a lot of that. This place is probably more a place where

people are coming to learn things that don’t know things, and about the new

technologies or old technologies that are being rediscovered.”

97

Category Four- Improve general visitor services

“It would be nice to have a place to buy a cup of coffee, or a soda.”

“Oh, oh, oh, someplace where you could have lunch inside. I’d serve a pack lunch

that you could buy. That would be nice. That would be nice, and we’d have some

time when we left, saying, ‘Oh, we have to have some lunch.’ Take some lunch. But

I think it would be nice if there were some way you could have a vendor that served

environmentally green… sprouts.”

“I would like to spend more time down on the river. Yeah, a place to sit down there.”

“I heard talk about walking trails from here to the shack, walking/biking maybe.”

Category Five- Market yourselves to new audiences

“You could promote the place more through tourism brochures. It’s great, but you

have to know it’s here first.”

“Promote the tour program through senior centers that offer organized group tours.”

98

“Do you take students, young students through the same thing we did? Because that’s

where I think talking to younger students and really thinking about when they’re

really younger, especially now, when so many kids don’t get outside. They’re just

sitting in front of their computer or whatever. And just more of learning about nature.

I know they get that at school or wherever if their teachers really [stress it], but I just

think that that’s really important here. I think [you should be] doing things with

younger students. But just from all over, children from all over to be able to come and

visit and kind of get the message about respecting the land.”

“It would be neat for a bunch of little kids to come and sit in the Shack or sit around

on the benches and hear some readings or stories. But, I mean, you do need, I think,

to tap into the local school districts.”

“But maybe it’s—well, I have mixed feelings about that. You know, I mean, it would

have been a little easier this morning, but I like that you [don’t] have a whole bunch

of signs, so— The thing is, if you’re trying to get the message out of his land ethic,

the more people that come here—you know, it’s a mixed feeling about that. If more

people came here, more people would get Aldo Leopold’s land ethic message, and

that would be a good thing. And I don’t know if it might help you with your finances,

too, if you had more people going through. I also liked that there weren’t 8,000

people on the tour, you know? It would have been a big turnoff.”

99

“I had never heard of the Foundation, itself, and so I don’t know if there’s ways that

you could make that more public, whether it would be to have brochures at the Urban

Ecology Center in Milwaukee and the Maywood [sic; Maywood Environmental Park]

in Sheboygan. There’s one in Newburg. You know, that sort of thing. Maybe—

Schlitz Audubon Yeah, Schlitz Audubon, the Crane Foundation. If that’s what you

want, if you want more members and exposure.”

“I think you’ve got two potentially very separate topics. You’ve got the green and the

people who are interested in solar panels and so on and so forth, and the architects,

and then obviously the historian—you know, the historical as well as the

conservation, the use of the trees. I mean, holy cow, how many people can say, “We

planted them, and now they’re in a building that’s going to last a hundred years”?

It’s—Yeah, it’s a very enticing kind of story, and so in a sense, it’s two very different

markets, if you will, to get people come visit, I would think.”

“With the land you have here, with the teaching capabilities you have here, with just

the environment that you have here, it would seem that would be a fantastic marriage,

to be able to take a group of young people and specifically young people, and I don’t

mean teenage years probably, and be able to put them here in a camp or some sort of

learning facility that they could absorb here and do some of those things that

100

paralleled what Aldo Leopold did in the nature of, like, the CCCs or Youth

Conservation Corps. It’s just perfect to do that. That’ll be very beneficial, I think.”

Category Six- Develop new program offerings

“Have specific program on development of new technologies—like evolution of solar

panels over time.”

“I was going to say, possibly kind of a living Leopold experience. There was that one

man—I think he’s since passed on—who used to come to the Lodi reading, and he

would be Leopold.”

“On the Wisconsin River. Yeah, you use what’s-her-name, Nina’s canoes. I kind of

want to get out there.”

“And I will make one suggestion, and I’d be surprised if it hadn’t been thought of

before, but for at least members or visitors of record that you have one or two winter

tours to the Shack to try to replicate—a lot of snow, that first family visit— A cold

day. That was described to us this morning, and the fireplace going. You know, have

that going. That would be totally cool.”

“I think it will be information, like a class [on] this kind of vegetation.”

101

Category Seven- General suggestions for improvement

“A couple of people mentioned cost, an important component, to illustrate. I think

they probably have decided on how much more people are willing to pay to go green,

and they’re willing to pay more, but there’s a limit to how much more. And they may

find it’s not that much more on this kind of thing or something, but maybe it’s way

too much more on something else. Especially on a green building.”

“And when I think of it just in contrast with the whole Dells, I live in a part of the

state along the St. Croix River, and one of the common things said there is, ‘Well, we

don’t want to become like the Dells. We don’t want to become Dell-i-fied.’ You

don’t either.”

“I don’t know if you’re planning to exhibit stuff. Boy, it’s hard to keep exhibits

fresh. I’ve been to some Park Service places where the exhibits are twenty, thirty

years old, so I just hope you don’t invest in a lot of exhibit stuff that doesn’t change,

that isn’t evolving. I don’t think in the long run that’s great. I think people come to

see that once, and they don’t need to come back.”

Does the tour impact visitors’ attitudes about their own behavior and values in

relation to the environment?

102

This would be a difficult question to measure in any setting, and the casual

atmosphere of the 25-30 minutes following a tour program about these themes was no

exception. The researcher presents these results with the caveat that they do not

indicate any causal relationship between the tour program and behavior or attitude

based statements. However, people did talk about their own actions and attitudes

during the focus group interviews, both in response to the direct question about them,

and in the context of answering other questions. The exact question that was asked in

this section of the interview was, “We tend to try to draw a really strong connection

in the shack tour and in the building tour, in different ways, between people and land.

At the shack, we talk a lot about Aldo Leopold and his relationship to the land. Here

in the building we talk about our own impacts on land through energy use. I’m

curious if, after experiencing the tour program, you feel that your own attitudes about

your relationship to the land have been affected, and if so, how?”

Results are grouped into three simple categories. One had to do with a specific

kind of response (reinforcement of existing values), and the other two grouped

example-related statements. Sometimes people answered the question by sharing a

theoretical example, speculating about how they or others might apply the messages

in the tour in the future. Others provided a concrete example from their past behavior

or planned future behavior that demonstrate a respectful relationship to the land. In

essence, none of the comments indicated that any great change in attitude or behavior

was created by the tour program, but comments do show application of the central

103

idea: an ethical relationship between people and land. Categories are each followed

by several representative quotes. Where possible, categories were titled using select

words or entire quotes that came directly from focus group participants.

Category One- It reinforced what I’m already doing / my current values

“I think it fortifies what I’m reading, I’m hearing, I’m believing of myself. You

know, I can’t walk through this world and—Yeah. There has to be—there’s a word

I’m looking for. There has to be a response. There has to be some positive

response.”

“Validated things we’re already doing in our home- using alternate fuels.”

“I, I don't think I'm walking away saying.... you know, we're kind of on board

already. You know, uh... but, I did identify the buckthorn, so that's good. And we'll

really need to deal with that, but uh... but, yeah that whole business of, um, just the

whole idea of, of having to work in concert with nature.”

“It reinforced how one person can make a difference.”

“This just sort of reenergizes me, you know, about, you know, my efforts, and so I

might, you know, Well, I was thinking of doing this; well, there’s a better way to do it

104

or a more long-range way to do it. I think anyone who has come here has some

inclination or, you know, made some efforts, but I think coming here has just

recharged me, and I think it’s very positive.”

Category Two- Theoretical example

“I think that after, you know, the note of the Legacy Center itself though, you come

away and you just think, not only CAN [people] build things incorporating these

ideas, they... they.... they MUST do it along the way. You know, more of us in houses

and buildings and offices and everything. I mean, Gee, what a novel idea to be able to

open and close your own windows, to let in the cool air of the fall, you know?”

“But the fact that everything comes from—the woods were just within two miles.

That is a philosophy that I think people are really picking up on now.”

“You should take one concept, like rain gardens, and be able to take it away and

apply it in your own life.”

“I think any good nonfiction book should be sort of a call to action of some sort, and,

you know, to see it in practice is good. I don’t know that people who come here will

necessarily have the desire or the resources to do it themselves, but it may, at least on

105

a temporary basis, make them sort of consider some of their choices. Or maybe

they’ll recycle more.”

“You think—you know, if you’re talking to a contractor and they’re going, ‘Well, we

have this cheaper wood but it has bug holes in it.’ You know, like, ‘Huh! Bug holes?

That’s not going to look good.’ But if you actually see it, it’s like, ‘That actually

looks kinda cool.’ So to be able to showcase some of this reusable stuff here will

help people think a little bit better and go, Well, actually, you know, it’s not that bad.

And then it shows all the thought put in, and then they can put more thought into—

when they’re going to remodel.”

“I think you’ll probably find that the people that struggle enough to find this place are

going to be very ecologically concerned, almost all of them. They come with

different levels of activity, but they all care.”

“You know, we wouldn’t be in trouble here in this country if that philosophy would

exist—you know, more so. Mm-hm, mm-hm. Respect for the land. Yes.”

106

Category Three- Concrete example

“My wife has solved that problem, John. We wash those plastic spoons and forks.

We do often, yes. We’ve got bags of them in the basement I’ve taken home from

places. They [get] washed.” (Activity: re-using a traditionally disposable item)

“Somehow that just tied into all the recent economic news and everything with these

big corporations and what they’re doing, and also sort of an eco-conscious group I

belong to, a discussion group I belong to at Schlitz Audubon down in Milwaukee, that

many of us, to a degree, even my land, which is a lot of wetlands, 1,600 feet of Cedar

Creek frontage through Cedarburg—it’s tired and exhausted, a lot of what you would

consider trashy stuffs and a lot of invasives I’m trying to get rid of and all that. And

while I’ve mentioned earlier I feel sort of reinvigorated with some new ideas to do

more than I am, but other landowners, whose land in certain ways has been abused or

overused or misused, might be so inspired to restore it and return it to some form, at

least if only a portion of it, in which it existed many decades or centuries prior—

could be a growing trend if what you stand for in the Aldo Leopold Foundation and

what Aldo Leopold did was publicized more in terms of books, pamphlets, you know,

what you really stand for, because the message I got this morning—it was somewhat

of a surprise.” (Activity: participating in a discussion group with other individuals

about issues related to environment, trying to get rid of invasive species on land)

107

“I’ll say something because I own six acres of land on which I spend a lot of time on,

and I call myself, as my wife does, the steward of the land. And I spent time out there

yesterday, cleaning up willows along Cedar Creek in Cedarburg, all the dead

branches and so forth. We weren’t at the shack site twenty minutes when I had this

feeling like I wanted to be home, out on my own land, working and grooming,

stewarding, and now I’m thinking, ‘Planting. Yes.’ I have to get over my impatience

in that if I plant a seedling that’s going to—I may not live to see it as a mature tree,

but I have to get some satisfaction out of what I did, you know, what I accomplished.

I’m thinking about doing some things on my land now that are more and a little

different than I have been, since the morning, so it’s been a great experience.”

(Activity: removing weedy species, planting trees to restore land)

SUB PROBLEM 4 RESULTS

Sub problem 4: Determine the potential interest in Leopold Center

programming with a representative group of Sauk County tourists.

The following data illustrate the demographics and opinions of the small

sample (21 respondents, Group Three) of Sauk County tourists that completed the

questionnaire placed at the Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce. Their facility,

located at the intersection of US Highways 12 and 33 in West Baraboo, serves as a

portal of information about things to see and do in the Baraboo area.

108

Group Three Demographics

The majority of Group Three respondents (14 out of 20) were adults over the

age of 45. See Figure 16 for age data. Of respondents that correctly checked one box

in the gender category, there was an equal split between males and females (see

Figure 17 below). A small percentage misunderstood this section and checked both

gender boxes, incorrectly thinking the survey could be submitted as a joint or group

effort.

Figure 16. Sauk county tourist respondent ages.

N=20

1 = 18-24 2 = 25-34 0% 5%

109

Figure 17. Sauk county tourist respondent genders.

N=19

Group Three Geography

Most respondents (73.6 %) came from Wisconsin or neighboring states (Iowa,

Minnesota, and Illinois). Of the 19 responses, 21% came from other US states,

including Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, and Oregon. One response came from Ontario,

Canada.

Was Group Three a Representative Sample?

The Fall 2002 travel research study conducted by the Wisconsin Department of

Tourism indicated that of the 1,300 travelers to Wisconsin surveyed:

110

“There was a relatively even distribution within the age categories among

respondents between 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 years old. Each of these age groups

comprised approximately 20% of the interviewed visitors. Over one-half (54.9%) of

those surveyed were women and 45% were men.”

-Wisconsin Department of Tourism, “Four Season In-Market Leisure Traveler

Survey” (2003)

While geography of respondents was not reported in the Wisconsin

Department of Tourism study, the ages and genders reported indicate that while the

research sample taken in the Leopold Center study was small, it did proportionally

represent the ages and genders represented in the much larger Wisconsin Department

of Tourism study examining leisure travel to the state. However, the very small

sample size alone means this sample probably cannot be truly labeled

“representative.” It is notable, however, that respondent geography mirrored that of

current visitation to the Leopold Center.

Group Three Questionnaire Responses

Returned surveys totaled 21 responses. Some had not been filled out

completely, with certain questions left blank. Because questions were analyzed

separately, these incomplete questionnaires were included in the results because

omission of questions on specific surveys does not threaten the data as a whole. Blank

111

questions were simply omitted from analysis; therefore N values for each question do

not always total 21.

What do visitors plan to see and do while in the Baraboo area?

After covering basic demographic data, the questionnaire asked visitors to

share their plans for their visit. This was an open ended text response field, so results

were gleaned by performing a content analysis. There are more comments (N=26)

than total surveys returned (N=21), because sometimes people expressed more than

one idea in their responses. Five main activities emerged in this category, with

“visiting the Aldo Leopold Foundation” as the clear leader with 8 of 26 responses

(30.7%). The fact that tour passes to the Aldo Leopold Foundation were the incentive

for the study may render this result irrelevant, and this issue should be corrected in

future studies. Remaining categories almost all focus on some kind of outdoor

activity. This, like the demographic data, echoes the results of the Wisconsin

Department of Tourism 2003 study. See Table 16 below for categories.

Table 16. Sauk county tourist response categories: plans for Baraboo visit.

Categories: N=ALF 8Other 6Outdoor general 5ICF 4Devil's Lake State Park 3Total comments 26

112

Selected quotes from this question (all comments listed at Appendix N):

“Circus World, Aldo Leopold Legacy Center and Shack, International Crane

Foundation, Train Ride.” (Categories: ALF and Other)

“Visit APT, visit natural formations, state parks, Aldo Leopold Center, Crane

Foundation, NOT the tourist traps of the Dells. We have solar panels and are very

interested in conservation.” (Categories: Outdoor General, ALF, ICF)

“Camp Devil's Lake State Park, hike nature trails for birding, golf.” (Categories:

Devil’s Lake State Park, Outdoor General)

What level of interest do visitors have in subject areas that Leopold Center

programming addresses?

The questionnaire asked visitors to rank their interest in various subject areas.

Each subject is discussed separately, examining the average ranking assigned to it, the

range of responses, the median and mode, and total responses ranked in this subject

category. When reviewing the results, remember that the higher the average number

(the mean), the greater the interest in the subject. Questions were laid out in the same

way as the example question shown below:

113

3. How interested are you in the cultural and natural resources in Baraboo? (Circle a number on the scale below. 1 is the lowest level of interest, and 5 is the highest.) 1 2 3 4 5 not interested……………….somewhat interested……………………….very interested

__ Don’t know

To analyze responses, the researcher had to assign a specific text label to each

numeric code or check box that could be selected on the questionnaire. Since only three text

labels were included on the questionnaire next to five possible number choices, the researcher

had to assign more than one numeric code to one of the existing text labels, and add one text

label to better quantify responses. Future study design could eliminate this problem by

pairing the same amount of text labels with numeric choices on the written questionnaire.

Responses were coded as noted below:

1-2 = Not interested

3 = Somewhat interested

4 = Interested

5 = Very interested

0 = Don’t know

Subject One: Cultural and Natural Resources

Questionnaire text: “How interested are you in the cultural and natural resources in

Baraboo?” Responses shown at Table 17 below.

114

Table 17. Sauk county tourist interest: cultural and natural history

Cultural and Natural History interest

Mean (Average) 4.3Standard Error 0.16Median (Middle) 4Mode (Most common) 5Standard Deviation 0.7Minimum 3Maximum 5

Count (N=) 21

Subject Two: Conservation History

Questionnaire text: “How interested are you in learning about the history of

conservation in America, which has roots in Baraboo?” See Table 18 below.

Table 18. Sauk county tourist interest: conservation history

Conservation history interest Mean (Average) 4.3Standard Error 0.17Median (Middle) 5Mode (Most common) 5Standard Deviation 0.8Minimum 3Maximum 5Count (N=) 21

115

Subject Three: Environmentally Friendly Buildings

Questionnaire text: “How interested are you in learning about environmentally

friendly buildings?” Responses shown at Table 19 below.

Table 19. Sauk county tourist interest: environmentally friendly buildings

Green building interest

Mean (Average) 4.5Standard Error 0.15Median (Middle) 5Mode (Most common) 5Standard Deviation 0.7Minimum 3Maximum 5

Count (N=) 21

Familiarity with and visit interest in the Aldo Leopold Foundation

The final questions on the survey asked respondents to indicate whether they

were familiar with the Aldo Leopold Foundation (choices: yes, no, maybe) and how

interested they would be in visiting its Leopold Center, where programs focus on

conservation history and environmentally friendly buildings.

Over half of respondents (56%) indicated that they were not familiar with the

Aldo Leopold Foundation. “Yes” and “maybe” responses are represented equally,

with four responses and 22% of the total for each (see Figure 18).

116

Figure 18. Sauk county tourist familiarity with the Aldo Leopold Foundation.

Group three respondents rated their average interest in visiting the Leopold

Center at 4.71 (N=21) on a scale of 1 – 5, shown in Table 20 below.

Table 20. Sauk county tourist interest in visiting Leopold Center.

Interest in visiting Leopold Center

Mean (Average) 4.7Standard Error 0.12Median (Middle) 5Mode (Most common) 5Standard Deviation 0.56Minimum 3

Count (N=) 21

I •

---- ------------------

117

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Results are summarized not by sub problem, but by study group.

Demographic data from the entire study is discussed and interpreted in the final

chapter.

Group One Results Summary

Group one (self-guided visitors, 50 responses) had an overwhelmingly

positive overall experience, with 88% of responses falling into either the “good” or

“excellent” range. Their opinions of specific services were also generally positive, but

here there were more responses that suggested there is some room for improvement in

different areas. In the question about interpretive signage, 10% of responses indicated

the signs were poor or needed improvement, and 18% said they were just okay. Many

respondents (72%) thought signage was good or excellent. Similarly, most

respondents thought educational brochures were good or excellent (82%), but 10%

thought they were poor or needed improvement. A small number (8%) thought they

were just okay.

Almost half of respondents (49%) spent about an hour and a half on their visit.

A sizeable portion of respondents (37%) actually spent more than an hour and a half

on site, and only 14% spent less than an hour. The two most highly ranked subjects

that respondents wanted to learn about during their time on site were the Aldo

Leopold Shack and Farm (ranked with an average importance of 1.78, with 1 being

118

the highest importance) and Aldo Leopold’s life and family (ranked with an average

importance of 2.22). Respondents were also very interested in the green features of

the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, with an average importance of 2.27. The book A

Sand County Almanac was not usually listed as the most important topic—the

average ranking for this subject was exactly 3.

Just over a third (39%) of respondents used all three of the interpretive

materials evaluated: the welcome video, the interpretive signage posted around the

building and the self-guided Shack tour brochure. A larger percentage (41%) used at

least two of those interpretive tools to help guide their visit. A majority of

respondents (66%) thought the materials they used helped them learn about the

subjects they were most interested in learning about. 16% did not think they were

useful. Another 16% thought they were useful, but had suggestions for their

improvement. All respondents reported that they were either very likely or somewhat

likely to read or re-read the book A Sand County Almanac after their visit.

Group Two Results Summary

Group two (68 guided tour participants in 11 focus group interviews) had

decided to come on the tour for a variety of reasons: knowing and admiring the work

of Aldo Leopold, wanting to enjoy the outdoors, or having read or heard something

about the new center—from a friend, from the media, or through other organizations

or events. People were more familiar in general with Aldo Leopold (the person) than

119

they were with the Aldo Leopold Foundation (the organization) prior to their visit.

They had heard about Aldo Leopold fairly frequently via the book A Sand County

Almanac, encountered through their professional careers, school, or the

recommendation of a friend. When people had heard about ALF, they most often

knew about the organization because they had heard about it from a friend or read a

story about it somewhere.

Participants expected to be able to visually observe more of the inner

workings of the mechanical systems of the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center than they

were able to, but most people were surprised and delighted that they were able to

actually go into the Leopold Shack and interact closely with artifacts and photographs

on that portion of the tour. Stories about their ability to handle objects like Leopold’s

cane and sit in his chair are among the highlights of people’s favorite parts of the

tour. Photos that show visitors historic views of land and buildings from the same

vantage point were also a highlight for many. Even though many visitors wanted to

see more visual representations and “guts” of the green features of the center, seeing

the center in general was mentioned by many visitors as a favorite part of the tour as

well. Many focus group participants gave credit to their tour guide as the most

enjoyable component of the tour, citing the guide’s ability to “make the place come

alive.” Tour participants also enjoyed reading from A Sand County Almanac.

While not directly related to interpretation, lack of adequate directional

signage was perhaps the most common complaint and subsequent suggestion for

120

improvement in the focus groups. Another visitor services related comment that came

up several times was the suggestion to have food and beverages available on site,

various seating areas designated specifically for picnicking, and hiking trails to use

for self-guided nature exploration.

Perhaps one of the most pervasive topics of discussion in all of the focus

groups was about the audiences served by the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the

perceived need to market its offerings to various new audiences, most commonly a

younger audience of school children. The need for better promotion in general was a

theme, linked strongly to suggestions about better directional and orientation signage

discussed previously. This theme was also linked to information about the Aldo

Leopold Foundation itself. “What do you actually do here?” was a common question

that came up in focus groups. Most visitors had no idea, even after going on the tour

and spending three hours or more on the site.

Many participants wished aloud for more natural history content on the tours,

or suggested ideas for interpretive signage around the site that could highlight these

features, namely the prairie plantings around the center itself. Another suggestion that

came up in multiple focus groups was to have more illustrations and models about the

building’s green features that might not be visible to the naked eye, such as visual

aids to show what vertical geothermal wells in the ground or insulation materials in

the walls actually look like.

121

Many focus group participants felt there wasn’t a strong enough connection

on the building tour to their own personal lives. People had an overwhelming amount

of interest in how green techniques could be applied to their own homes, and often

expressed a wish for “simple steps” they could take to be greener in their lives in

general. They especially wanted more take-home material in this area, addressing

ideas for what they could do, costs of various green technologies, and resources for

planning green themed renovations or new construction.

Group Three Results Summary

Group three (Sauk County tourists, 21 responses) planned to partake in many

activities and attractions that have similarities to the program offerings of the Leopold

Center. In addition to direct mentions of plans to visit the Leopold Center (31%),

respondents listed plans to visit cultural attractions such as Circus World, American

Players Theater, or the North Freedom Train Ride (23%), go hiking or camping

(19%), visit the International Crane Foundation (15%), or go to Devil’s Lake State

Park (11%).

The next two metrics measured had the exact same statistical result: on

average, respondents’ interest in learning about both cultural and natural resources

and the roots of conservation history in Baraboo ranked at 4.3 on a scale of one to

five. Respondents had an average interest of 4.5 in learning about the topic of

environmentally friendly buildings.

122

Over half of respondents (56%) were not familiar with the Aldo Leopold

Foundation, but overall respondents had a high interest (an average of 4.7 on a scale

of one to five) in visiting the Aldo Leopold Foundation’s Leopold Center.

123

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STUDY SUB PROBLEMS

The discussion and recommendations chapter is organized by sub problem,

with the exception of one sub-topic: demographics. Because demographic data was

collected and reported in various ways in the study, it was presented in the results

chapter as a part of each sub problem. Here the researcher discusses demographics as

a whole in one section, since these results are best reported separately, but interpreted

together. Other sub problems were as follows:

1. Determine basic demographics and geography about the current population of

visitors to the Leopold Center. (discussed in the demographics section.)

2: Examine the visitor experience of people taking part in self-guided tours of

the Leopold Center and/or Leopold Shack.

3: Examine the visitor experience of people taking part in guided tours of both

the Leopold Shack and the Legacy Center.

124

4: Determine the potential interest in Leopold Center programming with a

representative group of Sauk County tourists.

DEMOGRAPHICS: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It was interesting to see so many U.S. states and countries all over the world

represented in the study, found in the analysis of the guest book data and through the

data collected with the three evaluation groups. As suspected, most visitors come

from Wisconsin and the Midwest, but a sizeable percentage also visit from nearly all

50 states, and there were visitors from at least 16 foreign countries. Guided tours of

the site have long begun with the introduction statement, “people come to this place

from all over the nation, and the world.” This study confirms that statement and adds

much needed detail to substantiate it.

During discussion and approval of the recently completed strategic planning

effort led by foundation staff, The Aldo Leopold Foundation Board of Directors

agreed that more structured reporting of ALF impacts is necessary to track the

success and advancement of the plan. Accordingly, the staff in all departments at

ALF are currently working on defining simple metrics that will track the success of

each objective in the plan, and planning strategies to measure them. The fact that on-

site interpretation is impacting such a wide-ranging geography certainly helps

advance some of the goals set forth by the education department in their section of the

plan. In general, data such as accurate and completely reported figures about public

125

visitation demographics and geography will likely be able to play a key role in

advancing objectives defined by not only the education department, but many other

departments as well. Demographic data collection and analysis should continue

indefinitely.

Not only does this kind of information help substantiate and support

programmatic goals as indicated above, but it can be quite useful for informing the

organization’s fundraising and marketing efforts as well—both crucial activities for

any non-profit organization. Marketing and fundraising activities can clearly benefit

from a complete and accurate demographic picture of the target audience. It would be

interesting to compare the demographic results in this study with a report showing the

demographic makeup and geographic representation of the membership of the Aldo

Leopold Foundation. If, as the researcher suspects, the demographic profile of the

membership mirrors (at least to some degree) the demographic profile of the public

visitation, the planning of an evaluation of member services (a project the Aldo

Leopold Foundation has long planned but has not yet tackled) could be dovetailed

with plans to conduct future visitor evaluations.

In bi-weekly staff meeting reports, ALF membership staff has indicated that

people who have interacted with the education program create a significant number of

new and renewed memberships each year. Therefore, the activities of the education

department should be viewed as direct and powerful promotional tools to drive

membership in the organization. Anecdotal observations by the researcher and many

126

of the programmatic ALF staff indicate that there are strong parallels between the

interests and motivations of visitors and the membership audience. Therefore, the

demographic results reported here should certainly be compared with membership

demographics to determine the degree of similarity, and future research can target the

most commonly represented demographic groups in both audiences to advance both

membership and education department goals.

The researcher recommends a literature review focusing on research that

reports the motivations of baby boomers (the age group represented most strongly in

this study). It would prove very useful in helping to interpret the results presented

here, further informing the visitor experience plan. It would also inform the design of

a member survey if demographic similarity between the groups is confirmed.

Regretfully, this study did not ask respondents whether they were already members of

the Aldo Leopold Foundation, whether they had decided to join that day, or whether

they had plans to consider membership in the future. Future interpretive evaluations

should try to capture this data.

SUB PROBLEM 2 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Examine the visitor experience of people taking part in self-guided tours of the

Leopold Center and/or Leopold Shack.

The numbers tell us that most visitors (consistently over 65%) enjoyed not just

the visit overall, but specific parts of it such as the signage or the subjects these

127

materials highlighted. However, there were a notable number of responses that

suggest there is room for improvement.

Some of their comments reveal things that can and should be improved about

the self-guided offerings. Others (such as joking comments about making the weather

nicer or complaints about all the mosquitoes) cannot realistically be addressed. Nearly

all of the pertinent comments suggesting improvements can be consolidated into one

simple phrase: we want more information! Visitors mostly liked the existing

interpretation materials, but they also wanted to see more signage, brochures, and

other interpretive media to help them enjoy the site and learn about their chosen

topics of interest. Because the very nature of self-guided visits means variability… in

time of arrival, time spent on the site, goals of the visit, and subjects of interest… this

means that future self-guided interpretive materials should aim to strike a balance that

achieves consistent presentation of key information in a variety of formats that suit

different visitors’ schedules, interests, and abilities. Interpretation should be designed

with a layered approach, allowing visitors who want more information to do in-depth

exploration of messages by interacting with supplemental media, which could be

facilitated through computer kiosk displays, message hierarchy on signs, an audio

tour with selectable tracks, numerous video choices for viewing, and durable book

format supplements to exhibits.

These plans will also be limited by the available budget to develop and

produce self-guided interpretive materials, and by ALF’s own expertise and resources

128

as an organization. Since funding is always limited, prototypes of materials should

always be tested with visitors before final production if possible.

Specific areas suggested for new media development include plant labels and

an identification key, signage that visually illustrates some of the more complex and

invisible technologies that make the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center environmentally

friendly, real-time digital readouts that report on the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center’s

performance in areas such as solar power generation, and brochures that explain what

the motivated visitor can do once they leave the site to support the principles on

display there.

Some of these suggestions can and should be implemented for a reasonably

low cost, like the plant labels and the ID key. Others, such as illustrated diagrams

explaining complex technologies such as how a heat pump works, may be able to be

produced efficiently if ALF is able to capitalize on the efforts of the many engineers

currently writing technical reports about the building’s performance. This assumes

that the content produced for such technical reports will be appropriate and

understandable for a general public audience. If they are not or if such diagrams are

not being developed, ALF is fortunate to have a temporary fellow in residence

through the end of August 2009, Dr. Michael Utzinger of the School of Architecture

and Urban Planning at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Dr. Utzinger

designed most of the mechanical systems in the building, so education staff should

129

take advantage of his presence to develop and review educational materials about the

building itself that are both technically accurate and user friendly.

Other improvements will likely have to wait until major funding sources are

secured to cover their installation. One example of a more expensive interpretive

component would be the installation of real-time meters in public visitor areas to

display data such as electricity generated by the photovoltaic cells or the temperature

of the fluid in the floor at any given moment. However, it is possible that such

strategies could be beta tested by using a laptop computer to display these results

from an already existing computer interface that the staff uses to control the system.

ALF would need to address security concerns about visitor access to sensitive data on

computer systems before moving forward with any such plan.

Some suggestions would be financially feasible, but are unwise because of the

current expertise of the Aldo Leopold Foundation staff and its own strategic plans

about what subject areas will make up its programmatic focus. An example is the

frequent suggestion by visitors that ALF develop a wide range of brochures,

handouts, and web-based information on a wide array of green products, services, and

technologies. This begs the question, “does an organization based in one of the

greenest buildings have to be about green building?” The researcher does not

necessarily think so, but recommends that ALF capitalize on the clear and admirable

interest of its visitors in living more sustainably, since this clearly aligns with its goal

of inspiring people to adopt and implement Aldo Leopold’s vision of a land ethic in

130

their own lives. However, materials should focus on broad subject areas related to

sustainability, and the staff should complete a thorough resource review that will

identify the most appropriate resources to refer visitors to for learning more about all

aspects of green and sustainable living. ALF is not currently, and should not pretend

to be in the future, an expert on all things “green.” Many appropriate organizations in

the state, the region and the nation exist that name this as one of their primary goals.

The Aldo Leopold Foundation has already developed a basic list of these

organizations, and it should be expanded and updated on a regular basis, and shared

with visitors in a number of ways.

ALF-produced materials should stress that adopting a sustainable lifestyle is a

lifelong pursuit that involves self-directed research and questioning… there are no

easy answers here. Perhaps the best advice to give, if any advice is to be given at all,

is to adapt advice from an article entitled “Will the Consumer Conserve?” that was

published in a recent edition of the ALF member publication, The Outlook. The gist

of the article was, “buy less, buy local, and buy certified.”

As one of the current ALF interpretive signs asserts, “much of the current

debate about energy in America focuses on finding new sources of energy. A huge,

untapped opportunity is energy conservation.” Aldo Leopold himself supported this

basic idea in a paper entitled “Engineering and Conservation,” based on a talk he

gave in 1938. He concluded the paper with this quote:

131

“We end, I think, at what might be called the standard paradox of the 20th

century: our tools are better than we are and grow better faster than we do.

They suffice to crack the atom, to command the tides. But they do not suffice

for the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling

it (Leopold quoted in Flader and Calicott, 1991, p.254).”

Leopold is pointing out that we have a duty to take on greater ethical

responsibility as we develop technologies that impact the earth. ALF’s interpretive

materials should take Leopold’s lead on this topic, and stress our ethical

responsibilities more so than any one “green” technology or practice. One of the

greatest strengths of Leopold’s “Land Ethic” essay is that it does not preach about

what is right and what is wrong. It merely lays out a set of philosophical guidelines to

aid the reader in making these decisions himself. Then Leopold goes so far as to say

that “I have purposely presented the land ethic as a product of social evolution

because nothing so important as an ethic is ever ‘written.’ …. It evolves in the mind

of a thinking community” (Leopold, 1949). ALF’s interpretive materials should seek

to engage that thinking community, perhaps by offering more questions than answers.

The researcher suggests the central question, “what does Leopold’s land ethic mean

to you?”

A final notable set of results from the Group Two results pertains to A Sand

County Almanac. The current strategy being suggested in ALF’s master interpretive

132

plan is to use the Almanac as an organizing principle and base for all interpretation on

the site, so ALF staff have been quite curious to see how the importance of the book

would emerge in the data. The data present interesting and somewhat contradictory

information about visitor opinions of the Almanac. Of the subjects presented on the

questionnaire, the Almanac ranked lowest in visitor interest, followed only by the

“other” category, which offered a smattering of suggestions of unlisted areas of

interest, none of which were ranked as most important to any one visitor. Conversely,

every respondent in the study indicated that they would probably be reading or re-

reading A Sand County Almanac after their visit.

This introduces a series of chicken-and-egg type questions: Do visitors come

to the site because of the Almanac, or do they come to the site to be reconnected to

the Almanac? What about visitors who come to the site knowing nothing about the

Almanac? Is having people want to read the book after a visit ALF’s core goal?

Regardless of their original intent, does featuring the book strongly in interpretation

meet the needs of most visitors? Would visitors who mainly want to learn about Aldo

Leopold, green building, or to see the Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm be disappointed

by exhibits that use A Sand County Almanac as a central organizing component?

Quite often in department and staff meetings, ALF discusses the question of what its

programs should be most about—Aldo Leopold, or the Aldo Leopold Foundation.

This study has revealed another question: should interpretation be about Aldo

133

Leopold? Or should it be about A Sand County Almanac? Perhaps it should be about

the Aldo Leopold Foundation?

The researcher believes that this debate is useful, but not critical. In essence, A

Sand County Almanac can be viewed as a tool for learning about both Aldo Leopold,

and the current activities and goals of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, both of which

point to the land ethic as the most important and powerful take-away message for all

visitors, regardless of their interest. The simple fact that many visitors in this study

didn’t come to the site thinking that the book was the most important subject doesn’t

preclude its importance and power as a teaching tool to achieve understanding of the

land ethic concept.

A Sand County Almanac has sold two and a half million copies and has been

printed in 11 different languages. It was named to the New York Public Library's

Books of the Century (http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/events/booklist.html) and

one of its essays (“The Geese Return”) has been highlighted in the national textbook

used by all middle schools in China. Clearly, the book has measured impacts and

power. The researcher feels that the overwhelming response of visitors in this study

indicating their plans to read or re-read the book indicates that the debate about the

importance of the book versus other topics is about as important as the original

chicken and egg debate, which is to say not at all. Qualitative research collected in

other parts of the study support this statement as well, shown through focus group

134

comments about the impact of connecting to the Almanac, and the self-guided

questionnaire responses indicating plans to read or re-read the book after a visit.

SUB PROBLEM 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Examine the visitor experience of people taking part in guided tours of both the

Leopold Shack and the Legacy Center.

Tour participant motivations for visiting align with the researcher’s and ALF’s

expectations—there are two main reasons people come to the site: because they are

familiar with Aldo Leopold or one of his published works, or because they heard

about the green building through the media, or their profession. Many of the public

tour visitors who participated in this part of the study revealed themselves as

belonging to ALF’s pre-defined target audience groups through their comments.

There were comments about being retired teachers, working in the conservation

profession, and being a current or former student inspired by Leopold’s work. To

clarify, the comments to which the researcher is referring were taken from the non-

targeted focus groups. The researcher did specifically target a group of educators, a

group of conservation professionals, and a group of students through specific focus

groups just for them, but it was interesting to see that members of these target

audiences were present in other general focus groups as well.

Another primary reason for visiting was word of mouth and/or media, and this

links to one of the chief suggestions for improvement offered by many focus group

135

participants: promote yourselves better! Visitors had different ideas about the

methods ALF should employ to recruit new audiences, but they had a surprising

amount of agreement on one audience that is not currently targeted by the Aldo

Leopold Foundation: young school children.

The Aldo Leopold Foundation has intentionally decided not to target children

younger than grade nine on the site for a number of reasons. One, the content of the

tour is deeply philosophical in nature and therefore is out of the grasp of most middle

school students. An adapted program could be developed, but this would take time

and most certainly added staffing capacity. A second reason for not targeting younger

audiences is that these audiences are already served by a good number of

environmental education centers targeting this age group in the region, one of which

has specific programs about Aldo Leopold and even has a mini replica Shack on site

(the Aldo Leopold Nature Center in Monona). Finally, the Shack itself is somewhat

fragile, and despite efforts to maintain and preserve it in its rustic state, it is already

seeing the impacts of increased visitation. Minimizing visits to the Shack itself,

especially by busloads of 6th graders, will continue to be a high priority for the Aldo

Leopold Foundation. The persistent teacher may still argue that the Aldo Leopold

Legacy Center tour is appropriate for young students. Perhaps young people would

like to learn about green building, but would they like to learn about sustainability

and ethics? Perhaps, but the ability of the staff and the potential return on the

136

investment that would be required to meet this need for all the young school children

in the area is debatable at best.

In his now-classic book about the disconnect happening between children and

nature, Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv asserts that perhaps the most powerful

tool for connecting young people with the natural world around them is the influence

of their own families or adult mentors (Louv, 2005).

The Aldo Leopold Foundation will serve younger audiences in several ways.

One will be to create exhibits that are appealing to all the learning modalities,

meaning that if children come to the site (perhaps on a visit with family), they will be

able to take part in interactive, hands-on learning that will engage them and other

audiences. ALF is also developing a “for kids by kids” audio tour of the ALLC with

the help of two local teens, which will be available as a free podcast or on a miniature

mp3 player that can be rented at the visitor desk.

Another strategy for ALF to reach children is through its programs and

materials targeted at educators, in a “train the trainer” approach. ALF is taking on

increasing responsibility in one of its key partnerships, cooperating more and more

with the Leopold Education Project (LEP), a project of Pheasants Forever which has

produced a national curriculum targeted to K-12 students, based on A Sand County

Almanac. In fact, ALF is taking a leadership role in planning, promoting, and running

LEP’s national conference in June 2009. By working more closely with LEP and

continuing to maintain relationships with professional networks such as the National

137

Association for Interpretation and the Wisconsin and North American Associations

for Environmental Education, the Aldo Leopold Foundation can produce and share

educational materials through these existing networks. By working with formal and

non-formal educators as a target audience, the Aldo Leopold Foundation can multiply

the effect it is able to have on young people through its interpretive offerings without

having negative impacts on the Shack site, and without needing to greatly increase

education staff capacity.

Further addressing the idea of the fragility of the Shack site, it is important to

note visitors’ reactions to being allowed in this special place. Some were awestruck

by the opportunity, and noted the unique power of getting close to the objects, places

and landscapes associated with Aldo Leopold’s life. Visitors appreciated being in the

actual setting and context of Leopold’s historic use of the Shack property. Others

noticed the fragility of certain items and worried aloud about the horror of possibly

being the person that would end up breaking them. These visitors’ comments are

wise, and point to the fact that the Aldo Leopold Foundation should do a full

assessment of its curatorial practices, and develop a formal management policy for

artifacts and the Shack site itself, something it has not yet done. It has already taken

some important steps in the right direction, having established a relationship with the

preservation staff at Taliesin in the last year, and securing funding to complete a

Historic Structures Report, which includes recommendations for ongoing

conservation work to ensure the preservation of the Shack (Chadek, 2003).

138

Where possible, both personal and non-personal interpretation should employ

the use of objects, places and landscapes associated with Aldo Leopold. If they are

durable and can be handled or visited without risk of possible damage or destruction,

visitors should be allowed to do so. If they are fragile, they should be worked into

displays where they are viewable but not within reach. The actual Shack site itself

should be closely monitored for impacts to the land. The Board of Directors has

suggested defining metrics about trail impacts and Shack wear and tear. The

researcher supports this suggestion. Some items (such as manuscript drafts) may

serve visitors well in duplicate format, with lamination or a more permanent casing to

facilitate long-term use and handling by many.

Another set of results on the guided tour visitor experience deals with the

content on tours that is outside of the subject matter of current offerings. Examples of

subjects suggested by focus group participants include natural history information

such as geology, phenology, the Wisconsin River, and prairie restorations, and

technical content such as a tour of the mechanical room that houses the systems

which regulate many of the heating, cooling, and electrical functions of the Aldo

Leopold Legacy Center.

There are a few limiting factors to expanding the current tour program in this

area. One has been discussed earlier, and that is the perhaps limited ability of ALF

staff to create simple visual illustrations of complex technologies. If this can be done

139

with minimal investment of time and financial resources, it is certainly in high

demand by both self-guided and guided visitors to the site and should be pursued.

Another limiting factor is time available on the tour, combined with the

amount of time visitors typically spend on guided tour experiences at a non-formal

education site. The current guided tour program of the Shack and center lasts about

three hours. Most tours end up running out of time before all the potential information

on various key topics can be shared.

Quite often on building tours, the group does not go to the basement of the

center because they have run out of time, and the group needs to depart, or the tour

guide needs to be ready to lead a program for another group. Another reason the

basement is often skipped is that tours are led primarily by interns in the education

department. It is notable that various aspects of tour guide skill and ability were

mentioned as highlights in nearly every focus group conducted, so they should be

commended for their efforts. Interns have varying experience with education and

interpretation, but only in exceptional cases do they have expertise and background

on air handling units, ground source heat pumps, geothermal tanks, and solar

inverters. Staff training materials have been constantly revised and developed since

the center’s inception in April 2007.

As the training materials improve, tour guide confidence in the basement as a

tour stop will certainly improve, but the fact remains that a certain type of visitor—

140

the “techies”—will always want more information about the mechanical systems than

what is provided on a standard tour for the public.

On the Shack tour, content delivered includes basic biographical information

about Aldo Leopold, basic cultural and natural history of the site relevant to

Leopold’s time, information about restorations done by Aldo Leopold and their status

today, and stories about the Shack itself, and how it and the surrounding landscape

inspired the essays in A Sand County Almanac. Tours attempt to weave explanations

about the work of the Aldo Leopold Foundation into the Shack tour content.

Many tour participants were disappointed to not have received more current

natural history interpretation on Shack tours, such as more detailed descriptions of

current land management philosophies and practices, or interpretive information not

directly related to Aldo Leopold, such as general information about wildlife species

or plants and habitats found on site.

To address these concerns, the researcher recommends three things. One is

better interpretive signage where appropriate, discussed in sub problem two of this

chapter. Two is better promotion of the already existing Woodland School half day

and full day workshop series, which already covers many of the natural history

subjects suggested, led by experts from all over the region. The third is a new

program offering that has been implemented at the Leopold Center in 2009, called the

Expert Tour Series. On a regular basis throughout the visitation season, people can

sign up for a special program at either the Shack or the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center,

141

led by experts and containing high level information in focused subject areas.

Programs will last three hours each (shorter than a half-day or full-day Woodland

School workshop, and the same length as the current public combination tour).

Scheduled Expert Tour Series presenters in 2009 include Dr. Michael

Utzinger (mechanical systems designer), Dr. Curt Meine (Leopold’s biographer), Dr.

Stan Temple (emeritus chair of the department founded by Aldo Leopold at UW-

Madison), Joel Krueger (building architect), Buddy Huffaker (ALF Executive

Director), Matt Millen and Jim Erickson (historic building roofer and Taliesin

preservation staff, respectively), Steve Swenson (ALF staff ecologist) and Trish

Stevenson (daughter of Nina Leopold Bradley, and Aldo Leopold’s granddaughter).

Pending the interest and attendance for the series in 2009, continuing this strategy

could be the best way to meet the needs of a more general public audience and a

highly specialized professional audience through different tour program offerings

tailored to match peak visitation times and subject areas of interest.

A very prominent result that emerged in the analysis of focus group interviews

was the lack of adequate directional and orientation signage to the site. This is being

addressed as this thesis is being written, with directional signage, a main sign for the

parking area, and several new orientation signs being installed in early spring 2009.

Somewhat related is the set of results that points to the fact that visitors are somewhat

confused about what ALF does, or why it employs 12 staff in a $5.9 million dollar

green facility. Some visitors linked their comments about the lack of signage to

142

speculations that ALF had a grand plan to lead by example in austerity, and was

displaying ragged, hard to read signs as a part of its mission to exemplify the land

ethic.

However, it is clear that not all visitors fully grasp the implications of what

this kind of approach would entail… if this were truly the goal of the Aldo Leopold

Foundation, it would probably not produce any printed materials at all (too much

paper and ink wasted), and it might not have any staff on site (the impact of their

driving would be too great). These are extreme examples, but they are worth pointing

out because they represent the often incorrect assumptions made about what it means

to live sustainably. People seem to have at least one correct perception—that the land

ethic means putting everything through a new kind of filter, and asking these kinds of

questions of oneself. Does the Aldo Leopold Foundation really need a huge sign out

front? The researcher thinks they do—perhaps not huge but visible and professional.

A primary goal of the organization is to build membership, and this can be achieved

by creating a positive visitor experience. Visitors frustrated that it took them hours to

find the site, or visitors that never find the site at all are not likely to become future

donors.

On that note, there was a significant lack of understanding and knowledge

among tour participants about the work and purpose of the Aldo Leopold Foundation.

Many visitors on tours, when shown the office spaces, can’t imagine what all those

people (nine full-time permanent staff and four to five seasonal interns) need a desk

143

and a computer for, and what work they might do to advance the work of the

organization which has built this building they are touring. The researcher has several

recommendations here. One general recommendation is to more fully integrate

information on the work of the foundation into all educational programs and

materials: brochures, magazine, tour content, etc. Currently the Shack tour holds most

of the content about the work of ALF. Visitors can choose to just come on a tour of

the building, and in its current format they are likely to remain confused or ignorant

about ALF’s mission and focus. All interpretive content, personal and non-personal

interpretation alike, should present information about the organization. This will

satisfy visitor curiosity about the topic, and will drive membership and support of the

organization as well.

One specific project the researcher perceives is needed is a revamped web

interface that clearly explains the work, mission, and vision of the Aldo Leopold

Foundation alongside clearly organized pages about its many programs and services.

A second, related recommendation is the development of a simple, tri-fold brochure

about all educational programs and services offered on site. These programs include

the guided and self-guided public tour program, the classes offered through the

Woodland School, meeting facility rental available at the Aldo Leopold Legacy

Center, and basic information on the history, mission and vision of the Aldo Leopold

Foundation, paired with simple hours of operation and a locator map. Both of these

144

two projects (the website redesign and the brochure) are in the process of being

completed in early 2009.

The final set of results deals with the impact of the tour program on visitor

behavior. As indicated in the results chapter, the researcher does not pretend to be

able to draw a causal relationship between the tour program and behavior through this

research. However, the very idea that visitors want to apply ideas presented in the

tour to their own lives (as evidenced by their many pleas for more take-home

information on what they can do, cost of green building techniques and materials, and

resources for implementing projects) is strong evidence that their personal behaviors

and attitudes have been impacted in some way. Whether tour participants will act on

their inspiration to “green” their lives is not clear from the results of this study, but in

nearly every focus group, people talked about things they are already doing, things

they plan to do, and things they think others should be doing that support Leopold’s

concepts of a land ethic and land health. This is a sign of success, for the tour

program aims to spark discussion and debate, which ALF believes leads to

responsible action of its own accord.

SUB PROBLEM 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4: Determine the potential interest in Leopold Center programming with a

representative group of Sauk County tourists.

145

This part of the study was fraught with problems, since it was planned as a

series of personal interviews and had to switch over mid-study to a written

questionnaire. Without adequate time to present the questionnaire to the audience

targeted by this part of the study, the sample size was quite small and the results may

not be significant because of this limitation. In addition, the instrument was

administered by the staff of an outside organization. Many questionnaires that were

returned were incomplete, or were filled out incorrectly. Future studies of a similar

nature should work to correct these problems.

Whatever validity exists in the data, it is interesting that it reveals great

interest in both the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the topics covered in its public tour

program offerings. However, this could have been affected by the fact that the

incentive for completing the questionnaire was free tour passes to the Leopold Center.

The researcher recommends cooperating with area attractions and the Baraboo

Chamber of Commerce in the future to plan a more comprehensive study that would

collect data relevant to all the sites involved, and that would be administered through

the Baraboo Chamber of Commerce website in addition to their physical location in

Baraboo. Participation incentives should not be related to any of the sites, to avoid

skewing the results.

146

CONCLUSION AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The interpretive programs and media currently in place at the Aldo Leopold

Foundation meet and at times exceed the needs and expectations of the visitor in

many ways, but there are clear opportunities for expansion of offerings that will

engage the visitor even further, advancing not only the goals of the education

program, but those of the Aldo Leopold Foundation as a whole. This study’s

recommendations will be shared with the team working on the visitor experience

plan, currently awaiting a funding decision from the National Endowment for the

Humanities (NEH). The grant proposal that was submitted to NEH in January 2009

addresses the basic recommendations discussed in this study, but further review will

strengthen and substantiate its content. Comparing the results of this study with the

grant proposal should take high priority for completion before the funding decision is

announced in September 2009.

If the funding is secured, the Aldo Leopold Foundation will be installing

major new interpretive and visitor services components on the site by the spring of

2011. Beta testing of interpretive components should continue throughout this time

period, as should visitor evaluation. The methods employed by this study resulted in

detail-rich, dense information about what visitors experience on guided tours. It also

included in-depth information about the self-guided visits presented in a more

digestible quantitative format.

147

Noting the visitor studies literature, a mixed approach using qualitative and

quantitative methods is still probably best for the future, but more weight should be

put on quantitative research methods. The many pages of qualitative data produced in

this study should be viewed as an investment in the design of future quantitative

studies with audience groups, allowing the busy education staff to continue to meet

measurement and evaluation objectives while still being able to refer back to the

detail-rich visitor stories captured in this study that so powerfully describe the impact

of the land ethic on visitors:

“I think that… you come away and you just think, not only CAN [people] build

things incorporating these ideas, they... they.... they MUST do it along the way.”

-Aldo Leopold Foundation guided tour participant, May 2008

148

LITERATURE CITED

Aldo Leopold’s Place in Conservation History Cronon, B. (1996). The Trouble with Wilderness, or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.

Environmental History , 1:1 (January 1996), 7-55 Flader, S. and Calicott, J.B. (1991). The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by

Aldo Leopold. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford

University Press, New York Lorbiecki, M. (1996). Aldo Leopold: A Fierce Green Fire, Oxford University Press, New

York Louv, R. (2005, 2008) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit

Disorder, Algonquin Books, New York, NY McKibben, B. (1989). The End of Nature, Random House, New York Meine, C. (1988). Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,

Wisconsin Meine, C. (2004). Correction Lines: Essays on Land, Leopold, and Conservation, Island

Press, Washington, D.C. Summers, G. (2006). Consuming Nature: Environmentalism in the Fox River Valley, 1850 –

1950, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Characteristics of Effective Interpretive Planning Brochu, L. (2003). Interpretive Planning: The 5-M Model for Successful Planning Projects,

The National Association for Interpretation, Fort Collins, CO Gross, M. and Zimmerman, R. (2002). Interpretive Centers: The History, Design and

Development of Nature Centers, UW-SP Foundation Press, Stevens Point, WI Gross, Zimmerman, and Buchholz. (2006). Signs, Trails and Wayside Exhibits.UW-SP

Foundation Press, Stevens Point, WI Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage, University of North Carolina Press

149

Best Practices in Program Evaluation Bitgood, S. (1988). An Overview of the Methodology of Visitor Studies. Visitor Behavior, 3

(3), 4-6. Butler, P. and Loomis, R. (1993). Evaluation for an Historic House Museum: The Moody

Mansion as a Case Study. Visitor Studies, 5 (1), 154-164. Diamond, J. (1999). Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and other Informal

Educational Settings, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA Environmental Education and Training Partnership (EETAP). (July-August 2007) Applied

Environmental Education Program Evaluation online course, NR 610. (Dr. Janice Easton, professor)

Fischer, D. (1997). Visitor Panels: In-House Evaluation of Exhibit Interpretation. Visitor

Studies, 9 (1), 51-62. Ham, S. H. (1986). Social Program Evaluation and Interpretation. Chapter 1 in Interpretive

Views Evaluating Interpretation in the National Park Service, Machlis, G.E. (ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association, 9-37.

Korn, R. (1994). Studying Your Visitors: Where to Begin. History News, 49 (2), 23-25. Matyas, B. (1991) Beyond Studying the Visitors: Addressing the Needs of Decision Makers.

Visitor Studies Today, 4 (2), 10-11. Moscardo, G. (1999) Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Sustainable Visitor

Experiences through Effective Communication, Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL Renner, N. and Adams, M. (2003). Learning by Doing Exhibit Evaluation at the San Diego

Natural History Museum. Visitor Studies Today, 6 (1), 21-27. Rubenstein, R. (1991).Focus Groups and Front-End Evaluation. Visitor Studies, 3 (1), 87-93. Scriven, C.G. (1989). Formative Evaluation: Conceptions and Misconceptions. Visitor

Studies, 1 (1), 73-82. Wells, M and Butler, B. (2002). A Visitor Centered Evaluation Hierarchy. Visitor Studies

Today, 5 (1), 5-11. Other Sources Auerbach, C. (2003) Qualitative Data: an Introduction to Coding and Analysis, New York

University Press, New York, NY

150

Chadek, Art, Architectural Services LLC. “The Aldo Leopold Shack Historic Structure Report,” Baraboo, WI: Aldo Leopold Foundation resource library, 2003.

Leedy, P. and Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design, 8th edition.

Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Strauss, A. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Second Edition: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications Wisconsin Department of Tourism. (2003). 2002-2003 Four Season In-Market Leisure

Traveler Survey. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Tourism

1

 

Appendix A: Evaluation Plan

Group One: Self Guided Visitors

Evaluation Questions addressed:

1. Why do participants visit—what are they interested in?

2. Do the self-guided tour options meet those interests adequately?

3. How can self-guided tour options be revised to better meet the interests of the visitor?

4. General demographic information

Procedures :

A written questionnaire will be developed. Questionnaires will be made readily available

in the reception area of the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, next to prominent signage

mentioning the incentive of receiving a free copy of A Sand County Almanac for

completing the questionnaire. In addition, information desk staff (in place partially to

explain self-guided tour options) will promote participation in the questionnaire.

Participants must be over 18.

Group Two: Guided Tour Participant Focus Groups

Evaluation Questions Addressed:

Why did visitors decided to take part in ALF programs?

How did visitors first became aware of Leopold and/or the Legacy Center?

What were participant expectations of the tour?

What part of the tour was most meaningful to participants?

2

 

Does the tour program impact attitudes on participant impact on the environment?

General demographic information

How the program does or does not impact future action on reducing personal

impact on the environment

Procedures:

A set of questions will be developed to ask tour participants in a focus group

format, including 6-12 people per interview. Tour group participants will be invited to

participate in the focus group directly prior to and following the tour program. Tour guide

will inform participants that anyone who participates will receive a free copy of A Sand

County Almanac. The researcher will gather interested tour participants at the end of the

program to conduct the focus group. Participants must be over 18.

Group Three: Sauk County Tourists

Evaluation Questions Addressed:

Basic demographic information

What do tourists hope to see and do while visiting the Baraboo area?

What is the level of tourist interest about natural and cultural resources in the

area?

What is the level of tourist interest in green buildings?

What is the level of tourist awareness about the Aldo Leopold Foundation?

What is the level of tourist interest in visiting the Leopold Center?

3

 

Procedures:

Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce staff and prominent signage will invite

walk-in visitors to the Chamber visitor center to participate in a short (5-10 minute)

survey. Surveys will only be offered to adults over the age of 18, and only one survey

may be completed per family group. To determine which adult member of the group

completes the survey, chamber staff will ask who in the group has the next birthday. This

will assure that selection of survey participants is random and not biased. After greeting

the walk-in visitor with the usual Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce protocol, staff

will ask if the walk-in visitor is interested in completing a survey in exchange for free

tour passes. Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce staff will explain that the survey is

being completed by the Aldo Leopold Foundation to learn about potential visitor interest.

There will be a cover letter on the survey explains that there are no risks associated with

participating, and explains how to obtain survey results if participants are interested.

Surveys must be completed on site, and returned to Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce

staff after completion.

To thank visitors for helping with research, the Aldo Leopold Foundation will provide a

certificate that can be redeemed for two free guided tour admissions at the Aldo Leopold

Foundation. Tour passes will be given to Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce staff for

distribution in exchange for completed surveys. Surveys will be kept behind the front

desk area of the Chamber of Commerce and picked up weekly by the researcher. Survey

collection will continue until 50 responses are collected, or until November 1st, whichever

comes first.

4

 

Survey Instruments

1. Self Guided Visitor Questionnaire

Cover letter accompanying (on ALF letterhead):

Dr. Brenda Lackey, Professor of Environmental Education and Interpretation at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and her graduate student, Jennifer Kobylecky, are conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness of our self-guided tour options at the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center and the Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm. If you have taken a self-guided tour of the Aldo Leopold Shack or the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, your feedback will greatly help us improve the quality of our interpretive materials! Please have one member of your group over the age of 18 complete the survey. We anticipate no risk to you as a result of your participation in this study other than the inconvenience of the time to complete the survey. The entire survey should only take about 10 minutes to complete. If you complete and return this survey, you will receive a free paperback copy of A Sand County Almanac. A long-term benefit of your participation in this study is that the researchers may gain valuable information about visitor opinions that will be of future value when developing interpretive exhibits. The information that you give us on the questionnaire will be recorded in anonymous form. We will not release information that could identify you. All completed surveys will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the office of Jennifer Kobylecky and will not be available to anyone not directly involved in the study. If you want to withdraw from the study at any time, you may do so without penalty. The information contained about you up to that point would be destroyed. Once the study is completed, we would be glad to give you the results. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please ask us or contact:

Jennifer Kobylecky Education Coordinator Jennifer@aldoleopold.org 608.355.0279, ext. 27

If you have any complaints about your treatment as a participant in this study, please call or write: Dr. Jason Davis, Chair Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects Department of Business and Economics University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI 54481 (715) 346-4598 Although Dr. Davis will ask your name, all complaints are kept in confidence.

5

 

Your completion and submission of the survey to the researchers represents your consent to serve as a subject in this research. Self-guided Visitor Questionnaire Section One: Your Visit

1. Please rate your overall self-guided tour experience today based on the following rating scale. Poor Needs

improvement OK Good Excellent

2. How would you rate the educational signage you encountered? Poor Needs

improvement OK Good Excellent

3. How would you rate the educational brochures you encountered? Poor Needs

improvement OK Good Excellent

4. About how much time did you spend at the Foundation today? < 30 minutes 30 min. – 1

hr 1 hr. – 1.5 hr.

1.5 hr. – 2 hr.

> 2 hr.

5. What subjects were you most interested in learning about during today’s visit to the Aldo Leopold Foundation? Please rank the following subjects in order of interest, with 1 being of most important interest. RANK: _____ Aldo Leopold’s life and family _____ A Sand County Almanac _____ The Leopold Shack _____ The green features of the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center _____ Other, please describe: Section Two: Self Guided Tours 1. Please put a check mark next to all of the educational materials listed below that you used during your self-guided tour of the Shack and/or Legacy Center. Welcome video about Aldo Leopold and the Legacy Center Educational signage about the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm tour map and brochure 2. Did the educational materials help you learn about the topics you were most interested in? Why or why not?

6

 

3. How likely are you, after visiting the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, to read or re-read all or part of the book, A Sand County Almanac? Not likely at all Somewhat likely Very likely 4. What did you enjoy most about your visit today? 5. Please suggest any improvements to our educational materials you think we should make: Section Four: About You (You must be age 18 or over to complete the questionnaire) 1. Age: 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-55 Over 55 2. Gender: Male Female 3. Your home city and state: Thank you for your time! Your responses will help us continue to improve the quality of our programs at the Aldo Leopold Foundation.

7

 

2. Guided Visitor Focus Group Questions

Introductory Statements:

The researcher will introduce herself briefly, describe the purpose of focus group,

explain how data will be used, state the expected length of the focus group, and obtain a

signed informed consent form from all participants.

INTRODUCTION SCRIPT:

“Thanks so much for participating, your feedback will be really useful for us!

My name is Jen, and I’ve been working with the Leopold Foundation for three

years. My main duties here are coordinating the education program, and of

course interacting with great visitors like you. This focus group will last about

10-15 minutes, and we will use your comments to improve on the content of the

program. We’re really hoping to learn a lot about what expectations people

have for the tours, and whether those expectations were met. Please be as

honest as possible. We want to hear both the good and the bad so that we can

improve our program! Our conversation will be tape recorded to assure

accurate recording of your responses. Also, all of your responses today will

remain confidential.”

“Okay, let’s get started. I want to ask the group about some background

information first.”

1. Why did you decide make the trip here today?

2. How did you become aware of Aldo Leopold as a person? How did you become aware

of the Leopold Legacy Center?

8

 

3. What were your feelings about the tour?

4. What did you hope to learn about during the tour program today?

5. Did you learn about that, and can you tell me more about any additional things you

learned about today?

6. Our tour highlights ways the center reduces its energy consumption. Has the tour made

you think differently about your energy use? How?

7. Our tour highlights the amount of change in the landscape at the Shack from Leopold’s

time to now. Did the program impact your thinking about your own relationship to the

natural world? How?

7. Can you suggest ways we can improve the tour?

8. Is there anything you would like to add?

3. Sauk County Tourist Questionnaire

Cover letter accompanying (on ALF letterhead):

Dr. Brenda Lackey, Professor of Environmental Education and Interpretation at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and her graduate student, Jennifer Kobylecky, are conducting a study to evaluate visitation at the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center and the Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm. Your feedback will greatly help us improve the quality of our program! Please have one member of your group over the age of 18 complete the survey. We anticipate no risk to you as a result of your participation in this study other than the inconvenience of the time to complete the survey. The entire survey should only take about 5-10 minutes to complete. If you complete and return this survey, you will receive two free admissions to any guided tour program at the Aldo Leopold Foundation. A long-term benefit of your participation in this study is that the researchers may gain valuable information about visitor opinions that will be of future value when developing interpretive exhibits. The information that you give us on the questionnaire will be recorded in anonymous form. We will not release information that could identify you. All completed surveys

9

 

will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the office of Jennifer Kobylecky and will not be available to anyone not directly involved in the study. If you want to withdraw from the study at any time, you may do so without penalty. The information contained about you up to that point would be destroyed. Once the study is completed, we would be glad to give you the results. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please ask us or contact:

Jennifer Kobylecky Education Coordinator Jennifer@aldoleopold.org 608.355.0279, ext. 27

If you have any complaints about your treatment as a participant in this study, please call or write: Dr. Jason Davis, Chair Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects Department of Business and Economics University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI 54481 (715) 346-4598 Although Dr. Davis will ask your name, all complaints are kept in confidence. Your completion and submission of the survey to the researchers represents your consent to serve as a subject in this research.

Sauk County Tourist Visitor Questionnaire (You must be age 18 or over to complete the questionnaire) 1. Age: 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-55 Over 55 2. Gender: Male Female 3. Your home city and state: 4. Please tell us what you hope to see and do in the Baraboo area.

10

 

3. How interested are you in the cultural and natural resources in Baraboo? (Circle a number on the scale below. 1 is the lowest level of interest, and 5 is the highest.) 1 2 3 4 5 not interested……………….somewhat interested……………….very interested Don’t know 4. How interested are you in learning about the history of conservation in America, which has roots in Baraboo? (Circle a number on the scale below. 1 is the lowest level of interest, and 5 is the highest.) 1 2 3 4 5 not interested……………….somewhat interested……………….very interested Don’t know 5. How interested are you in learning about environmentally friendly buildings? (Circle a number on the scale below. 1 is the lowest level of interest, and 5 is the highest.) 1 2 3 4 5 not interested……………….somewhat interested……………….very interested Don’t know 6. Are you familiar with the Aldo Leopold Foundation? Yes No Maybe 7. How interested are you in visiting the Aldo Leopold Foundation, where programs focus on conservation history, and environmentally friendly buildings? 1 2 3 4 5 not interested……………….somewhat interested……………….very interested Don’t know

11

 

APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects

Protocol for Original Submissions

A complete protocol must be submitted to the IRB for approval prior to the initiation of any investigations involving human subjects or human materials, including studies in the behavioral and social sciences. If the research does not involve vulnerable subjects such as minors or inmates, send 6 copies of (1) the completed protocol; (2) project abstract; and (3) samples of informed consent forms to the IRB chairperson. PROTOCOLS LACKING ANY ONE OF THESE THREE ELEMENTS WILL NOT BE APPROVED. In addition, copies of questionnaires or interview questions MUST be attached. If the research does involve subjects that may be considered vulnerable, please send 12 copies. PLEASE TYPE Project Title: A formative evaluation of interpretation at the historic Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm, and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center Principal Investigator: Jennifer M. Kobylecky

Department: College of Natural Resources Rank: Graduate student Campus

Mailing Address: 1710 Crawford Street, Baraboo, WI 53913

Telephone: 608-355-2994 E-mail address: Jkoby014@uwsp.edu Faculty Sponsor (if required): Dr. Brenda Lackey (Faculty sponsor required if investigator is below rank of instructor.) Expected Starting Date: April 2008 Expected Completion Date: April 2009 Are you applying for funding of this research? Yes No XX If yes, what agency? Please indicate the categories of subjects to be included in this project. Please check all that apply. X Normal adult volunteers Minors (under 18 years of age) Incarcerated individuals Mentally Disabled X Pregnant women Other (Faculty Member) I have completed the “Human Subjects Protection Training” (available at http://www.uwsp.edu/special/irb/start.htm) and agree to accept responsibility for conducting or directing this research in accordance with the guidelines. (Signature of Faculty Member responsible for research) (Department Chair or equivalent) I have reviewed this research proposal and, to the best of my knowledge, believe that it meets the ethical standards of the discipline. (Signature of Department Chair or equivalent)

12

 

IRB Proposal Abstract

Write a brief description of the purpose of the proposed research project. (100-200 words) In our increasingly urban society, many people have largely lost their connection to the natural world. In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold writes, “There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace” (Leopold, 1949). Leopold suggests that to avoid these dangers, one must reconnect to the natural world, and treat it with the same love and respect with which we treat other people. This concept, dubbed “the land ethic,” is at the heart of Leopold’s ideas. Interpretation is a vital part of the Aldo Leopold Foundation’s work to share Leopold’s legacy today. This is a study to conduct a formative evaluation of the interpretation at the new Aldo Leopold Legacy Center and the historic Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm in Baraboo, Wisconsin. Data from core and new audiences of the Aldo Leopold Foundation will inform the development of a successful visitor experience plan. The study will allow the Aldo Leopold Foundation to better understand the impacts and outcomes it affects, and suggest areas to improve or expand on for development of new exhibits and programs. IRB: Please complete the following questions for all research. 1. Describe the characteristics of the subjects, including gender, age ranges, ethnic background,

health/treatment status and approximate number. The study will sample about 100 participants in guided tour programs, 30 participants in self-guided tour programs, and 30 visitors to the Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce. Age, gender, and ethnic background will be quite variable. All participants will be over the age of 18. 2. Indicate how and where your subjects will be obtained. Describe the method you will use to contact

subjects. The researcher will use purposive sampling to obtain a sample representative of the general visitation to both the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the Sauk County area in general. Guided and self-guided participants at the Aldo Leopold Foundation will be contacted on site during their visit, and general Sauk County visitors will be contacted in person at the Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce visitor center. 3. What are you going to ask your subjects to do (be explicit) and where will your interaction with the

subjects take place? The researcher will ask the subjects to respond to questions about their motivation to visit the Aldo Leopold Foundation, their satisfaction with educational programs and materials, and basic demographic information about the subjects. 4. Will deception be used in gathering data? Yes No X If yes, describe and justify. 5. Are there any risks to subjects? Yes No X If yes, describe the risks (consider physical, psychological, social, economic, and legal risks) and include this description on the informed consent form.

13

 

6. What safeguards will be provided for subjects in case of harm or distress? (Examples of safeguards include having a counselor/therapist on call, an emergency plan in place for seeking medical assistance, assuring editorial rights to data prior to publication or release where appropriate.) The researcher has not planned any safeguards at this time. There are no foreseeable reasons to have such

safeguards in place.

7. What are the benefits of participation/involvement in this research to subjects? (Examples include obtaining knowledge of discipline, experiencing research in a discipline, obtaining course credit, getting paid, or contributing to general welfare/knowledge.) Be sure to include this description on the informed consent form. The immediate benefit to participants is that they will receive either a free paperback copy of A Sand

County Almanac or free admissions to tour programming at the Aldo Leopold Foundation. A long-term

benefit of participation in this study is that the researcher may gain valuable information about visitor

opinions that will be of future value when developing interpretive exhibits.

8. Will this research involve conducting surveys or interviews? Yes X No If yes, please attach copies of all instruments or include a list of interview questions. Copies of all instruments attached. 9. If electronic equipment is used with subjects, it is the investigator’s responsibility to determine that it

is safe, either by virtue of his or her own experience or through consultation with qualified technical personnel. The investigator is further responsible for carrying out continuing safety checks, as appropriate, during the course of the research. If electronic equipment is used, have appropriate measures been taken to ensure safety? Yes No

N/A 10. During this research, what precautions will be taken to protect the identify of subjects and the

confidentiality of the data? Once the subjects are selected for this study, each subject will be assigned a number. The questionnaire

that the subjects fill out will not have any of their personal information on it. It will only have the number

they have been assigned. Interview and focus group transcriptions/notes will similarly not have identifying

information about the subjects included. After the subjects participate, they will be known only by their

assigned number for data analysis. All of the data will be stored in locked computers and file cabinets to

ensure that it is safe and confidential.

14

 

11. Where will the data be kept throughout the course of the study? What provisions will be taken to keep it confidential or safe?

The hardcopies of the data will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the office of Jennifer Kobylecky.

Electronic copies of the data will be kept on the computer of Jennifer Kobylecky. The computer is locked

and nobody can access its contents except Ms. Kobylecky.

12. Describe the intended use of the data by yourself and others. Data will inform the development of a successful visitor experience plan. The study will allow the Aldo Leopold Foundation to better understand the impacts and outcomes of its exhibits and programs, and suggest areas to improve or expand on for development of new exhibits and programs. 13. Will the results of the study be published or presented in a public or professional setting? Yes X No If yes, what precautions will be taken to protect the identity of your participants? State whether or not subjects will be identifiable directly or through identifying information linked to the subjects. The researcher intends to present the results of this study at the National Association for Interpretation’s

National conference in November 2008. All subjects will remain anonymous. As stated before, subjects

will only be identified only by their assigned numbers. Actual identities will remain locked away in

Jennifer Kobylecky’s office.

14. State how and where you will store the data upon completion of your study as well as who will have

access to it? What will be done with audio/video data upon completion of the study? Upon completion of the study, all hard copies of data will be stored in Dr. Brenda Lackey’s office. The

only people that will have access to the data will be Ms. Jennifer Kobylecky (lead researcher), Dr. Brenda

Lackey (graduate committee chair), and the other members of the graduate committee. All digital copies of

the data will remain on the password protected laptop of Jennifer Kobylecky.

A completed protocol must include a copy of the Informed Consent Form or a statement as why individual consent forms will not be used. Revised form: January 2001

15

 

Appendix C: Front Desk Daily Tracking Form

ALLC Visitor Tracking 

Date:  Staff: 

Record the observed age and gender of visitors each day by making tick marks in the appropriate box. Do not count participants that are part of a guided tour, meeting rental group, or Woodland School class. 

Gender 

Age  M  F 

17 and under       

18‐34       

35‐64       

65 and up       

List answers to the question, "how did you hear about us?" 

16

 

Appendix D: Self-Guided Tour Questionnaire Codebook

Question Variable Name Variable Code Format

1. Please rate your overall self-guided

tour experience today based on the

following rating scale.

Overall_exp 1 = Poor

2= Needs improvement

3= OK

4= Good

5= Excellent

Numeric

2. How would you rate the educational

signage you encountered?

Sign_rating 1 = Poor

2= Needs improvement

3= OK

4= Good

5= Excellent

Numeric

3. How would you rate the educational

brochures you encountered?

Brochure_rating 1 = Poor

2= Needs improvement

3= OK

4= Good

5= Excellent

Numeric

4. About how much time did you spend

at the Foundation today?

Time_visit 1= <30 minutes

2= 30 min – 1 hr.

3= 1hr – 1.5 hr

4= 1.5 hr – 2 hr

5= > 2 hr

Numeric

17

 

Question Variable Name Variable Code Format

5. What subjects were you most

interested in learning about during

today’s visit to the Aldo Leopold

Foundation? Please rank the following

subjects in order of interest, with 1

being of most important interest.

N/A Each subject listed as

its own sub-question.

Rankings entered for

each response, based on

1 being the highest

level interest, and 5

being the lowest.

Numeric

5a. Aldo Leopold’s life and family Subject_rating-

AL

1 – 5 indicates rank.

0 indicates not ranked

on this survey.

Numeric

5b. A Sand County Almanac Subject_rating-

ASCA

1 – 5 indicates rank.

0 indicates not ranked

on this survey.

Numeric

5c. The Leopold Shack Subject_rating-

Sh

1 – 5 indicates rank.

0 indicates not ranked

on this survey.

Numeric

5d. The green features of the Legacy

Center

Subject_rating-

LC

1 – 5 indicates rank.

0 indicates not ranked

on this survey.

Numeric

5e. Other, please describe Subject_rating-

Oth

Rank and description Text

18

 

Question Variable Name Variable Code Format

6. Please put a check mark next to all

of the educational materials listed

below that you used during your self-

guided tour of the Shack and/or Legacy

Center.

N/A

Each material listed as

sub-question.

1 = checked

0 = not checked

Numeric

6a. Welcome video about Aldo

Leopold and the Legacy Center

Materials_used-

Vid

1 = checked

0 = not checked

Numeric

6b. Educational signage about the Aldo

Leopold Legacy Center

Materials_used-

LC

1 = checked

0 = not checked

Numeric

6c. Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm tour

map and brochure

Materials_used-

Sh

1 = checked

0 = not checked

Numeric

7. Did the educational materials help

you learn about the topics you were

most interested in? Why or why not?

Helpfulness Description Text

8. How likely are you, after visiting the

Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, to read

or re-read all or part of the book, A

Sand County Almanac?

Re-read 0 = not likely at all

1 = somewhat likely

2 = very likely

Numeric

9. What did you enjoy most about your

visit today?

Best Description Text

10. Please suggest any improvements

to our educational materials you think

we should make.

Improvements Description Text

19

 

Question Variable Name Variable Code Format

11. Age Age 1 = 18-24

2 = 25-34

3 = 35-44

4 = 45-55

5 = Over 55

Numeric

12. Gender Gender 1 = Male

2 = Female

Numeric

13. Home city and state From Description Text

20

 

Appendix E : Baraboo Visitor Center Questionnaire Codebook

Question Variable Name Variable Code Format

1. Age Age 1 = 18-24

2 = 25-34

3 = 35-44

4 = 45-55

5 = Over 55

Numeric

2. Gender Gender 1 = Male

2 = Female

Numeric

3. Home city and state From Description Text

4. Please tell us what you hope to

see and do in the Baraboo area.

Plans Description Text

5. How interested are you in the

cultural and natural resources in

Baraboo?

CultNat_interest 1-2 = not interested

3 = somewhat interested

4 = interested

5 = very interested

0 = don’t know

Numeric

6. How interested are you in

learning about the history of

conservation in America, which

has roots in Baraboo?

Hist_interest 1-2 = not interested

3 = somewhat interested

4 = interested

5 = very interested

0 = don’t know

Numeric

21

 

7. How interested are you in

learning about environmentally

friendly buildings?

Build_interest 1-2 = not interested

3 = somewhat interested

4 = interested

5 = very interested

0 = don’t know

Numeric

8. Are you familiar with the Aldo

Leopold Foundation?

Know_ALF 1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Maybe

Numeric

9. How interested are you in

visiting the Aldo Leopold

Foundation, where programs

focus on conservation history

and environmentally friendly

buildings?

Visit_interest 1-2 = not interested

3 = somewhat interested

4 = interested

5 = very interested

0 = don’t know

Numeric

22

 

Appendix F: Listing of Wisconsin Cities in Guest Book

City  State  07 08

Adams  WI  1

Altoona  WI  1

Appleton  WI  6 19

Arlington  WI  1

Ashland  WI  3 1

Augusta  WI  2

Bagley  WI  1

Baileys Harbor  WI  2

Baldwin  WI  2

Baraboo  WI  31 36

Bayfield  WI  1

Beaver Dam  WI  5 5

Belgium  WI  2

Beloit  WI  1

Berlin  WI  1

Big Bend  WI  2

Boscobel  WI  2

Boulder Junction  WI  1

Briggsville  WI  2

Brillion  WI  3

Bristol  WI  3

Brookfield  WI  4 4

Brooklyn  WI  2

Brown Deer  WI  2

Burlington  WI  2

Cadott  WI  2

Cambria  WI  2

Cazenovia  WI  3

Cedar Grove  WI  2

Cedarburg  WI  2 5

Chippewa Falls  WI  4

Clintonville  WI  4

Colfax  WI  1

Colgate  WI  2

Columbus  WI  2

City  State  07 08

Cottage Grove  WI  4

Custer  WI  2

Dalton  WI  1

Dane  WI  2 1

De Pere  WI  2 1

DeForest  WI  1

Delafield  WI  4

Denmark  WI  2

Dodgeville  WI  3

Door County  WI  1

Dousman  WI  2

Dyckesville  WI  2

Eagle  WI  2

Eagle River  WI  1 1

East Troy  WI  4 5

Eau Claire  WI  2 8

Edgerton  WI  4

Egg Harbor  WI  1

Eldorado  WI  3

Elk Mound  WI  1

Elkhart Lake  WI  2

Elkhorn  WI  5

Ellsworth  WI  1

Elm Grove  WI  2

Elmwood  WI  2

Evansville  WI  2

Fall River  WI  2

Fennimore  WI  1

Fillmore  WI  1

Fish Creek  WI  2

Fitchburg  WI  2

Fond du Lac  WI  16 5

Fort Atkinson  WI  2 10

Fox Point  WI  2

Franklin  WI  2 1

Friendship  WI  2

23 

 

City  State  07 08

Genoa City  WI  2

Germantown  WI  1

Glendale  WI  6

Grafton  WI  3

Grand Marsh  WI  2

Grand View  WI  1

Green Bay  WI  9 7

Green Lake  WI  3 1

Gurnee  WI  2

Gurney  WI  1

Hancock  WI  2 1

Harrisville  WI  2

Hartford  WI  6 4

Hartland  WI  2 4

Hilbert  WI  2

Holcombe  WI  1

Holmen  WI  2

Hortonville  WI  1

Hubertus  WI  1

Hudson  WI  4

Iola  WI  1

Iron Ridge  WI  1

Ixonia  WI  2

Janesville  WI  5 6

Jefferson  WI  4

Johnson Creek  WI  2

Judsen  WI  1

Junction City  WI  1

Juneau  WI  1

Kansasville  WI  1 2

Kaukauna  WI  2

Kenosha  WI  4

Kewaskum  WI  1

Kohler  WI  2

La Crosse  WI  7

Ladysmith  WI  1

LaFarge  WI  1 2

Lake Delton  WI  7

City  State  07 08

Lake Geneva  WI  2

Lake Mills  WI  5

Lancaster  WI  1

Larsen  WI  2

LaValle  WI  5

Lodi  WI  5 16

Loganville  WI  2

Lone Rock  WI  2

Lyndon Station  WI  2 1

Madison  WI  60 86

Malone  WI  3

Manitowish Waters  WI  1

Manitowoc  WI  2

Marinette  WI  5

Markesan  WI  4 1

Marshall  WI  1

Marshfield  WI  3 3

Mauston  WI  3

Mazomanie  WI  1 2

Menasha  WI  1 1

Menominee  WI  4

Menomonee Falls  WI  3 1

Mequon  WI  5

Merrill  WI  10

Merton  WI  1

Middleton  WI  5 6

Milladore  WI  1

Milton  WI  2

Milwaukee  WI  20 38

Mineral Point  WI  1

Mondovi  WI  2

Monona  WI  5 3

Monroe  WI  2

Montello  WI  3 13

Mt. Calvary  WI  1

Mt. Horeb  WI  1

24 

 

City  State  07 08

Mt. Talsor  WI  1

Mukwonago  WI  3

Muscoda  WI  1

Muskego  WI  2 3

Nashotah  WI  2

Necedah  WI  1

Neenah  WI  6 5

Nelsonville  WI  2

Neshkoro  WI  2

New Berlin  WI  1 3

New Franken  WI  1

New Glarus  WI  2

New Lisbon  WI  3 5

North Freedom  WI  3 4

Oakfield  WI  1

Oconomowoc  WI  2 7

Oconto  WI  1

Omro  WI  1

Oneida  WI  1

Oostburg  WI  1

Oregon  WI  1

Osceola  WI  4 6

Oshkosh  WI  8 15

Oxford  WI  2

Pardeeville  WI  4 6

Pell Lake  WI  1

Pewaukee  WI  2

Pittsville  WI  2

Plain  WI  2

Platteville  WI  1 2

Pleasant Prairie  WI  1

Plover  WI  2

Plymouth  WI  4 6

Port Edwards  WI  2

Portage  WI  12 15

Poynette  WI  4 4

Prairie du Sac  WI  6 3

Prentice  WI  2

City  State  07 08

Princeton  WI  1 2

Racine  WI  4 17

Randolph  WI  4

Random Lake  WI  2

Raymond Center  WI  1

Reedsburg  WI  6 4

Rhinelander  WI  2 1

Richford  WI  1

Richland Center  WI  3 1

Ridgeway  WI  2

Rio  WI  2

Ripon  WI  1 3

River Falls  WI  7

Rothschild  WI  3

Rubion  WI  1

Sauk City  WI  1

Saukville  WI  2

Seymour  WI  1 2

Shawano  WI  5

Sheboygan Falls  WI  4 5

Shorewood  WI  6 6

Silver Lake  WI  1

Sister Bay  WI  3

Soldiers Grove  WI  1

South Milwaukee  WI  3

Spooner  WI  1

Spring Green  WI  4 8

Stevens Point  WI  10 14

Stockbridge  WI  2

Stoughton  WI  2 1

Strum  WI  2

Sturgeon Bay  WI  3

Sun Prairie  WI  5 7

Superior  WI  2

Sussex  WI  2 3

Tomah  WI  2 1

Tomahawk  WI  1

Turtle Lake  WI  2

25 

 

City  State  07 08

Two Rivers  WI  3

Verona WI 

2

Viroqua WI 

4

Wales WI 

3

Walworth  WI  4

Watertown WI 

2 2

Waukesha WI 

8 13

Waunakee WI 

6 2

Waupaca  WI  4

Waupun WI 

4

Wausau WI 

6 6

Wautoma WI 

8

 

 

City  State  07 08

Wauwatosa  WI  6 9

West Allis WI 

2

West Bend WI 

6 6

West Salem WI 

1

Westfield  WI  2 2

Whitefish Bay WI 

5

Whitewater WI 

1 6

Wild Rose WI 

1

Windsor  WI  2

Wisconsin Dells WI 

10 4

Wisconsin 

Rapids WI 

5 7

Woodruff WI 

2

26

 

G: Listing of Foreign Countries in Guest Book Foreign Countries 2007 2008

Australia 3

Bahamas 1

Canada 1 8

China 2

Columbia 1

Croatia 3

El Salvador 1

England 1

Finland 2

Germany 1 1

Israel 1

Japan 2

Mexico 1

Mozambique 3

Puerto Rico 3

Sweden 3

27

 

APPENDIX H: Self-guided visitor comments on helpfulness of materials

Helpfulness text: Category Assigned: Yes Yes

Yes, the educational materials helped display information about the Leopold Shack, Leopolds beliefs, and his life and family. Yes with specifics liked

The educational materials did not help us learn about the specific technologies used in the making of the Legacy Center. (ie green building techniques, etc.) To clarify, we can see the final product, but not the steps it took to get there, or the pieces "hidden" in the walls/floors. No with suggestions

Film video was excellent- we had seen it on WPT. Educational signage was informative but we had a guided tour of the Legacy Center. The Shack/farm map was a wonderful supplement to our exploration of the area. Yes with specifics liked Yes, thank you. Yes

More diagrams would be helpful to explain concepts. No with suggestions

Yes, the video provides a quick history and starting point for the tour. The signage around the center is informative and interesting. The brochure for the tour was excellent. The pictures from the past and key points on the tour kept me going, even with the bugs! Yes with specifics liked

I would have liked more information about Aldo's life leading up to his purchase of the farm. Would like to know what motivated him. Self guded tour should give a short description of each building. Its purpose and what makes it environmentally unique. I was guessing as to the function of the thermal flux zone. Install a visible meter to show the electricity being generated. Also a temperature gauge showing temps from hot water panels. No with suggestions

Yes. Questions were very well answered by Miss Kobylecky Yes

blank

This helped to refresh my memory. I happen to be fairly familiar with Aldo Leopold and his Sand County Almanac with I got from a friend when I visited Portage and "the Shack." About 15 years ago when I also had the privilege to meet with Nina Leopold who kindly invited us into her house. Yes with specifics liked Yes. I didn't have time to read thoruhg all the literature yet but I'm very interested and impressed with the sustainable aspects "(green)" Yes with specifics liked

The few pictures on the construction of the place with their description were very interesting. Yes with specifics liked I would like to know more about the local ecology/geography/geology. No with suggestions

28

 

Helpfulness text: Category Assigned:

Yes but I think they could be beefed up )or there could be a more substantive version made available.) Yes with suggestions

Yes, but I would have been interested in a more in-depth explanation of the green building features of the Legacy Center. Yes with suggestions

Yes, good information, excellent photographs, appropriate amount of text, good use of quotes Yes with specifics liked Yes Yes

Not really- too brief. More trails. Too short, not enough information No with suggestions

Yes, but they could have provided more details about the building and green features. Yes with suggestions Yes. I appreciated having period photos to compare with the present. Yes with specifics liked

Yes. I have in the past seen some buildings where unsawed logs were used for uprights and thrusts and rafters. It was interesting to see the steel brackets used as connections. Yes with specifics liked Yes. Very informative. Perfect! Yes

blank

Features involved in the LEED building project Yes with specifics liked Very informative and compelling. Yes

Yes, the materials provided helpful info about the main aspects of the "Shack area." They gave a good overview. Yes with specifics liked

Yes. Map at Shack was excellent, easy to follow and provided ample and interesting information. Yes with specifics liked

I would have liked more specific signage about the green features of the building plus a contractors contact list. Thank you. No with suggestions

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes, good background information Yes with specifics liked

Yes. Signs were good, but a little hard to find. An in-hand descriptive brochure with map would have been helpful to describe green features to the novice. Yes with suggestions

Yes- would like more information on alternative energy sources (re- solar, heating and cooling) Yes with suggestions

Yes- provided information about how the family used the property. Yes with specifics liked blank

Yes, I was surprised by the degree his family was involved in his conservation activities. Yes with specifics liked

29

 

Helpfulness text: Category Assigned:

Read above. (Descriptions of various ecosystems that he studied, ecological succession, conservation and ecology background. Sounds like he was into forest management mostly.) Maybe my answers are in his book. Was he an avid trout fisherman also? No with suggestions

Yes- we were just looking for a good overview Yes with specifics liked Yes. More facts I did not know Yes with specifics liked Yes- they were thorough and well written and interesting. Yes with specifics liked Yes. Good video. Yes with specifics liked Signs re: the building issues were helpful. Yes with specifics liked I liked the then and now format, very appropriate. Yes with specifics liked Yes. The video gave very helpful background information and history about Leopolds Shack and his experimental land restoration effort. Yes with specifics liked

Yes, but you should more clearly label on site the #'s on the brochure/self guided tours. Yes with suggestions

New material especially the green building info Yes with suggestions

The Leopold Legacy Center is remarkable! Sure would ike everyone to be informed of all apects of this site. Yes with suggestions

Need more information- paper brochure, references to website- generally focused materials and more videos with different topics, esp. details of building construction and design. No with suggestions

Yes, very well put together. Yes with specifics liked

Yes. I had several questions I answered concerning the Shack location construction site. Yes with specifics liked

Gave a good historical perspective to the property with pictures and written description. Yes with specifics liked

30

 

APPENDIX I: Self-guided Visitor Comments on Best Components Liked Best text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned: We enjoyed the educational signage, and the early blooming flowers, but not the early blooming mosquitoes. Interpretive materials

Seeing the construction of the buildings (foundation) and seeing the original Shack/land that Aldo Leopold started with. Seeing Center Seeing Shack Seeing the Shack/farm/forest and the guided tour of the Legacy Center exceeded our expectations- lovely and Becky was a great guide. Seeing Shack Staff The complex and buildings Seeing Center The center. Seeing Center

Relating the brochure pictures and video to my experience while at the Shack. The peacefulness that surrounded me while enjoying his life work! Interpretive materials General

The associates were very friendly and helpful. The buildings- energy efficiency Staff Seeing Center

A close look at the green building at a slow pace. Seeing Center General

To see a place I've heard of (still miss the Shack, though) Seeing Center Seeing the buildings and talking to the staff who were very friendly not the least Ms. Jennifer Kobylecky. Seeing Center Staff

The center, the Shack and surrounding environment. The Wisconsin River Seeing Center Seeing Shack The photos and destinations in the center are great!

Interpretive materials

31

 

Liked Best text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned:

Seeing the legacy center and the outdoors. (mosquitoes were horrendous) Seeing Center Seeing land The artistic photos are very nice. Interpretive materials

Learning about the green building of the center, becoming more acquainted with Leopold's land and home Seeing Center Learning about AL

Visiting the Shack, touring the Legacy Center Seeing Shack Seeing Center

Seeing Leopold's vision carried on by his children and the foundation, visiting the Shack for the first time- it gave me a context for the book, one that I have loved since I was a young boy Learning about AL Learning about ALF

Looking at the construction techniques at the center Seeing Center Pleased to witness continued and expanding environmental movement in the state of Wisconsin. General Visiting the Shack Seeing Shack

Being at the place where SCA was written Learning about AL

The conservation methods used for energy efficiency are very interesting. Also the use of on site material to construct the buildings. Seeing Center Just being here. It was great. General Learning about the work of the AL foundation. I loved seeing and reading of the building of the structure the GREEN WAY. Just beautiful! Learning about ALF Seeing Center blank

The Shack

Seeing Shack

32

 

Liked Best text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned:

Leaning together with family about the life and legacy of this local Wisconsin hero. Learning about AL General

Seeing the photos of the family, so real and so alive, the rain collection system, the toilet info Interpretive materials Seeing Center

Good visual representation of green energy concepts Interpretive materials PV system and rainwater system Seeing Center Seeing the design of the building Seeing Center

Learning about Leopold's life and the new center Learning about AL Seeing Center Liked the shack (minus the mosquitoes!) Like seeing where real people lived and accomplished these goals- inspires us to do the same. Seeing Shack General

Visiting the Shack and seeing the environmental setting it is in. Seeing Shack Seeing land Seeing what I have read about General

I very much enjoyed the Shack and the Wisconsin River Seeing Shack Seeing land

The land and how he managed it, also "the Shack" humble man Seeing land Seeing Shack Everything but the mosquitoes General

The information about Aldo and his family experience Learning about AL

Actually seeing the land and the Shack Seeing land Seeing Shack Photo gallery. Interpretive materials

Learning about and seeing building design features. Seeing Center I enjoyed seeing the shack first hand. I was surprised by the beautiful and energy efficient legacy center. Seeing Shack Seeing Center Seeing the Leopold Shack and the surrounding acreage. Seeing Shack Seeing land

33

 

Liked Best text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned:

In combination with the historical photos at the Legacy Center, the guided tour gave us a good idea of the setting for Leopold's sand county work. Interpretive materials Learning about AL

Just being here in the spirit of Leopold. General Walking at the Shack area Seeing Shack Very impressed the building structure of the Leopold Land Ethic Seeing Center General

The building and green design. Grounds, plants. Seeing Center Seeing land The calm, the simplest, your staff General Staff

I enjoyed the video info, but really enjoyed visiting the Shack itself. Interpretive materials Seeing Shack Brought the book A Sand County Almanac to life. Able to see the land. General Seeing land

34

 

APPENDIX J: Self-Guided Visitor Suggestions for Improvement Improvements text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned: Mosquitoes really bad at Shack, should warn people some. Bug protection would have made it more enjoyable. Shack was locked? General

More information on Leopold's vision/plan for the land. Did Leopold's vision reach fruition? What is the complete vision for the Legacy Center? Where will it be 5-10 years from now? Also, more diagrams of energy usage/flow throuhg the building/site during different times of the year. More information and signage at the Shack site would be ideal. (ie on the trails, etc.) More on the land New media I think there was just enough. Good as is Keep up the good work. Good as is More diagrams. New media

A short video explaining the key points on the tour, the brochure was helpful but I would have liked to learn more history. New media

I'd suggest three pamphlets: 1- Aldo, 2- Plants, wildlife and history of area. Impact of man. 3- Energy efficiency New media What you have is already very good Good as is

35

 

Improvements text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned: I find them quite good as they are. (I am a little surprised to find Aldo - according to the information given - planted his pines too close together. The buildings are nice but I feel that the large concrete slabs on the ground are a little out of place - clumsy. Surprised that the windows only have 2 panels. 3 would make insulation so much better. Good as is General Old house foundation looked very small - I did not recognize it as being a house foundation. Trouble finding old oak, (6) on map. Found myself back at Shack. I thought I was going back to entrance (1) but it was a nice circle. I did not mind. Signage

Perhaps some signs that identify local plants. New media

Better communication. Center seems better suited for groups than individuals. General

Detailed brochure of LEED building features, more info on the Leopold family- lives/careers of Aldo's children New media

Mile posts on the trails or mileage info in the brochures would be helpful as would plaques on the trails with info. Signage New media

Not at this time Good as is

36

 

Improvements text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned:

Children's materials appear to be needed. Your materials are very adult-oriented. New media

Need to review existing materials before making comment- see you in the fall. PS Better directions (signs) on how to get here! Signage

Perhaps a bit more signage would have been helpful! Signage

Plant ID in garden outside center. Tell visitors the survey only takes 5 minutes- not 10! New media More detailed information about air and energy flow and diagrams of the geothermal system. Of what materials was the roof constructed? New media

I think the only thing we would change is to give ourselves more time to really enjoy what you have here. General

Include video on how the center is designed and funded New media See #2 :-) And include more info on Leopold's influence on forestry, wildlife management, etc in the US. General Yes but I think they could be beefed up )or there could be a more substantive version made available.) New media

Yes, but I would have been interested in a more in-depth explanation of the green building features of the Legacy Center. New media Trail signage could be improved. Signage

Bug free?? :-( General

37

 

Improvements text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned:

I would have enjoyed a guided tour much more, to have received more answers to my questions. General More on the studies that are being done on the property More on the land

Better signage near the Shack- it was hard to know whether some of the numbers were located- eg the restored wetland, sandblow, stump, etc. Small numbered signs would help. Signage You're doing a fine job. General

Better signs are needed to make sure you're at the proper spot in the self-guided tour (for example, we searched a while to find the Good Oak, ten weren't sure if we should find a stump or just the marker on the rock. Signage Well done. Good as is

A more detailed brochure on building features would be great. New media I like all the educational materials. They're well written, not too long, and nicely produced. Good as is

Informational signage at the Shack area or reflection? Better road signs to find the center Signage New media

Self guided tour with with earphones. New media

38

 

Improvements text: Category 1 Assigned: Category 2 Assigned: Have overview brochure readily visible and available upon entry, including lots of accessible info on green design, materials and construction methods and materials, as well as information on native plants. We want to know how to be greener at our own homes. New media

Maybe label the garden plants, more video selections on the buildings, and gardens. New media

39

 

APPENDIX K: Guided Tour Focus Group Participants

NAME: HOME CITY STATE AGE GENDER AGE GROUP:

PRIOR VISITOR?

Visitor 1 Baraboo WI M 5 No

Visitor 2 Baraboo WI F 5 No

Visitor 3 Plymouth WI M 4 No

Visitor 4 Caroline WI M 4 Yes

Visitor 5 Roseville MN F 4 No

Visitor 6 Caroline WI M 4 Yes

Visitor 7 South Milwaukee WI M 4 No

Visitor 8 South Milwaukee WI F 4 No

Visitor 9 Prairie Du Sac WI 45 M 4 No

Visitor 10 Middleton WI 34 F 2 No

Visitor 11 Plain WI 39 F 4 No

Visitor 12 Madison WI 27 F 2 No

Visitor 13 Madison WI 38 M 3 Yes

Visitor 14 Racine WI 68 F 5 Yes

Visitor 15 Racine WI 71 F 5 No

Visitor 16 Elroy WI 56 F 5 No

Visitor 17 Racine WI 60 F 5 No

Visitor 18 Elroy WI 66 F 5 No

Visitor 19 Racine WI 78 M 5 Yes

Visitor 20 Racine WI 75 F 5 Yes

Visitor 21 Burlington IA 57 M 5 Yes

Visitor 22 Racine WI 60 M 5 No

Visitor 23 Racine WI 60 M 5 Yes

Visitor 24 Lodi WI 73 M 5 Yes

Visitor 25 Lodi WI 77 M 5 No

Visitor 26 Poynette WI 61 F 5 Yes

Visitor 27 Poynette WI 64 M 5 No

Visitor 28 Lodi WI 71 M 5 No

Visitor 29 Madison WI 65 F 5 No

Visitor 30 Madison WI 63 F 5 No

Visitor 31 Madison WI 69 F 5 No

Visitor 32 Germantown WI 23 F 1 No

40

 

NAME: HOME CITY STATE AGE GENDER AGE: PRIOR?

Visitor 33 South Louis Park MN 23 M 1 No

Visitor 34 Green Bay WI 23 M 1 No

Visitor 35 Sheboygan Falls WI 22 F 1 No

Visitor 36 Algoma WI 23 M 1 No

Visitor 37 Sartell MN 26 F 2 No

Visitor 38 Stevens Point WI 28 F 2 Yes

Visitor 39 Cedarburg WI 65 M 5 No

Visitor 40 Cedarburg WI 59 M 5 No

Visitor 41 Sheboygan WI 66 M 5 No

Visitor 42 New Berlin WI 66 M 5 No

Visitor 43 Goochland VA 60 F 5 No

Visitor 44 Sacramento CA 47 F 4 No

Visitor 45 Gold Canyon AZ 67 F 5 No

Visitor 46 Lincoln VT 66 F 5 No

Visitor 47 Spotsylvania VA 60 F 5 No

Visitor 48 Rio Nido CA 61 F 5 No

Visitor 49 Rio Nido CA 58 F 5 No

Visitor 50 Colombia MO 54 M 4 No

Visitor 51 Racine WI 53 M 4 No

Visitor 52 Racine WI 55 F 4 No

Visitor 53 Rochester MN 35 M 3 No

Visitor 54 Platteville WI 62 M 5 No

Visitor 55 Platteville WI 52 M 4 No

Visitor 56 Avery TX 72 M 5 No

Visitor 57 Minneapolis MN 56 M 5 No

Visitor 58 Columbia MO 42 F 3 Yes

Visitor 59 Madison WI 67 F 5 No

Visitor 60 Madison WI 67 M 5 No

Visitor 61 Madison WI 28 F 2 No

Visitor 62 Madison WI 29 M 2 Yes

Visitor 63 Washington DC 65 M 5 No

Visitor 64 Washington DC 64 F 5 No

Visitor 65 Milwaukee WI 59 F 5 No

Visitor 66 Milwaukee WI 61 M 5 No

Visitor 67 Wauwatosa WI 59 M 5 No

Visitor 68 Wauwatosa WI 55 F 4 No

41

 

APPENDIX L: Example of Relevant Text Coding for Focus Group Transcripts This is not a complete list of relevant text. It represents a small portion of the data set. Relevant text segments for Question One: Why did you decide to make the trip here today? Woodland school class Had read ASCA, always wanted to see Shack To be outside with family I read the book years ago, and I’ve been wanting to come see it Well I’m only acquainted with the book vicariously. I’ve never read it. And you know, we’re here because we’re curious you know the whole green building thing is certainly a draw. I mean there just seems to be just in the last few years or so a peak in interest in that kind of thing. And so people might come here for that alone, and then learn about Leopold and that philosophy Oh, I was interested in coming here before there was a Legacy Center. I mean I just wanted to see where... this guy hung out we should go and see some of the places that we are teaching when we start looking at regional literature or state literature, that we can go out and experience that so that we would at least have a first-hand knowledge of what we’re talking about, whether it be the shack or the site of the good oak. To gain a personal background to draw on when you’re telling the kids about [unintelligible] and trying to interpret it for them when they come and [unintelligible], help enrich that experience. The two of us came because we’re in a book group, and our book group just finished A Fierce Green Fire We jumped on the chance to come and experience what we were just reading about Well, this year, we [unintelligible] book club [unintelligible] as a group, and we just read [unintelligible] Sand County Almanac, and then we scheduled this tour I’ve taught Leopold in my seventh grade English classes for probably ten or fifteen years and wanted to finally get here to the site Our family has been interconnected with the Leopolds at least back to the forties. My sister and Estella [Leopold] were classmates both of us read Sand County Almanac back [in] high school or college age times, and so it’s just natural to gravitate here Well, we got some kind of a mailing—I’m not sure if it was in a magazine or a newsletter—about this building and the award and all that, and I really wanted to see it we went out to do a day together out I saw something on PBS about the Center and some of the background, so when Chris said there’s a chance to come, I thought that would be wonderful. Relevant text segments for question two, how did you hear about AL/ALF? In high school- read ASCA Part of Wisconsin heritage Moved to Baraboo, part of Baraboo heritage Through profession (DNR and conservation) I don't know where I saw.... I knew about the center before we came. Before we decided to come I read about it.... I don't know. You know, I saw it on PBS, or I read about it somewhere. I didn't know anything about it, I had just typed in Aldo Leopold on the computer and then discovered there was a whole...

42

 

Never heard of either one until today (about half of the group agrees with this) I studied him in school at Stevens Point I learned about him in “conservation 101.” (2 people say this) I read about this place in a state journal article (4 people say this) I learned about this place through a speaker at my woman’s club When I was in high school, I had a friend who was really interested in environmental things, and she really liked Aldo Leopold, and that’s really all I knew, was that he was an environmentalist. And then, when I started teaching at Sauk, there were a bunch of copies around, and that was the first time I actually read it, maybe two years ago. And I didn’t know of the Foundation until this year. Growing up in this area, I knew about Aldo Leopold, and then as far as the Foundation, last year, when we started teaching it. I don’t know when the first time was that I heard of Aldo Leopold. I think maybe sometime in college, possibly in high school, kind of synonymous with Rachel Carson and environmental folks. And I remember in the Peace Corps taking a whole bunch of books out of the library. One of them was Sand County Almanac, but I never did read it, knowing, though, that everyone says, “Oh, you should read it, you should read it!” I didn’t it for my first time until I was teaching last year. And the Foundation, I think I just learned about as I was doing research about Leopold to tell my students, and I’m reading about the development of the building in the newspaper, in the Baraboo News Republic and one of the other places that had publications about it. I found about Sand County Almanac when I was a kid. A friend of my family was the school librarian, and she gave me the book when I was really young, and I read it. Went to college and had to read it in a college course for some reason—I don’t remember what now—and then found these boxes of these books at school when I started teaching at Sauk, and it just made sense to me to teach it to kids that live literally a stone’s throw away from where it all took place. I started thinking about how could I make this be a part of our curriculum and make it meaningful to the kids. I was at student at the University of Wisconsin in the late sixties, and I was in geology and geography, and quite a few of my professors were friends of the Leopolds. And so naturally we were assigned A Sand County Almanac to read. My associate. We were contemporaries at Madison. She read the book. I got the trip.

Relevant text segments for question three, about expectations

To be with family outside Yes, and more. Surprised we were able to go into the cabin, and touch things. I expected a crowd here, and was surprised to see it was a small interest group. So people who are interested in history and science you know would be interested in... Inherently. Anybody, you know who cares about the environmental.I mean, I wanted this, part of the shack and farm tour to I, I just I like the whole notion of somebody who lived obviously very simply through all these (results) of many years. And that intimate knowledge of their parcel of land, you know they were so acquainted with and the hard

43

 

work that they put into that. That's just something that always has appealed to me or that kind of a thing. And the tour doesn't disappoint you at all.I just wanted to see his little project. Cause I mean, I knew it was a project. And, and uh... I just wanted to see. Just being able to see the land.Right, just being able to see... um, what he did. I mean it's a cultural thing... it's kind of a you know, a cultural thing. And, just kind of touch that a little bit.Yeah, and I learned something, you know that he wasn't just a Thoreau who was sitting and observing. You know, like you said, he had a definite project which I wasn't aware of before.Yeah, and being an academic, you know, who it was his life work, and as well.... um, yeah. Just. Yeah, I think it met my expectations.Yeah, I can see where some people might, I mean if you knew nothing about it, you might come here and say, oh OK, chicken coop, I've seen one of those. You know? You know what I mean? It's not about the building. I mean exactly, it's kind of neat to go in there and hold and touch his cane, and sit where he sat and that kind of stuff, but... but, if you're not in tune with that, I mean then that's just another old shack. Sure. So what is it about? If it's not about the building? It's about the idea. Yeah, it's about the ideas and connecting with someone's ideas. Uh, I mean I think he's like, a Rachel Carson, or another guy who was still alive... like Wendell Berry or somebody like that, you know who I wouldn't mind visiting.I think the artifacts and the location and all that are the draw.I didn't realize that he had a... that he was a professor as well. I mean, I you know... I'm not disappointed at all. I didn't come with that many expectations, I suppose... but whatever expectations I had, they were met. Didn’t have a clue No expectations Our group looks for something of interest to do or to learn while we go camping I had read the book I wanted to see the Shack I honestly didn’t bring any expectations along, because I knew that I was going to take the idea that I was here with me, so I didn’t have any expectations when I came, so I was just pleasantly surprised with what the tour gave to me. Relevant text segments that include positive feedback Someone said today about what one person can do and what one family can do. I kind of like that message. Inspiring to learn about green building. The small details help inspire to the bigger picture The tour guide did a good job of relating the idea that the ALLC is an inspiration and an example. The Shack is like mecca—almost a religious experience. Hard to put in words. Tour guide made the place come alive.

44

 

I thought it was excellent. You know, beginning with the video.I like the interview was to the remaining children and just some of the history. And just kind of gave me enough of an overview with the photo display that you have in the room before the tour started I thought it was positive, I liked the reading of the book, and her knowledge was good.  And the description of the land. Because you know in a sense there's not a lot to see you know it's not a big mansion like filled with artifacts, and all that kind of stuff. It's about the land. The good oak. That was kind of neat The description of how the prairie was restoredMore importantly, you can see through the photograph that line in the road and you're standing you know, looking at the same perspective as the photo from the 30's.I think it gave me a really good look at the family.I liked using Leopold's own words and (getting) a little bit deeper entry into the thought of the man. I think the artifacts and the location and all that are the draw. You know, it's kind of like OK, let's see the Leopold Shack. I think all you can really get is the overview if you're not acquainted with what made him want to buy this piece of land in the first place.... and how much time he spent at it. The photographs were neat. Like, this is, the treeline or that oak was there, and there's a picture of it from like 1935. You really got a sense of how the terrain changed.I liked being able to go in there and handle some of the things. I had my students read Aldo Leopold, so this was a great place to come and see The tour guide was very knowledgeable.This place was as interesting as Taliesin.You really have a showcase here. Anna did a good job of explaining things- I was impressed that she talked about the fact that LEED certification cost money. It all boils down to education, and promoting what you believe in.I was elated It was very fun It’s something you’ll never forget I like that you’re didn’t just lecture at us(I liked) that there was just some time for quiet walking through the woods  Relevant text segments that include suggestions for improvement For instance, the material that’s on the walls in there. It would be interesting to— Might want to do a “techie tour” of building, and make it longer. As landscaping is developed, the story will get longer and could be very specialized to specific interests.Model of consumer home, illustrating easy, affordable energy saving options that can be built in More info on the economics of green stuff, and the payback time. 15% of people will buy a Prius because it’s the right thing to do, but the other 85% need the financial incentive. Could you show how costs of solar would pay back at different cost per barrel of oil? Have specific program on development of new technologies—like evolution of solar panels over

45

 

time. Well, I think Betsy was off to a good start, and the mosquitoes certainly had something to do with it... but almost somebody who's almost like in character. Not dress, or any of that kind of stuff but in character... even more of an advocate. Through the readings, you know maybe a little bit deeper entry into the thought of the man.And the only other thing would be maybe if you wanna advocate again, you know, a list of six things people can do to conserve energy, conserve resources. Make the application to your life. Right, yeah. You know, little things.I would say, I would think the Legacy Center should be under a lot of scrutiny in terms of whether the books you sell are on recycled paper, I mean... all that kind of stuff! I mean obviously... you need people coming through to pay the bills. But, you don't want too many people. You know what I mean? It's a pretty delicate little setting, and then the Shack itself, though I guess if people... maybe you just change... you don't let people go in and handle everything. I liked that, I liked being able to go in there and handle some of the things, but I mean, if you're getting tour buses coming through, that might be different. Yeah, do you really want to advertise it? You could use info on being prepared for the mosquitoes in the tour confirmation- long pants, long sleeves, etc. The place was hard to find- you need more signs.You should have included directions with the tour confirmation (3 people chimed in to agree with this) You could promote the place more through tourism brochures. It’s great, but you have to know it’s here first. I had a hard time standing for so long on the tour- it would be good to sit down, or keep moving… not just stand still We wanted to walk around more on the grounds than we were able to.There is no identification of the grasses or the plants down at the Shack or up at the Legacy Center- you really need to label them so people know what they are.Maybe you should have more than one type of tour- I really wanted to see the basement, but if you start to talk about everything, you have a 6 hour tour. (Someone chimes in that maybe we could offer different kinds of tours, with different topics).

46

 

APPENDIX M: Notes on Focus Group Interviews

Focus Group #1 INTERVIEWEES: Participants in the public tour of the Aldo Leopold Shack and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center. DATE: Saturday, May 17, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 7 Interviewer notes: Recording equipment malfunction. Notes are from researcher memory. Notes reviewed and confirmed by Jim and Sunshine Buchholz, who observed but did not participate in this focus group. Focus Group #2 INTERVIEWEES: Participants in the public tour of the Aldo Leopold Shack and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center. DATE: Saturday, May 24th, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 2 Interviewer notes: Due to low public tour attendance in spring 2008, I was not able to conduct as many focus groups as I had planned. I ran this focus group with only two participants, to try and get at least some data collected. Focus Group #3 INTERVIEWEES: Senior citizens that took a pre-arranged tour of the Aldo Leopold Shack and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center. DATE: Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 10 Interviewer notes: Recording equipment malfunction. Notes are from researcher memory. This was a pre-organized group tour consisting of ten senior citizens. Because of unexpected overlap down at the Shack with a documentary recording crew, this group had to stand in the prairie for a while to wait for filming to wrap up. They also got to interact with Nina Leopold Bradley, and Curt Meine, Leopold’s biographer… so this was not a standard tour program. Focus Group #4 INTERVIEWEES: Sauk Prairie High School teachers DATE: Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 5 Interviewer notes: In every other focus group interview, I was not the tour guide that led the group. I avoided this because I did not want the participants to feel as though they might hurt my feelings by giving suggestions about the program in an open and honest manner. Since I had very low public tour attendance throughout the first part of 2008, I was concerned about the ability to collect the proper amount of data. Because of this, I made an exception with this group and

47

 

interviewed them even though I had been their tour guide. I also felt it was very important to include a group of teachers in my study, since they are a targeted audience for the Aldo Leopold Foundation. Circumstances meant that I would have to be the guide for this group, but I didn’t want to let that stop me from getting their feedback. I made it quite clear that all comments were welcome, and that I was “bulletproof,” so that comments were hopefully unedited. I reviewed this choice with my advisor Dr. Brenda Lackey, and she agreed that it was a good one. Focus Group #5 INTERVIEWEES: People who participated in the volunteer work day, and then went on the optional free public tour afterwards. DATE: Saturday, September 13th, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 10 Focus Group #6 INTERVIEWEES: Participants in the public tour of the Aldo Leopold Shack and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center. DATE: September 25, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 8 Focus Group #7 INTERVIEWEES: UWSP Students DATE: Friday, September 26th, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 7 Focus Groups #8, #9, #10, and #11 INTERVIEWEES: Participants in the Saturday public tours of the Aldo Leopold Shack and the Aldo Leopold Legacy Center. DATES: October 4, October 11, October 17, and October 24, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: 4, 7, 9, 10

48

 

APPENDIX N: Sauk County Tourist Plans for Visit Comments

Plans text: Category 1 Assigned:

Category 2 Assigned:

We are only a tour D'Wisconsin (?sud?). Spring Green, Viroqua, Taliesin (Spring Green), outdoors stuff, architectural and self expressive creations. Outdoor general I wanted to see the Crane Foundation but I missed it because there was no signage. ICF

Circus World, Aldo Leopold Legacy Center and Shack, International Crane Foundation, Train Ride ALF Other See the Shack and Farm ALF Visit the Man Mound Other

Visit APT, visit natural formations, state parks, B&B's, Aldo Leopold Center, Crane Foundation, NOT the tourist traps of the Dells. We have solar panels and are very interested in conservation. Outdoor general ICF Aldo Leopold Foundation ALF A new way of life Other

Golf, see Circus World, camp Devil's Lake State Park, hike nature trails for birding. Tom Kubala, the architect is a personal friend but we haven't seen him in many years. Devil's Lake Other Hike, relax Outdoor general Tour area and see new center ALF

All of Baraboo

Other

49

 

Plans text: Category 1 Assigned:

Category 2 Assigned:

After going to nursing school, work in town. My son is in football at BHS and is excelling in it. He has special needs and it does wonders for him. BHS has been great with my other son too. Other Aldo Leopold Center ALF Rocks, cranes, park ICF Outdoor general

Visit nature areas, Devil's Lake State Park, Natural Bridge State Park, Empty Lake Delton Outdoor general Devil's Lake Leopold Center ALF

Aldo Leopold Legacy Center, International Crane Foundation ALF ICF

Find out what you refer to as green! ALF

Run "Aldo Leopold" at Devil's Lake Devil's Lake