<%BANNER%>

Boater Compliance Behavior in Manatee Conservation Zones

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019647/00001

Material Information

Title: Boater Compliance Behavior in Manatee Conservation Zones Recreation Specialization, Attitudes and Situational Factors
Physical Description: 1 online resource (221 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jett, John S
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitudes, boat, boater, compliance, conservation, manatee, recreation, specialization
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study investigated the factors associated with compliant and non-compliant vessel speeds in speed-restricted manatee conservation zones on the St. John?s River, Florida during the summer and fall of 2006. Recreation specialization theory, theory of reasoned action (TRA), marine conservation attitudes, boater knowledge and situational factors were examined as predictor variables to vessel speed discrepancies (observed vessel speed minus maximum allowable per zone). The study was conducted by first observing vessel speed and vessel and operator attributes, after which a mail survey was sent to the vessel operator observed on the water. Recreation specialization was found to be poorly associated with vessel speed discrepancy, and found to be negatively associated with marine conservation attitudes. Marine conservation attitudes were also found to be poorly associated with vessel speed discrepancy. However, marine conservation attitudes had a strong positive influence on behavioral intention to fully comply with vessel speed zones during next outing. Although most respondents self-reported being in full compliance with boat speed restrictions during their last boat outing, these responses were weakly associated with observed vessel speed compliance. In this investigation, self-reported behavior served as poor proxy to actual behavior. Vessel length was poorly associated with conservation attitudes, although mean vessel speed discrepancies were found to differ among various boat lengths. Operators of longer vessels and non-rental vessels were found to violate speed restrictions to a greater extent than those of shorter vessels or rentals. Within the TRA progression, past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) and attitudes were unique contributors to behavioral intentions to fully comply with speed restrictions during next boat outing. Past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) was found to have a strong negative influence on attitudes. Past behavior in the form of observed vessel speed discrepancy was weakly associated with attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions. Fewer than half of the vessels observed for this investigation were in full compliance with speed restrictions. As with past studies, approximately one-third of the respondents in this investigation disagreed or strongly disagreed with on-water boater informational signage (both in manatee and general boat safety speed zones) as easy to read, easy to see or effectively delineating manatee and general boat speed zones. Results of the study suggest that a more efficacious approach to reducing vessel speeds may be necessary in critical manatee conservation areas. Furthermore, management strategies designed to change boater attitudes may be most effective in encouraging compliance with manatee speed zones.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by John S Jett.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0019647:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019647/00001

Material Information

Title: Boater Compliance Behavior in Manatee Conservation Zones Recreation Specialization, Attitudes and Situational Factors
Physical Description: 1 online resource (221 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jett, John S
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitudes, boat, boater, compliance, conservation, manatee, recreation, specialization
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study investigated the factors associated with compliant and non-compliant vessel speeds in speed-restricted manatee conservation zones on the St. John?s River, Florida during the summer and fall of 2006. Recreation specialization theory, theory of reasoned action (TRA), marine conservation attitudes, boater knowledge and situational factors were examined as predictor variables to vessel speed discrepancies (observed vessel speed minus maximum allowable per zone). The study was conducted by first observing vessel speed and vessel and operator attributes, after which a mail survey was sent to the vessel operator observed on the water. Recreation specialization was found to be poorly associated with vessel speed discrepancy, and found to be negatively associated with marine conservation attitudes. Marine conservation attitudes were also found to be poorly associated with vessel speed discrepancy. However, marine conservation attitudes had a strong positive influence on behavioral intention to fully comply with vessel speed zones during next outing. Although most respondents self-reported being in full compliance with boat speed restrictions during their last boat outing, these responses were weakly associated with observed vessel speed compliance. In this investigation, self-reported behavior served as poor proxy to actual behavior. Vessel length was poorly associated with conservation attitudes, although mean vessel speed discrepancies were found to differ among various boat lengths. Operators of longer vessels and non-rental vessels were found to violate speed restrictions to a greater extent than those of shorter vessels or rentals. Within the TRA progression, past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) and attitudes were unique contributors to behavioral intentions to fully comply with speed restrictions during next boat outing. Past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) was found to have a strong negative influence on attitudes. Past behavior in the form of observed vessel speed discrepancy was weakly associated with attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions. Fewer than half of the vessels observed for this investigation were in full compliance with speed restrictions. As with past studies, approximately one-third of the respondents in this investigation disagreed or strongly disagreed with on-water boater informational signage (both in manatee and general boat safety speed zones) as easy to read, easy to see or effectively delineating manatee and general boat speed zones. Results of the study suggest that a more efficacious approach to reducing vessel speeds may be necessary in critical manatee conservation areas. Furthermore, management strategies designed to change boater attitudes may be most effective in encouraging compliance with manatee speed zones.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by John S Jett.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Thapa, Brijesh.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0019647:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101209_AAAAAI INGEST_TIME 2010-12-09T06:00:24Z PACKAGE UFE0019647_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 118688 DFID F20101209_AAADRK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH jett_j_Page_022.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
398a3aa3fac6eeb637dc146b54f3300c
SHA-1
d8094c134bde4f01a564e4a207503489ddcf3747
2036 F20101209_AAAEOD jett_j_Page_017.txt
2cd76764c13938fb48905e21fa4f877b
cee66e1c6f32a3dad3ed216a0f853583cf4a93eb
71038 F20101209_AAADEA jett_j_Page_099.jpg
d9098d18bb563cc30557ce334e59594d
8381a9ea133f460ca4c9429603021ae71a7074c8
116292 F20101209_AAADRL jett_j_Page_023.jp2
dfccfb049c184d9eb141e89230ca7482
3043067ee21307dbc77a3267072d208890932742
2418 F20101209_AAAEOE jett_j_Page_018.txt
5770bd9deb401ada8b4f5f3ec9a3675b
baa6e01aaec14ff1c1eb6fe80ba4ef428ec730ea
1974 F20101209_AAADEB jett_j_Page_085.txt
96c1382d127a105fc7dd3c4fbaef7e01
6dd6ec53fab318578aa98188b3c38a89ae0b319b
116263 F20101209_AAADRM jett_j_Page_024.jp2
ea09434a1685563c5e20bcc3f535df52
c9c405bf4c2759a79858c6df45b8e84c13f98813
2144 F20101209_AAAEOF jett_j_Page_019.txt
04d13f85e634f20e3f54079fb23a337c
1717be11529ed4fb9cd61ae494171a9402715d9b
74188 F20101209_AAADEC jett_j_Page_049.jpg
6c41469d1ef33b28e970e6e5a22298c9
31f1d50cfd820f4c45cdde4a65ebfc4ed65bc3cd
120784 F20101209_AAADRN jett_j_Page_025.jp2
4d30aaaf9e08acff50e0528c8196346e
3581a8392f6ab954cb9e1ca90d6bb9ff890a37a6
2083 F20101209_AAAEOG jett_j_Page_020.txt
165bf5ef4b677cea4926ad83b4e11a44
d1459c5148483f18a01b091f4fa3fcd2c486226d
2081 F20101209_AAADED jett_j_Page_221.txt
c5ba0f7c701127b56ebdafad2041ba6e
6abcb514ab3c3048cf28dd923c72c1bb4d175b56
113283 F20101209_AAADRO jett_j_Page_026.jp2
84bfa7f39487aa717318f645dd193e98
f72e81f481385c6fb3a46b37bd2ffe2730ce52c0
2150 F20101209_AAAEOH jett_j_Page_021.txt
f94a69901379d69826230e9c12046ca7
feb9a112a2db06f0558ffb0ef60c1265fb04d6f3
1053954 F20101209_AAADEE jett_j_Page_109.tif
3a536fd2522bf2590225441e90d24b06
a778b82a67a84430709e097a5163947f3fcba761
101755 F20101209_AAADRP jett_j_Page_027.jp2
7018ed7a837b75d1017737aa3cc56a5c
c46d810b64b152a0df45bf7e3580cde410173748
2198 F20101209_AAAEOI jett_j_Page_022.txt
82be372d3a0424f21e1783c931b9c24e
762bb95cdf5f2c3340e794b44971f702d912846d
6934 F20101209_AAADEF jett_j_Page_134thm.jpg
1cde883f6a05046d5ddac1b52c8c4e76
743d77a2c3d5ca8436bf12af41c7d9a74fd6cb84
95765 F20101209_AAADRQ jett_j_Page_028.jp2
029bee31e7da378124a09b53b002ecbe
36ba402b3bbed4acd10c9e7c7198d2f49c992bc4
2097 F20101209_AAAEOJ jett_j_Page_023.txt
39170f29044327717d64d9d98a7e487a
d9d214de357fa1cb40d4fb180cdf9494dca884ed
27809 F20101209_AAADEG jett_j_Page_090.pro
a8c615f9e95bc5277c764e265cb194de
5f246f5f30fda810800066650bc5830dd9f628de
56188 F20101209_AAADRR jett_j_Page_029.jp2
cd8d1ec42b6a78d4fb09c5e3a5c9a727
a941c64753854a7c56c09d6871621a8992d37654
2024 F20101209_AAAEOK jett_j_Page_024.txt
f13d4025cfbe4c7b76c2b94889b2f0fa
8ee090cda5f38aadc9146702748cc0aa93e19f6b
2026 F20101209_AAADEH jett_j_Page_124.txt
fee630d7c72277afa56d3210bec7c48a
3798335ad7fad01268e9b0c640c23143eeeb3547
F20101209_AAAEBA jett_j_Page_077.tif
baf9945f301f2b6b1d5a2a2b529b6c33
4666b5187e0220c11cbed9b5f23de72440f60f8f
27103 F20101209_AAADRS jett_j_Page_030.jp2
1f3dfc0d87d2b91d75f52e2919d94d93
383f302eb14b5592b0df85e2fec7741d27e4d9dc
2214 F20101209_AAAEOL jett_j_Page_025.txt
8c1e7d4bc2ced96dd867cdfe34029ce5
f783d1ef2cb371f6cff8dd23bf6ae199cef89427
51547 F20101209_AAADEI jett_j_Page_024.pro
35e25ddc057806a9d292d9d28d23c006
e851e70aae0243b176eb94a1a0c156dd41640475
F20101209_AAAEBB jett_j_Page_078.tif
7637be2eec6030c83a9315d45a1555b1
789c5ead0e37aed64f664662718716e49a03e3f2
107308 F20101209_AAADRT jett_j_Page_031.jp2
e74f7883f30f5edf97088eafb5908595
b1a37badefe685c09b795f06d7d94f76ffae4495
2011 F20101209_AAAEOM jett_j_Page_026.txt
133b2e017f902151a6231ab4ce483275
35e2406bc929af9b4e598ee8ce39659a76bffad4
1623 F20101209_AAADEJ jett_j_Page_005.txt
5f3e8b5388e4331b16f9c0ff1f77a955
7eff253af296ee0b4ac9ef60e285e369680b9f0e
F20101209_AAAEBC jett_j_Page_079.tif
7103b24b1076b9f6eed9cb25654ce8d6
a3a0c2bb92e088de3f88eeaa5dfd5402acac6baf
119405 F20101209_AAADRU jett_j_Page_032.jp2
ed375cbd84962f39e6cd3683a3bef0a6
e949c93cb72614606eec8192eaaea33ecc09ab4a
1975 F20101209_AAAEON jett_j_Page_027.txt
e4397d2a7ebfd51594cd58aa57731dac
13fd7bedf217a9fb93d468dc3868aa02dfadc3e8
56668 F20101209_AAADEK jett_j_Page_184.pro
7f9ca10be6cb035aa5e19c9f911a037c
cd741d89ebe9638f6c669d960a90ca2466d3f25d
F20101209_AAAEBD jett_j_Page_082.tif
8201b3d419550044a2c9a76b5ae28d2b
72559b562270c51cd2daa0d6ac63c2513364e7fd
119881 F20101209_AAADRV jett_j_Page_033.jp2
9c3a420701e29d92e1639d1cdeed8ee9
55077a6ae1c670e7b9b9348e3b29fcaf4ea89603
1859 F20101209_AAAEOO jett_j_Page_028.txt
59665ace02d0874fc0d521a912a92383
d79027f06585776488b091dbaea2a7fde77a98e8
25385 F20101209_AAADEL jett_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
93c2c07d2fdd39f166d5b520f6b740e3
b713b52e0eb5d06907fdb1ccfd00d73fe406b93d
F20101209_AAAEBE jett_j_Page_083.tif
4f1c559d55a546b3ca3c312587f11563
8c759e9fbf59a1e5589d7351bf98bc7cd7f15b51
109378 F20101209_AAADRW jett_j_Page_034.jp2
5530e10f37ff4aa4e51be1c4979a6205
9d3cba7dda6a5ba22cb44a462d12f36363c324d4
485 F20101209_AAAEOP jett_j_Page_029.txt
e2c7707d25dcf67ba692d7c9000c817b
1963b0153e592798ac8e783414356ff832fa84b6
117622 F20101209_AAADEM jett_j_Page_190.jp2
621c77b56ddd276e9316a6a9148c97c0
f0875cd61850e1f33e03e172c25ea45f3b1ad947
F20101209_AAAEBF jett_j_Page_084.tif
08e6b46357c3b2c6d2d8c3fa4c92c046
27319625615d378470fbd177571835a69df86eaf
118525 F20101209_AAADRX jett_j_Page_035.jp2
575429d6eb5a4f9c8d2e56df26f8d69e
e3bfca83612b23e7f71e0bb2df6c3479e8d3b8f5
160 F20101209_AAAEOQ jett_j_Page_030.txt
a87ec1701dbff0cf37556ce457e37859
cf6f7b3f65677083b241ae0bf54425f65897588b
121955 F20101209_AAADEN jett_j_Page_183.jp2
5893e4952c54727a1a0e8159dcb443c2
78cc9c9ee63a6df05e281beb24ae7df64d164a23
F20101209_AAAEBG jett_j_Page_085.tif
5cffd19406196f127f2b3923d89e6399
80642c92dbb54ca37febf5df442501e20ac2e406
114366 F20101209_AAADRY jett_j_Page_036.jp2
62eb4b7b06b7f60847f3d5a6f2a95da8
b0325b511075443c540e3cbfecbdf13a74819b20
2047 F20101209_AAAEOR jett_j_Page_031.txt
3206f5e0bce25fa203874650afa74048
4f743538871aadd56d82ce2278b6b0101cacde63
6897 F20101209_AAADEO jett_j_Page_045thm.jpg
28000c6c7f57415fa898ac947aa8dbee
721f674db3a9977e75b79afd471154928bbd755d
F20101209_AAAEBH jett_j_Page_086.tif
a8430ff8e1e5e46b89d4af299e76e2e3
65d93be649e8af8b1e476f0c88cd512c51539131
121337 F20101209_AAADRZ jett_j_Page_037.jp2
eaaf1a9af6b1cb67dbb12f77a9241e73
f6860ffd9881e59bef3b1dfcc4c020cc47453582
2153 F20101209_AAAEOS jett_j_Page_032.txt
d5072718ff956e1aa01ef4279df242ae
93b799ce6a7f4a73e563d5ff0e3ae14e94ae50c5
F20101209_AAAEBI jett_j_Page_087.tif
ab141b44e49d189108e8c7e0fcd4cff0
98bcc0f61f285bd1d71222b42d1911c518450def
2159 F20101209_AAAEOT jett_j_Page_033.txt
fabdf930a03f256b4e281c5243fa2a59
c4b9098982065169e5275a8039e349b5d22cd1af
52335 F20101209_AAADEP jett_j_Page_103.pro
32ff801e1956178d58c9fd8925561308
3a06ce5af566d6412fe267e85ba539ab3f98bd51
F20101209_AAAEBJ jett_j_Page_088.tif
3f978f775e9df4d08dca6e3fc3a63c2d
00c9aa6dc3edbe461925ac96b63c1ffa6e78e1da
1959 F20101209_AAAEOU jett_j_Page_034.txt
0aeae3036d674dc7360bf030d98255b0
7b7d6c5bcecbad010c866e165b5e124fa8579c13
F20101209_AAADEQ jett_j_Page_024.tif
39fc68d6757c10d2a0b29534b5e608e9
30995057033e80a25a0e77da5c75dd9744518b7d
F20101209_AAAEBK jett_j_Page_089.tif
ae892d95666c5964539a1cbfce6fe1f8
8b4207cc2b0ea45c9a9b0d7278e11e69abdb9700
2085 F20101209_AAAEOV jett_j_Page_035.txt
772b310c7d962e0b2e0be379cd555267
39673f44e9a17491ead3d095403a0d0b7d8852c8
25942 F20101209_AAADER jett_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
a4286d894062b64876ecd5ec437caab1
e2355a59a137d5fd0c245f74c250599b7716708b
2073 F20101209_AAAEOW jett_j_Page_036.txt
dc86e1c1c496612d551474652d10a4a6
8b2ba2dbc63d67825fc1af4e839b504e5c3befae
718 F20101209_AAADES jett_j_Page_113.txt
6efedae31089c2f9b50aa430dd414dd1
2d0452310c5e2017d0ab0e1a0d6940f69eae3591
F20101209_AAAEBL jett_j_Page_090.tif
8c4bc72d8c9f7a33f29a448a12b47342
0c64b3475c500cb10ebe2ddceb8c179591fcbf30
2139 F20101209_AAAEOX jett_j_Page_037.txt
e1e932af0e74f0ad903f6515889369f3
bcd4f496bb89ad4532ecce77376dc79332c15dc0
54716 F20101209_AAADET jett_j_Page_048.pro
c9cb49c207837cb93d2ca185cff03307
aac9ee7dacec5249aaeb6495d334aad688a44569
F20101209_AAAEBM jett_j_Page_091.tif
b64a2ab1b36f279b5e0c7f7d46dffecd
9b2005d36416141efa8bba308cd79348117aed92
12874 F20101209_AAADEU jett_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
45bbe5b7d8a952e060bbd1010c33488d
8f1de8b24ebf07d3185c67a197506a2ed0602326
F20101209_AAAEBN jett_j_Page_092.tif
479c67c8562ae3c7bd77b843a4b585c0
41c99a598e982027d7693591510d8a07274c3c73
2143 F20101209_AAAEOY jett_j_Page_038.txt
b0563f1d19bd521c75de11e46f0d6874
71d91e541613f8bbba50b9e5cbdd6131b4879411
25275 F20101209_AAADEV jett_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
39560c9e5705bcf77876c443d17d3ff6
6d655bc5c2176bd7fb0f7e94b0f38addda42b114
F20101209_AAAEBO jett_j_Page_093.tif
f990a556d3c1504c3013d6380543f122
8786ebb8304ce767dc9afe9ac7c6bfdf82330ec6
F20101209_AAAEOZ jett_j_Page_039.txt
a824eed101c2ee1887427b9dddc908d6
30739a74ab18e0381760d2d868b6d3f84ce3969e
51918 F20101209_AAADEW jett_j_Page_144.jp2
93ee2c7760f8026fe5ae690021236a61
1c197d465a982025cbe1549e3aa09ea2ebe5126e
116987 F20101209_AAADXA jett_j_Page_178.jp2
f20f75af887b735871eb38f0734eff05
add97de2e27a15b5e95678e183f0c8ebd5feaba3
F20101209_AAAEBP jett_j_Page_094.tif
a51a5ac0603a7d091ddda78f3454b6b4
aad3d1aa2ed99124abd5fa4bbd18dd6386401c39
2175 F20101209_AAADEX jett_j_Page_077.txt
1b2e5737bf70c8dfe8b6b72579f6742a
662c12f32c149b130f4fcf9cd58cdedaa03b236d
117714 F20101209_AAADXB jett_j_Page_179.jp2
026094d93bdadabd3d16a124b07591d3
3368dfdeac701bf55899ec58dd5f200e60a6e2c3
F20101209_AAAEBQ jett_j_Page_095.tif
d92f83c6de203f95d4c92fcf60fe7778
dd39d12169b2d12c66588b04d93484adfca26f18
55933 F20101209_AAADEY jett_j_Page_093.pro
8220a42e212d11d9439626a839f34404
108ba848fc9398e046f2805f10f122e5c4886b53
F20101209_AAAEBR jett_j_Page_096.tif
33ca8ff8e8674f1f0260fc53a261aa26
47dad521d895ead8e03c3532faf09d567a5cbd37
118410 F20101209_AAADEZ jett_j_Page_055.jp2
9f22547f4d51a8e327250065c3ec254e
c8d367acc8191184f5766fa26de1a3eeafa03461
118157 F20101209_AAADXC jett_j_Page_180.jp2
7a5836aaebca3a48991fe32f3c26395a
8be28ac191fb9ffa7a3fbbeaf7517aaf36f06f32
F20101209_AAAEBS jett_j_Page_097.tif
d0b2b44ca8eb8073c26a5cea23dc010d
a1bbd60d58b0c6ea7fa9a10d335b2c1856cb1cf5
119051 F20101209_AAADXD jett_j_Page_181.jp2
b238353be8e97eb904f58d892dfc5a17
b872f241c3717510b52af125b655a30a25c98871
F20101209_AAAEBT jett_j_Page_098.tif
c52dbc534df5d589223f76d09ae16c95
56bc838f83423e2a00812b956cd2706fd94164ea
118011 F20101209_AAADXE jett_j_Page_182.jp2
62bea0f2d4fb321874c1fe2c8d745886
741376be891638b07175bfbc3dc51a7267f04461
F20101209_AAAEBU jett_j_Page_099.tif
6f0acb161b099e895543cf2462434f85
22016bd6d0a03197332ef819b77e611e8891e56a
122465 F20101209_AAADXF jett_j_Page_184.jp2
3eaccc36402efdcc23193703e8af7f21
a634155fb14fa94183de60e1c11f97b19aa773c3
F20101209_AAAEBV jett_j_Page_100.tif
409b68a734d4ee84fd568b8222b3aa56
c9f61d77b9552f711404d1373449a4d01988d36f
103539 F20101209_AAADXG jett_j_Page_187.jp2
a90d6292996f948fce8910419c75cbee
50bd52322e9e953331185c29fbae8776a127c9b1
F20101209_AAAEBW jett_j_Page_101.tif
8910fdc8238c680a80718bee16990bd2
3c75a33445415d8c3cb6692998856ecabe9fb065
115974 F20101209_AAADXH jett_j_Page_188.jp2
aaf1cb910ef4eac87ffb2bca58812166
cee2758de19f9a956e0f1abe6b03a3b8b163ba86
F20101209_AAAEBX jett_j_Page_102.tif
6bcce52233a257393458d56f9fdb9a74
e25e20a5152b264a100e327d0c9ba310d97e67d1
F20101209_AAAEUA jett_j_Page_182.txt
2edaba71b3d3d657f3acbc6c5fff5466
c18a19c905a81b0bf035b2d4c6f8cc7e6618327c
121996 F20101209_AAADXI jett_j_Page_189.jp2
aced380bdee9fb59a173d5d88b49069d
d3dfe9dde3ec9654dd82a815f1cd9fbad5c442b7
F20101209_AAAEBY jett_j_Page_103.tif
6a29c9ab16cf2a38fccca59e7b6d95ad
c512d40fec8e36241cad520ed300bd7d3459e11d
2201 F20101209_AAAEUB jett_j_Page_183.txt
1402e420e7c85ddbf1abe7072f96850d
c98b09794383a4968231e3bda25da8cd1a6e0893
95015 F20101209_AAADXJ jett_j_Page_191.jp2
d697144165c4e7a4181414ee336dedc0
eeaf2e46e7de52de87892edff29792bd6f7e11ae
F20101209_AAAEBZ jett_j_Page_104.tif
5cb86db853d459a8862619f5c8c370bb
a7cbd453b009422e432d962efdb0e03f3e0d49c6
2225 F20101209_AAAEUC jett_j_Page_184.txt
1583661bbd09e3d0d037f296def02b2a
10ba0f19e4d8c0e38455e0a42d644c8d6e1e3316
1051985 F20101209_AAADXK jett_j_Page_192.jp2
587a99c996402dff14208840754f3711
62d30d924f64f0523aff612c9f6b00c35d75dc89
2185 F20101209_AAAEUD jett_j_Page_185.txt
6e8d3661bf4f98b4deed090da0f7846f
94ac62b828281147175aebaae6b5607631a983ad
77552 F20101209_AAADKA jett_j_Page_033.jpg
2967a9204cac6a27a4c92b906e628ccf
cff1ca42c33b7a45f18d68cc84916f1a64e9c68d
88069 F20101209_AAADXL jett_j_Page_193.jp2
9794cb57fa06da17566bf05cd05e7e41
3119db607602c2d7cf358fbd4d5299a483353dc3
1930 F20101209_AAAEUE jett_j_Page_187.txt
554f4b04d4bc12305f8a04cfda94b4ef
9698f00c2adae0d62b57c1d4d1f073c689dcf006
71950 F20101209_AAADKB jett_j_Page_034.jpg
61ea907f8b7f8d7d65c2447c614fcb64
700facdf79e1fd9cc99b2db9f3fff9f4c9e3b749
986717 F20101209_AAADXM jett_j_Page_194.jp2
b806f92a1e1c87a0128b1586859a275e
2c2c2d815b785fd9ce834baf695926264dcd5ccc
2099 F20101209_AAAEUF jett_j_Page_188.txt
696d0829d56df8ca202a6d4fb418dce1
173ac6a044ef52f391c801b540f1694995bab02e
76770 F20101209_AAADKC jett_j_Page_035.jpg
0bc8d957a55901745e28da472540ecec
65527e4a2d1b4561ba3e0f4e30f741472083fb85
918956 F20101209_AAADXN jett_j_Page_195.jp2
5a91d394593ca4d52af80031c5d83ca1
e5a0c9b062c8160f681435e52e8def9ed0b67c67
2254 F20101209_AAAEUG jett_j_Page_189.txt
17c4bd247da2aea2d9ca6ed725190844
e9552840f8feb3439184365ee048d8d305712737
74325 F20101209_AAADKD jett_j_Page_036.jpg
d95998c9d9193e1bb918e6e3cc5fa2c1
74472989f91f566531500c2fe663432d54d20e01
1026601 F20101209_AAADXO jett_j_Page_196.jp2
99ec2322f27fb14a231ca1702a10a291
a33c63197d3a064dcfcab930a9027a88a577b665
2105 F20101209_AAAEUH jett_j_Page_190.txt
50d94f399236da3700698b961c32bbcf
04f26f32b80c84513052f676773e4ffa8e71f8a6
78932 F20101209_AAADKE jett_j_Page_037.jpg
f9ed4530378ef248574afb86b6860122
7665c78028368bdb51bafeb9b874dfde9185fb65
1031925 F20101209_AAADXP jett_j_Page_197.jp2
887770b52fd28ab9058f8e38133fb46e
30007ead1f49b8a7d0ace1cdaebb698944c949ef
1698 F20101209_AAAEUI jett_j_Page_191.txt
6ccba926e3881b286b66c6423549aafb
9d931ef9ff4658231e924820517e894be1b43738
78522 F20101209_AAADKF jett_j_Page_038.jpg
a77a82fef2836a8b3c0ae7520073f7a4
bc3ed8f34b7241c37ce8cdfb6cce00074bc0946f
1051933 F20101209_AAADXQ jett_j_Page_198.jp2
b2b4c224d6d7eb2880511bff5ac45082
5cfcadafdf9151f3c3e712917500c8b2e860a666
1356 F20101209_AAAEUJ jett_j_Page_192.txt
64fcf5e471454343a92c7889217a7552
8695ff128c616c7858075734b8b1fc000e4d8c52
76561 F20101209_AAADKG jett_j_Page_039.jpg
8a28d55ccc251700936f71fb8f4a3e2b
7f0097630198799ba1fe23ad2efb83b92574fe5e
84093 F20101209_AAADXR jett_j_Page_199.jp2
a85b6571517d6c70e672d69e1510c966
af31ef5e94cbb8150138a338410c4ae509f4d756
1943 F20101209_AAAEUK jett_j_Page_194.txt
9a69a3d9618dff81b4f67ecb1ad267b3
7458db1393df0def907c10a179cf771f63410696
74979 F20101209_AAADKH jett_j_Page_040.jpg
f7050969ec2e05d3a798288d59cb701c
8bac3ed98168d39ca97d6a4c4637d653d8e2bae1
42957 F20101209_AAAEHA jett_j_Page_028.pro
c9b6bb3a1e06f7ed470be62aff9d98da
ae5c2b8e5a2772d37d99dc31cb40276221139933
46483 F20101209_AAADXS jett_j_Page_200.jp2
4168a1ca2a1215d0f1e8d59acfc1e411
53cc4ee6e864d1a5418e307d1bf7fda0aeebe768
1952 F20101209_AAAEUL jett_j_Page_195.txt
e43fb9320d089c232ea81aad74d1bc99
74c4c97f8e6dd832e52ece980836702b935b8c5b
77197 F20101209_AAADKI jett_j_Page_041.jpg
fff43b33617d2e9f634c502785b99c32
a95c835618d3120a8d1f5137fc723e5913781817
11540 F20101209_AAAEHB jett_j_Page_029.pro
9bac9235eff860a43fbfb386b56a9945
1afd21fa58673c2d99c5934540d8d241b7f8fdb5
66968 F20101209_AAADXT jett_j_Page_201.jp2
0118734bbd66295e8f1578c8696a068d
ccc4bd3aabe9cd4837ac6749935a61702a359369
2252 F20101209_AAAEUM jett_j_Page_196.txt
4200034d3b667ca4f9ec6546e4f278d8
3b52a412cbefd8aa69a338014b973f4eafefe66b
76818 F20101209_AAADKJ jett_j_Page_042.jpg
a255372974919925b7bad0ee8a72a97f
48b954d55eca06f3d14987929725b19783d7053f
2287 F20101209_AAAEHC jett_j_Page_030.pro
347964ec058a9cb1f3585338f3e46ebc
ecee62b516c7c2487974c00756eef87719dd624f
35916 F20101209_AAADXU jett_j_Page_202.jp2
4a77c56cc08cfb6e664478b1db92390d
8be942c856bd0e93367854b30a2382abefeb015f
2362 F20101209_AAAEUN jett_j_Page_197.txt
dceda68371c1a8cba26c8e408096731d
9f80d7c3c99310f5979b3e7fb8ea81b79d9036a0
73966 F20101209_AAADKK jett_j_Page_043.jpg
1a62144a03a277732e7790ed520f8c29
72d88734bd490167e3be50c1a016dc9c543f9752
49487 F20101209_AAAEHD jett_j_Page_031.pro
abf26106f762959320b390e0be65d5e7
6025dad4f769c6413bd19136ca9fd6617380b7b1
124856 F20101209_AAADXV jett_j_Page_203.jp2
f05ddbd289dd7f6ccde05fdeba43a1e5
73d7ed9028d66c58c0fd4458a1a3b65258bff999
1031 F20101209_AAAEUO jett_j_Page_198.txt
18ee6b034022e12f0da3d876b2a77004
da9701dbed2a83c5209c4dad891fe2a2af6cdaf9
80630 F20101209_AAADKL jett_j_Page_044.jpg
880bd1e7f07a2866b913cd2c46a4917b
083059653c9f13f4cf8ae5699c2662666c719c9d
54660 F20101209_AAAEHE jett_j_Page_032.pro
692bde0307ffcaea03ef2947f1a1031c
f546f718e99acf8a906549f990e541459fa9d134
133442 F20101209_AAADXW jett_j_Page_204.jp2
818a0c5f61466cbeb7ff33fa884a41f8
99a1276f3d24252ec46fbffaacc12fccf8923471
1822 F20101209_AAAEUP jett_j_Page_199.txt
abef80617c3c7113d94dc6e2a1eb5b22
e789d6b7345df2d9466f8b7c05cd60b7c3a738b3
54829 F20101209_AAAEHF jett_j_Page_033.pro
a6fd1eac5453332075cd99d25adf339a
77ce030cdce72ba7844e010ed905d5015d223e64
145934 F20101209_AAADXX jett_j_Page_205.jp2
20975a8ef59bf4752a2f632ff9f6294a
66c894f2fb40ec0a07a2427980479d3ff1aecd17
919 F20101209_AAAEUQ jett_j_Page_200.txt
b0bbffb6d6abccb5abc12ad96e12ff26
eb9deab33701fa620ded4e20571c010f22108f5b
76976 F20101209_AAADKM jett_j_Page_045.jpg
1770d7b191007993ec22d3b979c27ab8
0afebca7deee2660b4bbd31a943811d2e82a3954
49558 F20101209_AAAEHG jett_j_Page_034.pro
2cfa0032370c24a59109b0cfb993d5d5
cce30d2402e85d7a892f0be8d566601563c607f7
132733 F20101209_AAADXY jett_j_Page_206.jp2
d83f829b49e7b77a057eeabc91125ec3
d2b0094a50c9d1528f444f9fce0f404643861235
1550 F20101209_AAAEUR jett_j_Page_201.txt
a11acd4713371e1bc97f72ca4595db34
ced338ff4c0ca725e6aa519e1171a366aaa32c00
78724 F20101209_AAADKN jett_j_Page_046.jpg
08d4aa25caa157e0e510e1dbb64c5210
d3a2c0b02f0c9ac24ea97c823578ea0f14c39720
52928 F20101209_AAAEHH jett_j_Page_035.pro
a7c9119cd4221ef9305d1280cb831838
ed08c6e9f04f53f30d1a2de3cedfca35bc76d75c
1051973 F20101209_AAADXZ jett_j_Page_207.jp2
e6321fe5298515ae34e3c348bfb2baaf
5675fcdcfb86601205b28d24a77e224033cda4b9
20245 F20101209_AAAFEA jett_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
86fa6e2c6af38fd52ed5150a8564a816
a8c1be213e79f860847500c99f2f1b7ddb7f173b
749 F20101209_AAAEUS jett_j_Page_202.txt
60d8d2458e9f7c4bfd5d0ae780af28a7
4a857ed802e16ff2799094d24f72440c5274cbdf
78158 F20101209_AAADKO jett_j_Page_047.jpg
b76ce66dcd1906c413f9f59739a7d675
6d95ac769338fc0e469cd079187e20530686d296
51721 F20101209_AAAEHI jett_j_Page_036.pro
be45a70460f282cb5b2b9f173c94a38d
d0ef1ebb5f1caa320e839cbdb1941fd1226fc7d9
5902 F20101209_AAAFEB jett_j_Page_123thm.jpg
bb9f74ab1205c30849f8150ba2999fc5
ffaa0850a37d4afecdb057a1785c12afc3400fb6
2340 F20101209_AAAEUT jett_j_Page_203.txt
9111fc17a7f40796faceb283ab396333
49a7d9d5bbd0fab075729984f25eab1ec9c75ab7
77206 F20101209_AAADKP jett_j_Page_048.jpg
a8d26fd78b6bee945a9631bd37e1b23d
c480acb89115d2747fe279400c7664cfe09eb9d9
54422 F20101209_AAAEHJ jett_j_Page_037.pro
01d111d81b9f9a47ba07f8fa195f55bb
f1854407d71dd64be4c66d01603380426a67e6ea
23792 F20101209_AAAFEC jett_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
1f6e6dcd232b16a616617fe7aaa7bf04
b28b53ee8a28dc20cf490a6a9f87759c98ec136b
2538 F20101209_AAAEUU jett_j_Page_204.txt
5cf12e6f8061141077813416348b09bb
f45595c808214c720cef59c1b8dcd30ff55770f6
76659 F20101209_AAADKQ jett_j_Page_050.jpg
5dc82834c222edc12af98754244a8dd7
13b03c751703e7c3cc9bc6eaf478178e75563884
54741 F20101209_AAAEHK jett_j_Page_038.pro
4f88a01637cdfe8c55ae12bb6e8eed44
736b978b8abbb092b55b6b9cef3f35a6fa92d2b5
6608 F20101209_AAAFED jett_j_Page_124thm.jpg
1302af11f850d5b08e317538216be1aa
d695264a01281344a6125526e886b05043f1ecef
2764 F20101209_AAAEUV jett_j_Page_205.txt
da8df5090a6242b165087c180f192474
0181f3bbe6aa1b593a7ced0878815b4730c15df6
77873 F20101209_AAADKR jett_j_Page_051.jpg
21ab7b554d84cc03a4d31d795275acf3
d37cfe75cb65b4d81466dd271c397ff51b0492aa
53017 F20101209_AAAEHL jett_j_Page_039.pro
7ce27d9418be8ba6300b30e2f2e132e3
b30724c7a525e35d6947f70d744a49f88e25e54b
21679 F20101209_AAAFEE jett_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
f276f3f7b4a95759dbd24d1a409933ef
e40c91cc847c18c25bdf7fc3f9f82028f479c6c6
2540 F20101209_AAAEUW jett_j_Page_206.txt
33cc8f17ed39802018af0e91c4544cd0
7f14e7f699cd20797406b920b59a69b272762b15
83084 F20101209_AAADKS jett_j_Page_052.jpg
479f85ec71aca3da053ecfe1b4f77d44
cddd5c9983c05b70b7b1be32cedb004264d9e7de
51913 F20101209_AAAEHM jett_j_Page_040.pro
48c2c3462e75b7f1bfdc91f3aaeb087b
0e640ae5b43d94dcc5cbe4dd36334392cb57c5b7
6197 F20101209_AAAFEF jett_j_Page_125thm.jpg
255197512c66cb6524bf2b961ba58893
8a771892a067792fb9112cabe4cc8f043ac58855
2509 F20101209_AAAEUX jett_j_Page_207.txt
57d6957ada62f729dc41c761af495ef7
180b98c405dcad0e5e7f01f499d15bbebbf424a2
75967 F20101209_AAADKT jett_j_Page_053.jpg
0812ed0eda1d620c61a8b79008c270b9
f40f00669a163260729e84a4005e865c71fcdd0d
55169 F20101209_AAAEHN jett_j_Page_041.pro
c96659db5916c8681b15a7d9e6570ce6
f1ee1d69722893db69135b9fb04f37b6105dc2ac
22467 F20101209_AAAFEG jett_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
04ef2bd6505d208ed5e14498bea75699
3b3a2eb41843a7ee64683e2fcaa8d0457b8d44a9
2578 F20101209_AAAEUY jett_j_Page_208.txt
866410b0aea6e78d2190beaa388f9901
de652bd2c9ce116a28f508a9f9e39950a4da178a
74433 F20101209_AAADKU jett_j_Page_054.jpg
a2bb8cd5dbc212bf46c9fbdc93179763
113a89b2b336844890a2c37fd4e38cf097212816
52303 F20101209_AAAEHO jett_j_Page_043.pro
ea26e1c93fbca99c1ee530b0bb099f19
d077377efce2411d6bab3bd74816378360031920
6238 F20101209_AAAFEH jett_j_Page_127thm.jpg
4a473a814a2b0108cb9a99a986a72c19
3552209a9a8aefb2fd9be29480a99a0b0f3860a4
2560 F20101209_AAAEUZ jett_j_Page_210.txt
dd5797e96c2c27d79df8a5ff3c08afc6
47c67beb5e60aee94037ecee2229210f89a18272
54805 F20101209_AAAEHP jett_j_Page_045.pro
94ca062066e8c4e65fe07c6f81c31a99
e0774d4c03b7d991ef0b25469f7e595854b11233
20677 F20101209_AAAFEI jett_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
4553eb59f8b4a43cc7743605a5c22918
e99e277755b530ee987ff06f908127e13f78aa4e
76020 F20101209_AAADKV jett_j_Page_055.jpg
3fc4ea8d8f2c5f2d75a99034a30202a0
55eebae8148add325da231809d8fe4c4cc4082f9
55390 F20101209_AAAEHQ jett_j_Page_046.pro
a5fed5407478a35022de9b13e0d1ee64
e053480a6b136ffc3aefaa5ee49a6c248d69ab4b
5879 F20101209_AAAFEJ jett_j_Page_128thm.jpg
259f6cc2663f993ca2184f2eda4324e3
636edbef953db6558e7e344e63679fcbe0299100
73818 F20101209_AAADKW jett_j_Page_056.jpg
a5aed62e88bb048c332c9a0f0cd159e8
278c897e9f076bfee1f8a433790cd9a88713ff5d
25809 F20101209_AAAFEK jett_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
e9df6d5e8bc118f9a9d9b6174ba375bc
e6b13ab340a1282f8410b9781ee9a7e568fe225e
76556 F20101209_AAADKX jett_j_Page_057.jpg
0d9142f7ef8cf5968df9274a30f74208
fe9fbd3ee9ec3aaf358dc65fbf4d661e701ec31a
55548 F20101209_AAAEHR jett_j_Page_047.pro
d739d34120a08e4fb5cbe74508c1795e
4b17e19fd505f7b9f94c497e21b296ef6a47bd79
7013 F20101209_AAAFEL jett_j_Page_129thm.jpg
7679764cc081abd7d8e70cb31bcbe1d0
e05a888c9b405ec4de047234a54c87e447e0c9f5
74287 F20101209_AAADKY jett_j_Page_058.jpg
9cca66db1e9c760bca2ea32c6ebe4070
cf5347e9e396898f57b26a98e013e715c94a80ac
F20101209_AAAEHS jett_j_Page_049.pro
566a96f8bf7b449a8ff52a18066d14d5
cc9b2ca2a9a658d749004b74ed8cfd2d9941fda0
24800 F20101209_AAAFEM jett_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
aff7a2d3af64608a8e717de863f14513
6cd8fd23ba45502b50a70aecf709ff9941180a0b
79645 F20101209_AAADKZ jett_j_Page_059.jpg
795134bdc7f55ac20397923b48a7b8e5
621a3531487ef8736b15c252773394bdb9e52ce0
53319 F20101209_AAAEHT jett_j_Page_050.pro
c01e2a764be3a492a49c4eb6ef1f1f3c
cc9b4fbec1bf1e4d8f58600623f1dadf10bbdde8
54668 F20101209_AAAEHU jett_j_Page_051.pro
bdf59bba525b916e35a782c486eed1a7
34dea5bf09c1202c076bf4ac46f16ecd272e466c
6707 F20101209_AAAFEN jett_j_Page_130thm.jpg
6f19e5e80abb32b7a67c7b8ab11445d5
b083e370f2d4d9e27cceceb43a95c1e28f2ae8bd
60118 F20101209_AAAEHV jett_j_Page_052.pro
20a1f73dfbb74c63cb9c61fcf1881fc7
dfacf56cf29ae158761986c81634c82b8902cdef
24044 F20101209_AAAFEO jett_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
95dc08f71ef3a2ffe7d5af576823f7c3
77122949fbd24e4908a91bbdef36f147dc968de5
53408 F20101209_AAAEHW jett_j_Page_053.pro
b7f7cd9642a9851463c1c35383c264b9
895e545913a444b71237ff32ccf375abdf4249be
6761 F20101209_AAAFEP jett_j_Page_131thm.jpg
7ca57848327f4370c91a874d7f3149df
08449b9b74e0deb99396086a00581b8e79e3475a
52900 F20101209_AAAEHX jett_j_Page_054.pro
d13a612bba3d7622f486aed9a5380aa5
8c76c175a75354a38cf0a8103717f0ff5b71fbbb
24416 F20101209_AAAFEQ jett_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
28576b95dc6892513926f83c0be21d63
32fb2082f818e415fe4d43679140bb71b7ddcced
53227 F20101209_AAAEHY jett_j_Page_055.pro
b67daaf61a71bd95ddaf2ef11d03bc1f
c7b8ff21bd0ac59faf6f11e183bb579a38f6bdc6
6378 F20101209_AAAFER jett_j_Page_133thm.jpg
416e5df3db0a2dadcfb6437a81c1f3e7
08f753a77c08684a8ac1429301aa1f80202d4bda
52741 F20101209_AAAEHZ jett_j_Page_057.pro
0f52a98e9e826950bdf07088b19428da
eff0421c51c1120d055fdc888fa2166458caf83c
25446 F20101209_AAAFES jett_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
ecd2f6998001490564b032549479a425
de6e4cb9269e49b66a1bff31839917f8f51bd5f4
22774 F20101209_AAAFET jett_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
fba477a948622f0d05bfb84332719eba
2cccc000168dd6ed51ffe76379e0b30428e33373
6595 F20101209_AAAFEU jett_j_Page_135thm.jpg
0c9265c0da5a620c711dbc18c7d846b4
645b3c5327fa6807d1b43960a9ab5d399fc33a9a
50554 F20101209_AAADQA jett_j_Page_201.jpg
204ece390bd0bc33c910a46be3e3ecfd
e00af7de0805dcbfd97fd20f4f6c52eb3effe5f6
24798 F20101209_AAAFEV jett_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
f45e8f425be19369169fc0befe999c44
3ba64ca93cf703069698646c83e1cff9c9734f2c
31573 F20101209_AAADQB jett_j_Page_202.jpg
5f9acd88fca580eb6bf591f4d05fbd6c
e4280c3b0df10b568a54918fed2a969a807032a2
7070 F20101209_AAAFEW jett_j_Page_136thm.jpg
11d95b83e6f3242c135303f5dcf4e068
b7bcb15f296449c41e8ac8e7ff684d0e08c2db1e
79103 F20101209_AAADQC jett_j_Page_203.jpg
7a8f057931ef875224d9af29e5802665
869559b73a3702f7efec0f356949856d88d4ea5d
25139 F20101209_AAAFEX jett_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
e1a3a06fc83d61d08a5f77d175fdcaac
dc01ab06eb089d85a9ff5f195e5cc46c1c6434df
86476 F20101209_AAADQD jett_j_Page_204.jpg
b15e4e4854597a9d6848db11990bc148
0c29a3a900355d7b519f6786302bd0224017c3ef
6550 F20101209_AAAFEY jett_j_Page_137thm.jpg
e236efc8e5a23fc02b1ec4a040ff1411
6b8a8590ed7b8b17d241745e2309a18df419fe44
93764 F20101209_AAADQE jett_j_Page_205.jpg
9d443ab5d3af0e3ff03b82f42ecd0e09
d8bf29c345fb1d5e4f73320074e279ff7c00adf5
14140 F20101209_AAAFEZ jett_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
c7d3f599c873beab52d6d0661b509897
491b2f2748db4a26041bf2fc32f6cbefee48d881
86549 F20101209_AAADQF jett_j_Page_206.jpg
cfb8a5f71dedcb4c52a5b9ed50294b90
130e145374bd64ebee6b10536b90e38b45e18d14
96694 F20101209_AAADQG jett_j_Page_207.jpg
30a8780c4c2cb16d901ae5fbfef7b3bf
0b61b1188045cc6dfa43b734813465069ad9113c
32617 F20101209_AAAENA jett_j_Page_201.pro
5e25f88d37364ce316cd91b682f93e8e
fcf110a9fee1c6eef5afe334dbe6ad02c3e6e1cf
90067 F20101209_AAADQH jett_j_Page_209.jpg
b4459233ad2d4b69dc920e5ca635855d
71271fa752a0336b8f2f854e21ee767530a0d64d
15554 F20101209_AAAENB jett_j_Page_202.pro
09b7c24d948d4d8f9e299f41315be81d
885ce05faa143eb35babfbcd1c89313480bbb13d
83508 F20101209_AAADQI jett_j_Page_210.jpg
83f5c27421f115e1118b450aad1a8c8f
3367975b37eba68c945b55050cb27464ade91d39
56896 F20101209_AAAENC jett_j_Page_203.pro
d5e2ba73a4d46b37bb22e9a42c8a46fb
0729f0bec56bd7a298cab7c2236a82f17bfdc26c
87210 F20101209_AAADQJ jett_j_Page_212.jpg
ddbae51dd19227f14c1b2cc516f834fd
815e614435f13041851282730618d45b77e6b8e6
61681 F20101209_AAAEND jett_j_Page_204.pro
2a83361bc5eb32915de6aff442efd856
103eb4f532e89b6f61312ea45c9635b2974223c2
86837 F20101209_AAADQK jett_j_Page_213.jpg
c97050db9dd22722ac88fa5b30164aa2
a45d2c112bd3f33100d9e624f2a439769a79b60c
62322 F20101209_AAAENE jett_j_Page_206.pro
ce94478737c1e0bfd201691cf47df36a
7ce3dc6c16fa578d38c01c71e721f82f6b92afe3
86594 F20101209_AAADQL jett_j_Page_214.jpg
734219506e99525a4067cbdfba6be087
8d396a8be1d555485898ceff42fd4c55e818dd88
64995 F20101209_AAAENF jett_j_Page_209.pro
f592ec6bc6ee2543024c24c0e7b3f952
ef67129c1a32037f6f040902e290f585e1e31a5f
90550 F20101209_AAADQM jett_j_Page_215.jpg
2a9b499d7c6fb4ba0beae19d7d64b4ff
37a37013115337f5e6f643ce747334d31e42ae8c
62049 F20101209_AAAENG jett_j_Page_210.pro
4d792d6fd81b24186cb941851db69aba
14e29cfd2e7bc50a675145d7c3992a38217ce280
103796 F20101209_AAADQN jett_j_Page_216.jpg
29bca4314f77b0a14dc411db921db7cc
cd3b8e80157b976b6fe6f0c803899e4734128a24
67316 F20101209_AAAENH jett_j_Page_211.pro
44930bb0d6c9607a3749c1f2c5f17797
5579281aa85a370385872658b10d82720a51e306
27745 F20101209_AAAFKA jett_j_Page_208.QC.jpg
528608ba913daf3599e0c9abd7f16513
c9a38ea3646d4b562b82c22ae68d788f2c2f5820
96323 F20101209_AAADQO jett_j_Page_217.jpg
3d90c1c9419f0823905ca5a2ddd5bfb2
06adddd9f2dc0e1661d7bd88cd391896ecbaf1e6
62907 F20101209_AAAENI jett_j_Page_212.pro
111d9244b366fadf36f9629cc344606f
0e16943e498c4b14ad6fe9e1dd9ac677e24b9027
7343 F20101209_AAAFKB jett_j_Page_208thm.jpg
dd58cfa227199e27fa27cf0f54009759
0b29ef4b9507a0dd3d9364b8416bc6f3203ac38e
87079 F20101209_AAADQP jett_j_Page_218.jpg
39c432b1ea0cbf63e87701ccde294f94
001edad542d62bd3e25f04710defa289eb3b5691
61052 F20101209_AAAENJ jett_j_Page_213.pro
b97adf610c13825adc80a34ef5b666ce
28a23c0973a1639aa4dba58d35830b25512ac9c9
25989 F20101209_AAAFKC jett_j_Page_209.QC.jpg
a5a17fee9fb137dc60c877fba180eb14
f8ab17cf0a9e5bd7492fc181b4d5fc56af44cdb9
101400 F20101209_AAADQQ jett_j_Page_219.jpg
f09d27da3e7b6bec472f153d8e4d5ff0
500ff939d93fb95937b71900295ad852448098cb
64706 F20101209_AAAENK jett_j_Page_214.pro
08ff4725e4f7a970c5607684f4871f2c
5bd852c1383dba6b9724dfaece3f3f6dd00b35bf
7102 F20101209_AAAFKD jett_j_Page_209thm.jpg
f9dfcb3816baa1af85c95ea5b3d4b13d
479d716747b9e6a9527680e9cae86e98264d17e1
75137 F20101209_AAADQR jett_j_Page_221.jpg
e5e4a75d02bbcafe41d359dfe90b74ba
960cca99f14ac4fee619f55d675c74b5f83f8fda
66717 F20101209_AAAENL jett_j_Page_215.pro
7113dc64b66f3425ab871b217fcd7fc3
1f59f8d12ef296a069421e09823736fbf37033c4
24607 F20101209_AAAFKE jett_j_Page_210.QC.jpg
38df975a988d6f58c52b3882d48f1d9c
a07d7bd2e98b6919f0459005371a2792d1db7f5d
117933 F20101209_AAADDH jett_j_Page_067.jp2
3def25d5f224c3392c970808e111313a
0016fc670e9c3bdfbd224e8857a13406ae3d01a4
F20101209_AAAEAA jett_j_Page_046.tif
7a7dff5d90b4e8a79925f15513ceb07d
5bb2b3c16a58b6b27e6cd33d29e4ca22faa09f01
27231 F20101209_AAADQS jett_j_Page_001.jp2
97a3f66d775243cb77f41241e48e4fe5
e6062a8e205e42890c6e7ab3e35a560b2310db4b
65811 F20101209_AAAENM jett_j_Page_216.pro
042efa7ed54616758668f7dfe1057b1b
0e173e1155f8aac473f4bf5c5126ab0b939b7bb7
6779 F20101209_AAAFKF jett_j_Page_210thm.jpg
fa7b134e1303fbda46912f3002b941a7
a49e04dcc844cd0b3d5fecc459ec9ae567997caf
6344 F20101209_AAADDI jett_j_Page_041thm.jpg
5bc1d106f55842f5a06139fb5251dab4
ed731e07b20ee57f6708ff3fd4eae9c5decd8e70
F20101209_AAAEAB jett_j_Page_049.tif
3ab6e60fb274d884aecc37802c51b53b
ab3b43d686133dc78ed88342c034672f2b382041
4770 F20101209_AAADQT jett_j_Page_002.jp2
413e1b71f7c6e3d648eea8dcec58899b
79bda8aa20cc82deb938abf84772a9118fd17b18
59851 F20101209_AAAENN jett_j_Page_217.pro
f6d537925f30207cac8ebc3a71667a29
03744d1351f5261ec9ecb30dfecf5b90b8afc6a0
26784 F20101209_AAAFKG jett_j_Page_211.QC.jpg
0d0bc82fc5f1c54de9c066e80ce93928
b490a1a03c1a6225589a6131fb8c8da214790ceb
102465 F20101209_AAADDJ jett_j_Page_208.jpg
32dedf3bec98c25a9d5f1563f3b9da8c
8a090c7ae28ca09ed989c93fcf2030e1d7b18b46
F20101209_AAAEAC jett_j_Page_051.tif
8f66783ade7f369e2f42f50e909469ea
c4f4e75a48d07f48e0e74201c238e3ac101364fc
110209 F20101209_AAADQU jett_j_Page_003.jp2
1ae6c996f934372e2aa24113777c58f4
296af36f19636aa2e552fbff555efda7e1e2f596
7279 F20101209_AAAFKH jett_j_Page_211thm.jpg
22e2a322da8e80ea032d3c449844bc1a
d1a8314a4a476e12d592f861d7bfbab3cebf42f9
73471 F20101209_AAADDK jett_j_Page_159.jpg
adfbcf504e23dc5782e7bcf64ec890b6
c6a1fba3f856bcc46bda585384d7d45a235808de
F20101209_AAAEAD jett_j_Page_053.tif
85da9942d15c0765259708e07cde91fe
131071430d75406e9e96d4b1b92da122b24f82e3
106496 F20101209_AAADQV jett_j_Page_004.jp2
c209ba7ee6377cef2a3c82ff48921c7a
6be7f116869727bbb4f7d9ab3b60b433247faefb
62040 F20101209_AAAENO jett_j_Page_218.pro
630e02743672a689bf074b824ad75008
3a5b3f7e0775d2f40974cf174dcfdf97627ebf6a
25811 F20101209_AAAFKI jett_j_Page_212.QC.jpg
c72613feca2ce197a0cea4133696caa0
d82ea5eed084e4bcd22940a35b4974faead1f3d2
2138 F20101209_AAADDL jett_j_Page_061.txt
1180ea42cc5724717d7da4ffda0b9cac
8e3cdba44d245588a94f2aa8918b4ed653bd5558
F20101209_AAAEAE jett_j_Page_054.tif
156066507fb41833e2bc89b39ae5dfc8
55ac9127131d996cdc2c199bf1332294ad20c101
1051979 F20101209_AAADQW jett_j_Page_006.jp2
cafb2eb1726ca950cec1a059f5f0e5ae
b15f5a9639007fbd7bebc58e1e7f717cceefb62f
65574 F20101209_AAAENP jett_j_Page_219.pro
69ac238259d73e7f538a5234cc169827
97d358f64c10c41064998088a44305b1585479d6
6865 F20101209_AAAFKJ jett_j_Page_212thm.jpg
8bb3f0757d65931151e8e93a81aa0e70
844f9c0d1048651b7086a36026165fd6d6bca47a
120503 F20101209_AAADDM jett_j_Page_070.jp2
65d31985394eb25ee6083f4fe1881905
0c7e5eb63c60f3480452651295607a73d932ee69
F20101209_AAAEAF jett_j_Page_055.tif
050b0e594295123edd0bbfca9c7d5054
3beeb6de670ba1f352280dc642ee7b01ca6e015b
F20101209_AAADQX jett_j_Page_007.jp2
1c8cda7adb4461c4d127d3dd5f75fb18
90f93fe3391fc63d2f73f8ffd35ff97fc195ea89
68095 F20101209_AAAENQ jett_j_Page_220.pro
7b95ac32586ec8c33137207ad243c716
0d07ee8700c41f30be58249289a570dedf35a3a7
25842 F20101209_AAAFKK jett_j_Page_213.QC.jpg
ef5e823a792a3d0f820995504ef11be2
35c653ae91618f3ff71ca5f107c6bb0fadf7c2b0
119659 F20101209_AAADDN jett_j_Page_185.jp2
dc089f3b2b06a89ca345eb626351f8c4
31a1b573259dbd235a24ca9beb6181c5e78d5651
F20101209_AAAEAG jett_j_Page_056.tif
91522db153386a5012141fff423748c8
0d25d50cf11090402589252cd5db865b872bc96b
1051962 F20101209_AAADQY jett_j_Page_010.jp2
448a736d7389ae7b84f8233d05819f14
f6136d48e354391faa99c1f9829a411cd5b44b68
51675 F20101209_AAAENR jett_j_Page_221.pro
7597c60c57948663e42e8b1731ba8b95
a5cb580ceeb6f7b04b6146960f7b10ae23901833
6999 F20101209_AAAFKL jett_j_Page_213thm.jpg
7d9345205562822473ed0dff2a77b86f
b71ac5412801fe597ed926c656fe1e33d6a7282c
F20101209_AAAEAH jett_j_Page_057.tif
ffdb25b48438d48d39f2d7563c53baed
3401798744410d055c43f207955d92baad371236
809286 F20101209_AAADQZ jett_j_Page_011.jp2
b270792024b60e8e40bde69c191aea0f
2f2a9638dfa79b279db4eaf39d044dc455c518de
88 F20101209_AAAENS jett_j_Page_002.txt
f2483bc3331a9f61067d709aa7096264
b8f69e1e8a8fd7f52e73f606d84efc915929ec30
26104 F20101209_AAAFKM jett_j_Page_214.QC.jpg
2d6c9d4bf522904a0a55cb091ffedc1d
4dc0d5d129d03218a3b892b2babbdb6726e9832c
F20101209_AAADDO jett_j_Page_035.tif
c35e9a9734069f3e5f7ccca47df391e3
0a57c8ef650628b8e88afd678245c05b0b14f7ee
F20101209_AAAEAI jett_j_Page_058.tif
cc28aa1975bebe0973ed62175690e6d9
0f0ad2cc267b12d0c8bbe6d877edb77f1a987fa5
2069 F20101209_AAAENT jett_j_Page_003.txt
da1c5afc904876ac2ced82ab9424ff34
bda4bd4ec8291cb8f8f9bfecbfb07a07ccd9fac8
6795 F20101209_AAAFKN jett_j_Page_214thm.jpg
66562964f8c8242b902241ec944cf8da
1414d40cd3503f04e379abaae08e53f5730df51d
6638 F20101209_AAADDP jett_j_Page_022thm.jpg
56d23ab216f9565dbdd5643dbe420c5f
3b0a00809139b51097767fe9cbc34f9194271c8f
F20101209_AAAEAJ jett_j_Page_059.tif
99ca2d6c2961408926fe7f46297868df
c52cdec90eb47dd8627e4c79ddba59e727092a1b
3922 F20101209_AAAENU jett_j_Page_006.txt
ade56d625f9dd40989fe8a11dbcaa39e
ae52dfe0b5cbee47f8e7571b52dd095c8d253d1e
26764 F20101209_AAAFKO jett_j_Page_215.QC.jpg
117f50cf3bc6d7ead8e52f91177b7fc5
36541d885a6cb712aa94dca09e7ef7549096490b
93381 F20101209_AAADDQ jett_j_Page_220.jpg
291b86c94cf40ddca9f5e0ac2568de1a
cb9ff64796132a73786f8d21fb01db49ec568ec9
4493 F20101209_AAAENV jett_j_Page_008.txt
f599e225d4fa357fa1c1376006d87913
67602ea73df77e0438f1c772ece924696b333f2a
7349 F20101209_AAAFKP jett_j_Page_215thm.jpg
661060350145768dcfbee660b79140af
dc295045b93cb86c3653219efd13569d8bc4361d
2168 F20101209_AAADDR jett_j_Page_186.txt
4b0790cf00b603b88982031df3b8f9f5
b6c7dc40d46d22e49c1c9fecc4cf061a28f07191
F20101209_AAAEAK jett_j_Page_060.tif
9dbd5003ae4171b3533334b3d7a0acaa
b0223a117c2a871462100769644669382f0e6407
447 F20101209_AAAENW jett_j_Page_009.txt
a8bcdbd7a79d161d1a414eca406a4102
012a2de0ff8585581418eff34343e67be2c20b8c
26580 F20101209_AAAFKQ jett_j_Page_217.QC.jpg
1c354137d93a1128b20672cbe1efbc55
6b14431006f7a29a157fa11d399d701b74461383
2662 F20101209_AAADDS jett_j_Page_209.txt
586fea1397f382e856bd81a35fc92f47
14c208297be01f8c023defc46b00dd526768ba28
F20101209_AAAEAL jett_j_Page_061.tif
f234287f4864a747708bc27e781cacc6
9d78da784a487fecadd3821a3efa6db36dc446ad
7021 F20101209_AAAFKR jett_j_Page_218thm.jpg
c8dffc891c80637aa001505bfa4fd7b2
6a4cac903aa82151cc37129e7510cc76cf268937
2732 F20101209_AAADDT jett_j_Page_215.txt
5210f889ab14c5da3abdd0b9edde641e
44b187274e9c70c6b605529d6cd3e395618d7c40
F20101209_AAAEAM jett_j_Page_062.tif
4578e141e24aac193c05501165d691d4
a4464d1cc5844aed10d2cdcdeb515fc361c674ac
2743 F20101209_AAAENX jett_j_Page_010.txt
fb37e950e97077043b72c2a36227866a
104b2754c24c6b3e85d3a7d88c6c55377631766a
29163 F20101209_AAAFKS jett_j_Page_219.QC.jpg
47a698c4a710ff61ab6397e99d3c47d1
d68dae16fb3e34a4cb968eca72b537ef179a6ada
1368 F20101209_AAADDU jett_j_Page_091.txt
2b9604d51b25a685573a037f41bd3b15
585b93879e3548935775639877eee5bd29f8f904
F20101209_AAAEAN jett_j_Page_063.tif
17b52bd2a8026a8bca26bb0cc556dddf
d6835b3fa89a67cfd909591291cf970e9c55a4b7
915 F20101209_AAAENY jett_j_Page_012.txt
5d9dcece0472810f852dc124de0b7db6
3a41ba3f5f9f9322e8ed323857dcba283ecc3fd4
24864 F20101209_AAADDV jett_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
0daaafe482625a804f5884f0788f78bb
78135601e180558f6fe62bca21315056da8e1940
F20101209_AAAEAO jett_j_Page_065.tif
e72067cde75b1e612e202e99f866e6df
fff46be5ac003b5b87793cec128d7d9f8f0c6b06
2407 F20101209_AAAENZ jett_j_Page_013.txt
7f94cd7e1393bdeefce10ddb71dee43d
1f66b0ec31899e17775bf6360afd535af7617967
7677 F20101209_AAAFKT jett_j_Page_219thm.jpg
ebdbbb02c5489ffb3b9397fa969a9c18
718252364c699c1524c3c337b72c248a89c661b3
1746 F20101209_AAADDW jett_j_Page_193.txt
9693184f9842655bffbfd04d6777e53b
3207765c53121fe89239d658a717e0690e30aec4
29245 F20101209_AAADWA jett_j_Page_150.jp2
671eb8fe686ee07094dc74d7a0e6e45a
fe6ca8875ca655bffc504bd669ae4667555b43f0
F20101209_AAAEAP jett_j_Page_066.tif
2d6b167441edff32794b7c5803267afd
a975bd0c8994130d0eb762e61e8cdbe95ae99eef
26925 F20101209_AAAFKU jett_j_Page_220.QC.jpg
3b0c23565ec8120e8e03b959314a2170
2fa485bc70bef42f602ee5c781f899ec2bd95b38
115442 F20101209_AAADDX jett_j_Page_095.jp2
0bd80e5287e2d2f61173965e4e3a31f8
f8df6e9e7774f0e1a40cfcd49124d25ec8210099
F20101209_AAAEAQ jett_j_Page_067.tif
2bb26bb0e2ab766cf6c3191b57a678f9
47115f625827587d41db2ebc89e378936bb4b3c8
7146 F20101209_AAAFKV jett_j_Page_220thm.jpg
6af796f27944bd610cc7cfc93a2dae50
af571282371174cf29003e8f9a9ec3f008904e8e
56091 F20101209_AAADDY jett_j_Page_084.pro
988b9dd22da873c192655bb5ebd0fe48
6207a8a25e466732d9f9bc2e257929d928d0fd21
29205 F20101209_AAADWB jett_j_Page_151.jp2
8634bc601c78591c13a78cba74eef3ef
03f1d27a9213d48bb281b8edd431cb33c449365f
F20101209_AAAEAR jett_j_Page_068.tif
f5989a3c21c940ec6ac82676df5ec94f
d1ddb3f2472e8bef021a0ad4e1658d6582c57b2a
24139 F20101209_AAAFKW jett_j_Page_221.QC.jpg
38d88c11e0c7499c860e6f8203c6ac73
19a01c52d858a9671a98d7a0e4511b58a5d2ab1c
88619 F20101209_AAADDZ jett_j_Page_005.jp2
e174a823f29ce97895b93ab2c4827857
7adbc528753af8f8b5db5b8c0ac9cfc2f59b7f45
73248 F20101209_AAADWC jett_j_Page_152.jp2
82dbee1bf2b3b9124a5d3565d7b84b23
5f0b1b2f7d8a7142115913cc7e5bd602b406429b
F20101209_AAAEAS jett_j_Page_069.tif
a1930ce41552d064d22feae4e0ea5a3a
87fb804dae30f7f2873ed7ff8e89e0199f14a3f8
6633 F20101209_AAAFKX jett_j_Page_221thm.jpg
f08f7ea90578bda8a402a6ced6695263
3e6216931b74fa812c745a3f0c63d23e43b713c9
37966 F20101209_AAADWD jett_j_Page_153.jp2
c4499d06087905e7ac898a4c84535699
9f527ec7ae83c33bf6c2cacbc6fe3fd095b7e434
F20101209_AAAEAT jett_j_Page_070.tif
78fcfc819d4ea21cdb4a8f32e6f10221
c8bdc2232e28d018a394529e284071209e31207b
251423 F20101209_AAAFKY UFE0019647_00001.mets FULL
cdfa58bfc634ec8cb4e869d6cabf0700
5a3b573df4d80aa8b86635d4c65b2dcfc4e4cb3c
27645 F20101209_AAADWE jett_j_Page_154.jp2
69784bcd145c8be28978fc60d4cd16f6
cb542f43a8edaadf0aacd0c569dd816da45017af
F20101209_AAAEAU jett_j_Page_071.tif
33813a15b1fe0f9f71e3a01e65e4e021
f220bf9a277381c478534f7119ba3e8f61fa95f0
73913 F20101209_AAADWF jett_j_Page_155.jp2
ce320055a74846f7654a51b84b2c074d
398577874c0c2f87100f15467e90e589382c0b44
F20101209_AAAEAV jett_j_Page_072.tif
e74c5c062ea1435710c8ee73538c986b
fd803c57e6c2554cb798dce618f3d4ceed72c05e
51124 F20101209_AAADWG jett_j_Page_156.jp2
2fecbfe8e8518f6b78a7f87e384eaa46
91b4037a3a4ea5f9e8e741a2e2efc126a3baf211
F20101209_AAAEAW jett_j_Page_073.tif
ad8ba2c2cb629df274586c500ce06e50
8f1f5ce6123c09a5b482a40a1bb3c9b186f2f886
106953 F20101209_AAADWH jett_j_Page_157.jp2
90e56e369100db650d4e580b74d70560
9ab40344c3f155b71cd3b21160683bc49370267a
F20101209_AAAEAX jett_j_Page_074.tif
839a89c9ba4904add7f75ff261fa167a
4eadae66bfdccbb3f21dabf5aea695d950d6d63d
442 F20101209_AAAETA jett_j_Page_154.txt
207c0a44646625f1238399b6cd944fc5
8d2ecdddfd9f5de7e351ba36780ce414df639228
114938 F20101209_AAADWI jett_j_Page_158.jp2
3423dc1eb9f5f45af489106c04645303
741c9143fca8a659f8420781ddbc942cd2f5c516
F20101209_AAAEAY jett_j_Page_075.tif
a881d7437e82b95ce6909e86bb267cad
9f03dc5cda73cb7efe267e4aaab8c42369a22fcd
1929 F20101209_AAAETB jett_j_Page_155.txt
3d16898859a1526983af6cfe95b15eba
f5b030a9c32d87e13735eddd4353207587aa738c
112199 F20101209_AAADWJ jett_j_Page_159.jp2
9a1ca4d8ef2a0b14899c1ba188c4aae7
336ef89e29f26b473f49a62bf6f6b80daa2acde1
F20101209_AAAEAZ jett_j_Page_076.tif
ab1b4294abf8532c982af058252fa24b
91bdfca560162270826fcf73ebb3421c6fc1789b
674 F20101209_AAAETC jett_j_Page_156.txt
c1a973b006ee042d10902f904634a055
9b1dcfb2268906ce254b8f523f8e14678b749531
115824 F20101209_AAADWK jett_j_Page_160.jp2
19b5be1ad2978ccc89ebdaac9173f39d
f32dd901fc7564d0cd9568b8a665a9060155fbf3
2002 F20101209_AAAETD jett_j_Page_157.txt
df3a4ad7513c7f4eab7a338dc7a2f970
acee19fc08075e9f42e63a0c8b4026c1ba1c24cd
60806 F20101209_AAADJA jett_j_Page_005.jpg
74f548fef0404f9bfcdff64512a067fa
e9910422a94fffb1c9b51f47141be50f156d0cf3
109723 F20101209_AAADWL jett_j_Page_161.jp2
ef0c0726a8875f46b4d7b852f5a5ec84
5e624d6b6c9ca8721def7770d95dc8ca917b3406
2059 F20101209_AAAETE jett_j_Page_158.txt
d9a12bcca8974361eb995861b29f5827
df6567e5eadd406e0629df0192006c813ddce8c7
82765 F20101209_AAADJB jett_j_Page_006.jpg
68f993fcbfaf7f2031ead2917ff4abfb
b32ffd65cdf28357fbd194f4af92a1f96e6b14fb
101860 F20101209_AAADWM jett_j_Page_162.jp2
7334a8bdbd0ab906d8e6eef8b7590c08
f7c94349f84a3de94f96776e582531af64dc265e
1969 F20101209_AAAETF jett_j_Page_159.txt
0d442f6a341322eeeda1205a9153437f
14298b7ee94abf1a51c976ac32767b6f6157b5fd
97153 F20101209_AAADJC jett_j_Page_007.jpg
191f7915c5743941907269fbbdd70e30
667d0b8a8fb7b23377e46f2edba285bc05dcbf93
112448 F20101209_AAADWN jett_j_Page_163.jp2
1fd2306ad0c58b3a426ba496f9661621
0c610bd2bc3f8b17a35b3e07c4d1e22e4128bbac
2091 F20101209_AAAETG jett_j_Page_160.txt
836d56f2ff9a5aa368d334a0c73cbe82
6c4744153991097d088e2908b1c1047757b81c99
90957 F20101209_AAADJD jett_j_Page_008.jpg
7ff7939423aff6c86c29bf71ece9a743
059073e11eb6fe0de2eb555fa069926360f0c7ce
111367 F20101209_AAADWO jett_j_Page_164.jp2
2d379dd83e46c537338b475e06c4c48e
54510f64d67be9aa68064b8426a31adc4eb01762
1972 F20101209_AAAETH jett_j_Page_161.txt
0bd00d353144d08102b72bdd4577583b
4ae15892b69fccaeffa6ca917778dca61a4b1997
13318 F20101209_AAADJE jett_j_Page_009.jpg
8483828d0a3c5e8c5de64d3a5062e407
70e4c13cc4985c89db6b8b3304843e1dc8eacadf
115980 F20101209_AAADWP jett_j_Page_165.jp2
7c76c2eabbb1b7ef946257de9786e2e6
e7a7f1f31dace37dd543326e497f95ffd6f44f2e
1816 F20101209_AAAETI jett_j_Page_162.txt
c2e43814595f685d2f3e6bb392755145
a3a4296145098c74370b2e35e96de627a542f5c3
79371 F20101209_AAADJF jett_j_Page_010.jpg
eafd1843808f36d33ef540339df13b59
6b4c0c776e70f3fcb37750592db6db385650f4f9
114541 F20101209_AAADWQ jett_j_Page_166.jp2
2478d57b7410467216046d372a694704
5a0651d13335666e98dd2c98423a5aa37cd24840
2061 F20101209_AAAETJ jett_j_Page_163.txt
33591a691886d4a083e07a385e0306c7
bbf3913e21caeb2fe9472b5908367cfafde28a89
34151 F20101209_AAADJG jett_j_Page_011.jpg
c69587f21b51b5530bffc635374205a5
9c7e61987faa635cde0126932183b8a1a98e768d
99667 F20101209_AAADWR jett_j_Page_167.jp2
031f6d1101a50737ac166c986f077e22
f03896f63364f6ae557a9b5626e6df4ff2c7bf29
2023 F20101209_AAAETK jett_j_Page_164.txt
15e24af246e8d835a40cf52197886de6
6528e6ae8024d768aa16dbb9345211db5afb3f94
22099 F20101209_AAADJH jett_j_Page_012.jpg
54b9646e720525bb32cc27137a5b38f3
520cb665efdbbbbfd73a89549e862261d24046ac
25271604 F20101209_AAAEGA jett_j_Page_219.tif
774338d8aabd0c341b1c13956a3bb6be
a9cbdc50af73f539eb8384948e8cc297ec9ee541
121216 F20101209_AAADWS jett_j_Page_168.jp2
9b50f43302ee81706c913a3b299eccf6
2d22bb4db7a59ea6ca7668277ab180272d7c93dd
2157 F20101209_AAAETL jett_j_Page_165.txt
e2bdefec83406ab6948dbd7dae07646d
a9dcc346953c1be6a802e4a94f1a337ffaea3035
85174 F20101209_AAADJI jett_j_Page_013.jpg
fe3b6ef96240bed0c763f2e4f88c86a1
73e2bf9503286d1525d124d88e7bf3cc5ba510d4
F20101209_AAAEGB jett_j_Page_220.tif
bc6190f5dccf2b92cadd9b85a04fde65
cfec3d94e3ad3870f3b29218381f507741b84ac1
119684 F20101209_AAADWT jett_j_Page_171.jp2
c0ae9fe310e466e64da81318ea23b69a
b837c9168b394dded0fdf5249ac077ecde46f064
2054 F20101209_AAAETM jett_j_Page_166.txt
b120a032d61cd9ce55a161cc00e85fc6
c118847f7f765d57727fd3a11b6a464ee0d90c26
66852 F20101209_AAADJJ jett_j_Page_014.jpg
aa500ba81f35a511c376047f16b2d7ee
2be7c4ff4d866a6e0e10c985766a0ad3a30029cc
F20101209_AAAEGC jett_j_Page_221.tif
6c2a98d324eaefba23729701903e7deb
92f3c5ce7b4c98477073772d88505e13aa6f0cbe
117497 F20101209_AAADWU jett_j_Page_172.jp2
9e3cff26f81e34c8ce0fedc9f629c961
ab099edcd91785398c89668603d2aa92cdf18900
1776 F20101209_AAAETN jett_j_Page_167.txt
481cdaf4220ae34dccc1e0ad6ad74819
422efe1eb19c94397f8824c5e6e9659d9e14d291
61268 F20101209_AAADJK jett_j_Page_015.jpg
62df429d780d9cff487d41597beac174
5d5375d1b366572a02c270112f43486415cac8d5
9137 F20101209_AAAEGD jett_j_Page_001.pro
4a5906940a41077c848d24c8e06054c7
6b47880a00f653d33a6be27d516b6c6104af9338
116796 F20101209_AAADWV jett_j_Page_173.jp2
e07d3f724ebac3e1087b3f82db5d50b0
11137ae6d596396af8427660200815278449c807
2319 F20101209_AAAETO jett_j_Page_169.txt
cee4df91d455e3417e0c83608dc760da
46eb6b60b40708a3c2964e23bc4081e03a9c0a76
76018 F20101209_AAADJL jett_j_Page_016.jpg
50c7556f5b1202447a74704b753a1c80
9534f334790b70eabd9be33cd0a2ee1f61d4d731
781 F20101209_AAAEGE jett_j_Page_002.pro
1a98a4253d75fbc5f948a13837d89a13
818d595c18200b1a31ed2f0a82b15c252f2b0ef6
118196 F20101209_AAADWW jett_j_Page_174.jp2
81fc9bfbde3bee62f60877cb5faad292
dfc2b7d89210dce9a00b3ee7ac6853052c8c8112
2182 F20101209_AAAETP jett_j_Page_170.txt
531d8c21c843cf3b29a6528dafcbaa85
508521b44b749524e7cf97346634e2bae1a152ae
75234 F20101209_AAADJM jett_j_Page_017.jpg
aa56a99773a4d277ca6f0e25948d87e7
bee5c123b1c8012c07a56144c7b3a5bb555b9868
51309 F20101209_AAAEGF jett_j_Page_003.pro
206a5531ea48294ee4213f9a7007f62b
ed15682d3f91c3a081da86846a22246789e7a002
118291 F20101209_AAADWX jett_j_Page_175.jp2
58b752331d6f7769361d6a099d878ac3
3f6729238475ed07adcd8c131e74048a692c8015
F20101209_AAAETQ jett_j_Page_171.txt
63685f9897b9ae18b3d363a85573a09e
5b1cdbddfd5fafac25b86746bc0365944b22049e
82420 F20101209_AAADJN jett_j_Page_018.jpg
6473528c5acb2f34fd049c7c6890ccf3
f36e95a991e770b425d9364d220d1b4355c21311
50625 F20101209_AAAEGG jett_j_Page_004.pro
7c0841da271976e14f4fb6e846c64f30
b3596fa4b3245f779307bae5d18a83162e3a27d2
123302 F20101209_AAADWY jett_j_Page_176.jp2
7d252a4f5890e4783cb51fdef1b0dc60
6b8a836560505a5f45a02c4c208fd5e9e5ce72b8
2151 F20101209_AAAETR jett_j_Page_172.txt
2ba090e29e85d4d5d260ac2fe8b86686
90c59d9be8971fa5d1956979dcd8ff21393a113f
77048 F20101209_AAADJO jett_j_Page_020.jpg
3c5a2278b2ad71dbb01fba9de8b2acaf
8e530dfce0830f4d7119f79747ce2531038b05e3
40180 F20101209_AAAEGH jett_j_Page_005.pro
692a6d2b973ff5426fbebd8aa0427aeb
747a0f947a98536228775a30280e607b2a12cd82
118588 F20101209_AAADWZ jett_j_Page_177.jp2
1df52ab534a302dbd5291ccc13f29179
b006ed0e2bc070b6528dd661562e864750487f8d
6440 F20101209_AAAFDA jett_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
7de428e80e5208de2cbc24597ede759e
0e9a51c5cd5980f763533aed94380bc403ff5dac
F20101209_AAAETS jett_j_Page_173.txt
1d13a0577690e8f6d28618f0245f0a47
7958d46d7130d4e87f73c1b96a62497e85ba06dc
78157 F20101209_AAADJP jett_j_Page_021.jpg
d5ab0c87d1be188cef8cfa877cc9a376
a7e84bc7e5a23f94ac7e38e8c0017f29a4b10e14
94406 F20101209_AAAEGI jett_j_Page_006.pro
32183baeac4e9ba03d14ec5dcd664a1c
5cd7078b33049377fc7e6815515d339465c520e0
2191 F20101209_AAAFDB jett_j_Page_110thm.jpg
76af591073eee7e7310afba2a1dbdb27
8a34b46a88dd014275cab72f2fd6bfa123f45cc9
F20101209_AAAETT jett_j_Page_174.txt
ed80946dd455aa84723f89fcf57d4d51
03c14e81ed5525e13a91a8b31e613ab0fe6c685c
76494 F20101209_AAADJQ jett_j_Page_022.jpg
396762102a58a286c87e1ca5a41c6552
f08cda548801337497a1bd856117e82354d85b39
122323 F20101209_AAAEGJ jett_j_Page_007.pro
da8b28867a6009a21b4d331b3626078c
83f7580b47892763459f8410fd13b5473665ac3e
13324 F20101209_AAAFDC jett_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
9b01120c5a906948f3a781af7a35d566
0af618bada18f2979bc1d12a3091b89c22db4eca
2164 F20101209_AAAETU jett_j_Page_175.txt
50a7ad46d5f62646b47272db81db5921
81ec90f81565141e45bb1976c6f53ee9e4c060da
75691 F20101209_AAADJR jett_j_Page_023.jpg
a1d4afe315a4a8b609dce82e448f6481
e48984e34fa2eb680a110b0012f4521c47d27116
108172 F20101209_AAAEGK jett_j_Page_008.pro
872839e788ee17522eabad5d3aa56acc
a3a5a349f0da1b92aeab96f63c882fd9a420b36c
4056 F20101209_AAAFDD jett_j_Page_111thm.jpg
1c8d1b667e64d6c3a5f09483934a153b
a6a588a0d6f221f0ab8f99557e3c7b0aeaf8d01f
2338 F20101209_AAAETV jett_j_Page_176.txt
b1cae3ca1305dd6e801c6676be0af273
a3370eedf127e35d01fc52dd219d67329f87ccbc
76843 F20101209_AAADJS jett_j_Page_024.jpg
22cd49ba968c8a63d63c65cf20180d2c
e26fb83ffcc7f56722ea098a21c7de733bc5773c
7514 F20101209_AAAEGL jett_j_Page_009.pro
1b69747c97504f0662ebd5d84ca4cd41
a70ec5e35b869593b3852a09d023335237fb28ca
10420 F20101209_AAAFDE jett_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
10c840849863996d9527d724d9dadd94
073a05d1cb8d1ed33d7d01e294e5b5becd6670cc
F20101209_AAAETW jett_j_Page_178.txt
2fbd1a0ab6b99d4fc0c62c0506bb466f
b11f17cdf8ba3b4ab9f169a8d36a0543c1112653
79527 F20101209_AAADJT jett_j_Page_025.jpg
49ba2387008022d7a51f52b3d43d553d
d615ade2accb5764514171a0e7900ed50033b823
68900 F20101209_AAAEGM jett_j_Page_010.pro
572ae61e2d17a7555ab6e4da446e76a0
e4cd9423a0fac1f113c044547c7f95c9ef583e5a
3329 F20101209_AAAFDF jett_j_Page_112thm.jpg
a62cdfd9c390fa14f491e71b2bdf60a1
d5f829e9b595d0d02a8bc7a78e42459cea3353c8
2135 F20101209_AAAETX jett_j_Page_179.txt
bdc7466177d6efd9fe80f960e1397726
fd3130b13442acc351288ff16a8952597f97e060
21498 F20101209_AAAEGN jett_j_Page_011.pro
5e7f4d23a03b20d98f058c288ef3a7e6
6b94bfd26721071298a3bdb1fa4235c2657737d8
8678 F20101209_AAAFDG jett_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
39eaef3bbd5187671e08d1e29baf3609
2274a92d562ebfc9a037c6e396958de48a5b41ea
2118 F20101209_AAAETY jett_j_Page_180.txt
58a082e243ea51a988c2e0918d6d2138
d90e7651d5d516619fc217ed840a96d2223043a1
66671 F20101209_AAADJU jett_j_Page_027.jpg
4968e1f3805c7cb18c370649139f71f1
2445450ed551215e877474cf603276e1c889d686
18275 F20101209_AAAEGO jett_j_Page_012.pro
0ef045126c891831b612083451f7517e
9fb50acb4abbcdee89412354b189495ce3dc1561
2865 F20101209_AAAFDH jett_j_Page_113thm.jpg
348d44e880adfd6f738e2baa43657df3
3eba8fe04463a3852d0497fe545fe84e883ee816
F20101209_AAAETZ jett_j_Page_181.txt
6e7224e36544891b44fcadaf0b2b7810
ba58042ab843a459de36705fe555b0e6a2c408b6
63580 F20101209_AAADJV jett_j_Page_028.jpg
a0718d09faa3a28592a48a93d2f6aca6
aee34148667a1c03f65311ae24f9b0a75f561eef
61720 F20101209_AAAEGP jett_j_Page_013.pro
ed856bb78ded4239bf48d2eb78ad62fa
cfc29c8ed83b2969f1b7b40e235d2da94352696e
21587 F20101209_AAAFDI jett_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
c41a8bdb9574f9f0375074f4dab34776
3caa8d803bb869de20d59b50ebe1ec78a98c8dc3
40543 F20101209_AAADJW jett_j_Page_029.jpg
1c08772ac88d4c39b9e532319f3c6164
2987eec0f09a05a49dbeaa63c6939560132a33d0
6009 F20101209_AAAFDJ jett_j_Page_114thm.jpg
f95ef2c6cfe1fd7ab59d22d5a54c9470
c87a6460df0a243fba7136c670dbb6b5ac354b21
43144 F20101209_AAAEGQ jett_j_Page_014.pro
c1d45e1f6ab740406699e1e9c3888737
bdb914cf8dee1177a6978c96ce0d09fb3b6292df
16588 F20101209_AAAFDK jett_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
843d28d52b099b3e276e7719ce596816
e14cf0c04ffe9232c47548014e0e2794546ad21e
25529 F20101209_AAADJX jett_j_Page_030.jpg
431e994b571734bcda789f8e2f0b3ec9
df1d2c9a6b456218b1c3eeb50b8ff6bcfcc50865
42026 F20101209_AAAEGR jett_j_Page_015.pro
bf095810a56cb7563bf3406b50084e55
9cc52ec174b24b5bfb717b8933919fd6687a1db8
4708 F20101209_AAAFDL jett_j_Page_115thm.jpg
d3232bf37ef77795a91e7d690563d799
fd98ec1b73bf0d18355bba1f457c6a154acd5aca
73043 F20101209_AAADJY jett_j_Page_031.jpg
f3f64ac832752a3c933f422b0c4a3819
589bfcc3c2a36a0c1e2d783cd2391a36e53bde38
51494 F20101209_AAAEGS jett_j_Page_017.pro
e5784fec6d73500f7d8c6de7f94af967
eaa80fb1742a9d9fd584409de69bc82f47da491e
78194 F20101209_AAADJZ jett_j_Page_032.jpg
3e00415363744cf389d66e319484a7e1
b0fd00b976b892ebb57bf2727f59f5c908e9aace
62269 F20101209_AAAEGT jett_j_Page_018.pro
65b79a02f500fed3ffc187654a8aa8c7
3ff2fa15612bc9425bfc881ebe2c34ea48223909
12725 F20101209_AAAFDM jett_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
b2267a1712a5135aba4e710155b11143
a1e10bf0d9e08612add5e821557e75af6aa5ce24
53063 F20101209_AAAEGU jett_j_Page_020.pro
7c8741b46c375ccbe62c27bec1093ef9
8564d769f38bded1f3b937576e4f0932e6cb3e4b
3687 F20101209_AAAFDN jett_j_Page_116thm.jpg
34cfa7925732f042c4204caa7371be07
f5766beabc898d0ed5c4e289dffaa734ec08d001
54763 F20101209_AAAEGV jett_j_Page_021.pro
123d0952892345f3a49d9e9024bf42b2
a884028c0d384b8d2f27da5c3044e6229c44299a
15022 F20101209_AAAFDO jett_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
6f237a122821d5a5ee2b033a477f0414
8ca78ddcfdeaf98f717999cad3fe9b51f454d4d3
53921 F20101209_AAAEGW jett_j_Page_022.pro
5b9252b7e8c71d771ea8fa8e627eaf94
c7ae7f81dc148a53ccfa17f9a0cfe37a4b727f9f
6668 F20101209_AAAEZA jett_j_Page_054thm.jpg
0b8d8efed4db54238d6c964190a9b08a
a137cf7e224043bf9a46efe50c988dc0642deb77
4086 F20101209_AAAFDP jett_j_Page_117thm.jpg
1062701459add8959c807e957dccf237
2718a3793758578363b2ed91a16d1326cc4bd6f8
53253 F20101209_AAAEGX jett_j_Page_023.pro
0433cd88ce078f343940c438b63ca77e
f19b57f7a65e336a2f24b550d4309eb2ba45a76d
6780 F20101209_AAAEZB jett_j_Page_055thm.jpg
a5ae91005b9377aa3de1f9012252577e
776a174d1dd6cacdceef1e994be6c81d1855ba94
23469 F20101209_AAAFDQ jett_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
0fcff050ba137e670a22a40abda2f99b
2ed23153556808fe64c18026b4dce8d70ff95889
55271 F20101209_AAAEGY jett_j_Page_025.pro
10af3a942c42af9bd2f5d35d53a06825
6ed406a79b7d72f4f14addce5e6b6cc5e5a8b102
24152 F20101209_AAAEZC jett_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
b973982889d7d4abcdbc51afaa8c9d7d
9a1f1aa059be80c026f3849007332f6ed9d1b72d
6455 F20101209_AAAFDR jett_j_Page_118thm.jpg
5d14a6374660d1aaf903c86a20d0e071
0f2105836636d461dd0eec9158553647adcfa3e7
45900 F20101209_AAAEGZ jett_j_Page_027.pro
2a1d3ddc34d08e36930ff5942b296f79
eee9211788c72135c04a4e3a7d37a85e6d78e100
25689 F20101209_AAAFDS jett_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
478cf575df59179dfd663d98d27ec36e
d395cfc1d482e0905ebb6e90d9720a34216cba34
6492 F20101209_AAAEZD jett_j_Page_056thm.jpg
b9647b42476ac0b936837145230eea0e
890c73949225fd16c4d878f5a6bd1281ef1e56c5
7098 F20101209_AAAFDT jett_j_Page_119thm.jpg
437c0a9337d2f13626141c2102650739
6a9d1badd2d756774ea76300255dbb6156d4e15a
25032 F20101209_AAAEZE jett_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
bab963a52c4900b663c35fee3590791d
11cf1beb3d9a784d1c3ee811dd6b98dc70718bb1
21006 F20101209_AAAFDU jett_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
86c21be5f3bf13d0c307bb6e373b6950
1063c1e68ac6e5a2bbf52ab61441664da55a47bf
76354 F20101209_AAADPA jett_j_Page_173.jpg
7e66e93af80c17cceb56aaae1012687b
7ac02bec96deedca554f8ae67c46dbb242051b44
6734 F20101209_AAAEZF jett_j_Page_057thm.jpg
c8865cbe4b877f18adff7a49749a2e7d
836195eec96bafebf816fdcd18fba502df315767
6372 F20101209_AAAFDV jett_j_Page_120thm.jpg
a2cc5b591ddfefbf860fada5c33c8768
77392d0f9a0672d7fe9835dc5bd2a0d7d83460cc
77721 F20101209_AAADPB jett_j_Page_174.jpg
b84b11749644aa173f7a5f4560149a24
edad51a66debb71614c78dbfe3c0abe159143efc
24740 F20101209_AAAEZG jett_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
eecb3c29a98cb5570fa8ad0666b55310
b3a278c7702788030c9fc57248091da5f849f89c
24437 F20101209_AAAFDW jett_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
8482e1e3eee3444fc59d9732e975f1f1
7989f225f798fa6332ebd3dd9e9075e41015ff71
77225 F20101209_AAADPC jett_j_Page_175.jpg
6ac6eeb3bfc2527a3296547f36f03da9
d2e6a020e2da939e873148d4f97fdb4d139378c6
26790 F20101209_AAAEZH jett_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
44d4792b0e70b622b9072fe7b58a356b
cf00cee7c68b436002bcc0414b9bdc893278ad3e
6785 F20101209_AAAFDX jett_j_Page_121thm.jpg
25f2705316b28fda026046df221e07a5
8984763db6d00f76cb3bbbe3161c8c95e6426934
80686 F20101209_AAADPD jett_j_Page_176.jpg
7996dc8f1b6d08a09174fa43120d0840
135847debd257366b0ef60ea3c9d2f866e7e9869
6988 F20101209_AAAEZI jett_j_Page_059thm.jpg
7bd7a821bd060dead165b78beffcb653
438333db7030ba79cf7e001b77dca6f02ee04a72
26268 F20101209_AAAFDY jett_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
d835a8666d1d217f25c28771fb503665
bdfe912a0ecf255742fdb0d8124bef393e58ed04
77706 F20101209_AAADPE jett_j_Page_177.jpg
dcb72c8c33195e518b1fee3c9ec628bd
4404925b09ae456c3cab97b8281497c544fae7d4
25483 F20101209_AAAEZJ jett_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
0d022568459f7e043dd3f6b15c37477a
f84efb69192f28075ef58cb870d3060146aa86b7
6887 F20101209_AAAFDZ jett_j_Page_122thm.jpg
9b1a11aebf0ea236ec62aad5acdfb366
1cc00f726e622133cdc69a504b34d9c412c37f40
76519 F20101209_AAADPF jett_j_Page_178.jpg
abcf3f14653589403f73c8d5311a8624
add06a0ca1bea8f7aee10a663f945922efcd2018
6712 F20101209_AAAEZK jett_j_Page_060thm.jpg
b368dbd3f396a3d7f22b6cb32b23d0cd
6dff542ee6d46e378bfbe88a6810f2cd9c1e1e6d
76578 F20101209_AAADPG jett_j_Page_179.jpg
e5ea8e89a58d8567c39f18687cf101c2
ff6057df819a684f007e18e4c1254c50619ddd25
54481 F20101209_AAAEMA jett_j_Page_173.pro
9ae842915987a53521de988f42db4eb6
7a98947bbdcb96e990f70e6ac94bc775e27321e7
25608 F20101209_AAAEZL jett_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
ec4a2f857e8b55470c78d3fdd2926766
4d0c97530acb3f47520fefb0bbbd2fc0e60a0d96
77195 F20101209_AAADPH jett_j_Page_180.jpg
456d4be12183f5b422599291e499e20a
69967ed4cef480294e3423853cba6e319c79885c
54982 F20101209_AAAEMB jett_j_Page_174.pro
bf3c47eda02cfaa6472bd72d2cb7036f
fcdc7f2fb69281eb1c6237e76c437e125dd0e395
26255 F20101209_AAAEZM jett_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
c7323fd52be5176b9df240fb0d4c37dd
f45ce7342357470027615d90507f17cd44b80e4d
77890 F20101209_AAADPI jett_j_Page_181.jpg
3f22a3b653a52bd869628a5e390da493
f20beafb822310c55c7ba6888946f267dc516ba4
55132 F20101209_AAAEMC jett_j_Page_175.pro
7fea01ce69c42803ddd6d92899ca95ba
23d082a719eacdefcd497393d9fb60a981ae52f4
7071 F20101209_AAAEZN jett_j_Page_062thm.jpg
04debc06621823c050fe176028fddfc8
a74824090a6af458d9c9482d5cfd501637e557f2
79018 F20101209_AAADPJ jett_j_Page_182.jpg
88af8b554d6707a396616a73c18009a8
30dd8144425d819f4e93bdef57f627358ed5e7c6
60053 F20101209_AAAEMD jett_j_Page_176.pro
1c8280447cb7299eec192b78b32a7a95
6e2754210cc2f8d1da55aa3494810b96c3b5ee44
26470 F20101209_AAAEZO jett_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
4053299ff8a3f99bc15f937c2d2b4217
f02f9b8649a073e4c57a95d676e5d7e98c52a158
79476 F20101209_AAADPK jett_j_Page_183.jpg
7ea70e0b8debd5aa7b808b1197cce7b7
e9d9fe07688fedfcc4f8af0d5146a0cdb6b51bde
55203 F20101209_AAAEME jett_j_Page_177.pro
c4b0b6c4855108700270de36defb991d
01a57e36bdbf72bcb20a7032009b12f4fdbad145
7061 F20101209_AAAEZP jett_j_Page_063thm.jpg
164ad67860d24837a90119196ce76907
caeddfa6a522adf676b9b4ef07f4746f56682cb2
79299 F20101209_AAADPL jett_j_Page_184.jpg
ba8914ff8e3ca493405f2fa7cf5e1bd0
9763fee4b134eed74a7487a99d657bbddb11bf26
54268 F20101209_AAAEMF jett_j_Page_178.pro
3278cab12af343534f517f8ef233581b
f2dc3b34ab146cf81096dcc7f45ff0666d498f8c
23498 F20101209_AAAEZQ jett_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
5eeb9e224d82eca30748ff75b371bfe4
4b68183d4f6c1e4533a27d25a277592016acacc9
78421 F20101209_AAADPM jett_j_Page_185.jpg
19d23d2e61788bdd137d0eb399c29078
478bb5054c4355d6a33cb36d83d59103e0dd1ae7
54316 F20101209_AAAEMG jett_j_Page_179.pro
75fcd73fc5f26e653ebfdf510077f2b4
a6f715dd1cffe42ff27be823667788eb632f7c9c
6451 F20101209_AAAEZR jett_j_Page_064thm.jpg
082f2b42126968e8d2b78fb85cb778a8
fae3d03f54a444a41a7b193a992601c5dd08def2
78061 F20101209_AAADPN jett_j_Page_186.jpg
1017748b8ad82ce1e0ffab81801b84d7
6ada1920ed9a0229f6c117c0b7a92134a4618fe0
53917 F20101209_AAAEMH jett_j_Page_180.pro
482f6cc6b7c88a001cfb8c6f5f098baf
1e4e6be2c9406215eef45cc719ed768b2cea5a62
21547 F20101209_AAAFJA jett_j_Page_195.QC.jpg
dcca7e39978fffb6760282ade8bc9afb
9bd59dfe0cc418a8922dae0a445fa734f04a166c
25855 F20101209_AAAEZS jett_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
c307182ea391095982408afba5ac7b00
bd29e0b6c98e2eb1d80e2e204d57f4c535b1365c
76537 F20101209_AAADPO jett_j_Page_188.jpg
677bf059b65245d0380669c3d853765d
a4a331b82b1a0ab1961f79bcd5b9a0da7da6fb94
54730 F20101209_AAAEMI jett_j_Page_181.pro
d8156e580b27e09bcc8f08c4ace1e640
20e36f821f3ec030b874eb4d04c46e13e72e9a46
5542 F20101209_AAAFJB jett_j_Page_195thm.jpg
03201de6e3580ee433b4fc8c4ec098fd
18e720ce10372d7c69593fdf547dfb1d431c17dc
6944 F20101209_AAAEZT jett_j_Page_065thm.jpg
cdc90348b68cdcf425f38cae80adf69f
dd43e70a5b043b08b76ae663d9a16ea38b5ab768
80859 F20101209_AAADPP jett_j_Page_189.jpg
854554db703a40d06441d711b83e768b
7e9db10898d34f767897a7e03969e22d0bac6ea6
54837 F20101209_AAAEMJ jett_j_Page_182.pro
b71cbd60d24437e727e603d77c666f0d
79b74bd0864aabfe631eb02b35c60a59a4c3b7b3
22835 F20101209_AAAFJC jett_j_Page_196.QC.jpg
6675d16822ddc790741d64d7a7185d7a
3d7002d8cadea1c1aa7e54239f7e6644fe77d4a3
25805 F20101209_AAAEZU jett_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
ee63cec86c80693a46b88639fa0fa440
fabaa06057f0c17697edbd7120a14fa8b55dc460
76939 F20101209_AAADPQ jett_j_Page_190.jpg
3049179524326c5f07cb7be2b0b06530
3af567f231d0810fffd7c6cbd5ae4b571ac8a300
56067 F20101209_AAAEMK jett_j_Page_183.pro
7406019ac6b8d11d8e85da18fbe4596f
6ace6469885a31324694b1885643de67543cf20e
5988 F20101209_AAAFJD jett_j_Page_196thm.jpg
b249c5451a2f80cdcf08f0bd97cdbc92
00091198cbaf489b329162177e689f789bd707a6
7009 F20101209_AAAEZV jett_j_Page_066thm.jpg
da845bc1d1c06c8fd1a5f71d8807a719
49a28c604e9d743bc6a1f03be17192052b0a28c4
63031 F20101209_AAADPR jett_j_Page_191.jpg
fc2e625a6744b2527b8ed3f8aaf312e6
1917b7e0f79211a328497f9d0906c4bb78510664
55684 F20101209_AAAEML jett_j_Page_185.pro
d93bea81bd96a07099c5338875a4dc52
1644e00eb2c43905fe01c7ca202506b20b2f9b70
22576 F20101209_AAAFJE jett_j_Page_197.QC.jpg
288439110b0155fc2ee7db922e5140be
e8fdb9120edc17431bd7a316bccec33ad3da5c17
25610 F20101209_AAAEZW jett_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
c878209a1ea6bdf4986e4603df4329e1
5948f486b99524ba59ccc9fb7a8b505d5a6e449f
78725 F20101209_AAADPS jett_j_Page_192.jpg
c59b122a5caf006a0b13831b41391c6b
16ec1089a49c43914ceadf808db639f8cc798846
55420 F20101209_AAAEMM jett_j_Page_186.pro
a178d847f06af23e0a88afca5250acfb
f88bd0f08947e32e110f0fcee1e44c61813ca6dc
5687 F20101209_AAAFJF jett_j_Page_197thm.jpg
6b9754b76c0ae65b752b678d0865748c
05fcccdfec7e68aa321cd80fc2f46d07f877ed01
6781 F20101209_AAAEZX jett_j_Page_067thm.jpg
d405b11d1b3478a455b83463f3b96808
eb7d626b486ae3ea77bcebc0db3cf5141ef32539
61998 F20101209_AAADPT jett_j_Page_193.jpg
a0316df3dc9846b37bcaaeff4b78516c
15333459ef5e7244a6c8920e9b0c66e342055e80
46624 F20101209_AAAEMN jett_j_Page_187.pro
c75a91082cd13491c76f9644737a1f03
99a26afd273e251cbbf3c73d76bee6808cb8e06d
17738 F20101209_AAAFJG jett_j_Page_198.QC.jpg
cefd2e6278b47079ef9c78a25b21b5d3
a61ec9f72dfe4ec8e9cde2e53c6daaecc33a33c5
26024 F20101209_AAAEZY jett_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
9585d47d6118ee68d4575874174f859b
6198ca1968289dca1512822a5d8708f5e4b3fd4d
77940 F20101209_AAADPU jett_j_Page_194.jpg
cea191a2f7721955cf7a46131d555c08
306d554514206a77f227e687a8201859c9befda3
53336 F20101209_AAAEMO jett_j_Page_188.pro
a85640810d69aaacb9b6f3145cdb9536
8176d73c357b4d726c1499d780a23947a60dbb86
5008 F20101209_AAAFJH jett_j_Page_198thm.jpg
8ee97550e23f0d67659a10e041559f96
6119305271335c1645ddce496788d78cc5c1ec1d
25970 F20101209_AAAEZZ jett_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
feec9e4b4e1dddaeaacde859015c37f1
7273e661a07c3cedfb189a95b932cc498093ca20
70909 F20101209_AAADPV jett_j_Page_195.jpg
decd47bf514bbf7a6a27674ea0aad068
651c2cafdbb6850a8dddea96cad86ea52fef56ef
56636 F20101209_AAAEMP jett_j_Page_189.pro
5ab82df9084a77af5bc178f8e0563915
3b963c6ba86503bd27159985d92fbf17d0110848
17488 F20101209_AAAFJI jett_j_Page_199.QC.jpg
f14788222cbb5a77c3ad64bd364567dc
f5884236724f3f22b2087ccbcdd3e3db36eb35a3
78216 F20101209_AAADPW jett_j_Page_196.jpg
2908464286928ad2e2af0348b30be157
6e1c869e45f71645e0819628f8519637bb789e93
53403 F20101209_AAAEMQ jett_j_Page_190.pro
a18719071ecbb98484ff82a6088fd504
bbe5e6b76ecfbfa9a67fa6d95fd69d4177530415
4930 F20101209_AAAFJJ jett_j_Page_199thm.jpg
daf59eb2b959c54967884c3db7ed907a
9b7594b9d52f582abab03fe4f48b1f5ba4868b31
75357 F20101209_AAADPX jett_j_Page_197.jpg
9ad739d53defecb04c8a5ece83e3ba25
b657135ba4f5a13704c6ade8dda2aecaefc35e5a
42494 F20101209_AAAEMR jett_j_Page_191.pro
a50c28aa8e1d7a65b7d30a854eea6764
17ef12c96d6d198acfe1788073d926c47ad16fe6
10587 F20101209_AAAFJK jett_j_Page_200.QC.jpg
f6b52aa2a85cbaefc42f78f9d8b32735
6681b07740f97bc04222de7184adf4433e9f1b05
59473 F20101209_AAADPY jett_j_Page_198.jpg
1e0ca8db731bde4fa45d9d08fa04ba94
1d24bf07fb741986f4967de1df0b34a5d8827bb3
30524 F20101209_AAAEMS jett_j_Page_192.pro
c29439a1b1bc252384d6e62d8e3433ee
380d5eeed398ed43b90fcfbf8623b2e5f82b0db1
3310 F20101209_AAAFJL jett_j_Page_200thm.jpg
70ef91a7ae3a4aea0c69564d797bd82a
59c58d14b87d680e5b1b63d568f6144c01a43121
59348 F20101209_AAADPZ jett_j_Page_199.jpg
8793ca7a31a5b299747348281ba80412
2ee9e1eb382e84151421d1e453cfbfba3887d00e
41486 F20101209_AAAEMT jett_j_Page_193.pro
5394e4c336367af63e46c9e0de3978b6
5c570fe185b9c05bace759ddcc6ec329b6b42321
15291 F20101209_AAAFJM jett_j_Page_201.QC.jpg
140b88b76df031e173f97cc9b66f9488
c9c7bfa74b076c9c07c8af3ffb12575e594e6aa0
41374 F20101209_AAAEMU jett_j_Page_194.pro
7ee19beb068cfd14f3cfd6f9d960c9f4
bb5608ee9341a7ab938a825c98176e3585271b66
4686 F20101209_AAAFJN jett_j_Page_201thm.jpg
6328e08bc3bfc42fbdf6a9d1c5014042
6caa59d0a3b1772466478107a7ab981e47c0a294
49113 F20101209_AAAEMV jett_j_Page_196.pro
944fa50df494a9b5fcd0bf314f7a8ab4
c2ae6b4b8ea491ec21de9bb22094abb6f8b3d161
9983 F20101209_AAAFJO jett_j_Page_202.QC.jpg
5243ac7d110ab5372b7458b3d54b05aa
93cc275bdf64415e9810fe560963601e362ab4af
2966 F20101209_AAAFJP jett_j_Page_202thm.jpg
f22f93da9d2e20a4a72d26d791556de3
775b7ff89545e877db311ece889a1e0c7a446853
49609 F20101209_AAAEMW jett_j_Page_197.pro
c674010753a5cfad92f7cd4129063fff
2acc3d0e42ac6d0a3d0e4762d728b0d385bd7b4b
23443 F20101209_AAAFJQ jett_j_Page_203.QC.jpg
176a913085ca62ec536225f206571435
7be343fc461e601053d9f9d0d2d79c8d5c977ca5
19236 F20101209_AAAEMX jett_j_Page_198.pro
451bddd4e790c1146f85abc5c55766ea
b04afe95b5315213284f6f26528b0c96ef6384ec
6715 F20101209_AAAFJR jett_j_Page_203thm.jpg
55c8747e2ff8759182f9643d140deb25
32baa84af222d9795e5670c2d982b3bc23a004b7
39551 F20101209_AAAEMY jett_j_Page_199.pro
a9aa3c0d34ebe824b241c7153eab91b4
09c33a67efe30bd7523ab203ccdfc2b2966966ef
25007 F20101209_AAAFJS jett_j_Page_204.QC.jpg
51ee0a93e101aa862a8191d90b92734f
a551c95132d43661345a6d22e5a78d45999e9bad
20602 F20101209_AAAEMZ jett_j_Page_200.pro
c3ea34dbd0cb278b8b063f395dd9d933
d8199e0d23fad254be4979c2ff431b8492c781c2
7060 F20101209_AAAFJT jett_j_Page_204thm.jpg
e78526ae4354ce6eb369a45631bf005a
4506fc234d23aab33bf040c5e8f0554f3edb9b07
27381 F20101209_AAAFJU jett_j_Page_205.QC.jpg
28a1ae2d64fd3808879275edefc5977b
c5c337fd65a7c702c1f338ffd8a2246b2fd0d2f9
96092 F20101209_AAADVA jett_j_Page_123.jp2
a6a7ab004107c0fccced06bc998daf7f
53ea57b457eb88c4609ac2e235a15becba108936
7269 F20101209_AAAFJV jett_j_Page_205thm.jpg
b76c8ca1bad7be10c21ef14ffc03104f
c22c64e9f69e02800253c33b12b8fe5c16507c14
110653 F20101209_AAADVB jett_j_Page_124.jp2
4edbdb74b1ef648796951f93487bbe49
77bc83be0f2802b44e2b7ef2a23309779ff3bb55
24796 F20101209_AAAFJW jett_j_Page_206.QC.jpg
e14464575fcac9878ba5a74859fbf84a
add77a925bc057d12f59eae7c098c2086d980c57
101438 F20101209_AAADVC jett_j_Page_125.jp2
970a64d7ca464b3e0c9c7317e0f5171e
5aa948732acdab5e7f83536b7f117712d51845f9
6835 F20101209_AAAFJX jett_j_Page_206thm.jpg
c81af183889e115674c3d460b35934f8
4477ab6d2c052141883622107627aecace51c4f5
103350 F20101209_AAADVD jett_j_Page_126.jp2
d03f94fb21a3880236c86b9d1acb5dd8
6783a07ac042fd01905a855cb0db678062cc1969
27443 F20101209_AAAFJY jett_j_Page_207.QC.jpg
bdf92f5a4aed383ae3a636f238f350dd
d94c3b33e00837e096df7549d6632991be71aafc
97519 F20101209_AAADVE jett_j_Page_127.jp2
68f7f328138211b78abad637f6b2f7cd
19b5ecbed9386810da7ef14ba928779618cafe35
7432 F20101209_AAAFJZ jett_j_Page_207thm.jpg
cf4a24343f5132aed030fea453c16a6d
c25faca96bfa9e6eeb2b509fd9b464f5ed13a038
93165 F20101209_AAADVF jett_j_Page_128.jp2
5527c7141c30e41b4bfe4627762a6813
494ae79fc8e68e6d4990f367817376d81ab209b3
119921 F20101209_AAADVG jett_j_Page_129.jp2
eaa38f5487fcd7d8c26469d4b9f6c325
6b8341f315535ec8d398160b6f39ef2c53a94f4e
121290 F20101209_AAADVH jett_j_Page_130.jp2
3e2c5157277a7f7ed9f17a174f59b693
ced362bd28c5ce4c81afd3cf5e0d57ce396f4921
1813 F20101209_AAAESA jett_j_Page_127.txt
0858d389de02e8b9ade4a9e560023006
53c9f48c15de2a0d2d8346b3152eadef3c0c9e1b
116794 F20101209_AAADVI jett_j_Page_131.jp2
9327f6eb59fad953be3f62802f51dc7c
3b2e07e72020644c13ceec0bc8a039d030ceb8ac
1666 F20101209_AAAESB jett_j_Page_128.txt
8a6dd7c0e4cfaf411e348455d5d1203b
77e4ee969bd52a06c2410bd90d370adac8da343d
112656 F20101209_AAADVJ jett_j_Page_132.jp2
4504b8ff25c451934c872b6a2f93e7c0
56b1c50556acf47f7a7d0f6c5c22b7b5be6e5732
2163 F20101209_AAAESC jett_j_Page_129.txt
568609cb53317bcd3a276d3a08e113cc
2e83e1546ce06556922185c5b627f35efe2b71c9
109352 F20101209_AAADVK jett_j_Page_133.jp2
276b4ce536fb1759c141ae7e10b97ea6
be4407e49fb5b55f6ae3054300079e9d3e096b46
2237 F20101209_AAAESD jett_j_Page_130.txt
018581afec56545fc3a85efbf648be0a
72eff4349b68f22249307e07209e4a7da0bf897c
23662 F20101209_AAADIA jett_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
0232794059b67759323cc7bad5cad805
2f0a9be1a41f56b3394ea315807837d289b0348a
117066 F20101209_AAADVL jett_j_Page_134.jp2
f3646ffe68d09b9ce83dc64eb7897752
8344a85d13f8f993c6ec06596e84ec92b2fd69db
2200 F20101209_AAAESE jett_j_Page_131.txt
f597faa6ad3351af73dcb2d1cbd8d268
7393d8d54297eaf0bbfa8683a077c9b6c7b4e3dc
501 F20101209_AAADIB jett_j_Page_001.txt
a5411f6f1184236bb43ea0cd617dd870
128e57cf08d5762ec4d9be0f8d7f14aea62f82b9
107171 F20101209_AAADVM jett_j_Page_135.jp2
aec0c425cb5624951262be3fe846b654
32a416e19516901d49e9cbe105a09f7ef415216d
F20101209_AAAESF jett_j_Page_132.txt
b5ddac49e76f8fef72cb684528f2079a
d5bc287ad9fc99e56bce714311c589448cfe6f5f
24606 F20101209_AAADIC jett_j_Page_149.pro
17ffcd225ce7ab29822ae08030c87271
3c47e102840acca4d4b5657944ea2b20310e6c51
113098 F20101209_AAADVN jett_j_Page_136.jp2
d10e98de310bf4c2e9f33f80ecd03093
d981e7a8d33936ea4ed80cc16dc5be690efa9e62
2010 F20101209_AAAESG jett_j_Page_133.txt
7a28628b6b2eeec6fa8c2a8c2c1398c7
c8c0d7714777c3b208cef925125ed44174e0f6cc
55007 F20101209_AAADID jett_j_Page_165.pro
4082466815f8e166fddedd171c6da01c
dd7e1365c63527df04ba68a0be8b3e00a70aa236
112546 F20101209_AAADVO jett_j_Page_137.jp2
25922721d9dbadab9452fd29a1490b6e
acf480242a523fa6de090874984552ebcc055879
2152 F20101209_AAAESH jett_j_Page_134.txt
97ec76e0c7a4e403981c43dfaa32a138
bcfa893c2650ebaacb53424b9a99e17b4a34efc6
8512 F20101209_AAADIE jett_j_Page_156.QC.jpg
ca310424c92af6d94bf2443a67efe97a
1572bd0db43e372a4188f62243d045eb8903e924
60140 F20101209_AAADVP jett_j_Page_138.jp2
a6e790658715949a8c1923006e694623
235ab5cd2fbe641e10e52c69b97c6e8624e7ce86
1958 F20101209_AAAESI jett_j_Page_135.txt
d095ecbcc2911ec845d05b14e59eb2da
33cf598fc9123af5b9083156e78fb739829f6e38
2133 F20101209_AAADIF jett_j_Page_082.txt
7eb2406543334f6063642217e7e5be05
8eacdb397be4121c7eabae0c2e8a4c519871bda9
50199 F20101209_AAADVQ jett_j_Page_139.jp2
81d8f8115520cd131d7cf2143925f5c8
7661a31abefe6af124210b59683cb9cd2103c1eb
F20101209_AAAESJ jett_j_Page_136.txt
92b36688dc955126178d7a5dff019264
2c36b9002b1dbe670c2798a5006fae71d993cefc
F20101209_AAADIG jett_j_Page_008.jp2
e0f2d3a87b8338beee111013e9588091
db04549995d70e9f52a53ff72195558fb08135b0
54054 F20101209_AAADVR jett_j_Page_140.jp2
7a0b056da19580973b026d1421d76fab
c1e74d9856f0aa8602fb7c2e5570d8c5395b6602
F20101209_AAAESK jett_j_Page_137.txt
1e83887b89612c94359e0c15c1199225
5ea69605a5e272c5631901cd6a7c8103d8a9b89f
76992 F20101209_AAADIH jett_j_Page_019.jpg
cbe9a27f86b68409266abbd8f10876df
522c9b7502c583ca84bec6ff2e93d4fdfe0ede35
F20101209_AAAEFA jett_j_Page_191.tif
f0ddf7a350d2a37737fbeda23d56f3d3
4edfbf705efd76da52ecb88b398497ff2195a4c7
69484 F20101209_AAADVS jett_j_Page_141.jp2
0dca75ba47ad7be2fee591f6cc9aa5c4
d680c495edbca7f4f363249e93d01e1dcb7db2a7
1065 F20101209_AAAESL jett_j_Page_138.txt
7216e945609987f57cdcf3cce60304ff
f8646c65fdb4611883e0a5750fac2ef7fd1f84d5
F20101209_AAADII jett_j_Page_173.tif
0098b15bd5e847751a7adce79abed2aa
f1e09b90be8dff5f24a569cd707f5462607ab9c9
F20101209_AAAEFB jett_j_Page_192.tif
8950ea6bdef146c28c032e5b11bdbf67
8ed97dffe35023524b6c3327af007d59898455f4
80415 F20101209_AAADVT jett_j_Page_142.jp2
b0434992f1b992f6e43937aaed76cd8a
b5d6c6e6144def8671a9d3c68e8bf51b6a1e4edc
F20101209_AAAESM jett_j_Page_140.txt
8a95ee052f9825dbf4c9e29a67010cde
45c5d0c8320015a13737c1923d97c89ae3949a15
F20101209_AAADIJ jett_j_Page_151.tif
f4b27ca291d9b0c002b9a95a04a17737
fb743ffcbfe076ab650915aa66fb089fc84ece67
F20101209_AAAEFC jett_j_Page_193.tif
9cfb1a1a7bd489f983f808e3ce50b35a
8e28a5f7aa219a39ad8ef8467037419a83ba434b
54258 F20101209_AAADVU jett_j_Page_143.jp2
ffb53c9d5c6879437c7499c8fa0998eb
4ec4492e6949ced82f516b3398a758032cdb483e
1637 F20101209_AAAESN jett_j_Page_141.txt
e7a48da6fc162f95179ea67761016fae
7586ee627ca1704d23a36285a515fef1643730e4
75043 F20101209_AAADIK jett_j_Page_026.jpg
f8f19b997f20f9e94b457bcc00cde603
f5ee985f4ab8c0b27708d90de217b37955513cc6
8423998 F20101209_AAAEFD jett_j_Page_194.tif
98767664949ffc121335f56fedd8fbfb
e8a61a99ec581924018e90a4bd369072d4570d99
74722 F20101209_AAADVV jett_j_Page_145.jp2
f4b6f7f95ce567172e7d247f40268941
794cc72027c5750f0d48f49f6e9777db45bd0bd2
1732 F20101209_AAAESO jett_j_Page_142.txt
d231b28a46d31990906aba94645febac
e35736a6db03114a3f9ade7a671a5c312ca7173a
66937 F20101209_AAADIL jett_j_Page_187.jpg
a1defb57e722f25a4371094d695fd28e
4ecf433ec1df9680fe68b0b962fb6a9ab637ffac
F20101209_AAAEFE jett_j_Page_195.tif
b1c51dad1a0112c4b2b7d4596f2a255d
5cc85f63960bab9335305ceb036dd6753b04fc0d
31295 F20101209_AAADVW jett_j_Page_146.jp2
b951e870b9cbeb9300f8a7dc0e6c1e79
acf30b0e58383d1c3672a1899ac0180f380502dd
1723 F20101209_AAAESP jett_j_Page_143.txt
24ce53117a36c2b4814bdaa594d6c879
d07410c37484839ddf84f2c06dd66693c457cc8a
74133 F20101209_AAADIM jett_j_Page_003.jpg
f9cfc57ddd7e4fb1ddd26b0b228a1be7
e19c9c79d4aa56572578d057c45b4b745877db31
F20101209_AAAEFF jett_j_Page_196.tif
1ec0d470b9a41c8450be0ba9b70a557d
a5ed56b501ba6d566bdefc17f0f0c028d0f0d194
45634 F20101209_AAADVX jett_j_Page_147.jp2
ac0236b0c6efbb87ee614ff5062962bf
6f2de328053b084a180ecf15a461e27c2350ea6f
1041 F20101209_AAAESQ jett_j_Page_144.txt
c322a10e8daa24f3c2dc1209fc0b50b7
7d2bf6d629af9195de6080e0941379c8dcd05a16
43953 F20101209_AAADIN jett_j_Page_120.pro
55d13613f9a68c145e1be7cd31311b5a
896ef328b656931d371be23c2a140a2fb8fb07ef
F20101209_AAAEFG jett_j_Page_197.tif
96cdf6bd53e24045d82fe8906bad1ca5
c201adc134b9f98652eb405aae8ffeeefb125843
43255 F20101209_AAADVY jett_j_Page_148.jp2
41b034d586c16ba2688e1921507d884f
ebbdca6d227b2f846353666e91d368c2ecefff8e
1681 F20101209_AAAESR jett_j_Page_145.txt
bd77c1f9a985a0e39e9c16d8421faf5f
eb34ffd4383756816cd9e4986ad8e63c0436d3b9
21908 F20101209_AAADIO jett_j_Page_167.QC.jpg
9666ef51505c0e002c603a71eab93bf8
cebae279ebba618d1a61bed54499f88efb7107f5
F20101209_AAAEFH jett_j_Page_198.tif
07662f22c16f72554c67fe97b81a96e8
f802851d5719ae1afa05ec24e097c36f10706454
48350 F20101209_AAADVZ jett_j_Page_149.jp2
551c8faff67652cd3a67e044fc2643b3
dfd3250855c9730b9c59ce47b69e44cf53af777c
F20101209_AAAFCA jett_j_Page_096thm.jpg
e253016dc68a91f63ea3316f849cc546
4eaa5c484e32c217ea759f00cd04a67d15acc433
680 F20101209_AAAESS jett_j_Page_146.txt
972794fc7972c4d024a9f69435638be0
1d30f785d7402d1d169343468dbb0c003aca3ae1
F20101209_AAADIP jett_j_Page_107.tif
62481c6af2aa362b6766e93341d3e4f2
9a72ffb585e57b20af5080b08d8799348155557e
F20101209_AAAEFI jett_j_Page_199.tif
123f8878b120d1dc7801700c1bb05c2a
a14d4b6823d5eb9f6d7e94b74463b71627aab360
25259 F20101209_AAAFCB jett_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
b8bbfda92f923f2adb380a03e25610b6
6dff3e4e5947682d3118a0c8552d74766e121034
1205 F20101209_AAAEST jett_j_Page_147.txt
00370296657f28dd606c1566ff0a008d
688e3eeb1e2ef2379ab3438a87f0d4ceaba50de4
65183 F20101209_AAADIQ jett_j_Page_167.jpg
57523025b172c3482f1aeeb788bc4ae1
0ce1070e5a18408d9c3229f4179ba0bfc93ebddd
F20101209_AAAEFJ jett_j_Page_200.tif
3b312e554f1538e4f6c586c791c503cb
81b990d43c8f40138bda1e602ab3ef3a2a0d55a4
6831 F20101209_AAAFCC jett_j_Page_097thm.jpg
0794cd6cd99d7318691bd9ea579d0eb1
158184292b85a9bbef4a893d79637dfd1b0524b3
1203 F20101209_AAAESU jett_j_Page_148.txt
b4f8bdcc6a789859358e14892f6c5c1c
9541bb86e5ef8458966d233fe3b8ca611c115305
120502 F20101209_AAADIR jett_j_Page_186.jp2
87f3437e6928ff43749dbb3c2bd90986
4bfc6906be16cd6e2db5f502d58cee1786458391
F20101209_AAAEFK jett_j_Page_201.tif
fa3bcdee227dcb8367991856578f529d
a4aaaecca0971531466145ff192afed8b39ec524
21705 F20101209_AAAFCD jett_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
097494c18040cc312a1714d78d87166c
66f9b4ca3f365dbd825c60a6b12727062180d51c
1234 F20101209_AAAESV jett_j_Page_149.txt
e39723ab8499c36580549cdd601cf7f8
7114f4e2bd5e8e9ecc4d758696a3bfc228ed97d0
23956 F20101209_AAADIS jett_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
41af69c804364232bcfdeba1a9d7ccfa
dcedf6dc586f2a386126b59f33278109249091a1
F20101209_AAAEFL jett_j_Page_202.tif
f11ddc4d48e9d24a8798858c2f7c6f1a
ba21d7270526cc2f8260ac1585e9b7661de323ec
5962 F20101209_AAAFCE jett_j_Page_098thm.jpg
486042af51730ab5767684435dbcf310
17acec5590c8c9123baf8056b184d5c45b15e5a3
574 F20101209_AAAESW jett_j_Page_150.txt
09607731d463810e09d6705a9f4d0780
22ca23d49ba819a250626b5a03a6166e61c4289d
F20101209_AAAEFM jett_j_Page_203.tif
b35ee0f6215910b8b02a73419104786c
a8273325b7eed3c414f04cfb82c3e8da2b6b3030
22000 F20101209_AAAFCF jett_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
2961bcfab5867bd62d9f46fc5855346e
31e763f9d14fb05d0f611f24067624e4c6239826
898 F20101209_AAAESX jett_j_Page_151.txt
2ff394382f706f7317b3df97c006f7fa
4f4b334352fa68024c4b79136afd84e4b3f96ac7
79854 F20101209_AAADIT jett_j_Page_071.jpg
e6cbda6ad7d052ad70346ba360cc7554
bbd519ed960bc1d02604233c984510cedcc42203
F20101209_AAAEFN jett_j_Page_204.tif
01dc910132f46c8ad6ae0a2b715ce4e2
f9d2c5154d865d25beb5890e7a4ca0e2bd308e91
6224 F20101209_AAAFCG jett_j_Page_099thm.jpg
8fd15f873091897b3f657196a849ba08
345b31c96d58bfc9309c7e18e1c193359db68507
2184 F20101209_AAAESY jett_j_Page_152.txt
2b313b5d5a0bb0becdf129d486a06de7
51749daaf4face7ae01a13fe44f24e50a2548970
6443 F20101209_AAADIU jett_j_Page_154.pro
1bac90ba1ad5a072d8eeec694c577674
9c5cced5a355c9d100e1c990b0bfbea1f3ddebf2
F20101209_AAAEFO jett_j_Page_205.tif
8c508cb6aff2165983edde44a4dbbdaf
d145aecbcaface069bbbf1b9ceeb4bedeb588cfc
22655 F20101209_AAAFCH jett_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
a2eb9c1774ad8b3fb5ce9cf666be2ffd
84adf06c5b9d749661a0786eb8dc129d34a0885a
1136 F20101209_AAAESZ jett_j_Page_153.txt
b03f5cf99885b3e80476ec53c5d97d1e
494469a81df389d2f6eb085cd052f7e151ad4ece
325535 F20101209_AAADIV UFE0019647_00001.xml
8b2376b6707dec97afe940c72ea1029e
e04c4e65c9dab27528e9091f2a990b1a0873094a
6398 F20101209_AAAFCI jett_j_Page_100thm.jpg
ee80185bfc6762136deb5eb7afa58f53
c51e84982e1c35035e8ff3e271f92eca2b208165
F20101209_AAAEFP jett_j_Page_206.tif
ecd1b7428db0aae21c1a5c9829d6d3d1
1441d09c9505a59eb4762525aafe1933f8edd193
22154 F20101209_AAAFCJ jett_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
5dc8a62e57ed4ddf27138655d16a5144
58a7466d616d869e08116a70e8297a00da4b79af
F20101209_AAAEFQ jett_j_Page_207.tif
3b4e2aaa44bd19e2390a1186c9104a7f
324cf7e45a4fad6bb2fa7f66be824e58905aab61
6345 F20101209_AAAFCK jett_j_Page_101thm.jpg
bb61c1a3afdad24557363c16af9ebfb7
339e28dfbe18d735026cf94c8d59cedacf18b7b0
24850 F20101209_AAADIY jett_j_Page_001.jpg
3e14ae9ad6cfedcb2341c2a3eca5c728
04af18a44ef978534953d9916f0a74c7993479a3
F20101209_AAAEFR jett_j_Page_209.tif
4d669271a4ad3df99aeaacd49589b913
91b5da6b50161b7d5578812cea66cc29f18a3034
72380 F20101209_AAADIZ jett_j_Page_004.jpg
f34915655afd445e7f46550f0d6d9711
4bdd89fc3c6f8d523d684ac784de7e66c2d9a09a
F20101209_AAAEFS jett_j_Page_210.tif
65af297a6dc23f2e6e3a6126ca482eff
dc5ffd743268ce24990b4b49800e946b94b2a66a
21030 F20101209_AAAFCL jett_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
1cf52c0167ad711fa4f93df29d90fda2
74e96da2b8649d315c88c0eef602870424e06198
F20101209_AAAEFT jett_j_Page_211.tif
4c9e5c94ecdb36012de561f4aeb66884
b370d9d5999e660c5585dc6486aac925bbe8fb93
5852 F20101209_AAAFCM jett_j_Page_102thm.jpg
595d86266a169a2150c833a12eaaf2e0
509119005b80314e51487284d0848416f0ee4508
F20101209_AAAEFU jett_j_Page_212.tif
b0164451ae4ef5edaf2a2c35cceac8a7
e1cd7f0dcdd970fdff03dd77765567808961534b
24790 F20101209_AAAFCN jett_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
da2f2e7e1c035f76af15a39746bf1bba
85092b1d13fb70dbe357bbff4a84a24d23ed4d3c
F20101209_AAAEFV jett_j_Page_214.tif
886b7ed21de8dd58f3f77228274681b1
9d23d04a8d235032c92b2c2e377e021769a64131
6854 F20101209_AAAFCO jett_j_Page_103thm.jpg
7fd546e84fb85c079182b40c931465cb
8bf6d287f07b75286dfea13e88726520c270b040
F20101209_AAAEFW jett_j_Page_215.tif
b1ef204694a7925d735e631ea387f301
25ef1eb251e2309399e6ebfb92549bb6b83df0cc
24259 F20101209_AAAEYA jett_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
9a7ea74a8eaaf82e16b66a7c1ef19f5a
20e9e97187454f71dcbf737705a03bbc5d9e8720
25654 F20101209_AAAFCP jett_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
8fbf96e918481909a46b1316f5d5af11
ca43560070436dee7df97c3ea0939ce7bc901a62
F20101209_AAAEFX jett_j_Page_216.tif
0f08a88004a070b107d87ff7c902f8ba
fe3c778e42862627e4ebcbb09a119965edd126c3
6581 F20101209_AAAEYB jett_j_Page_040thm.jpg
4cf8ab2da3b89271af9bc592a5afa1b7
705030c5496e63cdca86d920fc92dd9fef676ba9
6800 F20101209_AAAFCQ jett_j_Page_104thm.jpg
711f36f72b509978ba5f39532126c776
9088336def68e355c654d028ea38fd9d51a4af45
F20101209_AAAEFY jett_j_Page_217.tif
33a4f50861b35e0ecd144f5933d6d1d4
ae76f4d3c1d82fa4bec6fc079f85eee57f175dc1
25793 F20101209_AAAFCR jett_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
6c17daa5f2f3333972cfc260937e3871
84f478e32e3d7e7b443c77906c68338997045670
F20101209_AAAEFZ jett_j_Page_218.tif
7537dd701cdbb121bc98d1c16a4029d9
2ecdb1e44da372e3a72d49ff6e07e809b8eb7bb2
23795 F20101209_AAAEYC jett_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
fc04e40e2adf1cb1f2fb211514bb3303
5aaa0ef0ae3576ed2293093eb5c174a668004168
6883 F20101209_AAAFCS jett_j_Page_105thm.jpg
115046757384c61579e165d4022c32bf
9ae67fb5af3677f03105a58315b86a0f286cc770
25336 F20101209_AAAEYD jett_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
c3d4fcd6ab4870b2dbbbca43c7b90744
e6a42c28687f2b9b2be76d8b73a492fd524857dd
25628 F20101209_AAAFCT jett_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
6b249de32d372b38fd3f060066791389
f4a2d1bfa05b826ff26376a5e13da8036a8737da
7003 F20101209_AAAEYE jett_j_Page_042thm.jpg
5b272403cae37515b94d9a886f2580ee
252ae6b03da4ce79e9c781824c45513a0c32639e
6946 F20101209_AAAFCU jett_j_Page_106thm.jpg
7ac96cfdb1cebb9e9d7a6f9c0240b0ed
8ae3fddd3a540da1bb2de3dd98021b827ad2d67d
42625 F20101209_AAADOA jett_j_Page_143.jpg
3dfddb93ab4c96b25066b8e38c307975
db8cc28fcf3905ca388816cfc175e1dcda28cd2c
24326 F20101209_AAAEYF jett_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
435d265a898794e7eecee55e1776f92f
c6835295e1bedfca860146e073d256e437851302
24207 F20101209_AAAFCV jett_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
79ee4d885b87acb293ac2eef57347d3f
a116baca6b10704c110c68ccc474103b4b342d50
38852 F20101209_AAADOB jett_j_Page_144.jpg
b743e2f6c3ed37eb1bb454d4d144177b
29af7bed2ee3314357f8bd22a1e4006d3c2746a3
6548 F20101209_AAAEYG jett_j_Page_043thm.jpg
00054951d5fa3e08fc774756b8421539
72a65e32d0071d0ef658485eea20f419558fe61e
6535 F20101209_AAAFCW jett_j_Page_107thm.jpg
7bdc6957c0088b4d606e37e91fa1fb2c
bd42389a800c4c24628260929220de99a8974735
52985 F20101209_AAADOC jett_j_Page_145.jpg
2f314a30502006e781396464138c2253
786929e3eb9427138c611f6f3f6d5e95385d321d
26437 F20101209_AAAEYH jett_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
ab5f9030ff7989947625a5172fc99f4a
d8d5e4d44547bd95364e0483dc372c9d4b5b9895
24371 F20101209_AAAFCX jett_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
7552a215f85f675ddf5a4fe9001a0446
aba95842b92604f09a9451945b35dcfe2449bacb
25089 F20101209_AAADOD jett_j_Page_146.jpg
fa7c393937a8d81d99d49b16e17524fb
289fe38193cc43189db159f221f51f16ba8f98d3
6966 F20101209_AAAEYI jett_j_Page_044thm.jpg
bec53b7333c89133a751f7511333cb96
e30679cce65d611f7881b677257f726218c9c83a
F20101209_AAAFCY jett_j_Page_108thm.jpg
bc90092a3e1156852974d9765ba6495f
dcaf71046eae786e1db6d445e8d57240fe03d58d
33652 F20101209_AAADOE jett_j_Page_148.jpg
8ab5db0674a3df9ba37049874f71280e
d508f4859d6df0a8ed22329367e681757e1d6f65
24998 F20101209_AAAEYJ jett_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
b5164143cbb46f726f2a441f420c3478
0e14bc2eac884346d6db32b1557941db7a406285
6709 F20101209_AAAFCZ jett_j_Page_109thm.jpg
98df417f9333be3a5881ad830b5dfeaf
70356b089dee146bd1544a445da0dca72ff23a93
23614 F20101209_AAADOF jett_j_Page_149.jpg
39977849ad97c3ae10d70c4dbf7b1270
25351a8473b27fd35920711c5e40b1e4da130203
25622 F20101209_AAAEYK jett_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
a7d7559e90497b0299027dee085dfa7f
cce387f865cacfe0d4ce09c4df0723c43e06d7f7
17196 F20101209_AAADOG jett_j_Page_150.jpg
04538b6a47119591242486a488134607
73e4e1527b65d57a179d3f5969ee2d4ec94a3647
22438 F20101209_AAAELA jett_j_Page_144.pro
2e5d179f38852847318ac0d806d406dc
ee8f4c8318e62de13e667eaeb61936a08c10e834
F20101209_AAAEYL jett_j_Page_046thm.jpg
a8c857cb0f065daf6ee461e3a50f8e2e
997dff553f2db444cb6b8ed7c0a46000d22c2b08
25254 F20101209_AAADOH jett_j_Page_151.jpg
4a689fdb7875d0215da1ae71da75e360
5c638bfdef3d6adfe0e2ea6a3fd4637279571647
36643 F20101209_AAAELB jett_j_Page_145.pro
606eea7869146a6835a8822d735423c1
bceaca87d5d5493fd679b7dadd7465446bb19592
25393 F20101209_AAAEYM jett_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
c07b995ff43ba4a5064f0a48e15241e5
6f5c58d083fbdd8c4c74d341d39633a240b6aa8d
30117 F20101209_AAADOI jett_j_Page_153.jpg
cdd8e4f7a6ffb1b2904af5ed19d54ae9
4fe61456410e9788f440a5a770867ceca9a91349
12238 F20101209_AAAELC jett_j_Page_146.pro
dc9ae24fdb0f4129b4c1945b0dc8ec28
f7993f5b3e07122ca18732e0e68833f218468dd8
6783 F20101209_AAAEYN jett_j_Page_047thm.jpg
2ae0bcc6d18343cce81a037dc019f198
bd011f5edbe5175cd4fd8f4cef42bdef08cf6d0a
26382 F20101209_AAADOJ jett_j_Page_154.jpg
47b2c46e94db8903ddf05c15d0a874b4
4193c844861f49fc0ffb6dcad2a793030c228c13
18790 F20101209_AAAELD jett_j_Page_147.pro
f4d3cd4a27ea0c4e51cde1acd2e333cc
5c687d85699c27cf49ca8e4a45005425951a03ef
25406 F20101209_AAAEYO jett_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
bfdfc63d048a77ccf3c217843f1582cd
8e750bcd60a3d2ff4bccd483de524972aa586942
50983 F20101209_AAADOK jett_j_Page_155.jpg
978c9ad48799a44d6225ed177e3f9caf
bea1f885b21f703be80de8cfa9166beaef7de8fa
21636 F20101209_AAAELE jett_j_Page_148.pro
a17a50a483c5b2dd898e6c61caac961e
a631dd8d2539dff456d8cec73e5542df72f56394
6927 F20101209_AAAEYP jett_j_Page_048thm.jpg
185072184a850a64011f5be1b57897d6
7b27e20c8dfa821672707543832e2deb278c3de6
25550 F20101209_AAADOL jett_j_Page_156.jpg
2a8b7be50b3f7d7a9a620ad0a94dfc97
7a715bc9e0cea87d2ce38c1cd4c2477b51199417
12719 F20101209_AAAELF jett_j_Page_150.pro
fe47f4b601f89eb0cafd205006d71680
0303c2d1ee461614e03a497312b11c780b59eb4e
6994 F20101209_AAAEYQ jett_j_Page_049thm.jpg
d933682918a7a94f5fa1e8d94e92dd39
26ec105551eb38278b8a52ed1f12d65fbfabb985
72553 F20101209_AAADOM jett_j_Page_157.jpg
ad936ef459f235cd38bc2a51d52a5cb6
1ba9a7691532c3df86d6960ab3e78e865fd2d3a5
14916 F20101209_AAAELG jett_j_Page_151.pro
df54fcf8930ff260565f0857fe0d43a5
c07199744a55e74ca725f251b40fc3a28fec8708
24858 F20101209_AAAEYR jett_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
c3979e1445b35eee2b63db501ac70e74
f29dbf2602d975cae3f514f763dff296e6cc0a0a
75166 F20101209_AAADON jett_j_Page_158.jpg
c45d43eeba0bca251905e051114ced04
f871e5ca80518394152723c619b91873b580910f
34914 F20101209_AAAELH jett_j_Page_152.pro
19695388bba70c50f44dd6b0d5e0b3d1
f08e59d5bc865a0e88955f3ade896480e0bc5dd0
25893 F20101209_AAAFIA jett_j_Page_182.QC.jpg
bcdc91fbbc4d099b510b957466c51119
0d3aeec5ca92a6336ca0f93ab8c3a666d874a0a3
7010 F20101209_AAAEYS jett_j_Page_050thm.jpg
dfae1b4cf49d17cd88a4d10fe1b5b229
5600e85599ae806b339ed5621af1dbc108265a95
74687 F20101209_AAADOO jett_j_Page_160.jpg
368bda4c4bd132d3f5d0f8e32f118baf
0fefe6defc04cb0bec103040ff81891eecc2a462
17003 F20101209_AAAELI jett_j_Page_153.pro
92782cbf4ede8678abb96afa76d8a8dd
62a6d1a434d36e921eb09289a87449590f7684e9
6743 F20101209_AAAFIB jett_j_Page_182thm.jpg
6718ad601c7159aa4fe51717dc939c2f
f23d3cc72b7fb9751ea44f931b65af64717942ef
25198 F20101209_AAAEYT jett_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
99682b17596af1ba8d7882705928abbd
e29fb85d9ca9eb8edce3e1ebc28b21233bb92f9b
70902 F20101209_AAADOP jett_j_Page_161.jpg
655830565dc98a9ba2f5468c58b7751f
fbd98ea438e9e5afeb51794f4d8a7fee892ed61f
38659 F20101209_AAAELJ jett_j_Page_155.pro
2a514b58e054ab78c3e10119be7147b2
d988095e1567012da24a7da644ec3e8b88d100eb
26242 F20101209_AAAFIC jett_j_Page_183.QC.jpg
998461b477bf3d02da46b017f3b2cfbb
edbaf822ca434ef005d04ed720b9ac1610f8e5fd
6975 F20101209_AAAEYU jett_j_Page_051thm.jpg
3b1b602f9ddbede9a05867a3c4745f97
7869352c5e99828bbd8efc470bac03f926326043
66010 F20101209_AAADOQ jett_j_Page_162.jpg
f70b5818a4acf3dd47d0a3788b3cccc4
9d99941c5314e5b86d64cc31adb59b9434ea67d5
11251 F20101209_AAAELK jett_j_Page_156.pro
684d24ef080c33bb8f6dccdc72bdf9eb
d57d98a48cac04a470f791e11107313a97d66411
7130 F20101209_AAAFID jett_j_Page_183thm.jpg
e40a31010b094ac4e1d04a1df4841c48
3950fd4d8ad9acee4aff38b3c56d525f0ae7be79
26474 F20101209_AAAEYV jett_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
41e919d9e8fc2974731acd4e910abe10
81b11f90efab1849b9f73abeacb6a29a8da787ef
75447 F20101209_AAADOR jett_j_Page_163.jpg
2a96080c4f247d9ee0e8f9d0019c8a60
fdf7e3b954388de2499165dc05361d205c1aef32
48368 F20101209_AAAELL jett_j_Page_157.pro
b81517cf2317cbb1e8d5449d9cf3c896
211391b7a733aec17c3e3bfeac983ff1898f9169
F20101209_AAAFIE jett_j_Page_184.QC.jpg
7ff0429768ae47cbf35525534a3ad386
9376163d092b1f64a65d7d6d24cbec53890bd2bc
6957 F20101209_AAAEYW jett_j_Page_052thm.jpg
266a4e0ca6bbd28f2e8adcc26aa858f8
ae2af40d87285617c0549987abd8bc928f1f7d47
72890 F20101209_AAADOS jett_j_Page_164.jpg
6f284fb6923d3fd68398a821825a4fcd
23f0e94cdc74648fece1292190964545528a6f48
52198 F20101209_AAAELM jett_j_Page_158.pro
23cf4b92eb454ed83f561b30f7f6c3da
6d7de7e1ace1b7998669ca46144f4373ad0aa81b
6889 F20101209_AAAFIF jett_j_Page_184thm.jpg
5668652cb6f463b8fbbd6e93bb640fd0
d74b30583c40162a204404ed021d1b76f456cee7
24985 F20101209_AAAEYX jett_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
491432346f34f347c26734e53809447f
4bf38af7e99f58ab4b51eb2a8483e64965452fcf
75802 F20101209_AAADOT jett_j_Page_165.jpg
7d42b353079a3fcb0b377d423a220fd5
bbbdb0a54b5315df8a710cea7046243e59426097
49613 F20101209_AAAELN jett_j_Page_159.pro
58cd9d4a967a232c79d26db45646e660
bb0b88b4df62195d86707b55eba625db289d4922
25523 F20101209_AAAFIG jett_j_Page_185.QC.jpg
0570a50d21b254395f8dc94f70463c56
898b29211490b72b5fd08f6a894d3591d3477186
6818 F20101209_AAAEYY jett_j_Page_053thm.jpg
95664c09101ee2fe54950f4d2c585fbf
eb5d9151f090bfde7333dbe8b7b9f26a0be742fe
73236 F20101209_AAADOU jett_j_Page_166.jpg
4f638624a8262584ea60775edf6ea0a4
5d32a25706a1aa787372e467669c56fd27739c8a
53016 F20101209_AAAELO jett_j_Page_160.pro
48a07f87be3be2602bdfeb6a0051ddbe
172b73491997fa7fc32bec77c41edbe992621366
6941 F20101209_AAAFIH jett_j_Page_185thm.jpg
42ccd63dc0ff4c538b0f60cadde73017
425f5301dd4d3ff93bafcba4c8bbf75c22c3d68b
24563 F20101209_AAAEYZ jett_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
5c7283db7aa9fa02684bee751a5be309
881aa6af781bef3a157c557288f99e58df5a9684
78377 F20101209_AAADOV jett_j_Page_168.jpg
0b9694b569ba301aa398708e958db74b
a970552228e6e1098fbf5309022f75e9e70a9054
49871 F20101209_AAAELP jett_j_Page_161.pro
e17f95143001f6cb142d8410c7264f98
7b79767e1a1ee55a9f6f314b389b695406d5ed11
25931 F20101209_AAAFII jett_j_Page_186.QC.jpg
374241241dc67fa7357ca7779869487e
3d3dfecc19d2c212a0301dd8ca745d948486b94e
80335 F20101209_AAADOW jett_j_Page_169.jpg
fee78a9761602287da6bd720d28a7221
c5e3cdd5561ff423effbd8fce20cefb74258df4a
45190 F20101209_AAAELQ jett_j_Page_162.pro
194e04e48af3e3d32afcaf04facab28e
f6de29ef699e8fade56d5b65da257f69a5937a39
7028 F20101209_AAAFIJ jett_j_Page_186thm.jpg
e0813e36ea39eef6b032ea1a7c1a59d5
0289c6f6ea26d34ce878fd5c910b3cc67771b0c1
79112 F20101209_AAADOX jett_j_Page_170.jpg
3eb5b2dc9e3f2a9f1e79a47afd2792c7
f3600262b22787e7c1ab3083dbc9d2757f22c815
52106 F20101209_AAAELR jett_j_Page_163.pro
3a2266fef94a48ab54121ef014b80131
b24d813bf257389bcc2dbabddb85e08e7b11fcce
22744 F20101209_AAAFIK jett_j_Page_187.QC.jpg
98079d0d8182ca3b86aa95f436ce80b4
b294d8ddf242a24706295166969a8a2240591f2c
77536 F20101209_AAADOY jett_j_Page_171.jpg
c358fe3d10a80e0d0c02b77d8f8d6c32
b5c756a1227d697c9fd47dc428d5f4d6954f8c91
50268 F20101209_AAAELS jett_j_Page_164.pro
41af2a132b5b278637f5a1df67a9fdcf
eb7f7bdd6e97000893ea96e54abf0e00735d5a74
6519 F20101209_AAAFIL jett_j_Page_187thm.jpg
65c549eda7ed798d55d3554e20270ca5
4b5094e6f69a0a119d1818412a6d238c463b77a3
51882 F20101209_AAAELT jett_j_Page_166.pro
b7bfd9c08a81197a645f3eb6296f0836
2fb68a5a72bdcb40d73c714cd830768faf7f879f
25145 F20101209_AAAFIM jett_j_Page_188.QC.jpg
683b8554f4948796d8749cf49012ac6e
9b5056fa7cde9c87a949c7ba7db5885cca27535e
77050 F20101209_AAADOZ jett_j_Page_172.jpg
c77da84b127fe37b1f7296dfdf79b84f
36bb72b9946d7c5a8a84ea878a551b07fd7f6b62
44559 F20101209_AAAELU jett_j_Page_167.pro
968382dc7b3a0fc741301fa80f7a37bd
0294bd83756bb05011152bc97dd06ee59554c764
6882 F20101209_AAAFIN jett_j_Page_188thm.jpg
4795ebe6bb34b0f7f3327a1f07f9eb7a
88810a1bd46358699b8e4a837040cbed44ccbb39
26500 F20101209_AAAFIO jett_j_Page_189.QC.jpg
fc6ce4addfbbad68fefd0605f258fb13
a7b397d7e572a9a89212597528b5f61e3de0607f
F20101209_AAAELV jett_j_Page_168.pro
6f0f94988625a470bfc4f19e6cffd05c
c508c1857737f79e2c5f22fdded2a4c0e7a5270d
7081 F20101209_AAAFIP jett_j_Page_189thm.jpg
d214031cd74a88970dc123f2ef8f77bb
be6c7ad202d855b3c66310a86742db4079df5a80
59453 F20101209_AAAELW jett_j_Page_169.pro
d621dca522e1ebb67eb5c95488e11577
824ff9393b35b236f38dde85309f31b79c587fc9
25297 F20101209_AAAFIQ jett_j_Page_190.QC.jpg
c55f1bf2e097cbaae0492c80b4ce6cfc
e6a779ca71f7c8be2e74ec472b532fb9a80c382d
55448 F20101209_AAAELX jett_j_Page_170.pro
62c795e5a4b3af57e2a9f4ab84fcebe2
19313a113e110c0de0d81e15da610ddd7d094907
54571 F20101209_AAAELY jett_j_Page_171.pro
97508a80a608339b79b031efe697d6df
4995e65b145d7849673c20bb52e277a8d3b43f96
6836 F20101209_AAAFIR jett_j_Page_190thm.jpg
fd9b42234179c8fb88954aab3ecfcf5b
a74c31ab45f3a8633edb91e5830123bb0917ca12
54693 F20101209_AAAELZ jett_j_Page_172.pro
7ef940ae8d5f1207365ae925313d0742
72a47d49a83f185f84a0119267eff0f2fae5f73b
20822 F20101209_AAAFIS jett_j_Page_191.QC.jpg
c72b1a2f25b518420f2a426d2ca9f08d
f15f43233e4f2342809646a38cc52e97e4ab23d7
5695 F20101209_AAAFIT jett_j_Page_191thm.jpg
1c756638337674efba84ff4249588523
73ac8dc578f8f086857e4ae186e80a0f8bcdcc58
22347 F20101209_AAAFIU jett_j_Page_192.QC.jpg
ff141e615308f95c35036f440502d934
d4ab3a8cd4bab9f5b3d98f7b5714010beeb749c2
113038 F20101209_AAADUA jett_j_Page_094.jp2
3a61f23abd11efe15c3501845888e2fa
6293cdd404574cbdaa7ce62ee4be9993adcfed03
5997 F20101209_AAAFIV jett_j_Page_192thm.jpg
b8319cbfe8155df5275029f7c5fd0764
c48aecb7383ebd5d0da87081c37a1e7c9ba7c034
107012 F20101209_AAADUB jett_j_Page_096.jp2
4db62f0d441ac90636e4672f1ef20c95
fea12fcd621b0076dce0af73a0833e87c1d7f35a
19819 F20101209_AAAFIW jett_j_Page_193.QC.jpg
3ef8d610b1bb3d99169472d87a8e4bb2
4ebe9c5af979ba607cb262096750aca277abcdb6
117506 F20101209_AAADUC jett_j_Page_097.jp2
a2d285bde64820408818362cb785dd99
974a17f25116d8acb93db0e3ecf8e419ebcaa4a2
5843 F20101209_AAAFIX jett_j_Page_193thm.jpg
1cb5712b714fdc05896d72a2bf8ad238
5784d4abf788f8e0e3b4581e4a514e95c843e910
98801 F20101209_AAADUD jett_j_Page_098.jp2
6a0a1f6c2710fdbf13be9b291e44c7f7
2896ed4c9004a2307bf448585420866cf67f10d0
23235 F20101209_AAAFIY jett_j_Page_194.QC.jpg
8e9c2cce66a88a3f54cb72252a74c315
59aeb9c7ef689718b49c47239cf54211c2396916
103925 F20101209_AAADUE jett_j_Page_099.jp2
94db436592d6e1738a2f908f408c4a91
561cc038af5418a851153cd54d81f9a81398f891
5880 F20101209_AAAFIZ jett_j_Page_194thm.jpg
3548e789d7bbbd6614f5cfc807d12927
386fd86251e3ebbbfa0b21a3fcdab2562137c868
104090 F20101209_AAADUF jett_j_Page_100.jp2
e050bcb337af1522bc2fbf349c96ef10
c8df8cca03af4cc14c1e3c9c58b207f100a9b3c8
96930 F20101209_AAADUG jett_j_Page_102.jp2
a994cfe507b2c0e70ebff1ce3a42ff8f
c9857bab106796623633272baa62e6d1d9269bff
115320 F20101209_AAADUH jett_j_Page_103.jp2
7208f0b4dbd511e118cb89c6b7a01452
978cdf3e867c63b398d9661c17b8e204accc744c
F20101209_AAAERA jett_j_Page_097.txt
3c494d5e774feb0d5d0af0cfd052936f
380d123c3e3cce049d331f9c6218e4cbd196837f
118586 F20101209_AAADUI jett_j_Page_104.jp2
1d420314d1b27219028ce53bdccc899a
5cccdca0d353ce92883f954db157fd98da507871
1761 F20101209_AAAERB jett_j_Page_098.txt
dae77aa5d03449293678d2e16f4f1a61
021cdc17ac3e2d6c9a65562b96ad17c73235f30f
118499 F20101209_AAADUJ jett_j_Page_105.jp2
69cb4be4b0f610bcfdcbdd2361fa08dd
a4742a700f222a46f1b788fc700159c10384947b
1885 F20101209_AAAERC jett_j_Page_099.txt
e226f7fffba6ec6199bd5754353487ef
f3f5ef78f31829eb3c5f236e53d9e41f45cb3794
119813 F20101209_AAADUK jett_j_Page_106.jp2
24b08940074f5b96a181e945b9c66d32
0b91491673ca210c20beca63936aacfbdb354f70
1933 F20101209_AAAERD jett_j_Page_100.txt
19965f95fcd02418e8ff7c306b67118c
7fb572fab2b85ab7897b75630e48d0355f9186cb
24862 F20101209_AAADHA jett_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
5e4f4891771b799911f7b2857d979f73
ba17d2bdb0263be37729d7026fe18908a2467279
114788 F20101209_AAADUL jett_j_Page_107.jp2
f977a1b179f492ff3a5cf73b4f8293e9
fbef546c1bf2b0e4313955fba954332fa52293c2
F20101209_AAAERE jett_j_Page_101.txt
b7b4c9327e4f50e322e3c24c1fb30044
a077544836096b1ca24e23a4bb2079213a667790
124002 F20101209_AAADHB jett_j_Page_169.jp2
fd11a5a1a338655bd647ea2751af971d
aa5d56e0962e0c80f354509448459e1b466d9ba3
114765 F20101209_AAADUM jett_j_Page_108.jp2
14e181b3d21e1dc8c37672883e551267
c7cae9638625937d3f3105bc612196e0092cde9f
1703 F20101209_AAAERF jett_j_Page_102.txt
5db95bffbc885fb993e09a64c2277d31
d8a14022cbaa4d185cc8b11d3a5c3cfc04b250d6
104475 F20101209_AAADHC jett_j_Page_114.jp2
14900c6d17bd6a335fbc42df3e2cc69f
48d926f223ce26825e8e74edf7094baede579c0b
115163 F20101209_AAADUN jett_j_Page_109.jp2
d16827b1c52b500a1ae56befd47c3465
4167e1f78fd03a7d503efa7d88ed2b9c615cd3a2
2094 F20101209_AAAERG jett_j_Page_103.txt
ccfdec170c9c49e84c33f850fe0c8f29
597e743adbcf5dad1ff3be92ae7b20f7c91abd02
F20101209_AAADHD jett_j_Page_183.tif
789f01f93831f2079c6875541a98065e
0c1144c5c91f739d25164325d3ee702ebc645104
22306 F20101209_AAADUO jett_j_Page_110.jp2
ab84037e65b31f8caa247808457e4710
ea5e04719300021ca7d640075337853d6e29e872
F20101209_AAAERH jett_j_Page_104.txt
ead877517a051fa0f619dfceb816add0
326dffeee516442101d5da07945f7d46a5f0d9c0
51478 F20101209_AAADHE jett_j_Page_016.pro
8c544e8a0f0897c5a65ba835740f1a01
4636ee6409d63d6a692a2e5934d19f90adc96043
587822 F20101209_AAADUP jett_j_Page_111.jp2
9a36c154f6e0aca56be25991b5b8d435
4277481a5d8b83a802bf03e33e69e694d9637c9d
2149 F20101209_AAAERI jett_j_Page_105.txt
b7d94d0e60e0b1690c76bc50293b4f94
75dd856c9739758d8ce04412d9feb032f0552bb9
92100 F20101209_AAADHF jett_j_Page_211.jpg
225646686eb86b23fa81ff2dec619d39
44a18c4500dfded83523e517c7ae7ad0d76ee39c
45637 F20101209_AAADUQ jett_j_Page_112.jp2
29232e265fea38c06ee0d0e4c693cdcc
91e59dbe41c1dd2fceaec7c04843be12e0b49add
2146 F20101209_AAAERJ jett_j_Page_106.txt
ceed7c59bc3786633cd61420ef7f11a5
ecc92e4d595a75b85ec715648cdfe3a8eb859285
7267 F20101209_AAADHG jett_j_Page_216thm.jpg
b12dd32b879966aa04498c4326ac3b55
6a92f5021a3f78b425d994cab9ed6a3dfc4c1a08
34399 F20101209_AAADUR jett_j_Page_113.jp2
d9b666f8a8104ea0a03fbe76042132ce
c2421a9cbbf93b92482374249497c4f4177005f1
2098 F20101209_AAAERK jett_j_Page_107.txt
8dcc741a4d077c2ccd28b369c6b47c55
7e8532b1c22b714eba6b9701f89716e6dc897171
6843 F20101209_AAADHH jett_j_Page_178thm.jpg
9f0615f75c2f8aa6d03d4d0a070c257f
a155423b1d69a2008c5014013bfe713778247fb9
F20101209_AAAEEA jett_j_Page_162.tif
d904bf825ceeccd84265491724957b04
3f88d38234c2241eca9b5b7076091a0dc0508344
76933 F20101209_AAADUS jett_j_Page_115.jp2
1672139c269ad2088b20e410fe6f15c2
0f52f82ebe419903c737bb4a680082998ed872e8
2029 F20101209_AAAERL jett_j_Page_108.txt
d0602886b22d8f06ebe19aa3419cd3c1
e7db6fd4a726f04ecbc5919223767f33315b8dc5
9711 F20101209_AAADHI jett_j_Page_002.jpg
a396c23417927fc894c34cf62be1c14d
b4d57bb9dc6d8b215a5494bfe3eb9d543054ce8d
F20101209_AAAEEB jett_j_Page_163.tif
7fa135ad7c380fdbf3200b94a58f520d
9538420d7331e7f0bcbffc846ab56b62f513be60
57224 F20101209_AAADUT jett_j_Page_116.jp2
c8d7581ade3d84c44cfa1579966eee6f
a0cda2ce6e85152a6a8982d117ff6cca377a0132
2095 F20101209_AAAERM jett_j_Page_109.txt
32fccaa6d8964a4271b97339f5662c77
40c429ad94083a6115bb519d1b37438b86f01800
F20101209_AAADHJ jett_j_Page_208.tif
f10760f68cd0d81916664fc480624b52
75a2e35fa08dcc4a65b97d0e9f1a8a7d66101528
F20101209_AAAEEC jett_j_Page_164.tif
8fa35f11575e8cc6ba56233eef73151e
3401d6a6f3f71decad1885936cfc56d19f704599
67859 F20101209_AAADUU jett_j_Page_117.jp2
1f54d7b99d21b5aa522c3d762b87ffd0
78ecd4811a7e87498c50eebe2c0687266ac2d9e6
336 F20101209_AAAERN jett_j_Page_110.txt
a5f773f6e0d124019fed042c1ec623f8
fd36e42902af93fbad5fdb993b7975dec07ac77a
24750 F20101209_AAADHK jett_j_Page_218.QC.jpg
49fb1271963565c0f1273de91c528c62
c5428e4b80aa8ed2422ba50812277345c2ecebbf
F20101209_AAAEED jett_j_Page_165.tif
c815cb50406cc96df70b5ee80d387f6a
38891b829b455bfcd49070261f0fe992d50a2d56
107727 F20101209_AAADUV jett_j_Page_118.jp2
3ba48a92ab0caa22de269a5d31437081
61c50bfeeac4d9ee5c8ddc36115fb03516933c55
242 F20101209_AAAERO jett_j_Page_111.txt
4f6c33852089511b6f4bdd965dbd77f1
694069d40545de46676acba07a2335d21f31a86f
1795 F20101209_AAADHL jett_j_Page_120.txt
75771f20373184010675a5504c5fd168
6179f476a6565bdc176e44b4615a3434cad2fcec
F20101209_AAAEEE jett_j_Page_166.tif
b3c43ef3b205a4b71c2d4c3be53ecf1b
2a554c79723639d8b82eb13f544161549d7759ed
122466 F20101209_AAADUW jett_j_Page_119.jp2
d3cf9c95d0f02617806177347aaadc90
6d78947d3588096c95461aa18e81d0cf88c603f6
1127 F20101209_AAAERP jett_j_Page_112.txt
4a1dd92fb8bf5fee7b8023887276ecbc
0fdc6467158392679988a660d76d49b1fd443cc6
6717 F20101209_AAADHM jett_j_Page_061thm.jpg
74410f7bec35cb6119d9c4ea25166c0f
fdcaaeec22f539af5bc9f5cda869260a2407ffde
F20101209_AAAEEF jett_j_Page_167.tif
159cc955cd1c18b4ce17338635f83c85
b0cee0424fac2802209365ae86dd74ca9a3eba4d
99890 F20101209_AAADUX jett_j_Page_120.jp2
2e168862c5bdbe5ff3167909b753c572
e59f110de025043fb81adf7bd072300ea53ec406
2780 F20101209_AAAERQ jett_j_Page_114.txt
017765a0987b38936c2757acb8de62d2
b19ed9049634b779a2b94508c098496b8dec94b5
5016 F20101209_AAADHN jett_j_Page_007.txt
1161012b0f5ac02c7ce298118d15a03a
3d5edc41957f4a5b6f9a80f97c8af68eae269e3d
F20101209_AAAEEG jett_j_Page_168.tif
353be0f5fc0b95d9c212f0db1813c990
5245d0a10ea2bd97315d354b660531151e3f04f2
113053 F20101209_AAADUY jett_j_Page_121.jp2
611f3b0f357bc7b005362199a26a9701
0a680374e2f9488ff5b098eaaeeed950a018e427
2161 F20101209_AAAERR jett_j_Page_115.txt
b627036e969256aaecbda0308769207d
7f24f63f27fdc776d2ceefd581f82441f468021c
2190 F20101209_AAADHO jett_j_Page_168.txt
d2bee8464bd392a14fdc850febcafbf6
dea024d17292637363e0a6436063223423d0a6f4
F20101209_AAAEEH jett_j_Page_169.tif
86408f5df5d51445b7f2dc907e81da05
8fdb3b36497128eb85615bab8bd21d1301f5172a
120870 F20101209_AAADUZ jett_j_Page_122.jp2
6af7a48e54fee2fbe5754f64c23bad99
738fed33f52173efd95dacc76d18cabe7ed5743e
23293 F20101209_AAAFBA jett_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
a69e54b95393c13b719defa88c9ff456
66586c20645368004346ecedc72f8706ec30b6e2
1468 F20101209_AAAERS jett_j_Page_116.txt
4c39b8d37798e59060071d2a8aa1ab2b
0fc3e04ea2476b490adf3a6a9960570b4de21ee3
115800 F20101209_AAADHP jett_j_Page_088.jp2
b32bb3912d668a60c2a166fd914f34c9
5e40d160184ec3c1feb06d328011926bfe659ae4
F20101209_AAAEEI jett_j_Page_170.tif
c91421a49a07b94f039080d5a7f78939
2c2bcc95afbd9c1032d642d6833e770955f55325
6559 F20101209_AAAFBB jett_j_Page_083thm.jpg
dcc0b1317e3a2fab7c8179810d91257f
310e9437b71db084fcaed4c14a57c62c6db22202
1645 F20101209_AAAERT jett_j_Page_117.txt
25d6526bb67549cdc1e2876547a182c4
58c5c81aae6f5d5f27308ebad8a4dbb2d30f6408
61623 F20101209_AAADHQ jett_j_Page_207.pro
ab6526f852daba39c726c9f5030d0155
2f9d0740a52a821b8b4108beb0155c80e56b7cdc
F20101209_AAAEEJ jett_j_Page_171.tif
50271f56702552980538a04ea171852f
cd6edb7b6ef8d81d3138583824b2fc51a39afd69
26087 F20101209_AAAFBC jett_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
6d8adcf50a1680527594aafc20cd0cf0
1e8366921461bb901dc8690913b3b79b96c1eaa1
2030 F20101209_AAAERU jett_j_Page_118.txt
05d2f4fb5edd5cca059ef1e56f82439a
a3b02e9374a861a8109fa31d7f0ef47b932da4ed
F20101209_AAADHR jett_j_Page_139.txt
ef0fba08fdfd0e3c5217ab28f48f33c8
e5b98e15ded412ecf061fc327540428cd8aebcba
F20101209_AAAEEK jett_j_Page_172.tif
8c9f33dae828a804b3c3d7456deca9c0
8dfb691598917799068ca65d9e95d0b758015a86
F20101209_AAAFBD jett_j_Page_084thm.jpg
d00cf7026ed736ea3abd6df89401f4af
c222f287b4794910f987ab24ec01e80eb62c3731
2232 F20101209_AAAERV jett_j_Page_119.txt
eeb6a52e328b4132d4aa7706c5775441
b55bf91498199fdc228d4ef6a8891b0888e1f0a8
F20101209_AAAEEL jett_j_Page_174.tif
60d84b3a076f0c2cca9feb7f5c73f359
858c076f0a4c46760576c0b0dd3126d6e2ceb88c
23526 F20101209_AAAFBE jett_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
aa7adcf8469948c3cc26a4c7ff7230ee
d59403d3014ee1fe677ce8cf22ece403f9fda473
2043 F20101209_AAAERW jett_j_Page_121.txt
cb052043bf798e1d775e1146e10e2cb3
58a17027137a44ab413f4b8acbd65789909f16a0
41008 F20101209_AAADHS jett_j_Page_195.pro
0c86ee4dd171a1bfae96732d090be13b
2625b522fed79dfc82c4ba91264899294ada9ff6
F20101209_AAAEEM jett_j_Page_175.tif
44baf3af5510846198d960c71c75a81f
e191f9e4ca1379746edd97cc4611b916902110ec
6460 F20101209_AAAFBF jett_j_Page_085thm.jpg
5243ad265fd694c114e7e9235d39d8bd
45292800af0b3e7a4e8bec236d217ca0a7927346
2212 F20101209_AAAERX jett_j_Page_122.txt
0cf7601fc659160e799d47426c100fff
b337e6635abed3b74738a59bb388a7bb50a297e6
76368 F20101209_AAADHT jett_j_Page_134.jpg
0e4a56b00ea6fe517a720822c83a5605
d666f80f2a4c5d804200316cdc74bcbd8a2c612d
F20101209_AAAEEN jett_j_Page_176.tif
9e57b9c31ac0ab9a8c0ed89c7c2d8084
85cfb734eec97c23b5e01f7ec9808ae0c5312bb0
26058 F20101209_AAAFBG jett_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
563746ba8a3663551f981cd5a196ba63
f96de3752984a212ae2154e8102b08e2d40a9f1f
1858 F20101209_AAAERY jett_j_Page_125.txt
22db2a7968e6c95f0593c6b373adc9e4
a7b6a95748c26028251bf18c91f26f47a613b36e
862 F20101209_AAADHU jett_j_Page_011.txt
063a00ade11a38c9b12f2184db5e012f
87d1b53e3f94b5629ba2d810c1e1889e597c7b16
7220 F20101209_AAAFBH jett_j_Page_086thm.jpg
5ed8d2ff7c209aa50a53170d919931a5
7bf4e6056b99d792bd76ee6046b8d90ff8b5287d
1832 F20101209_AAAERZ jett_j_Page_126.txt
193f1525d34f25917a8d4499951ef325
5c42cba1235c6fddbe51d5695d296047fa27275b
F20101209_AAADHV jett_j_Page_064.tif
8987dd7135d5ebf6259bbf181ee6f626
e5af07fd34ea46f526edd1be62f2a1013d1397b9
F20101209_AAAEEO jett_j_Page_177.tif
7b8744bb6aeba6454d5e9044bfc37759
36018c8caa979fe70dde68a2cabc11db422a44dd
6827 F20101209_AAAFBI jett_j_Page_087thm.jpg
09d73c9df563cc68fbb02a13c9dc9f02
9e3a0a232aff7638d1b63a2625cf1168aa83f7a0
8996 F20101209_AAADHW jett_j_Page_153.QC.jpg
9420dba0baa2b42f7d529f7f824ea0e8
86df90453f0ac060a8389516e1772748766fc5cc
F20101209_AAAEEP jett_j_Page_178.tif
fd0c682128a16e93bf53dfc56b69a17a
1776993e0d116afc1fbb490934faccd2dcade9de
24230 F20101209_AAAFBJ jett_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
751744c1127cb92f8d785d9e70da7eca
c4669b95989ba7982f2188e48234856fa9d5721d
55700 F20101209_AAADHX jett_j_Page_066.pro
38f3dc572f2377a70ede095aacc9a635
006a1c7e42400548d63de53914149efaf6eed1c1
F20101209_AAAEEQ jett_j_Page_179.tif
939c00f477bf0c2483e70f5f40aec547
aebca5b246059488a31870f5a4a96618570fe69f
2015 F20101209_AAADHY jett_j_Page_004.txt
49ca72e8320b2953b135a1655bffc56b
7f4c4c149398558ce1d0d81720c20e01f049e44d
F20101209_AAAEER jett_j_Page_180.tif
4b550f1fc9b5b9473e7545eb4ec856ea
a0922cea7710e08ab73b2e6ce381ad6b1bf0f6f1
6577 F20101209_AAAFBK jett_j_Page_088thm.jpg
b24e7a73142d13e96a3be89e9819909f
953a999ea14da0e4fd411c4b609dce87ba53c24c
F20101209_AAADHZ jett_j_Page_047.tif
091a5b95fd44164d9f9be1b7c3ba3b26
36678077ed9de71e85b9c5498965897007cc747e
F20101209_AAAEES jett_j_Page_181.tif
240eda0d1175ed83caaaf13f3e94a36d
86c8f14772ac8c76596f5fad91924fa41bc51c87
20510 F20101209_AAAFBL jett_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
9e50d3ac11867e61ec2478ae740fb4f5
63e360cddd8961d359495ab75fe6c932e9ae20fa
F20101209_AAAEET jett_j_Page_182.tif
d6864fc8d9ec988e3ecf72fe50f0c285
8618aa6809db24da5eaa491d9101e059666d7795
5483 F20101209_AAAFBM jett_j_Page_089thm.jpg
67f3d0312c089208e10bbfa027ef3123
1aefe5824f78e1e3fa772e7a65f605a2e7093b46
F20101209_AAAEEU jett_j_Page_184.tif
0b9fff701d7863f5b1bd02c10066a383
3a2fc9d39e5d76c9e3dcd70b5f9513b934cbb717
11977 F20101209_AAAFBN jett_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
601438e299affd59847df36e9acc476d
fd4125eb28149fcbd6af3677277cce34adc6a69c
F20101209_AAAEEV jett_j_Page_185.tif
79ca7ba523ae835166e6b39e21c7a8a5
b4dacbe012debf4e11baa804b1fd376ec9563c5b
3645 F20101209_AAAFBO jett_j_Page_090thm.jpg
692aab3ee0d281de580ac93904b45275
1a172b2335931dbbebc05f2d25ecb290fcd2102a
F20101209_AAAEEW jett_j_Page_187.tif
1bd707c1876561f80478d2219c685b18
9d4546c93070a28cb554a232c1339bf3c48b959f
26180 F20101209_AAAEXA jett_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
9e9ef28a8b6a561443d0d4ab9266b12a
cf1c09aea164c0f462ac990c34719df76ebc28c7
19279 F20101209_AAAFBP jett_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
a9b38f3cc24f86bc5239c23b974b79aa
2821b9f886d4f26feb86804489f1e9e30da94186
F20101209_AAAEEX jett_j_Page_188.tif
49a2b0c3d111f4faa4bc4da4ffd28e93
b856a9c6438d8d7be6ea3fb3850004698a7419f2
5372 F20101209_AAAFBQ jett_j_Page_091thm.jpg
226cabe278c7e1273e54b0a73fd67041
c9949ad3d4cb91568eb55f2a5414b3aa46611b06
F20101209_AAAEEY jett_j_Page_189.tif
98029be25996f2f5db505cd86da2f09d
257338adb0bb131a625561d5731ce97a1917c259
F20101209_AAAEXB jett_j_Page_025thm.jpg
9482c5b03775e927ae13ba0159f53ddf
99598ff897b6af836896db35483f6308e785407c
22894 F20101209_AAAFBR jett_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
59aa9cceee71754dca369743b778499e
ae956b317162d9116de8d24abd1a05166a7d9111
F20101209_AAAEEZ jett_j_Page_190.tif
d18c87a9b4ef70b46263bd6c604ae811
d584365402fb81469a595bbcac8ffc8bd85ac4bd
23922 F20101209_AAAEXC jett_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
2c36239a63275844920ee88047917f52
0d4bcc9936f89c1083df07060c2ea91309fb0e37
6704 F20101209_AAAFBS jett_j_Page_092thm.jpg
a8378ed2112c8781c4d5fc73a3c92f95
6e1e99f573700504f553b8c2eaa3310b603a7cab
F20101209_AAAEXD jett_j_Page_026thm.jpg
c977028a6e60d244cd7bc57e3ea57ea2
7310a2ed518307e6f998cb235733c6201a550a47
26310 F20101209_AAAFBT jett_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
f511e9c1e79c329caf6957a26506e285
c017979a5479b3495259cdd533f758741ce04c8c
20548 F20101209_AAAEXE jett_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
8159379377382362631198774da7c581
91df69e7ce1ce843bb1e92a00a3ee522b47155de
7087 F20101209_AAAFBU jett_j_Page_093thm.jpg
7ac80dbbbc7972a6edebdcc2053a7e06
18ef86b169d21902f8d78edac1c8faa0b2cebd27
55797 F20101209_AAADNA jett_j_Page_115.jpg
289db3ff6c0f8562c32c666d380a799a
580c5088def90eed9c0f711804429f3d304e1bf7
19662 F20101209_AAAEXF jett_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
e8d115cdd66d1ef282d22288f2956714
03efbcc66eedf9dfebbf3c946337ec2fe3b68640
24009 F20101209_AAAFBV jett_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
64a0d310403e92a7dec425cf0fb64ed8
292d97747f9a9e5c596ed20c459d1730e1e2083b
40874 F20101209_AAADNB jett_j_Page_116.jpg
8a46b2ee6e28f581e13a27565fa8be8b
c7788ea478d3448e59325a24b360c3fae019d293
5949 F20101209_AAAEXG jett_j_Page_028thm.jpg
df53f9e0aca8fa6ce8b845f5ea2b55bd
0cdacad3ac8d8eea3e5f5ac6556bed0dfac7413f
6864 F20101209_AAAFBW jett_j_Page_094thm.jpg
283fb12384cb1d4ba2e2af987d0935ac
dad63ef3f98c6afb7830dfb998f163e0600a3d74
48784 F20101209_AAADNC jett_j_Page_117.jpg
08305cdb5ffc8a6737be3878ffac7c68
900db01a177ca4c767e49a3018549ca07a764f1e
13933 F20101209_AAAEXH jett_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
8a8a9c576efce3bfaf1830703d644216
09567ead6ba9ea5e847425ab99cace0eb2aea5d3
24166 F20101209_AAAFBX jett_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
6df4ef1d7d53ff55e9ef5dd223a677dd
e3833cd272b11620840d89c5eec4ce3e72d21536
70912 F20101209_AAADND jett_j_Page_118.jpg
65d99a34e9a281194d2c993161551a84
73d8a8a1fb6b963836762b8a693b3b5a5fa1c7b4
4308 F20101209_AAAEXI jett_j_Page_029thm.jpg
b0c63a624fdcc719b885a247941db924
43345671af893f6fb40bc21be7befdd90637e838
F20101209_AAAFBY jett_j_Page_095thm.jpg
e919fb704093f9543cca7b831351ed56
ec522204111a9060f3ea22ad92c04dec53794f15
78999 F20101209_AAADNE jett_j_Page_119.jpg
6cdcc0b582f68adff5db55e6fc874763
49820befafa0923258dadbda735ee01ae0613d45
9203 F20101209_AAAEXJ jett_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
23283885d999a9a0326283073b9a733b
cefb98b4a2b7a7474dc5b737e24e487c962322bd
23639 F20101209_AAAFBZ jett_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
b283b3793148ff4fc579562b1634f73b
22808ad0e332b685f8aef5005653fcf0599d4ee2
65372 F20101209_AAADNF jett_j_Page_120.jpg
874da401c51c5ba03a5d2aa59b70f293
f3c81678d99640b4dd639ff6b4eddd61468e9d11
3296 F20101209_AAAEXK jett_j_Page_030thm.jpg
3a9bcd6bcbc6d3a1b274631294b0d769
7cb16d29670f9849cc26f7acb0b090be7ad7ca74
73483 F20101209_AAADNG jett_j_Page_121.jpg
a9dd92d84ec19734b7e563f4ad8673a9
4ce042f55183a48f8ef6e6ad9cdbf81751122fc1
28382 F20101209_AAAEKA jett_j_Page_116.pro
f2b70e719c44fa0ad1b77b3dfb8c8af9
24656e437358680ee9d877dab84bf732c753bd7e
F20101209_AAAEXL jett_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
9b38e4e5c6a6f9c80a549274b26ec464
a389079acfff66991adc1dd4396b898863694962
79153 F20101209_AAADNH jett_j_Page_122.jpg
4cb6bc91069d5c8fb03b2a0a71fcd37b
4590001ddd1402f672924d95f54bf56a7a7c275c
34407 F20101209_AAAEKB jett_j_Page_117.pro
fa3bd879a9cc25137c9a392f62483d0e
f16edcc3d589d0d4b3168a86cb5fd31615d04a84
6436 F20101209_AAAEXM jett_j_Page_031thm.jpg
07c41b0924af18f8cd57fb593aa151ef
f14aa72f86431c42fa9fd1576b039d344af0db89
62879 F20101209_AAADNI jett_j_Page_123.jpg
73493d5eb34b2fc4b5b01ff151b88d8f
e382fcdcb7d10f9890237544270def2ea76d6ba8
48692 F20101209_AAAEKC jett_j_Page_118.pro
c3804685274d0f5fcbe26d6c10066b47
377b039d7efd1b8404ab348c3e2a3af1a9a35a8f
6888 F20101209_AAAEXN jett_j_Page_032thm.jpg
8f8773231a0910894d0e76ed784f83ce
fae6d3867a28076ea0bfaa5131d4c9c0842c8d86
74003 F20101209_AAADNJ jett_j_Page_124.jpg
e1db285a2fc978e59d4ae565fa6e3a61
a97d8a6d65d1b742f7e54bb8ded70ce53c4db369
51563 F20101209_AAAEKD jett_j_Page_121.pro
34c072c3a920cd844b0a5aeffa4e2d16
13fc31cb9087b7f03f7fb87a73d847722b7f7b5e
25878 F20101209_AAAEXO jett_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
aefcee6623291e4f81d4f32550649ec0
4afcc73c91d1ffbb6b1a3799f57eec3c08a920d4
66531 F20101209_AAADNK jett_j_Page_125.jpg
65c35ff3a10a15049675781e85d70b8c
2707b5c15484193aa7fb0168b22b5144d032122d
55679 F20101209_AAAEKE jett_j_Page_122.pro
60aae259abb4eae6a7e9fe90c92cfb27
a2452c4abaa48a71808548e86859adeb5d0c5e2b
7151 F20101209_AAAEXP jett_j_Page_033thm.jpg
02b3c8ee3d2bcc7f952dbe15566c33f4
8eeabc161a23c37fecdc6f042e3e83bd9a649705
68003 F20101209_AAADNL jett_j_Page_126.jpg
ab56a4d65c273fd67ffc857e9c4bd6a5
340d787239f470466ceed3db6257a3632151956c
42142 F20101209_AAAEKF jett_j_Page_123.pro
e34936acea41ef2a3b61f3f88ab0cf3d
5aaf509ba63e0b4827b06204b79711406ecaa88a
6468 F20101209_AAAEXQ jett_j_Page_034thm.jpg
b244935351081186933e169e129284f1
3275ca72961d5562c988726f2c78d1a34eea137b
64757 F20101209_AAADNM jett_j_Page_127.jpg
f4288065f8d7994fa42ce80d420062d3
8085e6d24e6f8667beead4e213248cf3d834d22d
50575 F20101209_AAAEKG jett_j_Page_124.pro
32e842dcaf1bb0b15dfb5f7816ad0013
ccf3e1c7ebbab98b1ffdb86161a6d755e7ff2216
25533 F20101209_AAAEXR jett_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
2e28214da42ad78b40c537dddcfd398a
627f67a58c8409c2c6621db554fc63d2e8542268
62070 F20101209_AAADNN jett_j_Page_128.jpg
9f685847cb12afef6116c35334790731
a817930f30ee7508497ae4c58e92beab84dca150
45107 F20101209_AAAEKH jett_j_Page_125.pro
1f80d379d87e823600346700e22aca2a
2f8b1409438be2dc55c4da537d6dce0becedb7ec
25509 F20101209_AAAFHA jett_j_Page_168.QC.jpg
36825026adf30e616e5631e1d0568a9e
e64088e492f6df14dda6fa3eb9b6b7166949759a
6736 F20101209_AAAEXS jett_j_Page_035thm.jpg
dacdb6701dcfc7791a1e1a9f8e66e089
0e8e2370a16bfbf900f5411c690c445c63614995
77149 F20101209_AAADNO jett_j_Page_129.jpg
1252a5d35fdcc205fff9885587e40923
0f3eb0086831278c8ab70dbb86e44e23995c2ca2
46154 F20101209_AAAEKI jett_j_Page_126.pro
b53d441ac18a23c4786294c74d337102
955dd8e8a7ea9bc95585d7839b6bdf17c5335f2b
6922 F20101209_AAAFHB jett_j_Page_168thm.jpg
a135bdae60c170bed84c2bb226e927a0
ff01197025bad433b0464bdcde52f721ee8a6234
25237 F20101209_AAAEXT jett_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
b25331377a5f485f0c50415a880b6c22
651d5887db1dffd784ece38826bad53281ef078e
75668 F20101209_AAADNP jett_j_Page_131.jpg
f8203986de359465fa15bd369e8ccef6
ce83e5a80c16e7f4eee84c7787c182202cfd7007
44493 F20101209_AAAEKJ jett_j_Page_127.pro
87ea721d815deb780c336343e6e8f6de
bf43eea54f092be65b84173e0d6df7d391fa3494
25902 F20101209_AAAFHC jett_j_Page_169.QC.jpg
bd8864f7492287a3ff904c40c4d33b1e
a86fd620a0379d02d75997037396fff229e5a0e0
6603 F20101209_AAAEXU jett_j_Page_036thm.jpg
f36be66b07ba49b34d7b258de657796c
29ea58c39207d19580d95185f6bbf4cb64c9e58e
74186 F20101209_AAADNQ jett_j_Page_132.jpg
e4b124239d0acfd6c92e8490540daea8
6d63f40ffa0a5b77312f0bdd2c74411971f93cba
41364 F20101209_AAAEKK jett_j_Page_128.pro
8e20d8e174093e0fae9246c2037c3a47
e90cbad44420efba43279090c2193d191f0f3dcc
7133 F20101209_AAAFHD jett_j_Page_169thm.jpg
ea02e7a96212f00fcc3b9c79a3de2c95
8deac59c2faacd9a0b7b55661f47159399587c77
25936 F20101209_AAAEXV jett_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
08f6a5cf6e8a71cb8436b290bd40183a
41970b5c469036b08ec753446cddd1f361c2769d
72322 F20101209_AAADNR jett_j_Page_133.jpg
633ebf0e16dfae0587d2eddf82481d41
9855f81712d48e0df3c5e5aa7e7190ac290bc68e
54516 F20101209_AAAEKL jett_j_Page_129.pro
756be5c44803566671eff02a98141433
df31949f08fe581488b8c5d58daa7f0dd493379a
26153 F20101209_AAAFHE jett_j_Page_170.QC.jpg
489bf7dac0c775df063ac20ccc6f5c62
35da8792b05d6432923cac3ff0829cbe8fa9a407
7141 F20101209_AAAEXW jett_j_Page_037thm.jpg
a9b326b1688e174d7c07712442350e4d
c04f2ac450efb17b3ff68fa962ade75f906d8900
70374 F20101209_AAADNS jett_j_Page_135.jpg
7a96c1b366e0b82e7177ae3803024ef0
28dff444785e93823b8cae0f75938df0ac5a2e2d
56876 F20101209_AAAEKM jett_j_Page_130.pro
9850c0334b2d2f41c614759d703d1cac
02032f2f79e399952e1dfa9152a0b036dd5974ac
F20101209_AAAFHF jett_j_Page_170thm.jpg
9222b49913ed4fa3cb125152cbb24256
4f82983aef53b04ed42a833be2ebee2cc17cce70
25687 F20101209_AAAEXX jett_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
c5a75da9a047c98a436d1a6c267a5001
cbd310a33fac9ff12b4a5882ef207001786e92ab
75791 F20101209_AAADNT jett_j_Page_136.jpg
e3b42dd7e356d324ada821507614a78b
25575177b934a1f40e014928f17c288d7f98f51d
54818 F20101209_AAAEKN jett_j_Page_131.pro
00398ff50799044944c76de838dd0860
c746d675523e8888af309f1065eaf101e2ccaf74
25183 F20101209_AAAFHG jett_j_Page_171.QC.jpg
57b951ea475b55b4b4fa2539bfc36aa7
c235518c15fa988e431f726bd5b5a1a66aa356e9
6816 F20101209_AAAEXY jett_j_Page_038thm.jpg
2fc911070e4506bb3d967162b50cb7d5
f4fbfd2a544d0b7a8e9ddc1d25dee4c90ae3df1e
74849 F20101209_AAADNU jett_j_Page_137.jpg
b100aa5b6aa44dd5f27cb2ebab90bd2a
4184bbff04ad276d2862f7ece05e525ebccc85c9
52397 F20101209_AAAEKO jett_j_Page_132.pro
20325798d9bbf32efa5049327cebcec5
4c5ed2dcf8da93b287173cdc6289c80429490a80
6790 F20101209_AAAFHH jett_j_Page_171thm.jpg
f9c5d0f74dfe8988a3506c75de80c27b
bc0e63d9901cb995c7fdb5c323e5f6f87729983a
25418 F20101209_AAAEXZ jett_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
961ead7b648101b453352a9c14732b8b
66b6e8ed34c887c7083f19d15e3e5a242b101467
42506 F20101209_AAADNV jett_j_Page_138.jpg
20cb3483fe7ad8280d5d37840691ec78
0a3743ce383299552217df4572f30237d6c039f9
50624 F20101209_AAAEKP jett_j_Page_133.pro
2327b0e44060dfee0c705e3ead72f8ac
cdb3339ed991fb505215a95d732d037ffe336588
6752 F20101209_AAAFHI jett_j_Page_172thm.jpg
70bc14ed32ae9caacede5a2504511af6
871901efb76d2d231d75bccc339101e064ed44ad
37729 F20101209_AAADNW jett_j_Page_139.jpg
a2fd9f552803e72f4d020a40d81074ed
0922c1a3ceec7e6f74136db5b3410a4f172d338f
54213 F20101209_AAAEKQ jett_j_Page_134.pro
51260fba929dc5482cb6486c1ebec891
ee03c40d60e19e1372ba79022ae36de271656413
25017 F20101209_AAAFHJ jett_j_Page_173.QC.jpg
c14c2e6cf841728459d5da1b4b6963c6
c7bc7865e1c1671547b309e3017d362e66c12268
41280 F20101209_AAADNX jett_j_Page_140.jpg
b7d635d2bf0accb0e24daf825a53fc99
0ece85bd51cd3877288b3ada8d1abca4da2e708d
49189 F20101209_AAAEKR jett_j_Page_135.pro
edf7bb36e6c5c01f131b70366ae6f4ef
016a17c2b217cfc178262e46db2047d79493b310
6702 F20101209_AAAFHK jett_j_Page_173thm.jpg
73e00cae4e78b23a0253421bde1e2890
4ce143d023228b53e6a154b832f84a4cd3679525
53103 F20101209_AAAEKS jett_j_Page_136.pro
98e2de61c447f4f89fcb2040e8531234
acbcda6ac9e04c2053c205e83bbf3d2a2f08bf41
25482 F20101209_AAAFHL jett_j_Page_174.QC.jpg
35463ba2afef20f3c16d59b7145da00f
9fe9e71cbe50e055cc5655d4ed892947825d8b69
48491 F20101209_AAADNY jett_j_Page_141.jpg
eccf50d3514451b6cc11311d233f473d
a73efdca3e137cc1c09a3850cabb82efa08a5f20
51546 F20101209_AAAEKT jett_j_Page_137.pro
89d73498abc31483c20ecbe8ff56d95c
f47a6f2fdc2dc44d81be8a89e3cb5375378f1679
F20101209_AAAFHM jett_j_Page_174thm.jpg
256ea8d8054fb08c866a9732a96e64fa
6cb5bb66b60bf2801abe9f4f48ef18e516e7e88e
56481 F20101209_AAADNZ jett_j_Page_142.jpg
3bff33ef6105c4a97aab4984556fd4db
87fe06093aa7804a539171fb95d4dacf7aa8d39c
25563 F20101209_AAAFHN jett_j_Page_175.QC.jpg
904e137cac5ae2c9d9674c88a0b87d11
2c4904d09100503325dd059548560fa8448f2077
26748 F20101209_AAAEKU jett_j_Page_138.pro
3f5e7a8605a3129231b61b39af59f8a0
d66d794b7f4480a16649219f3f2b6bfd55cbae5d
6989 F20101209_AAAFHO jett_j_Page_175thm.jpg
2c5a84b454d9df1320fadb0bbdc00aec
ccfdbfa70668f8b432960821b968b63151ddd198
30643 F20101209_AAAEKV jett_j_Page_139.pro
26d344c8704a09806314a70bd3268cd2
929d1bdfc644915ab9093dd6750cb1a439c22c99
25946 F20101209_AAAFHP jett_j_Page_176.QC.jpg
006674de97c8e7a957813fb441f2206b
e0c29036ae06570dc44ca7546494231fc79a64d6
35649 F20101209_AAAEKW jett_j_Page_140.pro
ce6d9c7526e338624192c924fbef600a
e782f251a59a22a42e8893d011474c3a9ba941a9
35725 F20101209_AAAEKX jett_j_Page_141.pro
c9346f38a44a92fa3b87a8facbe76ca9
227148ae340c2965e31522c7d63dc72a6878e39c
6987 F20101209_AAAFHQ jett_j_Page_176thm.jpg
ebaa9403a5c773dac98883fbc6afcb81
684fa4dd3ec3ce7600cf0e77c2b9691d9a9ccb4d
37018 F20101209_AAAEKY jett_j_Page_142.pro
e3ada7668786ecd98b101b64eef899fd
813eda1e47a3cb797b4a530ce577431fbda11076
25702 F20101209_AAAFHR jett_j_Page_177.QC.jpg
4a6c88dd68f44fef3afdc885d7277cc0
8197ae25623e30e201a1d7eeaf89c9046a6ce987
33806 F20101209_AAAEKZ jett_j_Page_143.pro
1c2c74c680ccdb2df5ae4199ef900b27
ff0eb913150dc01a28c44987ea81a358ebf1f143
6930 F20101209_AAAFHS jett_j_Page_177thm.jpg
b78688c410abc450c468c95ad85a2bc0
a25e55f05e5e7698cefd88433a8c727f167e226b
25195 F20101209_AAAFHT jett_j_Page_178.QC.jpg
3ef2bb0f8e75dab42cd4afc4033cd99b
3d7b0e57fdaa4a63020cc9aaa6df545fe574ae42
25131 F20101209_AAAFHU jett_j_Page_179.QC.jpg
493595c75f5b50f3d8c86462c9de99e0
db049a79cec659abd812f22b5d7370e859a4f9fc
122954 F20101209_AAADTA jett_j_Page_065.jp2
bb3c1ebb21053ba4025fe8580dc2f857
73a8f97af6e2fab6ad32739e1cfa5427c1aea7a9
6853 F20101209_AAAFHV jett_j_Page_179thm.jpg
5e4f6e02074ef95e57eb4ebcca49f2a0
213d6a21ba2442ce3602493b5b9e8ef018dab2e6
120664 F20101209_AAADTB jett_j_Page_066.jp2
7511a1a5e390051ed1da13d7d6fbb860
35346506b3d0ce60d4edbf037c695fc724349c2d
25370 F20101209_AAAFHW jett_j_Page_180.QC.jpg
2024c1f7a1d149fac7243634aa48275c
6a0ac359d64a9bfdd5103b531f0c4ead2b5619f7
120018 F20101209_AAADTC jett_j_Page_068.jp2
047cbbb89d1ba03c194d8a82cfe4abd3
0334bb22d3a5d42c7770dea3487c8669317b2537
6567 F20101209_AAAFHX jett_j_Page_180thm.jpg
002e3de4c50c514a35d0b40824f13614
6b1d630c8bbb5a5ed1e776ab23af36364d0dfdfc
119849 F20101209_AAADTD jett_j_Page_069.jp2
8ad6624f5bf3fd63b3e48ebe845fdbef
d08daf6541ef8c1e5f2461113e53e2b57abaa2bc
25943 F20101209_AAAFHY jett_j_Page_181.QC.jpg
3ba54f16124cf5ca9867cbd2db59c522
37c482e34db747207bc0167795fc24fb733c0c57
121525 F20101209_AAADTE jett_j_Page_071.jp2
6c05987e56430ebc27c8a18bc870507a
133e1e2d654f5be1dafff7737b3fc58ac2466fd6
6759 F20101209_AAAFHZ jett_j_Page_181thm.jpg
25cae40f3c016251918241191b95c11c
82c63ce1d9a7a254f9bfa64ed72d404b36c21d9f
110065 F20101209_AAADTF jett_j_Page_072.jp2
4421fe43e02d23246a6683c0652a9f24
2cd37e1d62b1a9907e40de02b702f419bd15eeac
117696 F20101209_AAADTG jett_j_Page_073.jp2
fbd7ee2744cf924f5f307ed8aa16019d
56d9720461d06a95f8b3b2f1b6f6e468092045fd
122393 F20101209_AAADTH jett_j_Page_074.jp2
5663ae738610b2d2e662e7d06dd9d462
8fd42e1452dc9da1be31b4e2ac23637c1f34bb2b
2126 F20101209_AAAEQA jett_j_Page_067.txt
a83d7e0aeb05bd1643894b74796152ad
967dd7755c66201f24ca6c9695dcbd6b9a97357d
125247 F20101209_AAADTI jett_j_Page_075.jp2
7fd6d07675fff2447bea91d7c504d86e
92e7cd615cc5e6ac172a33b02e97d34829922fd7
2172 F20101209_AAAEQB jett_j_Page_068.txt
4943014fa78399a3383ec6924cafcc3e
514bab2518b2bdc30eb49adacc8b3e18537cb776
120356 F20101209_AAADTJ jett_j_Page_076.jp2
8f3732ec81bac4b12df1db83b17c111f
e4c4e83a502b7115f1fb7964259185b4c0a11523
F20101209_AAAEQC jett_j_Page_069.txt
06ad1d53a735d6f9c52e989709ff421a
ac7e734d64944fddf8eca2a2cba25fd38ca55417
119009 F20101209_AAADTK jett_j_Page_077.jp2
374306f6dd949d7b597e9873dc01515a
7344ed3cc23aaa55b54f4fcf82566a1fc1ca6302
2205 F20101209_AAAEQD jett_j_Page_070.txt
c905d07308ddef2c829e4d9daa0254ef
9529cbdaaca5f92d8580ba58527b54edf2dcd916
6256 F20101209_AAADGA jett_j_Page_126thm.jpg
c7ffafebb97d1771139013bb9fca5d50
78f36ed87b6e0800d7f1b1d418a5c9698df2d31f
118896 F20101209_AAADTL jett_j_Page_078.jp2
5b012cf2eb274e607c84a320bea151fb
4183be8dd3de84a424c908ce78c3dc672d76e5e3
2269 F20101209_AAAEQE jett_j_Page_071.txt
909c0d4feac717f75dc0a4a2a004c907
6732e4f6434e9062219030d6db98d239817edcb5
F20101209_AAADGB jett_j_Page_186.tif
10ad7291ca3781c5803c7f132eb959b1
e48e06dcac48abd7786ec49e5673658994e1adfb
120095 F20101209_AAADTM jett_j_Page_079.jp2
4d5bd6bb551f93ee545cb09887deac79
0d856aac12b802b5a32baa5c50bbbe4ed23af991
1994 F20101209_AAAEQF jett_j_Page_072.txt
b5255398e2940bfb595cb794e372b377
3cb908f89c3cbb00b338b4f04076f0411e739d6b
F20101209_AAADGC jett_j_Page_080.tif
f7107701a9c646ecee094709c4c7fd60
db5f231afc1304db75bc33b665214c1848134f7b
122744 F20101209_AAADTN jett_j_Page_080.jp2
01b23e7fdf523b2fa80fffb217afb6ed
1707c87f2f85096d52e001fe31277ca4f11e4c6c
2110 F20101209_AAAEQG jett_j_Page_073.txt
ec07ef1582e07b9648221931bd816757
dbdf263e822b98004e9aeffc2e714bc8e8c28358
F20101209_AAADGD jett_j_Page_081.tif
68de8a653e01d3d60f42470c90a84adb
97b34bcf14fdc94a402458aae8b4036fe5cbc444
109459 F20101209_AAADTO jett_j_Page_081.jp2
6c255d43460d7f6709f5f031ca458668
9b835de6295c251bdfd85ac8823e2a38fa95c565
2217 F20101209_AAAEQH jett_j_Page_074.txt
6ca5ef2104212e6761d9352d92e2b741
e0d4082af8dd000e973008cbe2911589107dcbfe
F20101209_AAADGE jett_j_Page_052.tif
c197663805b93749cdfc0caa03181c39
06e7649e24e227231f2b8f894c12e01d634353ba
114050 F20101209_AAADTP jett_j_Page_082.jp2
7197127907f5b35e8b337826be1d3d7f
a12d89a2ce4bca3f422515323588209fcd844b59
2246 F20101209_AAAEQI jett_j_Page_075.txt
6206a537e562e9800991738e9b99d339
aa82e55a116e5f745a8a9dfae665a85f25568cc1
35125 F20101209_AAADGF jett_j_Page_200.jpg
307a16d52c3868debb96cf33f41e2d4e
53c955ee5df93191ef2f6672da1f597fe7afde33
110405 F20101209_AAADTQ jett_j_Page_083.jp2
5d5e1178b649ad2004ce8c0ad91fe1b5
cf6da914fad58a72d6c8d4d1c9c310ee06e6f278
F20101209_AAAEQJ jett_j_Page_076.txt
ecc1d7fad4e8b116ccc500c7e55c3c0d
499d40fbf581dee4d7b215cc47ba761392cbdc94
56074 F20101209_AAADGG jett_j_Page_044.pro
e80eb2015e357cbe0365fa2f700a0111
780450a5874ab432dc423e6182f6d54af7756f09
121229 F20101209_AAADTR jett_j_Page_084.jp2
0579660595e3e49f1b86ce996e4b6f00
411126ae170876362587826c374b4d9e916778a8
F20101209_AAAEQK jett_j_Page_078.txt
60a822caa51bb5fd520c7f6d61f5c1b6
5118277fbba50d87745a401d29c2af8c6f244698
53172 F20101209_AAADGH jett_j_Page_042.pro
562448dee6dcf0ee3fc12203fe55fcc8
3590f56a0f33d0b0e60fa4b85bcb67537d82d5d0
F20101209_AAAEDA jett_j_Page_133.tif
87efa75654c07232bf279f072c6fd12f
c2eefae451a617dbf78a963aa739d8afc6131f8f
109917 F20101209_AAADTS jett_j_Page_085.jp2
fc5bc7ae96c95fc5964dcf4ebd45c47f
9e0bf6a04a6ff7e428c0b03ee9b3b701130c8bb1
2194 F20101209_AAAEQL jett_j_Page_079.txt
9a7a7bb6a5e4e633ae722e0ed49bdcb7
b2f41509960cd26fa5695184c3fb877225903f43
F20101209_AAADGI jett_j_Page_048.tif
9ad963f484168f101630177fb854530f
c62ab41079ea2f4491c1b180a97c266b9c6171ff
F20101209_AAAEDB jett_j_Page_134.tif
2e2f742c6edd8bce0271749861fab28c
423db383f958def08552f86beb050e41175fd119
121538 F20101209_AAADTT jett_j_Page_086.jp2
60ce0771da8c1de560febb0a51e1b2b6
31fb24b8f9e53489f615bafd960d7958a833e767
2218 F20101209_AAAEQM jett_j_Page_080.txt
e418641fe030a851fa1e2254ab6a10ff
8ec4dbf437f526a01b4f91b292a1786107d457df
78654 F20101209_AAADGJ jett_j_Page_130.jpg
1e7381f876d76935545c6ce624f8db43
8b04c601f0a481f281b745a34f7f2b9bd8f718d2
F20101209_AAAEDC jett_j_Page_135.tif
8aa22f96b09b9ed77adb1b39674ec3e8
19a8aec5b0d352e3a02083105dc714f15ac8e30d
115616 F20101209_AAADTU jett_j_Page_087.jp2
3c6debdff25d43f3754a9a06f3aef96b
c5c4fec4588f4a722425ece3bc81f5e6fac406d6
F20101209_AAAEQN jett_j_Page_081.txt
2624214945bd04f794c89f964aa59ced
d252ede939bab5c79ad02566901167fb03d95420
22036 F20101209_AAADGK jett_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
974cd08f36ec347c64ce0fe329124499
333a3de8d35a2651131f687dd4a892a1cceac034
F20101209_AAAEDD jett_j_Page_136.tif
4a731ec3e946ed265b4c966620f87035
db8c2f18453bb595432a8f1d48a29a622c427949
93138 F20101209_AAADTV jett_j_Page_089.jp2
f4d8f047c83e00fb863d07d7b1124605
3592e9814b566df81cc8062db3baf40f9380ace1
1980 F20101209_AAAEQO jett_j_Page_083.txt
3dc23ce410df2202788b43dbb48b45d6
92f41fa9409c2ba1be95dc1f62352ba241c02343
24560 F20101209_AAADGL jett_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
6785ba9af8e5aab0d7c5da0f4ab73bc4
94a36db78b516a36fa123c26cba0f9cecd9dda99
F20101209_AAAEDE jett_j_Page_137.tif
dc7171235229b1362b975b0a73192bb1
07908c9c1d45dacc2212b86e978467d08a300dcf
59104 F20101209_AAADTW jett_j_Page_090.jp2
e0a79fd1909535c5c86f8e653a8ecd5f
597ea062e2dab306b664a833c2a670f46b7b0359
2203 F20101209_AAAEQP jett_j_Page_084.txt
388630490f575b22e24b61471c3e6747
58e3c23ac9324059429025611399ab235b37cfe4
22354 F20101209_AAADGM jett_j_Page_147.jpg
c4325c5ab247cdff15d08b74a5a61b62
e17e8b9efa4d7cd9c6c14519864d6954a021a7fd
F20101209_AAAEDF jett_j_Page_138.tif
48c1be072c0b8af751d6eb35e5bfdfc1
949170a7aa93854a50bec99dfd1db52c7958d1f4
87530 F20101209_AAADTX jett_j_Page_091.jp2
283aeb26420bfec5e7856c51c69a0435
088b69df232b33af456c23c183f9b6c99797297f
2228 F20101209_AAAEQQ jett_j_Page_086.txt
31c508a5bab494f5ff88586371aaba19
cd815b977d87c62c3264cf487d935c8a4a30da4f
25727 F20101209_AAADGN jett_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
5bfc19daa1a31aa758aa6ee9453ccf74
672c2fda985312fa729752a7ff15fac0aa43bc8f
F20101209_AAAEDG jett_j_Page_139.tif
ec963af42d9c95c154b1017a870971cb
5a9286cc04a1323f32924d24f6bffb899b893494
109500 F20101209_AAADTY jett_j_Page_092.jp2
2d8e087eac7a6331b23e71681e97f819
c7adc7b6287b2f4f6c9556b29728be674d869c68
2034 F20101209_AAAEQR jett_j_Page_087.txt
e894201617d62e1699f0cc7844b2fe59
38e328a7da143d0f1237e4b612c15538eb093091
134636 F20101209_AAADGO jett_j_Page_218.jp2
58a7cbb41b959030407189eb4fdad63f
037203ad2c7255be8b070506ca4ce247802b1f14
F20101209_AAAEDH jett_j_Page_140.tif
34737cbffa858787bebed928bd28089d
e8ba168a21d3b6aae86cb49ac0f2c2c6bdb45c49
120243 F20101209_AAADTZ jett_j_Page_093.jp2
16028e26f1c6420e6e3fdb40574781c7
c76ce68edf82dac79cc5b45a0498ee02e35e9f1b
6830 F20101209_AAAFAA jett_j_Page_069thm.jpg
1921cbdddba169f3e583731000362444
d07d0424397e315782525de83ff9ed05b333b7e0
F20101209_AAAEQS jett_j_Page_088.txt
3fe03607ca14f55850efacf42598fea9
900fcfd4bd36717ecb401b9cf055f22f0159a999
102994 F20101209_AAADGP jett_j_Page_101.jp2
5550463f29729d36905309eb14617255
3b892078640b32e328202f5acf03ecdca84d7e85
F20101209_AAAEDI jett_j_Page_141.tif
3baa690eafb18824819579e2347cc72d
aa63149a841a970ebf9beee26a857ed583f1208d
25975 F20101209_AAAFAB jett_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
c6984640f474db03d440470be422c4b6
4bbfaee6879e847b3b8a9dca33b994d59b7ea67c
1659 F20101209_AAAEQT jett_j_Page_089.txt
8081d7130b91e6382ecf9182f817d0f9
583a4ff904ae83030fc154cf228719d9b6fc8f3a
51369 F20101209_AAADGQ jett_j_Page_081.pro
1cf6d8a7e3d2b9a1508234a533e770f4
07e6711e7a6dccdf116f878b16210578a2594d06
F20101209_AAAEDJ jett_j_Page_142.tif
64b91dc6c09dfbbdf4507c5a4e049741
bf327e260429d466cf5f7b8fa7054ab184696d62
7095 F20101209_AAAFAC jett_j_Page_070thm.jpg
f321158daf88cde06b5f6d7bade5a9ce
364a692e447d8a7f141e0267625548c257ecbd6e
1382 F20101209_AAAEQU jett_j_Page_090.txt
ebd006a1140793d7540b0b2871b5e98f
8b07604f0955d7d42f6d7988007bc4f914249612
F20101209_AAAEDK jett_j_Page_143.tif
ef9f8712a7fcfc2eeec2569f64d8234f
1c4150b5885e3fe4150e86d459a2d9072857f18c
25245 F20101209_AAAFAD jett_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
4be38cf6d757ce845d3df3a04f036fb0
f08168461113383075707fcce3fd83f96f9480c6
2117 F20101209_AAAEQV jett_j_Page_092.txt
fc3d19d71b75ef97087f9efc5ba5c21e
813a0d054cd683b6138539a3a2554ec2bfcf7456
F20101209_AAADGR jett_j_Page_023.tif
77dc60ab76e6ed48b9de312002545b9a
94b4fd35576108cabfb86bbf46263128f58c13ed
F20101209_AAAEDL jett_j_Page_144.tif
c91895a9b6893a151c92509e225fb571
35fe89b87aafc7e5d3f795b1b717c4dc2d784dc8
6844 F20101209_AAAFAE jett_j_Page_071thm.jpg
bd456192996b821f5cca7de286600e6a
eac0227ff9577b165c948dec9a17c988604c2589
2196 F20101209_AAAEQW jett_j_Page_093.txt
866e64c2ca5302b38b862341cea96b51
e7ffb35745633bff00ebec9405ba3db1562a72fb
7077 F20101209_AAADGS jett_j_Page_217thm.jpg
0b3330b84e972616709a1b313882cacb
2e5e809b41fc505f0fe32ff941460a9eca99a321
F20101209_AAAEDM jett_j_Page_145.tif
cb53bbed6e01553c5998f8245ab33b27
9aee106259cc6bf3255debefa629d47a3510df26
23434 F20101209_AAAFAF jett_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
ff5faa9a92bf7e6419ecc36ae6f19a32
cc2ded869946667a4de1861967795965ed8236ef
F20101209_AAAEQX jett_j_Page_094.txt
7031f9796392339c47d458c1112c9993
7582fe33118f9187a018110466b1e1721e6f9248
7663 F20101209_AAADGT jett_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
fde5f9a82650e6bc670d998d276c46eb
82d01ecbf172801a81d67658a8e2d57cecf56bcf
6593 F20101209_AAAFAG jett_j_Page_072thm.jpg
c502d468945ada4bcbbc546a1d218f44
b3ea3b7eda85e29b3572d6e667f7d7576765c56e
2080 F20101209_AAAEQY jett_j_Page_095.txt
db79af1ed3b7a9e478b33cd538b2509c
f9df2125df75a551801240d9653eb418fa1d9fe2
25456 F20101209_AAADGU jett_j_Page_172.QC.jpg
7cfc16487af435be9c1d40741976837d
405481c3322eb446b63891348c43ab98ee4cf13e
F20101209_AAAEDN jett_j_Page_146.tif
933faf12fd066aad56f84ddb2bc132f3
2dbef3c26d128a08b7f1a7b7f0347fd79466eadf
25231 F20101209_AAAFAH jett_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
c85c60c62b51a3f9ca70e42db263b1d3
138f9854c43780cb35ce68165858e5e74ff44adc
1936 F20101209_AAAEQZ jett_j_Page_096.txt
5b2401e76cfe80c162d28d47627cc457
2acb451fd83dca70230a83dcb0b9afeb56d478a9
2167 F20101209_AAADGV jett_j_Page_177.txt
5dea02cd6ceadc8935f8f1ec651f9c83
968886270435ebd244fb5337d3932c98154531fc
1054428 F20101209_AAAEDO jett_j_Page_147.tif
d5ebdb7f5314a6bcded19f50ef4a58f6
e2e001a661fdefe42b4b0e6fbbf4230a6b9e8ef5
6808 F20101209_AAAFAI jett_j_Page_073thm.jpg
e12d9a2b10ffca1af4b3b84cff528e23
d1a8e97303bff8910367837497576b0d36311b65
F20101209_AAADGW jett_j_Page_050.tif
783d55ea4cf3ad3573152be6476475bf
306e5f46890b02421c28bc329daa606e8c48a68d
F20101209_AAADZA jett_j_Page_015.tif
300def89dbbd3570818271cb196a6807
6adffc40b899f323840ee7a901033d55599cd981
F20101209_AAAEDP jett_j_Page_148.tif
4d1c11a9b05cd1d3135a49a28f592f3c
3487c376b1c89808fe83fd3feb0ae0399b8c33c1
6866 F20101209_AAADGX jett_j_Page_068thm.jpg
9445b5bc6481568a943305d9b5a3a838
3e2df9d7a0d9bd8ac282bde988b7a6012f452784
F20101209_AAADZB jett_j_Page_016.tif
4be9230945a9c15ac7af5831c6ed28a5
5b7724e2ef90c199f1a49baed8be5e1c856bf77d
F20101209_AAAEDQ jett_j_Page_149.tif
766e4878e889bb465931a04848d0c82c
acc57e5cc0848faf1f91253fe17d7e5e22be1397
26229 F20101209_AAAFAJ jett_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
f0bfee1804f66664d88ab723952ff5f1
bb4e3565c39d2f13ae41b1ee6eb85badc82a14d8
146673 F20101209_AAADGY jett_j_Page_211.jp2
4efc884a9fbe4d90d5793571579d04d8
080f467acf4c1c4b9a0abba843c62475ad01cb06
F20101209_AAADZC jett_j_Page_017.tif
1642dc22e3e58eeb925a517700108ac1
2a061eec90f44e2327ae41494d277b5827804fd7
F20101209_AAAEDR jett_j_Page_150.tif
80be1cd926ae8a7332bba9a2ba43e1e2
8a788d060912e3efc6635c956add728cf99dec3b
7025 F20101209_AAAFAK jett_j_Page_074thm.jpg
2360fc007320a6785b3c7000de30cd4f
94ca07495bad8d93af763de48283e531959deaf2
62385 F20101209_AAADGZ jett_j_Page_208.pro
a09cd5c8343728020f95d1f7e7264c96
603402da8e9a76dc6572a73d40e951075d974b66
F20101209_AAADZD jett_j_Page_018.tif
91fbf2966308e427be35a1c4182b9b56
14e0c09258ee849be937cd2c6c8b46685f1ea1ad
F20101209_AAAEDS jett_j_Page_152.tif
9859bc6a5a7f27df536de5bda372b207
9d33f7cc9b9e76459907edac8342b3f5d75b17c7
26592 F20101209_AAAFAL jett_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
171a1d7a37bd45a378e5f4baf3ccf777
263a61ec873ff63619aec6d56462bb68d44c2523
F20101209_AAAEDT jett_j_Page_153.tif
75f4b33fe8dd619260b562e3852e25ac
2f82ba48aa8f01fdc31473e5b07d5194c45622e3
7241 F20101209_AAAFAM jett_j_Page_075thm.jpg
89b6513c34492cab411843c114e76eae
76ff75f8b48eb7fbb261290519ddc0e9ab628fae
F20101209_AAADZE jett_j_Page_019.tif
04711b49c5de8fbcdcfb2743b61535a0
1f63d07e1ddd8f7faec966362e5972bbefff287f
F20101209_AAAEDU jett_j_Page_154.tif
a4b7ffa094d4c8e2af41b7a2584b0c6f
3f8d8fb28e423056a6b371bd1b71ec7c4d0c8938
26091 F20101209_AAAFAN jett_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
57d065ed8b0956f5894cea9855adbe23
34dd3e77cf3ce044894f7d4efec04a7c043ac15d
F20101209_AAADZF jett_j_Page_020.tif
4210cc7066df2be4b9b8b4a4b116969b
095665ae9e55338bc8c500ac82874b610b2f61a7
F20101209_AAAEDV jett_j_Page_155.tif
667354092050c87fa203b0a565dee046
ce8740f03bbc8e1a1c98069645736c28ffdac333
7039 F20101209_AAAFAO jett_j_Page_076thm.jpg
698564bdb00e2742fb35b77bc3a2d1fc
a8064d689c2cff6019fdbaa7459af1da8a98d443
F20101209_AAADZG jett_j_Page_021.tif
4388cabf8f7107adbf6317735ed204aa
baac2a0f8ab5777fee6f3d00f27a039535785c2c
F20101209_AAAEDW jett_j_Page_156.tif
d8fe05812514965d7b53914d6fc097a9
e9168cdb66d70abb8bc179646728ff1a7870135b
25677 F20101209_AAAFAP jett_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
fc4abf76b32b387f68c2120ead0a4f62
6350c2049a0ad82cef5eb03947f1931ac3aba4d8
F20101209_AAADZH jett_j_Page_022.tif
5222c327f0861a0e045b5f0b9ec3a4cc
7e44a618075ab61d9bfb9891a385f03053ff9cd9
F20101209_AAAEDX jett_j_Page_158.tif
edbccd37bbaccb45b33381ce0e5866dd
780ac2f8fb6c0f619f3c389c87603e842b723e9e
23087 F20101209_AAAEWA jett_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
acddb742851a763a38c3ee1681dc5160
89fdd8335dee89751f963cb530feed11c897bd12
6880 F20101209_AAAFAQ jett_j_Page_077thm.jpg
4723b9db80b00869588efdbf9bddeabb
61d88e296b4a4c5029be608e7e86246333583ff9
F20101209_AAADZI jett_j_Page_025.tif
e5e63a071f984c613050689e9f9ac619
4cd1e8a336cee744fad0eb1e6bd4e16fabd24f85
F20101209_AAAEDY jett_j_Page_160.tif
d33f9adaeabffbc4dadc6cc8f2d59041
489808b63a32efb1bb237b8814c2bd3b5ba92d9d
5785 F20101209_AAAEWB jett_j_Page_010thm.jpg
5151f729b74163b07c639ffbd0f82788
e251e3191480158372c76f7a3b17948863bfc536
25271 F20101209_AAAFAR jett_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
f7b50999dc7c82d4e05d9e018816eeb2
db0cb1fe5424a3dd4d44afbb4dfaca8187e71478
F20101209_AAADZJ jett_j_Page_026.tif
10f281613418bf3abd9776eddb9aebd9
52c3c4ee61284d376bea529bdb8698c1f51e0e9e
F20101209_AAAEDZ jett_j_Page_161.tif
81906970205209dea343f933029586f3
114f3efbf5940b53b125fe4ba527f53bb4a42d8a
10259 F20101209_AAAEWC jett_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
b99f70e8c33fcf418429d986958c63df
df184c738f9e65637808362f03ec2fe62e17f57f
6769 F20101209_AAAFAS jett_j_Page_078thm.jpg
44a1ca4fe1a39cf233e7021ea52c2845
c285a01b7a9830e211183a8a5d8f054f3bd98efe
F20101209_AAADZK jett_j_Page_027.tif
15deab6e4f963f5ffacf04d55400b779
24b021c6894c49f940ba0b4c7b717bc9e46ae2e9
3038 F20101209_AAAEWD jett_j_Page_011thm.jpg
d7ddef62f1f5757f21e963437accd2ed
beaaf1f30b42843486d1f8deb9a1a4958a814bc2
26041 F20101209_AAAFAT jett_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
02cf8e21ad3a19475400a3c714158d66
af290b5fef9e928685d1d6c0dd8ca0848c5361a0
F20101209_AAADZL jett_j_Page_028.tif
57f713e2ac9f5f64451959998bf9257b
643cb35a292667ccd4887b413cf6836784b79a31
6730 F20101209_AAAEWE jett_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
928b87b3ffd6614756d5958246a0161c
1d34b51c257fd857165f5d35f0a15af7845a891a
F20101209_AAAFAU jett_j_Page_079thm.jpg
a8f2d03bd1862c6f44847d1efab15ba6
09699cc1426e340fe0724b63045cca1ba6e75523
74923 F20101209_AAADMA jett_j_Page_088.jpg
a0a5b2ce6ed0bea3518ae8e0ad094de2
1c305d48190c0f7626dae8028a14e3b5c77a5f05
F20101209_AAADZM jett_j_Page_029.tif
b49cffc40e2734fa4bf53ab84104dc81
ad97894e84ede5adae0919211d5b8fad33163275
24980 F20101209_AAAEWF jett_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
1609bfa8387970ece5f98eb5ec5e75eb
34cf58adc668c41f98e061b60599c3bb40437ec2
6947 F20101209_AAAFAV jett_j_Page_080thm.jpg
6b67ec44098d4a23cca73e81d6786a48
15a74715be868c3651718186054fd759c1a23643
61758 F20101209_AAADMB jett_j_Page_089.jpg
6cb89746556ff77cfaaff844f09585e6
8ec80ff637247859b41a2be3ea2b246439822277
F20101209_AAADZN jett_j_Page_030.tif
dc48f4a3e83ea854f463ad4aa4eccf26
71493300d82c2a9c34748235154846d8de0a27e2
6775 F20101209_AAAEWG jett_j_Page_013thm.jpg
f33b2ebe7a7edd4f221509ff1cd6fafd
560d4a7af0302d1031cc69c87878d93328c187c5
F20101209_AAAFAW jett_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
64d9f989d4c43b3904f2db7d9f51cc1a
79d9d124fff11dcf7b70fb0995ee1e32e5826647
43256 F20101209_AAADMC jett_j_Page_090.jpg
1d9d31fe61907c6214e8f449939650ac
d6c0274e01b06e2708a7e63f93d32790f8e2371e
F20101209_AAADZO jett_j_Page_031.tif
b7b6f629b9aa9e8bf663ce29840bb035
88ead65f5a8a9c9d2fb36fae5960fad2aabdf4e2
20177 F20101209_AAAEWH jett_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
dddbbeb6197b427ff68cc9833d2abd70
b32dee0411bcf06fa4918babf19eb8003ab7ec20
6606 F20101209_AAAFAX jett_j_Page_081thm.jpg
80bdd4d8dd6bc3e97c740326d6df5ee7
b100bc59e287e9faeed35a04ca3c3d41b76244b2
63198 F20101209_AAADMD jett_j_Page_091.jpg
7961bc24b8b1c0829d80f507fee0412a
e0c78bdeb47d3a945302e774e85860bc73c6d75c
F20101209_AAADZP jett_j_Page_032.tif
2aaabc2fec5070c3e8811bd12e31084d
7e26e7046f1c132b5a6d67a9eaf366b0cb4a2026
F20101209_AAAEWI jett_j_Page_014thm.jpg
3d8ec6340901a30fb99e1420ca4738cb
d8266be4a0df68ec2596c84aa7259c230cc46c15
24703 F20101209_AAAFAY jett_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
060b2694337517fed3b4b1a1a45214d3
e892bd679891ffb7cd41c747838168e787415ede
72138 F20101209_AAADME jett_j_Page_092.jpg
791e0fd5ee9cb59d8adc6d680f2235b0
c8a6747d5e82f305a79cfe61b334b0b93dea7fe5
F20101209_AAADZQ jett_j_Page_033.tif
4d7610edfbeeca5b9ee287f395a5e0e2
a9cae1cb23774f31e4084a62a7a6c5f7b6b3e4f1
20023 F20101209_AAAEWJ jett_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
19b120e51e72d214a66c418c57a413f4
eb65a69877b29c81b46fb9ebfe28de14e3a1102f
F20101209_AAAFAZ jett_j_Page_082thm.jpg
d1834f7862802b32d458da9c34327955
bb6995b7e7d3458a77294ce4cd8ced7dd6d2d6d1
79210 F20101209_AAADMF jett_j_Page_093.jpg
729d521673acacc0afbabedc8bf776da
bf4839220184af97c92394db73325e7b649436b6
F20101209_AAADZR jett_j_Page_034.tif
3280fe1f453c4459a546d91e8d7100e0
df9c2befc55fe528a4e750db79cbc11cdf562580
5536 F20101209_AAAEWK jett_j_Page_015thm.jpg
81361a69ff1955aabd0e9c4fc094bb7e
86be80e2e80f4693453e4a9bba571aab9c757fa8
71653 F20101209_AAADMG jett_j_Page_094.jpg
3f469660c40e63ee2e7385c0bc92614b
83665510080fed0d74e6e63f3f3c66d0835b4481
51582 F20101209_AAAEJA jett_j_Page_087.pro
7a5f94dbb0bad7ecd260a808f45850d5
4c9dac328a464ccfd8435655199a681b7a59ba9c
F20101209_AAADZS jett_j_Page_036.tif
b971e7270b09c4f603d038907e66e103
65feb9d679b2852944663f213d5e4e75dfece178
25033 F20101209_AAAEWL jett_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
361d644bc4205523c99dce14bc8b1937
9dee0c426a348815f9cae9f51b065d97339182f4
75283 F20101209_AAADMH jett_j_Page_095.jpg
ec33b6a599c78da672a525b2be5ce3cb
61b556faee2c6ecf5a731930c23572a8f6ade0ee
52999 F20101209_AAAEJB jett_j_Page_088.pro
ae1c0455f3e6cf190902ffc66353a7c6
d75740e41766b2c05deb70384fbfbeab763c39a3
F20101209_AAADZT jett_j_Page_037.tif
08218ecd5b4d24b03939c04d4b158b20
1fd8faa1f48c12f2c41f198a09685bce07532299
6787 F20101209_AAAEWM jett_j_Page_016thm.jpg
686559095776a58e5cc3deb4dd72592b
2b6595bda505fb34b2066b6ebdf54402147c7167
70298 F20101209_AAADMI jett_j_Page_096.jpg
87200f94f384c078bcc4e79267f5309a
1ad0047c6df2d4a163de3dc743bd93e0443eec10
41532 F20101209_AAAEJC jett_j_Page_089.pro
df1db2a667a9b53af63b36ddbcd9e86a
1d7364810de35173b438fb5990d01a5195519cac
F20101209_AAADZU jett_j_Page_038.tif
2d58a35e29a9b544463d76a3b904ec26
adf759c054dae83cbe52f7f64cebc719569dc8d3
24345 F20101209_AAAEWN jett_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
72b24fc4f8d455ab68195acedcfe7d76
c67dd0559f91b3526fd08de33421e019d09c7299
76174 F20101209_AAADMJ jett_j_Page_097.jpg
3f26e1f5570bae5ea09ded0c999aa3bc
2200dc4db24c1bcee3744cf094135e429cc1c2ff
34438 F20101209_AAAEJD jett_j_Page_091.pro
d10c5bff546e22bb01d635b8e46f2fac
5d9348d266c0607e3ab5bbfff7563dd3b56f687a
F20101209_AAADZV jett_j_Page_039.tif
3315382fbb9ab11adc934c5553b07622
444597670e83fec4c123d800d0bc365487699a9b
6805 F20101209_AAAEWO jett_j_Page_017thm.jpg
ee48463b149a81ba6bf6f2cdf95b2394
7926b242a866cf3520cfe7ef0ad6f3e0b2415247
64491 F20101209_AAADMK jett_j_Page_098.jpg
3c7ca59009bd87cc6e74788c3cf420dd
3bbb6ec1f8213840e1035830c44788952aaeb341
50787 F20101209_AAAEJE jett_j_Page_092.pro
11c695940730caa18352b0c205f68586
543fef4f0729a50f54f08743cfee3d50b153f375
F20101209_AAADZW jett_j_Page_040.tif
b16c04ef626f59151b3e776395e43f09
c89b892b2cf9c865914e962e8cfd48f550e6737a
26063 F20101209_AAAEWP jett_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
8acad4cdda53a31f9092f00f0d4b3ef1
0d3e16dccb379dc00694b15b451ebe5533029cef
67566 F20101209_AAADML jett_j_Page_100.jpg
0c2ab4b7bf965a4286b0afca70d5fa1e
5199dc39c4a5f6c0d2a7e7bb5aa5f59fbe396629
51791 F20101209_AAAEJF jett_j_Page_094.pro
5abf245e758aafc70750ccb7d6db3fa9
7f0f26a903cf2c3cb1a382a76b3d26f98c157398
F20101209_AAADZX jett_j_Page_041.tif
406d1dcf563bea9cbab107dda8560d44
1d762ca1280de8433669c4fea05ae2fd7ce78123
7160 F20101209_AAAEWQ jett_j_Page_018thm.jpg
98f4a752a872f0c823f58f254248e621
9ad080e506cb106439de4f7db10a3ea20c6db8f3
69666 F20101209_AAADMM jett_j_Page_101.jpg
71beabb259e1104ca206fd27954fbd94
1038cb4a552f848b013add63817e852bc04353b9
52389 F20101209_AAAEJG jett_j_Page_095.pro
1cb38fbcf256c995783e87a22cdc26f2
94fd5df0d1fc4fa2018188afa06e8bb5be01c16a
F20101209_AAADZY jett_j_Page_043.tif
05e53df0a3f7188df148ccb1c0c0c410
4a9e29e7ad38f179fb27b275d89c024d874db444
25274 F20101209_AAAEWR jett_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
d54b7d183e80172601a72686ae81bcf3
9d552623636f53a03312e46c2164918379e19496
65708 F20101209_AAADMN jett_j_Page_102.jpg
d1c0c71be9189cdde2f255159a181ccd
daed1a3d4da3c3b3d1d843854fd5d684fa4a987a
48965 F20101209_AAAEJH jett_j_Page_096.pro
8aa277e293472f3b326197c2c6c1c16e
75adeeb679268b622665ff24da904676f32e82ab
F20101209_AAADZZ jett_j_Page_044.tif
6c946574071639420b0f2c28404b9087
0a4d4bf9cfb52d7a5628120ca60f2583efa58598
9042 F20101209_AAAFGA jett_j_Page_154.QC.jpg
f44ac15cc2881b6470408625ad8d5617
a1760945f8aa0f4dfdb573450e63b8991edfa0f5
F20101209_AAAEWS jett_j_Page_019thm.jpg
a1dba2761cbb556032aa107f871ad8ab
31482ca188bcde94c8da8934a951a02f0620475b
75491 F20101209_AAADMO jett_j_Page_103.jpg
dac012fe60b51eed78da00e0024e94f5
42a0b274b27be5c244754840a5f905df8606ba8d
53936 F20101209_AAAEJI jett_j_Page_097.pro
42970a943b01db2de89bf9b8a7646b64
9cde4b458df1e4f57959a175ef4748b93b05046e
2908 F20101209_AAAFGB jett_j_Page_154thm.jpg
015ca7dcbf19ed906f17ebe46c081fb1
9cf0c184709193331ddf61191fcb28832813a757
25076 F20101209_AAAEWT jett_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
68346da1f9f4749aa668b004029bad35
236b7d13e4470c467f5f344f5dda39c84b937198
77204 F20101209_AAADMP jett_j_Page_104.jpg
f76c01d01d19ed1883e9d61dcff549ef
3788dfc07b5b2714922cb7d3a422496d6868dec1
44213 F20101209_AAAEJJ jett_j_Page_098.pro
390cfb5ea9cbb601fdc62b7ec661d1c9
653e6d86e219e456f7a4e87756487f1136f5fffd
15620 F20101209_AAAFGC jett_j_Page_155.QC.jpg
117108efaa0a902c6544bfb4aeb692bd
ae7e340561b0bb0aafa81819823a0bc0dbee6dbe
6943 F20101209_AAAEWU jett_j_Page_020thm.jpg
988f8c62ebb1b20cbe57ae618890d598
1306bcc0a16e17cf9de5a790bcc27ccc04081ae1
77841 F20101209_AAADMQ jett_j_Page_105.jpg
0061cd72e57716bc8c0a413f51f5e357
bd8c5339f0297548bbd5ce40016b85cc6a2e6609
47569 F20101209_AAAEJK jett_j_Page_099.pro
7bda0937fae63a9e13f33ee2d9ccf02a
be0c4607459e6a6ad4c1483fed57f16a966daa18
4339 F20101209_AAAFGD jett_j_Page_155thm.jpg
e6af2e2fc0bf8e9fbb6398716007e404
f6125d1c197e37acea6898d233e7fde0e8d3caef
6921 F20101209_AAAEWV jett_j_Page_021thm.jpg
f5b0fae2a37e94acf718c95f9a3f2f8f
0120ffd01e2f33509a3082e89d49c6a1d9eb6b42
77128 F20101209_AAADMR jett_j_Page_106.jpg
2e2abad8ad67d83178a9afd22ca6d7d2
1fb1f9511918bac77e8b4340fb6080f6ba554d0a
48811 F20101209_AAAEJL jett_j_Page_100.pro
fe2df68e0f2475353b5a991fda594a4c
c0198bcb7aa518aa6ed7e1ed34b6a6c241091c26
2767 F20101209_AAAFGE jett_j_Page_156thm.jpg
a70c6f02d1ea47b3d5d6bf1a7277b2a6
e6bd8c8e6ae60857c97a713f976035f1a4d199db
25029 F20101209_AAAEWW jett_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
46c415811bb480db4d528b39c5c2ef51
f2acd048ce8dea70b6da76c2c72407cc091a9ca9
73684 F20101209_AAADMS jett_j_Page_107.jpg
7ed6c00600dcbff7fcf4d3e64a59e377
8e1454195964a2592a661e319047f50bde434697
45425 F20101209_AAAEJM jett_j_Page_101.pro
d86782f5b3fd680bbd678fc6b9f39b86
877f5c916397c0ceeeeaad52fd1184f9a840bc1d
23355 F20101209_AAAFGF jett_j_Page_157.QC.jpg
c39f1c904052770c4f0a5e619cd765db
51b9e7c09f587169d944b6dbc645c0f332cf6131
6602 F20101209_AAAEWX jett_j_Page_023thm.jpg
e708c0ab5d0f6d0abb1806f5c217b94d
86a7649a805faf493f358fc9eb493e14731e3a3e
75222 F20101209_AAADMT jett_j_Page_108.jpg
5abca380e23aa858d0d09af4c1658302
c90a20be447d783572860f9dd642d2808e332ca4
42592 F20101209_AAAEJN jett_j_Page_102.pro
fcbf3ea528c9eddbe1eebe35480ed977
8acd8102474a293f37a5c98b4b6b6e7c7cb62837
F20101209_AAAFGG jett_j_Page_157thm.jpg
5857e304416ff0df2dfa94fe57ec188b
410ec5d3e78cef2000fcd87348bef5198f240db5
24945 F20101209_AAAEWY jett_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
b569cbb332ce67973b2d4dbed85d0eef
765656ad5d457218c644140841f5bc70cb49e347
75151 F20101209_AAADMU jett_j_Page_109.jpg
5df0218c77252d03c848673ec25d9d0b
0ddd0145da67bb4bf33ed89a41a6e127107d1b2d
54639 F20101209_AAAEJO jett_j_Page_104.pro
0c212bf50d0e5050368960aaa1e80aed
5cb93c2b78fe3c84d6d5d7a81a76cd40b58a38a7
24680 F20101209_AAAFGH jett_j_Page_158.QC.jpg
4194110bde5e4940b6ff9c4fc4763df7
1b18c1f95aab34d7651d0a94e40942c1b72ab6ef
6809 F20101209_AAAEWZ jett_j_Page_024thm.jpg
96e37f0a800732c16e3ae4b6222aa331
03d9dac09c49e20d8d91dae56af1f016ed3d28e7
19105 F20101209_AAADMV jett_j_Page_110.jpg
4f00b4b1d6c2c49ebae4832073f7eb8d
ecd3728d5ad78ae92829d04a2b386e1446d46500
54736 F20101209_AAAEJP jett_j_Page_105.pro
e95e97b6119391102787f59705d9b544
c6b2ec548e5766a8c2a2e94d96b1ca998542057b
6960 F20101209_AAAFGI jett_j_Page_158thm.jpg
13b0cb56d6d205723054b8dfcec70452
efe1a3cdd7a887531e2ecc929e4962b15ed1c519
42871 F20101209_AAADMW jett_j_Page_111.jpg
f3f7a70ad3695bf6c9f86a59a9f07ae6
9885e8d261cef00cf2bb276a2a0551d90320cd23
53505 F20101209_AAAEJQ jett_j_Page_106.pro
d9d52ce28986a73fb6640030eeb3fe8c
54562373a3b501a1e153bfc246794cd660b8157e
24482 F20101209_AAAFGJ jett_j_Page_159.QC.jpg
6ab41c97729a6d8dc861f9826edc5640
0523b622fe999f9b2371bc2316dd86d183ab42a6
52603 F20101209_AAAEJR jett_j_Page_107.pro
a3a7184891712d51075739131a35614c
7c8dd7fc6f3e27534a8be8bdda76b11356dabf3c
6542 F20101209_AAAFGK jett_j_Page_159thm.jpg
fe3da46d931993b046d841231fb655c5
25fe2a5a95ace2104709776c0c7b2d910ad3e97f
32413 F20101209_AAADMX jett_j_Page_112.jpg
8a9fdc7af79c2bbe1bbd4adf87e640f2
6e32d9f469671a2f27783455453151d3c4ed5c93
51590 F20101209_AAAEJS jett_j_Page_108.pro
68133bf9bca642fd08bc93050e7f32dd
9cd66642fa19cf83890e5293af51ab54e9303810
25246 F20101209_AAAFGL jett_j_Page_160.QC.jpg
18a8d8f3d01af6924a5a94f524e18fa9
437ce33b5f175fa46e8d81d5106984d833fdf619
28018 F20101209_AAADMY jett_j_Page_113.jpg
be462608e55d76a8a3beb76eb3a66c7a
f2e454c723234ef359e255fe62e576ab174649a9
6890 F20101209_AAAFGM jett_j_Page_160thm.jpg
7fe021864e447d94403f490740b939d7
1ff6ac2950951191995b7465cb82d1fd27ba206a
70311 F20101209_AAADMZ jett_j_Page_114.jpg
bf6b79b6f4c834a654200aacb3189cec
a65e2a1f08da0230e2ce7da9490624eb4b5f827f
52984 F20101209_AAAEJT jett_j_Page_109.pro
ed63543ebaec234d93df9343c9402c5a
241a65d66c7d481ac5a184dd17d5fcca105bb55d
23566 F20101209_AAAFGN jett_j_Page_161.QC.jpg
71eba469f0e63a3f0681958e3f3ad07f
a913cd57b81351f8b464ba9114ee227cc14ff1c9
8390 F20101209_AAAEJU jett_j_Page_110.pro
57556cfa1a48adb11c7792171468d289
c29166d4f065d8ab5098950378f4b702e1d69906
6390 F20101209_AAAFGO jett_j_Page_161thm.jpg
a7616dd9d062cedd5901a899afb9b5b8
4718182c66cf09b2cbd9225458682f0ebbf9f06e
5073 F20101209_AAAEJV jett_j_Page_111.pro
c8d9e35547a1e3737f93e255438fd930
de1c1f94b584309c6808e136db2afb43e626b76f
20679 F20101209_AAAEJW jett_j_Page_112.pro
8e21138b50bfe9b8b878e862424b4edb
011883e411eda4b2235a2f1ac0943d44ba059749
22148 F20101209_AAAFGP jett_j_Page_162.QC.jpg
ce75965aadf076cb665eb8d05f3fe35e
a315bd8b73c278ac2bd570d0b7b1515bfb0d8154
14820 F20101209_AAAEJX jett_j_Page_113.pro
7d919dff815222582dfcd134a00e0086
78aff18729994a30c9dfe796e113a525617f9363
6135 F20101209_AAAFGQ jett_j_Page_162thm.jpg
1d3c09deb529cabc6167f4722289b776
d9e887a1eef5083e103e4e087d63c3de29d01bc1
56084 F20101209_AAAEJY jett_j_Page_114.pro
1957975f7c6171597bcfe7701a6ccac1
058208a84c6f36982b7f0fc907ef843bb2d08dba
24638 F20101209_AAAFGR jett_j_Page_163.QC.jpg
132798f390e048b64cae5aa865b18939
b19722be17850360fee1cc5befb457b83b26e23c
41321 F20101209_AAAEJZ jett_j_Page_115.pro
0b97ffd37081dde979f899b49261d6d7
5a9feecebc512a8b065dd247140b71d3edf839c1
6679 F20101209_AAAFGS jett_j_Page_163thm.jpg
b980ee8106a02ed88041a12d4dc32ea4
c63d1181f069c00ebe84d308878d0a1a2c34debe
23889 F20101209_AAAFGT jett_j_Page_164.QC.jpg
7fe4031b1b4462c6f22e6c81c8172e8d
92a82c4846299eedba0d81f5d06d9be8541230d6
6510 F20101209_AAAFGU jett_j_Page_164thm.jpg
5feef2d31642005534c50f21327c4bdb
51d13a8c30ad9b109f49de9205927722e6b1b931
120731 F20101209_AAADSA jett_j_Page_038.jp2
e5d7abcc3dabd5840a496fa98326b4c1
fd23dc44cd91b8eb04e1238d68288c05b832f805
25096 F20101209_AAAFGV jett_j_Page_165.QC.jpg
c6076422681504570223f65bcc8d111c
7d5523c3628a13045d9da3c6f837423912961e7b
117722 F20101209_AAADSB jett_j_Page_039.jp2
3b8f5b908047d87f5534d1c0d49a105a
974022c09f8251c71eb851c6cc366542c62adc4b
6949 F20101209_AAAFGW jett_j_Page_165thm.jpg
745a051ffa46fec07775669e3039ee72
44d68cff6591bc8e7e6c3b16fefb680b7b5f1d3c
114338 F20101209_AAADSC jett_j_Page_040.jp2
f01dd1d6a656c189f4c086a696aeaf08
16dfe0874466446e5b51c816865d6bba80e32e76
24445 F20101209_AAAFGX jett_j_Page_166.QC.jpg
c18f9f52cc14bfa02fdef0260e5639ff
570e6431ae9f3db4c82d4b5f2359581dd69ad7f7
116912 F20101209_AAADSD jett_j_Page_041.jp2
d8ad54db42557ce05a0950f3803f40a3
67a0ec05848e67a59aee498152476147e7f3b198
F20101209_AAAFGY jett_j_Page_166thm.jpg
1f030f567a6394e1a56c982c50828d74
36db94451c789080f4c9798f58ed236b8deb93da
116939 F20101209_AAADSE jett_j_Page_042.jp2
44a5c8d05a7284904c7642dda946a261
8f8d92395a10de85cc64912a7f7cf4582d863bff
F20101209_AAAFGZ jett_j_Page_167thm.jpg
fe48d1018c6a493b6bce92f7b6c20eda
7ddfbe0e7e9dc4b2ca73776c5bd372f690b40a4f
112418 F20101209_AAADSF jett_j_Page_043.jp2
96af24a967fb0c54d152debed6b4bfcb
4ec306430904c35ca892ad688d69d93edad6f7e9
122047 F20101209_AAADSG jett_j_Page_044.jp2
280a524cad535a78444285194d6ea1ff
c8588a9baeea3d9566ea8959bcf1c4bcd6377edf
118330 F20101209_AAADSH jett_j_Page_045.jp2
cd7c395629b3bdd54b340bea72da780c
37bc7e81a34e4d291e8a2c5ce45c20efdd90b088
F20101209_AAAEPA jett_j_Page_040.txt
e8321ce13340047f593aea7641713eff
4df09e3d55d03bb1f3ab0f76dccaa4a1f1cc8b5f
119829 F20101209_AAADSI jett_j_Page_046.jp2
aa2266b5f0112a6841d231ef74668eba
b0ecb1c6ccf0431f5578d27724680b3031b6c059
2358 F20101209_AAAEPB jett_j_Page_041.txt
20db1dd6601ff0e0386bef476406e11b
01f5caf45f08de4193b5588a989d8d9d66316242
119668 F20101209_AAADSJ jett_j_Page_047.jp2
853b61952d242c2de15b35d4f071ad16
e10c03c85dcfaa1577d08e190947109cd2bd5622
2107 F20101209_AAAEPC jett_j_Page_042.txt
d00f43c82b3f9502b20146e8f8fae590
e3e74295ad4584a8c3f4dd0c90dfa53530b44eb0
118811 F20101209_AAADSK jett_j_Page_048.jp2
c19d63dfd3dc444ac1db35de851a4f0a
2e99610cd16fc73e54152a8dd975c1bd9f38afc8
2058 F20101209_AAAEPD jett_j_Page_043.txt
fef3e0cf7a01650f9c642ca8a700561b
f734578c4052c443a1c71301043f9fda0e3b6daf
F20101209_AAADFA jett_j_Page_157.tif
ac1a7713b552af569f1c226a00818bb5
f75bc942f302e10b97eb9c6959af02293fecd7bc
115372 F20101209_AAADSL jett_j_Page_049.jp2
431c86982d0f64d3a3316185efc62465
0d7bc2139a10c292fed5eb00232a56a340dbc99e
F20101209_AAAEPE jett_j_Page_044.txt
2a07af98f5cebb5e89911900d05796c5
a4a563270fb4eee4ba39f2023d75f665aa9311bc
51557 F20101209_AAADFB jett_j_Page_056.pro
4a8ec27a8fda7a2fd3f93835650005d0
6e02d2dcc80df46f1ca377996f10ab8b64a55634
117932 F20101209_AAADSM jett_j_Page_050.jp2
8bcd908cb4fe79da08164fdf367d1a8c
17967115fa714f891bdeddce049f12ce60fa2181
F20101209_AAAEPF jett_j_Page_045.txt
ad0238585f9fff7250a4a4d09e86c012
8ae2e60166d38c9bbda5d67b2046249549f88778
54578 F20101209_AAADFC jett_j_Page_019.pro
2affe9c0ea11321919b4e103b50a1340
bdd5c3e307bfb60c71c860f6aec8e9f39087a465
119424 F20101209_AAADSN jett_j_Page_051.jp2
f18ceed62d257f2ec644941940ce170e
4d7ee97cf6467cefece6fa2988e916e987edb3d8
2169 F20101209_AAAEPG jett_j_Page_046.txt
8bb2b67848bc6283af41aedc64fc7e6f
6ff39c70c49f156d90d20ddabb98098d59815c45
15941 F20101209_AAADFD jett_j_Page_152.QC.jpg
f9d4a6c1d884e623578f5787b34a2364
c49d10f52453d75c9da18d274d86263eacc69fc3
126167 F20101209_AAADSO jett_j_Page_052.jp2
5359637bd1307bf5dbb4de760da1d170
1d7ed5a4130e7a65beec6af4fbb8dbff7407402c
2174 F20101209_AAAEPH jett_j_Page_047.txt
669c3ddd548bd32b80adcb5d210454d7
8261d76554c088450776141f669961418fbbd50f
F20101209_AAADFE jett_j_Page_058thm.jpg
3a9a25f39499aa9f2c6c2bb3be5a4525
534401931f1955da93bdda4f55bd757c97f9d2c6
118183 F20101209_AAADSP jett_j_Page_053.jp2
fc25e444706e2aeb82fb6589f34dcc0a
9246dca0230d3c328858d817d60fbcc3789a3ef9
2148 F20101209_AAAEPI jett_j_Page_048.txt
a2ba555643271f1f5fdda97f41527cdb
93aec8f550c06c5f5ea4e68af28e5e38d0c7f9a1
6696 F20101209_AAADFF jett_j_Page_004thm.jpg
744e65968af093c8764e9b862ee634c1
e8455ff10d7ff4653c61caaae2c918fcc1470d9e
115161 F20101209_AAADSQ jett_j_Page_054.jp2
8e46dd7494caa6b056a15465dfc73aa6
8e1e5064960cadbe0c7b7b0cdd4695ff51a82a5c
2041 F20101209_AAAEPJ jett_j_Page_049.txt
6beae231dea19b9cfb69b55170e4be5d
783e5a29f1e04e6da1c18c7bb11af1e95d7edd7d
7690 F20101209_AAADFG jett_j_Page_151.QC.jpg
0bbe6c101602badecaef15ac7bb98f63
216b7e1f17dddfe85747ff920c87fb6483f8b6a5
113790 F20101209_AAADSR jett_j_Page_056.jp2
d1ab5d17ba4332e4e2140671250d35b6
380372710fcbd294945f8cdf0d38ce4c990e340b
F20101209_AAAEPK jett_j_Page_050.txt
ffd14c6eb1461b6da2cf0c8d6da4c6cc
28f0ee5162f35c53c239b81cffb572aa417ab448
F20101209_AAADFH jett_j_Page_042.tif
83ffff13c794e20a359909de5b9450b8
a7359c03ddd7426ad8b81dd0a093b70090ca2dbe
F20101209_AAAECA jett_j_Page_105.tif
2d7e55e917bf2a3d9a67f9f07d579606
843df4fa1c1cdc1414cc37bae3b6190ce9294265
116202 F20101209_AAADSS jett_j_Page_057.jp2
cf2c1804756c0f40efd343f61ea697f0
81c7767b44270cae43f322b51213d799addd6102
2145 F20101209_AAAEPL jett_j_Page_051.txt
900a5f6cc219ce545b03f77dbf95f98e
1e78c1b529d72482a8883b7a42890a2e6ecfc4f7
5190 F20101209_AAADFI jett_j_Page_142thm.jpg
fb1f4919f27985cf290de8961bf1cfc3
20d5e3990970606963df5c77e3f76065b9b09cfa
F20101209_AAAECB jett_j_Page_106.tif
5ef510b1dda5cf59c0f045c4f5d4452f
0e11fe3cdcd54ad89d3c8abab9b8f1fc6be4ccb8
114170 F20101209_AAADST jett_j_Page_058.jp2
1ff10aa8bb63bea677dfeb3ea4ac86a4
f1c7e6e7acbf247dd77a35518f213e3366fb52bd
2398 F20101209_AAAEPM jett_j_Page_052.txt
ba744b894d393023a1d1a609dbc420d8
736b4ec625b12e309a1e3c678d5e21459f76e29b
55875 F20101209_AAADFJ jett_j_Page_119.pro
9d707a67470d253faf065f2ba8552c27
d6709fca459b5c36d27db901a51666ba9a0b44c9
F20101209_AAAECC jett_j_Page_108.tif
3e28b448a465a6a3ae69f9b966cbadaf
68e7d63958739af537430e42aa8aed47def3bff0
120270 F20101209_AAADSU jett_j_Page_059.jp2
6afb947f8a76afb3612c2a60fc9c2ec0
2121094e8b1111b827bad46e29b7ca0522214045
2104 F20101209_AAAEPN jett_j_Page_053.txt
3c9c53c78a3e78abf9a7177bfb8a34de
9a41274a9ea65db7067547e14b8bf5aa1714c893
122387 F20101209_AAADFK jett_j_Page_170.jp2
d987e90a608e3f558128de2284f9360e
f9563f46bb922dc44d7e9ca5d0b8927dcc3d4628
F20101209_AAAECD jett_j_Page_110.tif
2e3e9b4275419a9591881e9a276ddda0
18979779f437518cf57d3212a7b6107f98ec1d13
117812 F20101209_AAADSV jett_j_Page_060.jp2
f362293d2e2821b521d7beb2c4676aad
025af42b469c712731977c56d496ccd30716bdc4
2078 F20101209_AAAEPO jett_j_Page_054.txt
73e721f4b7d2986f4e63c4375a7fa877
13a691be8f5259dc8efe923d8f05112601e1f645
6923 F20101209_AAADFL jett_j_Page_039thm.jpg
45d505cddc40454dec7bfced2e2add3e
a81f7b9a7a9deca4557fa03671633fd332d8f704
F20101209_AAAECE jett_j_Page_111.tif
603b1c2fea86ef41a2ac3a76ff95fc85
f8f125083f11283b06e567a2a9859a412549966d
118254 F20101209_AAADSW jett_j_Page_061.jp2
5332deb2435d99972a5504d8d353bf5a
1bb980ab7ab1af8ad0b69362a9081402ed51c3e0
2103 F20101209_AAAEPP jett_j_Page_055.txt
dccfa2f7b8074c7a1427c8a581dea7e6
af7bb8ed270174746ad7fc43f7c4e8df1babf5b3
2195 F20101209_AAADFM jett_j_Page_012thm.jpg
7c4455a6084e9cd5505f53be554bef37
38fa5e58aa960479ac8b9e5cefff5b952086c487
F20101209_AAAECF jett_j_Page_112.tif
175e4201cff8e0b68d06f935a0e93b9a
474dfcd44e65feb080885c267a0d9ba511b18bc4
123803 F20101209_AAADSX jett_j_Page_062.jp2
45034f2513d26fa024311a6b9c930d13
e5d3d192160c65a2d7839d42128c7a7e4cc6f244
2027 F20101209_AAAEPQ jett_j_Page_056.txt
a5381652161c653c52af738f12993010
0dba0af29019ac4a4f19713ff0355a22bd05f52a
78590 F20101209_AAADFN jett_j_Page_079.jpg
98eb10ecface1049ee41b9f4962f1a27
cee9e405c45945e1c83809f5919d232ee06ca574
F20101209_AAAECG jett_j_Page_113.tif
85015663831876d8acc7627e5623248f
a584424da9b8616880a1b0c3802ef42c74f316d2
123647 F20101209_AAADSY jett_j_Page_063.jp2
9cb70dc50ead995aef36edfdee4fa331
899dee1c6c9aa7c33242ab04350de3ee1b02a43e
2071 F20101209_AAAEPR jett_j_Page_057.txt
813c79094426e1ba767c965c68b25a8a
c9e3ffb02093ffe43a67364677bedbe1a19e89aa
1737 F20101209_AAADFO jett_j_Page_123.txt
24740b43449da0436410fac5559b87ef
63cd9f0d0f55f9d867f2a29c35fc4d92f8a43132
F20101209_AAAECH jett_j_Page_114.tif
056983fd7dd020049763bb4f0a9477d7
b5b28aee438f0dde627db6d5b6fd3b13a4746144
111218 F20101209_AAADSZ jett_j_Page_064.jp2
4ce111d6817d735d5e2c5582528ba94b
f5b48d93a94079cd966a9f7d3e467dacf0015638
F20101209_AAAEPS jett_j_Page_058.txt
7cb3e7f30fee53d152ba44e1d678eee5
50c2344f8ce3f03d50920a0cdbbabf41bc074866
68109 F20101209_AAADFP jett_j_Page_205.pro
99d209fb3288aba30c8942ac3b41ca65
f0bd808813e9f39dfb53cac16fc732df5ad9dcff
F20101209_AAAECI jett_j_Page_115.tif
df3ee0de5b5087e26a93d3aa6b4f7179
61d5e7e323be98ad3b63b67ffc2052ae966626c7
2189 F20101209_AAAEPT jett_j_Page_059.txt
d58e5244e295ea55ff1a8ada1c4fe7c9
fa3a7fc759e1f1f23e9dec996816ea5fda3c2681
F20101209_AAAECJ jett_j_Page_116.tif
c62c93ab27bdecdf96a5f82a1fbb57c8
cdd31d7564418ed8355ed83dd099e0cd0f7c1433
F20101209_AAAEPU jett_j_Page_060.txt
43027df3d9d0ba0e7746082f58f14e78
ee518395a9af84cdd5d61023f8a68f55353b3916
F20101209_AAADFQ jett_j_Page_213.tif
3d99513ff0be56c046505be77eda5255
76b21faefaebc6799ae4540a30f2dbab6ffc6858
F20101209_AAAECK jett_j_Page_117.tif
d1f935b0a98711c50d7ab6e1f570e9f1
6553901f784a11056e4c2e79e9b2c30b03fea1f6
2236 F20101209_AAAEPV jett_j_Page_062.txt
ed1a118da26ab7910cce26f01ccbc122
c48a10dda65c0fccd1bde9553ccd76a65b16aa9b
5735 F20101209_AAADFR jett_j_Page_027thm.jpg
ac148851d4c76150b60d8a43feed4b63
47222846a601aaddb8b5a37200aa8409d7958bb9
F20101209_AAAECL jett_j_Page_118.tif
dc2bfcef36a4f13d44c1e1b0914c8358
74c00e893a3fc066dc967a79433c093d0e15d21b
2233 F20101209_AAAEPW jett_j_Page_063.txt
1aab756515ec1ea2bec5b2e6ae059661
c5cf1e2b82a05c7c1490cb225bed770785dfbf9a
6803 F20101209_AAADFS jett_j_Page_132thm.jpg
afa746328ac0b41ebd8fa37f78ac7153
e449c865153e135ab6d7a61c043b4b6730dc1912
2038 F20101209_AAAEPX jett_j_Page_064.txt
2693eeadcb9df8c807e04645f9065a74
f35cb8dfb2bed4fa94995292450e4666892240d5
53330 F20101209_AAADFT jett_j_Page_152.jpg
4e716f09a3894c063a39fcd69c84a4a9
88378dd8e01f0bb90420dfe87709722511baecbb
F20101209_AAAECM jett_j_Page_119.tif
f1aaa27e618293314b11132d2d9b3a41
bc4943698cf66163e341e94e9ce85a5f2cd13ced
2299 F20101209_AAAEPY jett_j_Page_065.txt
31147fc886d5902fba2e993d6d6d032c
8ddd3f1381de822dd8786837bf545a6fbe1fb5f7
51054 F20101209_AAADFU jett_j_Page_026.pro
41a16c121e334a2397356574eca1230b
dbf8a5973560feb00791ffefaf03332fcef3a8e5
F20101209_AAAECN jett_j_Page_120.tif
be47e41b52e7601cf5ca345c21e0cdde
69c0dce2a70acbe25adcb00a261453d7e1d03e2e
28801 F20101209_AAADFV jett_j_Page_216.QC.jpg
fb51a3107269bd583d2b65cd78f216af
3d2e18ad159d23e751cbd7561536aec9895c0761
F20101209_AAAECO jett_j_Page_121.tif
acc8a9a9c0e1f146ab6eb1c635a7fc6f
165a71efdcbe0bcb41e6c92a1a5b4a9133f630e6
2181 F20101209_AAAEPZ jett_j_Page_066.txt
e34fc64e2d77194403de986db7a1e344
18f36c11b200b2daa8fe1079763c01a5f5ae2bb3
25178 F20101209_AAADFW jett_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
53f297e2371f69e4811d9df2212cd446
1f0d0ac321ae26f4162e25f23fead940da1fde88
1051980 F20101209_AAADYA jett_j_Page_208.jp2
521d98f0af887f0c4e6c6034076a01b4
6de0d87299e80d4ddaec8a1136cbfa467a61b78e
F20101209_AAAECP jett_j_Page_122.tif
137650472dac97af6c779ccbfd42a135
1870f3b820fe972e0f946adbbb3b71be29dcd0c7
163447 F20101209_AAADFX jett_j_Page_009.jp2
f313146d91051599350b50fbfbfab698
24446a7c5c62841c54feb1c2d0cfc71e7f9fd0f9
141849 F20101209_AAADYB jett_j_Page_209.jp2
edbd2c1adbc1354847f9ac54e6dd7f66
423ef404d7f9e685567af6783d828d4f59cf6a0e
F20101209_AAAECQ jett_j_Page_123.tif
a858503fb7917cfa8f19bd91f2134517
0175079502ee81f7c259c8926b04c1a3ffa4d50b
F20101209_AAADFY jett_j_Page_159.tif
1bfcf19f418f68a6bdfcf01cca6acc9a
601254f28c82dcdb7432188abe2df51ec630b899
135593 F20101209_AAADYC jett_j_Page_210.jp2
be06a71f63f00cc42b8bb7e74c8babd8
6f5541fb5de6cbe4311c1c9129b72790254df09e
F20101209_AAAECR jett_j_Page_124.tif
5b70d0fb6957190b8175bf4e0f473ff1
8c24f42023972578c6a8da9bb99d24de1f176af2
F20101209_AAADFZ jett_j_Page_045.tif
19493eafe4b2bc15bd09b1ebfdf70bab
c74db0c9bf02283672661806157ea8a2829d77b1
F20101209_AAAECS jett_j_Page_125.tif
e39ecd74ee3bfd2f6c8321ac1621ab51
0f036614f6d653391783beb9f3d8a31e1cfe4180
137663 F20101209_AAADYD jett_j_Page_212.jp2
bc93338f2473111eb62f0f736a946387
e614b74e01b93368fc1cd0e4ff3a645ca9a49ab3
F20101209_AAAECT jett_j_Page_126.tif
7be0c42bb77fb057241208f325286a6b
51cb14a9a4a57c1d46d6bfa672839a123e657bd9
131934 F20101209_AAADYE jett_j_Page_213.jp2
32d0b31cb6a667367fcc776a806c0dfe
65a3d94dd1918a2e294736b54d29a5dae4faebdb
F20101209_AAAECU jett_j_Page_127.tif
842fd8811b19bf6ae538da1b69f53123
cab11147104e138a04f6a941b8afd57bdf822bcc
139430 F20101209_AAADYF jett_j_Page_214.jp2
896936bcf538d9cdc27aece548e1cd15
3a0c14640d95097519933f7eb11adf5c1fb0bee9
F20101209_AAAECV jett_j_Page_128.tif
04af0753dbb7d50f078381bf6b4fc57a
9e5f9711f36823c2d6e4814eb2a46b9f3fc7c0ae
140985 F20101209_AAADYG jett_j_Page_215.jp2
047215830a0e3b592f6a1555c3cfe90b
b690f410fe5851fbf5c7b40815b54f3717995b7f
F20101209_AAAECW jett_j_Page_129.tif
06a41d538f6c0acfa2973ce63be30029
f634e72943030f423b965082d1d8a9a84260babf
1051958 F20101209_AAADYH jett_j_Page_216.jp2
04290bdfbe3072a362d58c65b42568bb
7cd9bb05044398f313545b6a3da398496b000e20
F20101209_AAAECX jett_j_Page_130.tif
d42818a872675938bb6e7490242a09a4
7ccceafaedc15987bfd451b6f00be3a599b52a40
2755 F20101209_AAAEVA jett_j_Page_211.txt
2225259637c0761a5ef035d41c5be1dd
ffad4ce09fdda300588f2cb38c35bd4dcc9a67dc
1051944 F20101209_AAADYI jett_j_Page_217.jp2
cf76efb48b8f72910a8e16579f2d2fb1
5e9f83051630b781b7d9d22a713d1ca3b7524aa0
F20101209_AAAECY jett_j_Page_131.tif
9c8fbdb32b56fb1f0b24c925346ef2d8
6dfc79268e1c22e1716f1c6b0eee83522fb1ffb4
2586 F20101209_AAAEVB jett_j_Page_212.txt
fe94aa129cab5cf0de52c80bc818b9c7
1369b13eeb755635520c4fd916a66adc66362258
1051976 F20101209_AAADYJ jett_j_Page_219.jp2
6db03c998963d743d230860029414f92
71e5595697795fba3ae7f7d6cc243a1c072104d4
F20101209_AAAECZ jett_j_Page_132.tif
775cd7e138a236a9f8eff47af430a4cd
fcbd6ad865ac5480993d11176b6804bc4923a0a5
2495 F20101209_AAAEVC jett_j_Page_213.txt
9e815a0076d9d18491bddbfeedefece5
e329d7ef84160361d80be724ca78852829aab52e
146928 F20101209_AAADYK jett_j_Page_220.jp2
db96c5e541c86802cc50c28be56e1441
8682ae16f13aa9db36334d8599ab3b34242221ec
2659 F20101209_AAAEVD jett_j_Page_214.txt
bbd6a4de8a63f881b547d211ed414227
de55ac9a6ce986da4b9d3259e5511b846b2c7bba
112420 F20101209_AAADYL jett_j_Page_221.jp2
4a873bd7e9e96db16c55d02c12b1b7f1
9f4275fd2d6d8675a6de15f837db55f658a9de9c
2699 F20101209_AAAEVE jett_j_Page_216.txt
102d76f684ed799273bf93e4c9ec2a9b
622d8933efb49e5d2b259ddd8a00f61ad73b985f
77240 F20101209_AAADLA jett_j_Page_060.jpg
48e1b0b3807cb96ac146205f824e7fab
d44ab9a150db21ea47d35b9b7f45c877760a2c1e
F20101209_AAADYM jett_j_Page_001.tif
3ac98e325628e41a5f66b24ea5bd8d45
7faab3b863805cc18d3c40b679221ae87c333406
2455 F20101209_AAAEVF jett_j_Page_217.txt
ffe4345ad167293d87a7eb62fff81b9d
be4adbc4c572fa05dc314dedcc7bde32d886f616
77670 F20101209_AAADLB jett_j_Page_061.jpg
b5bfdf5ed730a7be5e722b405b618bac
bca6aeceed0ef61df14848814072258dbe4a33cf
F20101209_AAADYN jett_j_Page_002.tif
75939fdccaca9267b93788f64df309d4
6495e88df302a38c4eb71265badeb0039367b8ea
2554 F20101209_AAAEVG jett_j_Page_218.txt
f9beaef266f4981bc9fc7614d394743b
6154eccc825c7a943c4908e03504ba8dfb5ff1b1
80559 F20101209_AAADLC jett_j_Page_062.jpg
0fa3d666040a5140620adf4c244bcd9e
8599e97b3d84c553085d49ce17916374a1fdc841
F20101209_AAADYO jett_j_Page_003.tif
f6432d3676074775bbd09188366535fe
808e031485436cb8ad8c6cd9e60f253c95772685
2680 F20101209_AAAEVH jett_j_Page_219.txt
bf95ab6d5b452c0f8747f87358842a12
abdff16642690b6f5897406359f3578336e358bc
80573 F20101209_AAADLD jett_j_Page_063.jpg
9fae6ef08f69cb2b764fb65d0f875e95
632287df189251dd853a66d5b506894127f90232
F20101209_AAADYP jett_j_Page_004.tif
5b26a35542036e7e175f1a328fb36549
9dc10fa3c8f308976e777d8f9b7e48fb4fb29867
2782 F20101209_AAAEVI jett_j_Page_220.txt
ed4e607c79216c61d270c37953d2c43b
f64ae546d5a23cc9c59c63d8b57a408f2d8ba98d
71274 F20101209_AAADLE jett_j_Page_064.jpg
92fbdcff129f4bcf3d71373fd526bbd4
d9a2312e99b769c3dfb265e3ab2c7e544a10c4cf
F20101209_AAADYQ jett_j_Page_005.tif
c45dbb76fb9a036f7257076b296a21b1
5872699a214260c8c70ccf18a4536396c34746e6
2303 F20101209_AAAEVJ jett_j_Page_001thm.jpg
e4ed67af32f2323720be2b2cc40bb4bd
249d57189e73d25248cb382f36554b91527b5795
79830 F20101209_AAADLF jett_j_Page_065.jpg
0dd97c415de2d0db6db3cbc374af563d
3f41f01080c6fa157a74bff7facb79c1bf1d4165
F20101209_AAADYR jett_j_Page_006.tif
98d8c4aef6c7fcbfe7388887483f9a81
ecd4dcd1f32d21db45bfb848be15fd04c4a16c2f
999867 F20101209_AAAEVK jett_j.pdf
93a64eb279d46a0d84d83b107d083571
08f9771aede8a0462584ce257bc3ffa77bffb8b7
78083 F20101209_AAADLG jett_j_Page_066.jpg
51ce2d7a3e96a728d18577d751d0852a
b0287d69542039ca1f0d7dd84eafea524a028d86
51826 F20101209_AAAEIA jett_j_Page_058.pro
53e8e20105ddcd413896b6acb22321df
569c3ab1cdc2c7eea8ed50d98299296d1ead59e4
F20101209_AAADYS jett_j_Page_007.tif
5a49dd43d04cdcfa69b831d3a73001a3
e670275f6c99cec6ae58900b1f7846773190ef55
3023 F20101209_AAAEVL jett_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
f7082a5af6f889a62e305a870a4e4feb
daa811d9d47c3c3f317b99fdb5ce2cd13ea75cab
76973 F20101209_AAADLH jett_j_Page_067.jpg
a572a5a05decfdacbf6bb9e777f39d8d
0023730f218e6e4e5cc9587414457d5161b0936d
55906 F20101209_AAAEIB jett_j_Page_059.pro
a0fc18c02aad3b16bc017499afc346c9
4c1c001f90fbdd92aaf1b49f3fd8ce57867651c9
F20101209_AAADYT jett_j_Page_008.tif
6435b6e135d05604c5e3535fb87416e8
93356512a20f8b27218e49e6cc76135a313679c0
1303 F20101209_AAAEVM jett_j_Page_002thm.jpg
a8d4f8c6eaca615f570580d86746516d
8ef2308af7e5ae366a088c53eb5b6a91d6809910
78887 F20101209_AAADLI jett_j_Page_068.jpg
b963e768fdca98477c69fd06bb62fbdd
9cb21065908ff22da166a0a83d9ff5e70c270049
54625 F20101209_AAAEIC jett_j_Page_060.pro
8eeee3732710ef581b7e6c21bb0899af
ee0c6edfcd3e684d5a36f59ec31e7c9244a10db4
F20101209_AAADYU jett_j_Page_009.tif
ad8aec41d494937c35203f741a26c248
d0746bb92a76f618ec111ab5b86ef3dd7b3a2340
24441 F20101209_AAAEVN jett_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
ac8b3ac51cd32dbb6a455f74fce8a3c3
e7d68a768b99d288d5dab3bfd9f5a5abe14753c0
78906 F20101209_AAADLJ jett_j_Page_069.jpg
0799afb1f8d6821aae87d5d9f516f6f5
062349f5dd744d0e66accd9303bebc5090048e18
54349 F20101209_AAAEID jett_j_Page_061.pro
e3018bba24416d445b105761d5b0e52c
bf61037b5169b50f5c7ead08dcd128d4f5f55e11
F20101209_AAADYV jett_j_Page_010.tif
6f23dad9d4e0ae2cf50a63c95826bcd0
b1a3ddfbe1e169be7d0e426c49f483ce9d9a23f8
6537 F20101209_AAAEVO jett_j_Page_003thm.jpg
ded51717f1fff4e39741575f62255e0f
6e1eb093000424aaf88f2704e9918818442c7ca0
80382 F20101209_AAADLK jett_j_Page_070.jpg
6ced58be31ab7c8bf54d6dfa411063d0
1b67eb4c9b4ec2c741413e6e824bab563d2e1995
57163 F20101209_AAAEIE jett_j_Page_062.pro
743a51aa609999e794ee3cf78f7ef632
2475e132d6f1a2d8dc16547cbed8eced28f7161c
F20101209_AAADYW jett_j_Page_011.tif
216e18fcdddf4a02a7677f84ec4ff18b
eb1144fcb642be3f6cc535c2d60422287bf10fb4
23759 F20101209_AAAEVP jett_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
e4bbc60846f763b352f8f2027e1efc35
793f7ded399f63c282e9ebd4d0819c71e2fff318
72175 F20101209_AAADLL jett_j_Page_072.jpg
f0eef74702d5153ec88ca56d0d352db2
7d44803a15847a98a84a70c09c338ce17aa70909
57072 F20101209_AAAEIF jett_j_Page_063.pro
d89048ff38f5db2ef5c38c059ec14875
14e6e57cc57932e1a806907c78b6da21ce812468
F20101209_AAADYX jett_j_Page_012.tif
1a38900893c8bf610ce47cd5dc9c11f0
3bcbd11c7eedebc4812a7860eb7852127c3ee6d1
19978 F20101209_AAAEVQ jett_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
61cddb7920eea45334975d9853a4160c
daf3ab5ce0f69744c1f7c94c21b90d6227e9f6b3
76832 F20101209_AAADLM jett_j_Page_073.jpg
925329e5dd26d15ca64630201a3e926a
ec82a0613c5251037980680239ecb3a49b54a237
50797 F20101209_AAAEIG jett_j_Page_064.pro
7e274a897b14371742d414f5d3476433
2dbda6fcf308eef83fefff4c4f683e3cfda4b1e4
F20101209_AAADYY jett_j_Page_013.tif
f2b26a8c61dfa469e6b7955f8b5ac0f0
73a1c02af1a5adda9352804eb8b8b0f68c8571f5
5619 F20101209_AAAEVR jett_j_Page_005thm.jpg
25e3acf78d6812d2854a2c845c975e26
c855efa6cd76f4aadae3b0d1309a22eb9a5bdb80
79742 F20101209_AAADLN jett_j_Page_074.jpg
aa3241c836b275291065866a57335220
6fe29a39782a4c89526b25d7fbc7ebd350156125
57354 F20101209_AAAEIH jett_j_Page_065.pro
b604dd59045903ef51576deac4c0a112
b3d59f759d40ba547c70179f0a76a44d4a7f87f8
F20101209_AAADYZ jett_j_Page_014.tif
f47ea2f2c24bbaf389d88a957260ac45
2c6a6a39b7aa2f90feb50dbda6b25687c32ea8cb
3941 F20101209_AAAFFA jett_j_Page_138thm.jpg
b73d2cfa646df69375266fdd454cb07e
20d692c5260800488b2aba073ab722ca36fd3269
20798 F20101209_AAAEVS jett_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
34c2e3b2205c7480feff1d621332a739
7599decbcccfb26fd418568239d68bdc9bdc683a
81707 F20101209_AAADLO jett_j_Page_075.jpg
c52240d38f54a8374db9591aa51c69ce
bc9f193f9bd44692a2936f203e9f2f0f4b70955d
54097 F20101209_AAAEII jett_j_Page_067.pro
61e0dfd257d7fa7be47da3ebc707517e
daefcd279c320bd2d2a3d69d902e3566714e9ed7
12283 F20101209_AAAFFB jett_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
5c3edfc45548f922186e1e9e9f93bbd6
87187ae0312530719a77b747fac842736fc7c3cf
5259 F20101209_AAAEVT jett_j_Page_006thm.jpg
3fa4aceff6369e8fae9813c099e51d46
1edad156e75efa5a21cee73402e2c530122f7eb2
78197 F20101209_AAADLP jett_j_Page_076.jpg
79e36c941412d196dc8daa62c3b94ade
08ffac6a5955344a218454e55cdcadd3b555696b
55487 F20101209_AAAEIJ jett_j_Page_068.pro
a235d8ba153b3651a3365444dba61361
dc2b4bd15007f78639b981e3634327a8fed61080
3933 F20101209_AAAFFC jett_j_Page_139thm.jpg
aaae941b6ae0db6a7a85bad7838a6f1c
e21942d43ce81bd30b32663e6e2e1f3145ddfe53
23942 F20101209_AAAEVU jett_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
bab44dae1f828d1d7300bf263d9674dd
db55c81de3a3769092591ddf1acee1f53c97523a
78170 F20101209_AAADLQ jett_j_Page_077.jpg
89f73c997cc9476fbf798e4d33a9fe1b
a93d718d113bdc7c1bbae725bd6bcbf4cc6e0260
54861 F20101209_AAAEIK jett_j_Page_069.pro
4da97bb259926fc80c746cb03848d1e8
ebf0e3dff45f4596e8b1630350d5facb46a1a6c9
3812 F20101209_AAAFFD jett_j_Page_140thm.jpg
8dbf523804384797a5e06fe33cf3eec5
34b2bb68f79860016975473983979835c154eef6
5732 F20101209_AAAEVV jett_j_Page_007thm.jpg
14584a85973fa4df50967d3f171ba05b
d926eacf39915ce138fe3ab24a43ad49c468d54b
77425 F20101209_AAADLR jett_j_Page_078.jpg
3eddeff92f19f979870360e2aa103d1b
35503517c044ade01e260f6fb57fe311b103bbc0
56144 F20101209_AAAEIL jett_j_Page_070.pro
2ee5ae7c8877cd8fca604619e190c0b4
698756964a4904572dd3638a913bcb8563c05a03
14559 F20101209_AAAFFE jett_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
ba2152fedb9847f64778ded9b94b3221
b726ec1b815e777844ea09cde1e85007208b08c4
23218 F20101209_AAAEVW jett_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
25a0fba57a2245f72d6e1772976e0cb2
641b90a6eada662caf824fa15a1bd9c78d8412a5
79418 F20101209_AAADLS jett_j_Page_080.jpg
06cd78617af2810022e3e55260ba2347
5afd9e2655a0003369459c8d429ec756b3767646
56767 F20101209_AAAEIM jett_j_Page_071.pro
61efea72fe54a4482ea45b5097d9072b
a0cf7a7f1b3e86cb4c9d3ba755f71412e50d7313
4271 F20101209_AAAFFF jett_j_Page_141thm.jpg
977296328819cddc93b47890423c8b7d
169a5bfa4021ffbe2c0bd5c039c2c3925f7f072d
5781 F20101209_AAAEVX jett_j_Page_008thm.jpg
e19c56a6448cf6ddba7969c03ac1a914
b94a989e3d0b087bf927b8b2c1dc90cebf06158a
72289 F20101209_AAADLT jett_j_Page_081.jpg
db7cfeeedee7e35fba48a94e1eadf04b
374fc55c783e0bdf48b0dd36553698a9411b1638
50570 F20101209_AAAEIN jett_j_Page_072.pro
d2dff15fc3eeef4f9d3f827905453902
30a7bd448cccb5fe966d4f87b3f8f16289e8c29d
17808 F20101209_AAAFFG jett_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
9703f28377aa5f567ffe55de11a9f8ed
58f0ba5a335fa738c205ed7c230f7573b8024bcd
4097 F20101209_AAAEVY jett_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
163ecc6ee441e362538034c9188568f9
66f55db2803e62e1f5d09c8235f5165b262c4a69
74509 F20101209_AAADLU jett_j_Page_082.jpg
044448f5e3597647fb6dfe30cbc6c86c
a6375753bf5c57c67d112ab3fc3c769716760ce0
53376 F20101209_AAAEIO jett_j_Page_073.pro
6932c3912cff1b203f4ccda069b15627
c04e414f3787482243dea570b5abf485e8238a7a
12688 F20101209_AAAFFH jett_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
8709e2ac9643d4b82e1765748ee7c57a
47ff323cae93ece0720dbbc23563f0ee375d3eeb
1612 F20101209_AAAEVZ jett_j_Page_009thm.jpg
978fe5f37046bd51654ebb7332d9ced9
d2f582779857cd05f869e8fae6f491cf911a1401
F20101209_AAADLV jett_j_Page_083.jpg
fa10559b0af01ea809f337c38338ef72
0b7c32ee4e7a603ff68ca9ffe27324048e1157f1
56672 F20101209_AAAEIP jett_j_Page_074.pro
8c115361f1fe111a67e5033fd76dba64
08af9b67477423853ea0089e0688417114079896
3600 F20101209_AAAFFI jett_j_Page_143thm.jpg
d34994f1f4008d4e3c9acda08bf11c70
f09b9a1ffa77cc7cdcca5d905b3da0081a53e844
57212 F20101209_AAAEIQ jett_j_Page_075.pro
c0c4b3932717e76f5d038c6e63140d88
5c18789d335d95bdf85141476ac8a2641e2c5aec
12085 F20101209_AAAFFJ jett_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
18ea8ce623405f7ee2cb6a47f95f7252
009d4fec2c8ef08d28e78d42a21ed1016225249b
79145 F20101209_AAADLW jett_j_Page_084.jpg
5ad9ede0087373b76f466562d8ee8b25
6bbffcd0459999aa68f5aae8a6d734552cf4bf4f
55946 F20101209_AAAEIR jett_j_Page_076.pro
d07751a5f66fc029cc613095be4e905c
a6b9f84bf4a37dbb02aded22d98f371e45a53148
3772 F20101209_AAAFFK jett_j_Page_144thm.jpg
0070bc61e2ea42a4411c0567a4d98832
c9ef409c5c08419276ec6f1397ee974c2e3e6be7
72370 F20101209_AAADLX jett_j_Page_085.jpg
efb761f63af29ee4639dca8f5a5f6554
b13b250011b995f8a8919d121ad76c02d6906c12
16175 F20101209_AAAFFL jett_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
00481e6d6222f4ae40cb4c0483b846c9
192a289f86a208ae197721eca0381407046bbf31
80225 F20101209_AAADLY jett_j_Page_086.jpg
c01e178f0e9ec58a4db039d8c7a7347a
df747d30ab2431640c300d1129669f051de49059
55427 F20101209_AAAEIS jett_j_Page_077.pro
a52479dc5ffcd92ffe7314a7dee83374
6365a44ecfda7cc081983324bb5c253e222082dc
4832 F20101209_AAAFFM jett_j_Page_145thm.jpg
114b9c35ccd0f6d61acb0c7b1c6bcd01
36fce0eca217f0e6d6f30e3432353756431e7cb8
76199 F20101209_AAADLZ jett_j_Page_087.jpg
af41d918dfc5db7486041d74b880f6f4
c7c572223a58140af183e9e96665f26aed025330
54854 F20101209_AAAEIT jett_j_Page_078.pro
24cc7fd7e95ec97633acd4cfaa0c2f91
aad29a7eef2aa63ac45f5917cce04dc22f8e7d06
7827 F20101209_AAAFFN jett_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
4e385bc1f881c247f7d4fecbb8b31939
34b1f3a33fdecb2a4d6b78cdd24174ffd16421bf
55804 F20101209_AAAEIU jett_j_Page_079.pro
bc3f6b22d679534daacc6718b66e5654
74a39881958d0e82852355607104290148fb31c0
56648 F20101209_AAAEIV jett_j_Page_080.pro
a9165e7cecfd1fddf8ad955aae64ddf1
ef6d7643116c9d7d5a80c5e8a8c5c0775c530f08
2531 F20101209_AAAFFO jett_j_Page_146thm.jpg
9b3b0f2cf2c2317a40de5c5ed36eb42c
2f1f5595a662b23de9b2dfd2710ddca4cd157d46
F20101209_AAAEIW jett_j_Page_082.pro
e4c463b4fde1cf3be7aaec7892c18413
2dc2c2238c4a29190e828975fd276a65a80ba40b
F20101209_AAAFFP jett_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
141e18196f5e164d1903a22275d308dd
cf71a3b7ad9f8092f045a5f01dd94e70e63f23cb
50168 F20101209_AAAEIX jett_j_Page_083.pro
051fde6dd7ccb12b941089859b8bd8d9
a3f86855f8faf92ceaaf067cd7ba531503599129
2187 F20101209_AAAFFQ jett_j_Page_147thm.jpg
d5c3bd516bf26191795f82628b0c9dc6
08852365f34e5f3ad51778b2e6898d30853bf731
50106 F20101209_AAAEIY jett_j_Page_085.pro
44d36b98f728673dd2cb5244ddec543f
c4354bae032d7c0f81d502f662f7cf33432d4a7f
10274 F20101209_AAAFFR jett_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
d96767e2b47ef5966531cdc17315c241
dc4afa0fba0eab8858cefc67a464355c0bcf698d
55852 F20101209_AAAEIZ jett_j_Page_086.pro
2d57d5290a3a5774e919e3132b25ce04
a8e95f7613ba402295bdfb931ece15eab73a2d3e
3103 F20101209_AAAFFS jett_j_Page_148thm.jpg
b1f6b701bdfb2f089890677816f60690
41505ef1796cc8b0a510d5abb8f06c390ce8d87a
7109 F20101209_AAAFFT jett_j_Page_149.QC.jpg
0fc9bfa6ea8ac777acbfb8fc117884ba
7de1fd8ab67db6fc6b7b7355ece480dac389e699
2371 F20101209_AAAFFU jett_j_Page_149thm.jpg
5dd1afaf3d1fe8510ebcc560b57cdf3e
00e01c5b887796ba588b856e0e5beed0de1a6981
398581 F20101209_AAADRA jett_j_Page_012.jp2
94a22637a11ee79193d0f89ff8482485
d4e1b55961b4f9a6504e0bcb4f8ad5c149844664
5492 F20101209_AAAFFV jett_j_Page_150.QC.jpg
7b075c3f86c1bc0e9701879410215128
2fab7d40accfcac4d9889ccc606297d05b0db1e5
130878 F20101209_AAADRB jett_j_Page_013.jp2
029f7c08124aa054e82e57fcc7c80959
a473052289e44643536ba6df682279af56aa0837
F20101209_AAAFFW jett_j_Page_150thm.jpg
90fd48ddc73338bb54dbb6d12dceb03d
384166c219db34f61ee9e96ba318a9d0672700b0
97540 F20101209_AAADRC jett_j_Page_014.jp2
3a06ed3755de5dc03714d501172ac666
8acee491c656817228990087b0c1bc0e56be0122
F20101209_AAAFFX jett_j_Page_151thm.jpg
a4755efb8ce0476468b86401a9d14e20
7df62b452c8d5cc5401beec7bab432e5667ff685
94449 F20101209_AAADRD jett_j_Page_015.jp2
16051a3443e2229f44cbe56524565e10
a525575863b31adc86ee24ad2a5d0d53076961cc
4765 F20101209_AAAFFY jett_j_Page_152thm.jpg
ae9e7d01c0925b953a5b3f88c43900af
3248dd7eb1308053d9fcad16f30527fff8a4eb0d
114425 F20101209_AAADRE jett_j_Page_016.jp2
6dd4474339279ae35361e5743ea48f70
947020b731e2aa617b50d37d90f383b9176ca886
2731 F20101209_AAAFFZ jett_j_Page_153thm.jpg
ae5bfcebb49d696332aed5ff1ccf51cd
52835ecbfd0c691602980f35a7fd6152429aad61
113953 F20101209_AAADRF jett_j_Page_017.jp2
709210812dd36980b78d9d4a4d1b4efb
205426a21e94a91a0908cbe8c0572a9c728f24d7
125755 F20101209_AAADRG jett_j_Page_018.jp2
d5f84480b591df911cfc468ff0ea3fd1
f065a90bb4766e40128afb20eb121edb134a4e7b
1905 F20101209_AAAEOA jett_j_Page_014.txt
e3f0ab32a1bfa02c9f687a134de5a989
438af41c427fdc94156f33a2597ddedf2957defa
118653 F20101209_AAADRH jett_j_Page_019.jp2
476a40d2d72380c6b31c430de1f77f74
2aa225c9db1792db65cf3a990c668c0abd8377ed
1687 F20101209_AAAEOB jett_j_Page_015.txt
6043ee641abc95698150339a2f91b241
d80117321295381ecb1c5d9356dcb54e1cda5840
119455 F20101209_AAADRI jett_j_Page_020.jp2
c5068fe08297d95aa705db61c64961a7
e2088679c8693d98768ac4918326f9152bbfe831
118125 F20101209_AAADRJ jett_j_Page_021.jp2
a52b3974064f314a9167cd2cc731d61f
0c2fd9b40389d874838ad944c34d3e1e6bf99507
F20101209_AAAEOC jett_j_Page_016.txt
c9e4018504855be2c20c0b7e910c1686
b1680e91ba70ed91e57e9898463cffedee2afbef







BOATER COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR IN MANATEE CONSERVATION ZONES:
RECREATION SPECIALIZATION, ATTITUDES AND SITUATIONAL FACTORS





















By

JOHN S. JETT


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 John S. Jett









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My life has been filled with contributions from many great individuals. Thanking them

all is an almost impossible task. I want to first thank my lovely wife Marla for providing me the

inspiration, and heart to pursue this project. Marla is the single most intelligent, caring and

empathetic soul I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, and to have her in my life has truly been

a blessing. Marla's has always infused me with the energy necessary to put thoughts into

motion. Having her as a teammate has been a gift.

As a child my parents always pushed me in their subtle and encouraging ways to seek out

my interests. My mom's compassion for lost, hurt or disowned critters has been instrumental in

my love of wild things. I'm sure she would be proud of my efforts in providing a happy and safe

haven for the many animals that have come through our home and yard. I sincerely hope she is

in a good place.

Likewise, hiking with my father at a young age provided me critical contact with nature

that so many children are missing today. My father has always offered a secure and certain

backdrop to my decision-making. As a friend my dad has never faltered; as a parent he has

always been solid and caring, and as a mentor he has reliably provided me insight, advice and

encouragement when needed. I cannot thank either of my parents enough for all they have done

for me.

Thanks are also in order for Marla's mother and father, Lynnette and Kevin. Both have

been terrific in-laws, and both have assisted us in countless ways. Their continuous support and

encouragement in our lives has added a dimension that is most appreciated.

Dr. Bob Sitler and his wife June have been great friends from the first day we met. It

came as no surprise when they extended themselves to me during the data collection phase of

this project. Without their generous help and support this investigation would have been much,









much less enjoyable, and a great deal more difficult. Their positive attitudes toward life inspires

me to be a better person, and the friendship we share has added immeasurably to the quality of

my life. Bob and June are humans in their finest form.

I would be remiss if I failed to thank Dr. Bruce Bradford and his wife Susan for all their

friendship and support during the last few years. In his loving and fatherly way, Bruce has

helped me to sort out some of the career options one is faced with when completing a doctoral

degree. Bruce and Susan are deserving of many thanks from my wife and me.

I'd like to give a hearty thanks to Dr. John Stevenson and his assistant Vance of the

Orthopedic Clinic. Their surgical skills have allowed me to return to normal life. We all try to

do good things while on this earth; these two change peoples' lives.

It is no wonder Dr. Brijesh Thapa has so many graduate students vying for his time. Brij

always has the student's best interest at heart, and he has never failed to take time out to

critically evaluate my ideas and approaches, or to just chat. I have always appreciated his

candor, and I particularly like the fact that when he reviews a piece of work such as this

dissertation, he really engages himself. There is no slipping by his critique! Most importantly, I

want to thank Brij for being such a good friend during our stay in Gainesville.

Dr. John Confer deserves kudos for his help in sorting this research out. In fact, it was

Dr. Confer who attracted me to the University of Florida. Although during the writing of this

document he relocated to a different university, Dr. Confer remained interested in seeing this

project through to its finish, and I sincerely appreciate the supportive phone calls along the way.

Besides his professional assistance, John has been a good friend to Marla and me. Oh yea, and

we also enjoyed hanging with Biggy-D!









Dr. Steve Holland deserves thanks for helping me with the writing of this document. His

help in providing funding, letters of recommendation, and many other boring, tedious, but

otherwise important tasks helped the process go smoothly. Dr. Holland's humor, especially

pertaining to politics, was always uplifting, and his dedication to environmental issues is

something that I deeply respect.

Last, but certainly not least among my committee members, I'd like to thank Dr. Bob

Swett of Florida Sea Grant for his valuable input on this project. Dr. Swett's understanding of

boating issues was important to the success of this research. Furthermore, his methodological

concerns made me reconsider several of the key details associated with the collection of data,

and his help with the VTRS made the entire thing come together. Dr. Swett's research abilities

were an inspiration to me throughout this process.

Thanks are also due the Department's support staff. My sincere appreciation goes to

Nancy Gullic, Donna Walker and Judy Hopper. Their efforts and cheery demeanor were always

uplifting.

Thanks also go to Luis Suau. He proved to be a valuable sounding board through this

process, and his friendship is something that I will carry with me through life. Yong Jae Ko also

deserves thanks for spending time helping me sort out the structural equation modeling

component of this research. Finally, my friend Eric Schmacker has reinforced my belief in the

importance of surrounding oneself with bright and thoughtful people.











TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN TS ................................................................. ........... ............. 3

LIST OF TABLES .............. ......... ........... ........................................10

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ..... ................. 12

L IST O F T E R M S ............. .. ............... .................................................... 13

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 14

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... .............................. 16

State ent of Problem ..................................... .................. ............ .. ............ 25
P purpose of Study ............................................................................... 27
Research Questions........... .......... .......... ..... .. .... ...... .... .......... 27
H y p oth eses......................................................................................... .. 2 8
R creation Specialization ............................................. ................... ............... 28
Self-Reported vs. Observed Compliant Behavior: ........................... ............... 28
M arine C conservation A attitudes: ................................................................ ................28
Behavioral Intentions: ............... ....................... ........ 28
P ath A n a ly sis .......................................................................................................2 9

2 R E V IEW O F L ITER A TU R E ..................................................................... ......................31

M otorized Travel and W wildlife Im pacts ........................................ ........................... 31
Terrestrial w wildlife ................................................... ............ ........ .... 31
M an atee s ............................................................................... 3 3
B eating in F lorida ............................................................................... 36
P proliferation ............................................................................................................... 36
Boater Compliance with Speed Zones ........................................ .. ......... 37
Florida Vessel Title Registration System (VTRS) ....................................... 41
Outdoor Recreation and Association with Environmentalism .........................................42
Environmental Attitudes / Environmental Behavior ............... ...... ..............42
Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings ................ .................... 50
Routes to Persuasion ............................................. 58
P red icto rs o f B eh av io r ............................................................................................... 5 9
R creation S p ecialization ................................................................................................. 64
Environmental Concern/Behavior .................................................................. ...........70
Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings ...................... ........... ..............75
B oaters and A anglers ................................................................77
Reported Versus Actual Behavior .............. ........................................... .. ....... 82


6









S u m m ary ........................................................................... 8 6

3 PROCEDURES ................... ......... .. .. ... .... ..................92

S tu d y S ite s ..........................................................................9 2
Selection of Subjects ..................... ............. ...... ........... ............... 94
Field Observations ............... ................. ........... ............... .. ...... 94
Speed Calculation ..................................................... ............. .. ... ..... 95
Supporting P aram eters........................................................................... .................... 96
M a il S u rv ey ..............................................................................9 6
O perationalization of V ariables......... ................. ................. ..................... ............... 97
V essel U se and A attributes ....................................................................... ..................97
R creation Specialization ....................................................................... ................... 98
B ehavioral dim ension ........... ........................................................... .... .... ....... 98
C cognitive dim pension ........................................ .. .. ......... ..... .... 98
A effective dim pension ......................................................... ....... ....99
Composite recreation specialization index................................... ............... 99
M arine Conservation A ttitudes................................................ ............................ 99
Knowledge ............ .. .... ... ..................... ............... 99
Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior ............................................ ............... 100
Speed Zone Signage A ssessm ent ............................................................................ 101
Signage assessment in manatee zones......................... ........................101
Signage assessment in general boat safety zones.............................. ..............101
Composite signage assessment index ............... ............................................. 101
Theory of R seasoned A ction................................................. .............................. 101
A ttitu d e s ...............................................................10 2
Subj active N orm ................................................. ........ .. ........ .... 102
B behavioral Intention ............................................... .. ...... .. ............ 102
D em graphics .............................................. 102
Supplemental Items ...................... ...................... ........... 103
Telephone Survey of N on-Respondents ..................................................... ...... ......... 103
D ata A n aly ses ...................................... ......................................................106
Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing .................................................................... 107

4 R E S U L T S .......................................................................................................1 1 8

Field Observation ............................................................. ........ .... ........ 118
P profile of Subjects.......................................... .. .... ................... .... .... .. ............ 119
R creation Specialization ....................................................... ........................................ 120
B behavioral D om ain .................. ........................................ .............. 120
Cognitive D om ain .................................. .. ......... .............. 121
A effective D om ain .................. ...................................................... .. 121
M arine Conservation A ttitudes.................................................. ............................... 122
K n o w le d g e ............... ........................................................................................12 3
Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior........................................................................ 124
Speed Zone Signage A ssessm ent................................................. ............................. 125
Theory of R seasoned A action (TR A ) ........................................................... .....................125


7









A ttitu d e s .................................................................................................................. 1 2 6
Subjective N orm ......... .... .. ....................................... ................... 126
Intention s ........... ...... .. ......... ..................... ...........................12 6
Results of Research Questions Tested ........... .. ......... ................... 127
R results of H hypothesis T testing ......... ................. ..................................... .........................132
R creation Specialization .............. ............. ........... ............................ ...............132
Reported vs. Observed Compliance Behavior.................................. ......................134
M arine Conservation A ttitudes.............................................. ............................ 135
B ehavioral Intentions........... ................................................................. ....... .. ...... .. 136
P ath A n a ly sis ................................................................................................ 1 3 7

5 SUMM ARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................. ................... ................. 157

Sum m ary of P rocedures.................................................................... .............................. 157
Selection of Subjects: O bservation........................................... .......... ............... 157
Selection of Subjects: M ail Survey ........................................ .......... ............... 158
Operationalization of Variables ......... .............. ............................ 159
Recreation specialization..................... ........ ............................. 159
M arine conservation attitudes ........................................ .......................... 160
K n o w led g e .............. ... ............................................ .................16 1
Non-compliance/compliance behavior........................... ........ ............... 161
Speed zone signage assessm ent......................................... ......................... 162
Theory of reasoned action ................. ........ .............. ............................. 163
Sum m ary of F findings .............................................................. ...................164
Results of Research Questions Tested........................................................164
R results of H ypotheses Tested............................................... ............................. 165
Recreation specialization........................................................ 165
Reported vs. observed compliance behavior.............................. 166
M arine conservation attitudes ........................................ .......................... 166
B ehavioral intention s......... .................................................. ..... ...... ........ 167
P ath analy sis ............................................... 167
D discussion ...................1......................68................
Conclusions and Im plications................................................................. ............... 181
D elim stations ................................................................................... .......... .......................187
L im stations ..................... . ....... .............................................................187
Recommendations for Future Research................................... ..................189

APPENDIX

A M AIL SURVEY INSTRUM ENT ............................................... ............................. 192

B TELPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT............................ ................................... 199

C NON-RESPONSE BIAS ANALYSES ........................................ .......................... 201

D F IE L D D A T A SH E E T .............................................................................. .....................202




8









L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................. ..........................203

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................. ....................22 1





















































9









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-2 Recreation Specialization: Activities Examined..................................... ............... 91

3-1 Sampling schedule and observations .............. .................... ..................... 12

3-2 Field observation attributes......... ................... ....................................... ............... 113

3-3 Reliability analysis for recreation specialization ................... ..... ............... ........ 114

3-4 Reliability analysis for marine conservation attitudes................................ ............. 115

3-5 Reasons for choosing non-compliance ........ .... .............. ................ ....... ........ 115

3-6 Reliability analysis for speed zone signage assessment .............. ........................ 116

3-7 Reliability analysis for theory of reasoned action constructs ............... ............ .....117

4-1 Vessel use and attributes from field observations.........................................................139

4-2 Socio-demographic profile of respondents ........ ............ ............. ...............140

4-3 R recreation specialization dom ains........................................................ ............... 141

4-4 M arine conservation attitude item s....................... ................................ ............... 142

4-5 Boater knowledge ........................ ........ .. ... ... .. .................. 142

4-6 R seasons for non-com pliance....................... ............................ ................. ............... 143

4-7 Reasons for non-compliance ("Other" category) ................ ................................... 143

4-8 Sign zone signage assess ent................................................. ............................. 144

4-9 Theory of reasoned action .................................................................... ............... 145

4-10 Zero-order correlations: vessel speed discrepancy and signage assessment .................146

4-11 Zero order correlations: recreation specialization and zone signage assessment ............147

4-12 Regression analysis summary for predicting behavioral intention..............................148

4-13 Zero-order correlations: speed discrepancy and recreation specialization ....................148

4-14 Zero order correlations: self-reported compliance and recreation specialization............149

4-15 Zero order correlations: recreation specialization and marine conservation attitudes.....150









4-16 Zero-order correlations: behavioral intention and recreation specialization .................151

4-17 Zero order correlations: self-reported compliance and vessel speed discrepancy ..........152

4-18 Independent samples t-tests, reported compliance among compliant and non-
com pliant b oaters ............................................................................................... ..... 152

4-19 Zero order correlations: marine conservation attitudes and self-reported compliance.... 153

4-20 Factor loadings and Cronbach's alpha......................... .....................155

Cl Mail and telephone respondent t-tests......................... ..... .................201

C2 M ail and telephone respondent X2 test ........................................ ........................ 201









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 H ypothesized conceptual m odel ............................................... ............................. 29

3-1 St. Johns River sam pling sites .................................. ............ ...................................

3-2 V essel speed calculation .............................. ............. ......................................... 112

4-1 Theory of reasoned action ..................................................................... ............. ..... 154

4-2 Final structural m odel ................................................. .... .................. 156









































12









LIST OF TERMS


Marine conservation attitudes Respondent's agreement with manatee protection and
protection strategies, as well as general boat management strategies. Items were adapted from
Aipanjiguly (2001).

Observed speed discrepancy Observed speed minus the maximum allowable speed per
boat speed restriction zone. This calculation served to standardize observed vessel speeds within
both idle and slow speed zones, and also represented the degree to which a boat operator was
compliant or non-compliant with speed restrictions. Vessel speeds are defined by Sarasota
County (2006) according to the following: Idle zone: generally not to exceed 3 mph; Slow zone:
generally not to exceed 7 mph.

Party size The number of people in an observed vessel, including vessel operator.

Prior exposure to manatees An evaluation of the number of times a boater has seen a manatee
during the previous 12 months.

Prior ticketing Evaluation of whether a respondent had been previously ticketed for
violating boat speed restrictions.

Recreation specialization Continuum of behavior exhibited from novice to expert.
Specialization was measured by items within the behavioral, cognitive and affective domains,
both as individual additive indices as well as a composite index.

Self-reported compliance behavior Based upon a boater's agreement with full vessel speed
compliance during most recent boat outing

Situational factors Refers to time, date, presence of law enforcement and weather (estimated
% cloud cover; precipitation, ambient temperature). Criteria were adapted from Gorzelany
(1999, 2001, 2004).

Theory of reasoned action A theory that frames human behavior in terms of the relationships
between beliefs, attitudes and intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).
Items were adapted from Aipanjiguly (2001).

Law enforcement presence Observation of the presence or absence of law enforcement
officials.

Vessel attributes Refers to boat type (pontoon, sail, ski, johnboat, runabout, fish,
yacht/cruiser, other and boat length (less than 12 feet, 12 to 15 feet, 16 to 25 feet, 26 to 39 feet,
40 to 64 feet, 64 to 109 feet, greater than 109 feet). Adapted from Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004).

Zone sign assessment Boater's assessment of speed zone signage and zone delineation
effectiveness.









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

BOATER COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR IN MANATEE CONSERVATION ZONES:
RECREATION SPECIALIZATION, ATTITUDES AND SITUATIONAL FACTORS

By

John S. Jett

August 2007

Chair: Brijesh Thapa
Major: Health and Human Performance

My study investigated the factors associated with compliant and non-compliant vessel

speeds in speed-restricted manatee conservation zones on the St. John's River, Florida during the

summer and fall of 2006. Recreation specialization theory, theory of reasoned action (TRA),

marine conservation attitudes, boater knowledge and situational factors were examined as

predictor variables to vessel speed discrepancies (observed vessel speed minus maximum

allowable per zone). The study was conducted by first observing vessel speed and vessel and

operator attributes, after which a mail survey was sent to the vessel operator observed on the

water.

Recreation specialization was found to be poorly associated with vessel speed

discrepancy, and found to be negatively associated with marine conservation attitudes. Marine

conservation attitudes were also found to be poorly associated with vessel speed discrepancy.

However, marine conservation attitudes had a strong positive influence on behavioral intention

to fully comply with vessel speed zones during next outing.

Although most respondents self-reported being in full compliance with boat speed

restrictions during their last boat outing, these responses were weakly associated with observed









vessel speed compliance. In this investigation, self-reported behavior served as poor proxy to

actual behavior.

Vessel length was poorly associated with conservation attitudes, although mean vessel

speed discrepancies were found to differ among various boat lengths. Operators of longer

vessels and non-rental vessels were found to violate speed restrictions to a greater extent than

those of shorter vessels or rentals.

Within the TRA progression, past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) and

attitudes were unique contributors to behavioral intentions to fully comply with speed restrictions

during next boat outing. Past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) was found to have a

strong negative influence on attitudes. Past behavior in the form of observed vessel speed

discrepancy was weakly associated with attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions.

Fewer than half of the vessels observed for this investigation were in full compliance

with speed restrictions. As with past studies, approximately one-third of the respondents in this

investigation disagreed or strongly disagreed with on-water boater informational signage (both in

manatee and general boat safety speed zones) as easy to read, easy to see or effectively

delineating manatee and general boat speed zones. Results of the study suggest that a more

efficacious approach to reducing vessel speeds may be necessary in critical manatee conservation

areas. Furthermore, management strategies designed to change boater attitudes may be most

effective in encouraging compliance with manatee speed zones.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Concern over the health, integrity and management of Florida's aquatic resources has

grown in concert with the state's population growth during the last several decades. Much

attention has been focused on habitat loss, reduced water quality, invasive species and declining

wildlife populations. Few issues have been as contentious as the protection of the West Indian

manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris).

In Florida, cold stress, hurricanes, red tide poisoning and a variety of other maladies

negatively impact manatees. Manatees are also affected by human-induced phenomena

including crushing in locks and flood gates, fishing line and net entanglement and ingestion of

man-made debris (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), 2006a). However, propeller

wounds, hull impacts and crushing by recreational watercraft have been the single greatest cause

of mortality from 1974-2005. Data suggests that approximately 24% of manatee deaths have

been caused by watercraft strikes (FWC, 2006b). Furthermore, 97% of surviving manatees listed

in the scar identification catalog possess hull and prop scar patterns indicating multiple vessel

strikes (O'Shea, Lefebvre & Beck. 2001).

The manatee is currently protected under both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of

1973 (Florida Rule 68A-27.003, Florida Administrative Code) (FWC, 2005) and the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. To facilitate recovery of the species, the Federal

Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP) specifically focuses on reducing watercraft-induced mortality.

Under the umbrella of the FMRP, the State of Florida has implemented manatee protection

through the use of manatee counts and mortality data to direct county protection plans and boat

speed regulatory zones (Reynolds, 1999). Despite these efforts, manatee deaths as a result of

watercraft-induced injury have increased 10% per year, on average, over the past decade (FWC,









2006b). If growth in the Florida boating population is commensurate with the projected 80%

general population growth by the year 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), then a future decline in

manatee numbers can reasonably be expected (FWC, 2005).

Recreational boating is one of the pervasive elements of Florida's aquatic environment

with more than 1,000,000 registered pleasure boats in the state (Florida Department of Highway

Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2006). Furthermore, Florida ranks as the number one marine

recreation destination in the United States (Leeworth & Wiley, 2001). With manatee habitat

often coinciding with recreational boating areas, manatee conservation zones that effectively

reduce vessel speeds may be crucial to the long-term survivability of the species.

Vessel speed reduction has been preliminarily shown to reduce manatee mortality (Laist &

Shaw, 2006). In Florida, compliance with boat speed restrictions is facilitated primarily through

1) informational signage delineating manatee habitat that indicate permissible vessel speeds

(usually in the form of qualitative categories such as "idle" and "slow, 2) law enforcement

officers covering large areas and 3) boat no-entry zones.

Several qualitative boater compliance studies have been performed in Florida's waterways

with similar results. For example, Gorzelany's (2004) compilation of several compliance studies

(which included some quantitative speed assessments) conducted in the late 1990s evaluated

26,000 vessels in Sarasota and Lee counties and found 63% and 58% compliant respectively

(17% and 16% blatantly noncompliant). His compilation also demonstrated that compliance

varied significantly with the presence of law enforcement, boater activity, vessel type, vessel

composition, size and site location. Other compliance studies such as Tyson and Combs' (1999)

evaluation of Banana River (Florida) boaters have found similar levels of compliance.









Boater compliance can be examined from an environmental attitudinal and behavioral

framework; however, the general body of environmental attitude and environmental behavior

literature remains varied, both in focus and findings, especially pertaining to outdoor recreation

participation. Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) were first to test the hypothesis that contact with

nature as a result of outdoor recreation participation was positively associated with

environmental concern. They found, 1) associations between outdoor recreation participation

and general environmental concern were mixed, 2) general environmental concern was more

positively associated with "appreciative" recreation than with "consumptive" recreation 1, and 3)

concern for the environment was more strongly associated with the specific environment where

one's outdoor recreation takes place than for general environmental issues (i.e., concern was site

specific). Utilizing a refined measure of environmental concern (the New Environmental

Paradigm Scale), Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), and Van Liere and Noe (1981) found little

corroboration with Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975) conclusions. In contrast, Jackson (1986)

substantiated their second and third hypotheses, most notably in that recreationists engaged in

appreciative behavior had higher environmental attitudes than those participating in consumptive

activities. Jackson (1986) also concluded that appreciative recreationists possessed stronger

preservation orientations than did consumptive and mechanized recreationists who demonstrated

stronger pro-development orientations. Other researchers have found the hypothesized

association between outdoor recreation participation and pro-environmental attitudes to be weak

or nonexistent (Geisler, Martinson & Wilkening. 1977; Pinhey & Grimes, 1979; Thapa, 2000),



1 "Consumptive activities, typified by hunting and fishing, involve taking something from the environment and thus
reflect a "utilitarian" orientation toward it. In contrast, appreciative activities (e.g., hiking, camping and
photography) involve attempts to enjoy the natural environment without altering it. Such activities are thus
compatible with the "preservationist" orientation which attempts to maintain the environment in its natural state."
(Dunlap & Heffernan, 1975, p19-20).









with these studies concluding environmental concern more a function of individual

characteristics than types and levels of recreational activity.

Similarly, researchers have utilized self-reports to examine whether outdoor recreation

participation leads to various pro-environmental behaviors. Nord, Luloff and Bridger (1998)

found that forest recreation was positively associated with pro-environmental behaviors such as

reducing reliance on lawn chemicals. Similarly, Theodori, Luloff and Willits (1998) found

evidence that participation in outdoor recreation was positively associated with pro-

environmental behaviors such as contributing money or time to an environmental or wildlife

conservation group, attending a public meeting about the environment and others. Specifically,

they found that appreciative-type recreation activities (e.g., hiking and camping) were more

strongly associated with pro-environmental behaviors than were resource-utilization activities

(e.g., hunting and off-road vehicle use). They also reported that participation in fishing was

more strongly associated with pro-environmental behavior than was mountain biking, skiing and

picnicking, possibly due to the involvement in catch and release fishing among those sampled.

Thapa (2000) also found that recreationists engaged in appreciative activities reported greater

participation in several pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling and green purchasing,

than those involved in consumptive activities.

In contrast to pro-environmental behaviors, depreciative behavior within natural resource

settings is important due to its negative impacts upon the sustainability of natural ecosystems

(Cole, Hammond & McCool, 1997). Depreciative behaviors in natural settings may also degrade

visitor experiences (Christensen, Johnson & Brookes, 1992), increase operating and mitigation

costs (Winter, Sagarin, Rhoads & Barrett, 2000) and play a principal role in manatee deaths

when in the form of non-compliant boat speeds (Laist & Shaw, 2006). Much of the depreciative









behavior literature has focused on the effectiveness of various forms and applications of media in

decreasing vandalism and other unwanted behavior in terrestrial parks and built settings, with

some demonstrating reductions in destructive behavior (Cole, et al., 1997; Oliver, Roggenbuck &

Watson, 1985). Other researchers have found combinations of personal and printed

communication are most effective in conveying messages and changing visitor behavior

(Cockrell, Bange & Roggenbuck, 1984; Olson, Bowan & Roth, 1984; Roggenbuck & Berrier,

1982). Although personal communication stands as the preferred method of communication for

some visitors (Knopf & Dustin, 1992; Vander Stoep & Roggenbuck, 1996), costs and logistical

issues often prevent its wholesale use as a means of reducing depreciative behaviors in outdoor

settings.

Efforts to reduce unwanted behaviors in outdoor settings often fail due to poor

understanding of the communication process (Absher & Bright, 2004; Jacobson, 1999;

Manfredo, 1992). Along this line, important shortcomings in efforts to communicate messages

to Florida boat operators have been demonstrated. For example, boaters may prefer better

information about waterway rules and speed zone delineations (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly,

Jacobson & Flamm, 2003; Parker & Wang, 1996; Swett, Fann & DeLaney, 2005), and report a

deficiency in their understanding of rules, laws, regulations, speed zone boundaries and channel

messages (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly et al., 2003; Confer, Holland & Grist, 2003).

Much of the human-element research in recreation has occurred under the guise of

developing informational strategies to influence behavior and philosophical positions (Fishbein

& Manfredo, 1992). Congruent with the need to understand why a person may or may not

engage in particular behaviors, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) model (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) frames behavior as a function of attitudes, subjective norms and









intentions. The TRA has been utilized to explore a variety of natural resource-related behaviors

including citizen voting behavior with respect to a proposed animal trapping amendment

(Manfredo, Fulton & Pierce, 1997), public support for a National Park Service controlled burn

policy (Bright, Fishbein, Manfredo & Bath, 1993), attitudes influencing decisions to engage in

consumptive outdoor recreation activities (Fulton, Manfredo & Lipscomb, 1996), understanding

of outdoor recreation behavior (Young & Kent, 1985), and beliefs, attitudes and behavioral

intentions among Florida boaters (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly et al., 2003). The TRA has

generally been found to be a robust model to explain and predict intentions to perform future

behavior due to its reliance on understanding an individual's beliefs and attitudinal position.

Furthermore, TRA has also been expanded to incorporate past behavior as a predictor of

intentions and future behaviors. Although such research has been utilized in the public health

discipline (, Albarracin, Fishbein, Johnson and Muellerleile, 2001), it is generally lacking in

outdoor recreation and natural resource management research. Given its applicability in outdoor

recreation research, utilization of past behaviors to predict intentions and future behaviors offers

an important opportunity to further examine outdoor recreationists.

Influencing visitor beliefs, attitudes and behavior is important in the management of

natural resource recreation areas; however, simply providing information may result in limited

success (Jett, 2000; Manfredo, 1992). Boater non-compliance in Florida suggests that the current

reliance on on-water signage as the primary strategy of reducing vessel speeds may be somewhat

ineffective. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) emphasize the importance of understanding one's

knowledge and experience to frame issues in which attitudes and behaviors can be effectively

shaped. Boater behavior in manatee conservation zones suggests that a better understanding of

boater attributes is warranted.









Recent research about boater attributes, attitudes and behaviors have established several

interesting associations. For example, based on empirical research conducted among boat

operators in south Florida boat operators, Futerfas, Gladwin and Flamm (2003) found:

1. Boater experience was positively associated with opinions that manatee speed zones
were too strict.

2. Boater experience was negatively associated with agreement with manatee rights.

3. Boaters who were not members of boating organizations, as well as those who had no
exposure to boating publications, were more likely to agree with manatee rights and
to favor stricter boat zone rules.

4. Boaters who had taken a boater education class favored less strict zone rules.

5. Boat length was negatively associated with attitudes toward manatee rights.

Furthermore, boater compliance research has generally found operators of personal

watercraft and other small vessels to be less compliant than operators of larger watercraft

(Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Shapiro, 2001; Tyson & Combs, 1999). Other studies such as

Cottrell's (1993) examination of self-reported boater behaviors established that boat length

(negatively associated), boat type (non motorized less compliant than motorized), years of

boating (negatively associated) and site-specific boating experience (positively associated) were

predictors of environmentally compliant boating behaviors as measured by intent to use

mandatory sewage pumpout stations. Attributes such as vessel size, vessel composition, boater

experience, membership in activity organizations, publication subscriptions and agreement with

and adherence to management rules may be representative of the degree of "specialization" a

recreational boater has attained.

Recreation specialization theory has been examined in a variety of contexts and in a

number of ways since its formal introduction by Bryan (1977) as a means of explaining the

continuum of recreationist behavior and advancement from entry-level beginner to seasoned









expert. Based on his observation of anglers, Bryan's initial proposal on the theory suggested that

one's progression from low to high specialization was, over time, accompanied by an increase in

experience with and commitment to a specific activity, as well as change in behaviors, attitudes

and preferences. More specifically, Bryan discovered an attitude shift from resource (fish)

consumption to preservation, as well as preference for management interventions that favored

healthy native fish populations. Since its formal introduction, recreation specialization theory

has been utilized to assess a wide variety of recreation participants and activities (Scott & Shafer,

2001).

Although recreation specialization theory has been extensively incorporated in empirical

research, there is much debate about the operationalization and analysis of the construct. In

general, the specialization construct has evolved from behavioral measures to multiple-item

indices that comprise behavioral, psychological and cognitive components (Scott & Shafer,

2001). The behavioral domain has focused on familiarity with and investment in an activity,

frequency of participation, number of sites visited and years of experience; whereas, the

psychological (affective) dimension has been utilized to assess how central an activity is to one's

life. The cognitive dimension has focused on participant skill and knowledge (either self-

reported or as indicated by certification or other objective measure). As the construct has been

refined, the psychological domain has been expanded to include an "enduring involvement"

dimension, which includes attraction to an activity, self-affirmation and centrality to lifestyle

(McIntyre & Pigram, 1992).

Despite advancement, evaluation of the specialization construct remains an unresolved

issue. Several researchers have relied on a single, and multiple-item additive index as measures

of specialization (, Donnelly, Vaske & Graefe, 1986; Wellman, Roggenbuck & Smith, 1982;









Virden & Schreyer, 1988), while others have demonstrated that an examination of individual

domains may offer better predictive validity as it avoids the masking effect of a composite index

(Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992; Lee & Scott, 2004; McFarlane, 2004;

McFarlane, Boxall & Watson, 1998; Meyer, 2002; Thapa, Graefe & Meyer, 2006). In summary,

Kuentzel and McDonald (1992) submit that, "a composite index treatment of specialization may

miss much of the explanatory detail available from a separate analysis of multiple underlying

constructs" (p.283).

Researchers have used recreation specialization theory to examine environmental and

conservation attitudes (Dyck, Schneider, Thompson & Virden, 2003; Katz, 1981; Kauffman,

1984; McFarlane, 1994; Meyer, 2002; Mowen, Williams & Graefe, 1997; Thapa, 2000; Virden

& Schreyer, 1988), management preferences (Bricker, 1998) and depreciative behaviors

(Bireline, 2005; Meyer, 2002; Wellman, Roggenbuck & Smith, 1982). Findings support the

general contention that as recreationists proceed through the specialization continuum (from low

to high) they concomitantly report higher levels of general environmental concern (Katz, 1981;

Kaufman, 1984; Mowen et al., 1997), site-specific environmental concern (Mowen et al., 1997)

and support for resource management rules and regulatory procedures (Ditton, Loomis & Choi

1992). Similarly, support for waterway management rules in the form of fishing regulations

have been found among the most specialized anglers (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al.,

2001). Also, a greater reception of and support for management approaches such as harvest

limits designed to mitigate user impacts have been identified (Oh & Ditton, 2006). However,

poor support for access-denial regulations has also been found among anglers, regardless of their

level of specialization (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005).









Despite the fact that depreciative behavior is an increasingly important and expensive issue

in park and natural settings (Cole et al., 1997), rarely has it been examined using recreation

specialization theory. In one of the few studies, Wellman et al. (1982) found a weak relationship

between level of specialization and recreationists' norms of depreciative behavior, although the

findings may have been compromised by methodological concerns and a small sample size.

Similarly, Thapa (2000) found weak relationships between recreation specialization and self-

reported pro-environmental behavior. However, Meyer's (2002) study of self-reported behaviors

among SCUBA divers demonstrated that those who were highly specialized were more likely to

be engaged in environmentally friendly diving behaviors. Contrastingly, Bireline (2005) found

that highly specialized birders reported to be more likely than less specialized birders to rely on

depreciative methods such as "pishing" (a noise made by a birder to attract birds) to facilitate

bird viewing.

Generally, recreation specialization and environmental behavior research has tended to rely

on self-reported rather than investigator-observed behaviors (Bireline, 2005; Cottrell, 1993;

Choi, Loomis & Ditton 1994; Cottrell & Graefe, 1997; Donnelly, Vaske & Graefe, 1986; Meyer,

2002; Nord et al., 1998; Thapa, 2000; Theodori et al., 1998; Sutton & Ditton, 1992). Self-reports

of behavior represent a limitation in specialization research as self-reports may poorly reflect

actual behavior and may bias research results. Overall, there is a paucity of research with respect

to the relationship between recreation specialization and depreciative behaviors. Additionally,

the few studies have all relied on self-reported behaviors.

Statement of Problem

The current tertiary strategy for protecting Florida's West Indian manatee relies on boater

compliance with manatee speed zones. Although speed reduction has been shown to reduce

manatee mortality (Laist & Shaw, 2006), limited research has demonstrated that fewer than 60%









of Florida's boaters typically comply with established speed restrictions ( Gorzelany, 1996,

2001, 2004; Tyson & Combs, 1999). Boater regulation compliance has been shown to vary

according to boater/boat attributes such as boat length, type of vessel, observed activity and

knowledge of the local environment and regulations (Cottrell, 1993; Gorzelany, 2004; Tyson &

Combs, 1999).

Recreation specialization theory posits that as a recreationist becomes more highly

specialized he/she congruently indicates greater support for the rules, norms and regulatory

procedures set forth by resource managers (Ditton et al., 1992). Several angler studies on catch

and release and size limits generally support this proposition (Bryan, 1977; Chipman & Helfrich,

1988; 1982; Salz et al., 2001); however, the hypothesized relationship may deteriorate when

management rules prohibit access (spatially or temporally) to boating activities or resources

(Chipman & Helfirch, 1988; Salz & Loomis, 2005; Salz et al., 2001). Furthermore, the

relationship between specialization and support of boat speed reduction as a marine conservation

strategy remains unknown.

Past research demonstrates inconsistencies in the association between recreation

specialization and pro-environmental behaviors (Bireline, 2005; Meyer, 2002; Thapa, 2000).

Besides Wellman et al.'s (1982) examination of canoeist's norms of depreciative behaviors,

Meyer's (2002) investigation of SCUBA divers and Bireline's (2005) study of birders, little

research has been conducted on recreation specialization and depreciative behaviors, and none

have utilized observational methods. Poor compliance implies that the current information

provided to boaters may be ineffective, boaters may be choosing to ignore the information or that

they are devoid of the skill or knowledge to behave appropriately. Therefore, a better

understanding of boater behavior is warranted.









Purpose of Study

Based on the paucity of research and recommendations from the literature, the purpose of

this study was to examine relationships between observed vessel speeds in manatee conservation

zones, recreation specialization, marine conservation attitudes, self-reported compliance

behavior, speed zone sign assessment, TRA, and vessel and operator attributes (Figures 1-1 and

1-2). More specifically, the research was designed to:

1. Compare reported with observed compliance behavior.

2. Determine how vessel speeds and situational factors were associated.

3. Determine how vessel speeds differed between slow and idle speed zones.

4. Evaluate Theory of Reasoned Action as it related to both in-situ observation and self-
reports of compliance.

5. Reexamine the general hypothesis that a positive association exists between level of
specialization and pro-environmental behavior as demonstrated by observed boat speed in
manatee conservation zones.

6. Assess the associations between level of specialization and boater's marine conservation
attitudes.

7. Assess the association between marine conservation attitudes and observed boat speed.

8. Employ path analysis to determine the predictive validity between recreation
specialization, marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-reported
compliance behavior and observed speed discrepancy.

Research Questions

1. Does boat speed violation ticketing history influence speed .?

2. Does boater speed discrepancy differ between idle and slow speed zones?

3. Does boat party size influence speed discrepancy?

4. Does vessel length influence speed discrepancy?



1 Speed discrepancy defined as observed vessel speed minus the maximum allowable per zone.









5. Does vessel type influence speed discrepancy?

6. Does boater's history with seeing manatees influence speed discrepancy?

7. Does boater's speed zone signage assessment influence speed discrepancy?

8. Does boater's level of recreation specialization influence speed zone signage assessment?

9. Are the relationships between past behavior (observed and self-report) attitudes, norms
and intentions consistent with the TRA model.

Hypotheses

Recreation Specialization

HI: There is a negative association between boater specialization and observed speed
discrepancy.

H2: There is a positive association between boater specialization and self-reported
compliant behavior.

H3: There is a positive association between boater specialization and marine conservation
attitudes.

H4: There is a positive association between boater specialization and intention to
comply with manatee speed zone restrictions.

Self-Reported vs. Observed Compliant Behavior:

H5: There is a negative association between self-reported compliant behavior and observed
speed discrepancy.

Marine Conservation Attitudes:

H6: There is a negative association between marine conservation attitudes and
observed speed discrepancy.

H7: There is a positive association between marine conservation attitudes and intention to
comply with manatee speed zone restrictions.

H8: There is a positive association between marine conservation attitudes and self-reported
compliance behavior.

Behavioral Intentions:

H9: There is a positive association between intention to comply with manatee speed
zone restrictions and self-reported compliance behavior.










H10: There is a negative association between intention to comply with manatee
speed zone restrictions and observed speed discrepancy.

Path Analysis

A path analysis will be employed to determine the predictive validity between recreation

specialization, marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-reported compliance

behavior and observed speed discrepancy (Figure 1-1).


Figure 1-1. Hypothesized conceptual model










































Figure 1-2. Theory of reasoned action (Adapted from Albarracin et al., 2001).









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Motorized Travel and Wildlife Impacts

Terrestrial wildlife

An examination of the negative impact of roads and vehicle traffic on terrestrial animals

serves as a corollary to the manatee-watercraft issue. Roads can be an important factor in the

ecology of an area, especially with respect to animal movement and mortality (Trombulak &

Frissell, 2000). An estimated one million vertebrates are killed on U.S. roads every day (Lowy,

2001) and several approaches have been employed in an effort to reduce the magnitude of the

problem, including structures such as culverts, overpasses, fences, flashing lights and signage,

among others. It is generally thought that signs combined with speed limits and flashing lights

have been successful in reducing collisions, although not as successful as physical deterrents

(Banks, Irwin, Evink, Gray, Hagood, Kinar, Levy, Paulson, Ruediger & Sauvajot, 2002).

Due to the number of threatened and endangered species residing within its borders,

Florida is thought to be a leader in wildlife collision mitigation (Schrag, 2003). In demonstrating

the crucial need for effective mitigation, 44 of the endangered Florida panther (Felis concolor

coryi) have been killed by vehicle collisions since 1972 (FWC, 2001). As a result, wildlife

crossings, fencing and reduced nighttime speed limits were put into place on a particularly

deadly 40-mile stretch of highway, with the result that no further panther impacts occurred.

Although the approach appears to have reduced panther collisions, FWC (2001) notes that it is

impossible to evaluate the impacts of such zones, as it is not known how many deaths would

have resulted absent any intervention. Furthermore, they indicate that panthers have been killed

by very slow moving vehicles (<25 mph), and suggest that "education and enforcement of speed









zones probably only has a temporary effect on reducing speeds and speed itself may not be the

sole determinant of panther roadkills" (p.1).

As the Florida black bear (Ursus americanusfloridanus) is a much more widely dispersed

species than the Florida panther, strategies to reduce mortality from vehicle strikes have faced

considerable challenges. The threatened black bear has suffered substantially from vehicle

traffic, with 84% of bear mortality due to vehicle collisions. However, the large geographic

distribution has precluded wholesale management approaches such as erecting barrier fencing

(FWC, 2006e). Instead, black bear protection has primarily been facilitated by warning signs,

reduced speed zones and the strategic placement of wildlife underpasses. Despite these

interventions, and perhaps due to a variety of factors, bear deaths have steadily risen since 1976

(FWC, 2006e), and although it appears that these strategies have not been particularly effective,

they have not been formally evaluated (Sorice, Flamm & McDonald, 2004).

In Florida, wildlife along a two-mile stretch U.S. Hwy 441 through Paynes Prairie State

Preserve, Alachua County, have suffered high levels of vehicle-induced mortality for 80 years

(Barichivich & Dodd, 2002). In an effort to reduce the large number of deaths, a 1.1 m high

concrete barrier wall was built to guide animals to an animal underpass. Although meant

primarily as a method of funneling small amphibians and reptiles across the highway, it was

discovered that the wall also discouraged mammals from entering the highway and similarly

guided them to the underpass and to safety. Overall, the barrier and culvert system resulted in a

41% reduction in traffic-related wildlife mortality on this particular stretch of highway.

Finally, Florida's Key deer (Ococoileus virginianus clavium) is compromised by vehicle

collisions, which account for approximately 67% of the known deaths of the endangered animal.

Although land ownership along the Highway US 1 corridor confounds the use of fencing and









other physical approaches in most of the habitat, deer grating, underpasses and fencing is utilized

wherever possible (Lopez, Silvy, Owen, Irwin, 2003). To further minimize collisions, strictly

enforced speed reduction zones are in place throughout important Key deer habitat (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 1999). However, as with the Florida black bear, these mitigation strategies

do not appear to have been evaluated since the program was instituted.

Despite considerable effort at reducing wildlife collisions, attempts to modify driver

behaviors with awareness strategies may be marginally successful (Romin & Bissonette, 1996).

The exception to this may be in active awareness strategies in which animals are electronically

detected on the roadside and drivers made aware of collision potential through flashing lights,

etc. (Newhouse, 2003). Due to the general lack of success with this approach, the prevailing

methods of reducing collisions relies on physical designs such, as underpasses, fencing or other

means of segregating wildlife from automobile traffic. Although physical design strategies may

be the preferred approach in terrestrial settings, the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the

water column and often dispersed nature of marine animals such as manatees limit this approach

from being widely utilized in aquatic environments.

Manatees

Manatees are large herbivorous marine mammals of up to three meters in length and

weighing between 360 and 544 kilograms. As a migratory species, manatees tend to concentrate

in the relatively warm waters of Florida in the winter and are found during summer months from

Texas to Virginia, as well as waterways in both Central and northern South America (Save the

Manatee Club, 2006). Manatees occupy a wide variety of habitats including the many shallow,

slow-moving rivers, bays, canals and coastal waters of Florida.

Manatees have enjoyed protection in the state of Florida since 1893 when killing of

manatees was outlawed (FWC, 2005). In 1978, with the acknowledgement that the manatee









population was in precipitous decline, additional sanctuaries and state protections were

constructed in areas where manatees were likely to be encountered or otherwise deemed essential

for the survival of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). Between 1979 and 2005 a

large number of safe havens and boating speed-restricted areas were added to Florida's

waterways (FWC, 2005). The manatee was listed as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered

Species Preservation Act, a precursor to the Endangered Species Act under which it now resides.

At the time of my research, the manatee was downlisted at the state level from endangered to

threatened status.

Under the umbrella of the Federal Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP), the State of Florida

has implemented manatee protection through the use of manatee counts, county protection plans

and boat speed regulatory zones (Reynolds, 1999), though this approach has met numerous

impediments. At the core of the FMRP lies the task of obtaining manatee count data. However,

accurate long-term manatee population viability estimates are difficult to ascertain, with some

scientists (Miller, Ackerman, Lefebvre & Clifton, 1998) suggesting that population surveying

limitations preclude an accurate understanding of population trends altogether.

Both aerial and ground counts are currently the primary source for population trend

estimations. Although much effort has been conducted to understand population dynamics since

the 1970s, scientists have been relatively unsuccessful in developing a useful means of

monitoring population trends in the southeastern United States (O'Shea, 1988; Lefebvre,

Ackerman, Portier & Pollock, 1995). Researchers such as Lefebvre et al. (1995) and Miller et al.

(1998) submit that the many uncontrolled variables related to this method limit their use in

accurate population modeling.









Although current population data suggests that the total number of manatees has risen

since the 1970's (O'Shea 1988, O'Shea & Ackerman, 1995, Runge, Langtimme & Kendall,

2004), data reveals substantial degree of variability between geographically separate

subpopulations (FWC, 2005). A cursory review of the data indicates that 10-year population

growth trend estimates for the Atlantic subpopulation are between -1.2% to 2.0% (95% CI),

although not significantly different from zero (Runge et al., 2004). However, more recent data

(5-year) suggests that the subpopulation may be in decline (95% CI: -6.2% to -.2%) (FWC,

2005). Contrastingly, the Northwest subpopulation (currently the second smallest

subpopulation) has demonstrated growth of between 1.6% 5.6% (95% CI) over the past 10

years (Runge et al., 2004). The largest subpopulation (Southwest Florida) has been found in

general decline over the eight years prior to 2002 (95% CI: -5.4%-2.4%), while the Upper St.

John's River subpopulation has shown generally strong growth over the past 10 years (95%CI:

1.6%-5.6%) (Runge et al., 2004). Although the Upper St. John's River subpopulation numbers

are thought to be on the rise, its relative contribution to the total manatee population is small

(FWC, 2005). According to Deutsch, Ackerman, Pitchford and Rommel (2002), "A gradual

decline in survival over the next half century is conceivable given the high rate of increase

(10.3% per year) in watercraft-related deaths range-wide over the past decade" (p. 10) (Deutsch,

C. J., Ackerman, B.B., Pitchford, T.D., and Rommel, S.A. (2002). Trends in Manatee mortality

in Florida. Manatee Population Ecology and Management Workshop, Gainesville, FL. April 1-4,

2002).

Boating has exacted a considerable toll on the Florida manatee, with 1385 known animals

killed by watercraft since 1974 when carcass salvage began (FWC, 2006b). The annual number

of animals killed by watercraft has increased approximately 5.3% per year from 1986-1992









(Ackerman, Wright, Bonde, Odell & Banowetz, 1995), 6.9% per year from 1993 to 2005 (FWC,

2006b), and current estimates suggest that the percentage of manatee deaths caused by vessel

collisions has remained approximately 24% since record keeping began (FWC, 2006b). As

recreational boats are now designed with greater power and ability to traverse shallow water, it is

reasonable to expect vessel strikes to continue to be an important cause of manatee mortality,

especially given the dramatic increase in vessel numbers in Florida.

Boating in Florida

Proliferation

Current human population trends suggest that nearly 5.5 million people will be added to

Florida's borders in the next 25 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), with many of these new

arrivals living close to coastal or other waterways. Boating in Florida has resulted in both

positive economic and negative environmental impacts across many of the state's waterways

(Leston, 2002), with manatees being one of the most affected.

Recreation boating is one of the essential elements of Florida's aquatic environment with

over one million registered pleasure boats in the state (Florida Department of Highway Safety

and Motor Vehicles, 2006). Furthermore, Floirda ranks as the number one marine recreation

destination in the United States (Leeworth & Wiley, 2001). There currently exists approximately

one registered boat for every 17 Florida residents, and more than 22 million people are either

directly or indirectly involved with boating in the state (Leeworth & Wiley, 2001). With

manatee habitat often coinciding with recreational boating areas, manatee speed zones have been

implemented congruent with manatee habitat and movement patterns, boat traffic, geographic

and habitat conditions, as well as public comment. With so many vessels plying Florida's

waterways, speed zone compliance is deemed important to the long-term survivability of the

manatee (Laist & Shaw, 2006).









Implementation of speed zones as a manatee recovery strategy was first established in

1989 in 13 Florida counties. Boat speed and regulation zones are configured and defined in a

variety of ways including channel-exempt (slow speeds that only apply outside of marked

channels), shoreline speed zones (reduced speeds apply to certain distances from shore) and

channel-inclusive zones (slow speed applies within and outside of marked channels) (FWC,

2006c; Laist & Shaw, 2006). Within each of these zone types, various vessel speed limits are

imposed including idle, slow and specific speed (e.g., 25 mph) (FWC, 2006c), with each

configuration based upon manatee, vessel traffic and habitat variables.

Boater Compliance with Speed Zones

Speed reduction as a strategy within the FMRP is based upon the assumptions that, 1)

slower watercraft create less physical damage to the animal if struck and 2) slow moving

watercraft allow both boater and animal increased time for avoidance maneuvering (Laist &

Shaw, 2006; O'Shea, 1995). Boater compliance within manatee zones is currently enforced

through law enforcement ticketing; however, insufficiently-funded law enforcement efforts and

the absence of a general boater licensing program both serve to reduce the effectiveness of this

approach (FWC, 2005).

Several boater compliance studies performed on Florida's waterways demonstrate that

absence law enforcement, approximately 54 to 63% of boat operators fully comply with speed

zones, 20 to 51% are technically non-compliant (see Table 2-1 for speed categories), and the rest

are blatantly non-compliant (Gorzelany 1996, 2001; Shapiro, 2001). For example, in 1995

Gorzelany (1996) conducted a one-year evaluation of boater compliance in Sarasota County

using a subjective qualitative categorization for various important manatee sites (22,324 vessels

recorded), quantitative radar gun readings (4,881 vessels recorded), qualitative aerial surveys

(1,662 vessels recorded) and qualitative 44-hour sampling to evaluate off-peak hours (3,913









vessels recorded). Surveying was performed on weekend and weekdays during all months of the

year. Chi-square analyses suggested significantly different levels of compliance existed between

sites (p<.0001), although compliance among the three most common types of vessels (fishing,

ski/runabout and yacht/cruiser) were similar and not statistically different. Personal watercraft

and johnboats demonstrated lower levels of compliance than did the other vessel types, with two

of every three personal watercraft sightings evaluated as blatantly non-compliant at one site.

Consistent with this, a distinct trend was noted toward decreasing compliance and boat size.

Boater compliance with respect to weekend versus weekday sampling was significantly related

to site (p<.0001 for all sites combined), and compliance and time of day was significant for all

sites combined (p<.0001). The presence of law enforcement resulted in the highest level of

compliance (74%), and the lowest level of blatantly non-compliant behavior (8%). Finally,

although compromised by the small amount of data collected during nighttime hours, analysis

suggested a significant reduction in boater compliance from 2000-2359 hours and 0000-0359

hours.

To determine if law enforcement presence has a lasting effect, Gorzelany (2001) evaluated

boater compliance before and after a two-week period of law enforcement presence in idle and

25 mph speed zones in Southwest Florida. He used qualitative evaluations of boater compliance

for: 1) four weeks prior to officer presence (pre-treatment), after which 2) officers were then

instructed to actively enforce boat speeds for two weeks (treatment) and then 3) compliance

evaluations continued for another four weeks (post-treatment). Boaters were surveyed during

week and weekend days between 0900 and 1600 hours and at times when speeds did not appear

to be influenced by heavy boat traffic. Physical attributes such as weather, wind speed and

boating conditions were logged within the two sites sampled, with 3,000 boats observed in one









and 2,594 observed in the other. Pre-treatment compliance within the idle speed zone

demonstrated a moderate degree of variability, with 13-21% of all vessels blatantly non-

compliant, 43-51% technically non-compliant and 29-44% compliant. Dramatic differences

were observed during the two-week treatment period, with compliant rates increased to 64-73%,

while technical and blatant non-compliant behavior decreased. By week nine of the post-

treatment period (weeks 7-10), compliance and non-compliance rates had returned to pre-

treatment levels for both weekend and weekday rates. Analysis indicated that compliance levels

were significantly different between pre-treatment weeks (1-4) and weeks 5-8.

Results for the 25 mph zone were similar to those for the idle speed zone: there was 70%

compliance during the treatment period versus 44 to 52% during the pre-treatment period.

Blatant non-compliance ranged from 6 to 12% during pre-treatment and declined to less than 2%

during the treatment period, with analyses demonstrating the halo effect (the lasting influence

boat operator behavior beyond the point and time when enforcement is applied or when an

officer or other law enforcement symbol is observed) that was again present during weeks 7-9.

Gorzelany noted that media coverage and the unexpected additional law enforcement with the 25

mph zone may have influenced boater behavior during weeks 8 and 0, thus confounding the

results.

Gorzelany (2004) summarized his prior evaluations of 26,000 vessels in Sarasota and Lee

counties between 1995 and 1998 and found 63% and 58% compliance respectively (17% and

16% blatantly noncompliant), with compliance varying significantly with vessel type and size.

Gorzelany's summary also revealed a high degree of inter-county compliance variability (40-

71% in Sarasota County; 30-77% in Lee County). It should be noted that although his research

has contributed important insight into compliance behavior, Gorzelany's (1996, 2001, 2004)









reliance on chi-square analyses with large sample sizes may have resulted in a greater number of

statistically significant relationships than might be found with more appropriate analytical

methods such as Analysis of Variance.

Other studies such as Tyson & Combs' (1999) qualitative evaluation of Banana River

(Florida) boaters found similar levels of manatee zone non-compliance (9.2% blatantly non-

compliant and 22.6% technical non-compliance). A qualitative investigation of boaters in

Brevard County b y Tyson (2001) revealed an overall compliance rate of 70.8% in Haulover

Canal (range from 45% to 80.7%), with 26.0% technically non-compliant and 1.0% blatantly

non-compliant, and overall compliance of 67.8% in the Canaveral Barge Canal. As with

previous studies, Tyson (2001) found that compliance varied with vessel length; however,

contrasting others, she found that larger vessels were less compliant than vessels under 25 ft. in

length.

Lending insight into possible factors behind boater non-compliance, Aipanjiguly (2001)

and Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) determined that roughly one third of Florida boaters surveyed in

their study indicated that manatee speed zones were inadequately marked, a point substantiated

by Confer et al.'s (2003) finding that 49% of Timucuan Preserve (Florida) boaters surveyed

strongly disagreed, disagreed, or were neutral in their response to the statement "I can always tell

when I'm in a manatee zone" (p.136). While boater non-compliance can be regarded as

depreciative behavior, the above findings suggest that some may engage in this depreciative

behavior due partly to a lack of awareness of, or an boat speed zone signage or zone delineations.

Shapiro (2001) summarized the state of knowledge with regard to boat zone compliance:

1. Compliance is dependent on vessel type and size, with blatant non-compliance
decreasing with increasing vessel size (a conclusion that contrasts with Tyson,
2001).









2. Seasonal variation in compliance is site-specific.

3. Boat traffic is higher on weekends and during the afternoon, and, at many sites,
compliance is higher on the weekends due in part to higher traffic volumes
equating to a higher likelihood of ticketing by law enforcement.

4. Rental, commercial and vessels registered out of state vessels are more likely to
violate zone speeds.

5. The presence of law enforcement negates the influence of other variables on
compliance. Compliance significantly increases when law enforcement is
present.

6. The residual effect (halo effect) of law enforcement presence on compliance
seems inconclusive.

7. The complexity of the issue dictates that compliance be evaluated on a per site
basis.

Furthermore, Shapiro (2001) states:

"To reduce boat speeds and increase compliance in manatee speed zones, we may be able
to borrow some speed-reducing techniques historically utilized by the police and highway
patrol. These techniques may provide a cost-effective alternative to the very labor-
intensive patrols necessary to produce a time-halo effect, and include the use of feedback
signs, personalized advisory letters, replica patrol cars, roadside speedometers, and highly
integrated education and enforcement programs" (p.10).

Florida Vessel Title Registration System (VTRS)

There is an increasing need to better understand boat attributes and boat mooring and

docking locations within the state of Florida. To this end, the Florida Vessel Title Registration

System (VTRS) has been shown to be an efficient method of obtaining spatially accurate boat

and boater information. The VTRS is a database of registered boats that is continuously updated.

Boat owners in Florida are required to register their boats with the state on an annual basis, and

to affix a Florida registration number decal (at least 3" high letters) to the bow of their boat

(FWC, 2006c). Notable exemptions to this registration requirement include 1) non-motorized

vessels, 2) vessels only operated on private ponds or lakes, 3) U.S. Government-owned vessels,









4) lifeboats for ships and 5) vessels from other states that are temporarily (fewer than 90

consecutive days) using Florida waters (Swett, Sidman, Fik & Sargent, 2004).

Swett et al. (2004) examined the utility of the VTRS to facilitate a spatial inventory of

watercraft based on the mailing addresses of boat owners. They evaluated the accuracy and

reliability of vessel location and attribute information contained in the VTRS by assessing the

congruency between an on-water census of vessels and VTRS records for a variety of waterways

in Lee and Manatee counties. The VTRS captured the highest percentage of the boat population

(80% compared with 60% for the on-water census). Furthermore, a 92% agreement was found

between the boat owner address listed in the VTRS (based upon hull number query) and actual

owner address established by telephone interview. The authors concluded that the VTRS was a

viable method of describing boats locations.

Outdoor Recreation and Association with Environmentalism

Environmental Attitudes / Environmental Behavior

Compliance within manatee speed zones can be considered pro-environmental behavior

and non-compliance, depreciative behavior. Even though widely researched, the general body of

environmental attitude and environmental behavior literature remains varied both in focus and

findings.

Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) were among the first to formally test the hypothesis that

outdoor recreation participation might foster environmental concern. They asked subjects to

indicate frequency of participation in a variety of activities in order to evaluate three hypotheses

related to the association between: 1) outdoor recreation and environmental concern, 2)

appreciative versus consumptive recreation activities and environmental concern and 3) outdoor

recreation and protecting particular outdoor areas necessary for specific activities and outdoor

recreation. Weak support was found for the first hypothesis, modest support for the second and









somewhat stronger support for the third. Recreationists engaged in appreciative activities

demonstrated greater environmental concern than those engaged in consumptive activities; and

subjects indicated more concern for environments in which their activities relied than for general

environmental issues such as water pollution. After controlling for the effects of age, income,

education, residence and gender, the authors concluded that "there is a non-spurious relationship

between involvement in outdoor recreational activities (especially appreciative activities) and

environmental concern" (p.25).

Although groundbreaking, Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975) study was not without

limitations. Their operationalization of environmental concern (eight items total) was

incomplete and focused on issues relating to subjects' concern for pollution (five items) and

commitment towards nature (three items). Also, only one of the three items within the

commitment domain pertained to nature for nature's sake (commitment toward protection of

wildlife and endangered species).

In a study designed to reassess Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975) findings, Geisler et al.

(1977) further refined the measure of recreationists by including a consumptive orientation

(motorized recreation in the form of snowmobiling). Nine measures of environmental awareness

were included: stream, lake, noise and air pollution, trash, erosion, wildlife impoverishment,

overcrowding and people living too close to recreation areas. Strong support was found for

Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975) first hypothesis, weak support for the second, while the third was

not tested. Additionally, they concluded that recreationists were more influenced by individual

characteristics than by their chosen activity. Their study, while important, was limited in its

operationalization of environmental concern by focusing on human-induced problems and

anthropocentric issues rather than nature's inherent value.









Advancing the line of inquiry, Van Liere and Noe (1981) expanded the participation

component of Dunlap and Heffernan's original hypotheses by including average number of hours

and number of days engaged in a particular activity at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Most

importantly though, the authors utilized the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) created by

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The 12-item, 4 point Likert scale NEP expanded the contracted

nature of prior environmental concern instruments by moving beyond an anthropocentric view of

environmental issues (i.e., how environmental issues relate to or impact humans) to that of

general biocentric viewpoints. Nevertheless, Van Liere and Noe's (1981) investigation failed to

support Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975) first hypothesis and demonstrated only moderate support

for the second. The authors concluded that frequency or type of activity disregards crucial

personal factors influencing one's interpretation of a particular recreational experience.

Contrastingly, Jackson's (1986) examination of Canadian residents, with slight

modifications to Van Liere and Noe's (1981) approach, found support for both the second and

third hypotheses. Jackson's methods differed from previous approaches by combining

participation categories into participants and non-participants. He also measured environmental

attitudes with items from the Environmental Attitudes Scale (including items from the NEP), the

Dominant Social Paradigm Scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978), and other items derived from the

environmental literature. Recreation attitudes were measured with the Recreation Attitude Scale

(Knopp & Tyger, 1973), which evaluated one's control of recreation activity as related to

environmental factors and wilderness development. Jackson's results showed that participants

engaged in appreciative recreation such as canoeing, hiking and skiing had higher scores than

fishing and boating participants in both environmental and recreational attitude measures.

Moreover, he found that fishing and boating participants differed little in attitude from those









engaged in snowmobiling, hunting or biking. Due in part to inconsistencies in approach, outdoor

recreation-environmental attitude research has been problematic and inconclusive. The

environmental behavior literature has seemingly faired no better.

Nord et al. (1998) attempted to determine if forest recreation and pro-environmental

behaviors were positively associated by testing Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975) first two

hypotheses and then adding a third, namely, that pro-environmental behavior was positively

associated with appreciative forest recreation. The authors measured environmental concern

with one item (importance of the quality of environment); pro-environmental behavior with

several items (e.g., purchasing behavior influenced by environmental impacts of a product); and

outdoor recreation operationalized by frequency of forest visits as well as types of activities

engaged in. Their findings suggested a positive association between forest recreation and

environmental behaviors (self-reported), although a weak relationship was found between forest

recreation and environmental concern. Nord et al. (1998) concluded, "It is quite possible that

outdoor recreation leads to pro-environmental behavior, even though it does not lead to

environmentalism as measured by attitude" (p.12).

Expanding this line of research, Theodori et al. (1998) assessed the relationship between

outdoor recreation participation and pro-environmental behaviors, with the added dimension of

activity orientation (appreciative to utility, where utility was similar to consumptive). They

evaluated participation by asking respondents to indicate frequency of participation among nine

different outdoor recreation activities. The authors further divided activities into appreciative,

slight utility and moderate to intensive utility categories, while environmental behavior was

evaluated by asking respondents to check (yes/no) whether they had participated in any or all of

seven listed behaviors (e.g., green voting, environmentally friendly consumer behaviors,









engagement in reading environmentally oriented literature). Their findings suggested that self-

reported pro-environmental behaviors were more positively associated with activities on the

appreciative end of the recreation participation scale than with activities on the moderate to

intensively utilitarian end, but only to a point. That is, the significant differences in pro-

environmental behavior between appreciative and consumptive recreationists became

insignificant after controlling for age, gender, education, income and political ideology. Despite

this detail, their results generally supported Dunlap and Heffernan's (1975), Van Liere and Noe's

(1981), and Jackson's (1986) findings that the outdoor recreation-environmental attitude

associations were non-spurious after age, gender, education, income and political ideology were

controlled. Jackson concluded that socio-economic characteristics of individual recreationists

accounted for differences in engagement with pro-environmental behaviors rather than the

activities in which they participated.

Tarrant and Green (1999) similarly examined outdoor recreation and its influence on the

predictive validity of environmental attitudes. More specifically, they examined three

explanations for the generally poor attitude-behavior consistency found within environmental

behavior literature. Their objective was to investigate both the moderating and mediating effects

of different types of outdoor recreation (consumptive, appreciative and motorized) on attitude as

a consistent predictor of behavior. The authors measured general environmental attitudes using

the New Environmental Paradigm scale (12 items), the EC (16 items), the ROPER (9 items), the

AC (9 items) and a version of the FV scale (8 items), with each respondent randomly assigned to

one of the environmental attitude scales. Environmental behavior was assessed using a single

behavioral index created by asking respondents how often, in the past two years, they had

participated in recycling, environmentally friendly purchasing, carpooling, watching









environmental programs and reading environmental literature. Participation in outdoor

recreation was evaluated based upon yes/no responses to having participated in various

recreation activities in the past 12 months. Participation was categorized as appreciative (e.g.,

birdwatching and hiking) and consumptive (e.g., hunting and motorboating) behaviors. Results

suggested that moderating effects were weak or non-existent, although poor internal reliability

measures may have compromised the results. Contrastingly, participation in appreciative

outdoor recreation was shown to mediate the environmental attitude-environmental behavior

relationship, though participation in motorized and/or consumptive recreational activities did not.

Although the results offer important insight into the relatively poor attitude-behavior consistency

found within the environmental behavior literature, the study may have been compromised by a

relatively low telephone survey response rate and no examination of non-response bias was

provided. Despite the limitations, the findings suggest that participation in appreciative forms of

outdoor recreation may act as a mediator of the attitude-behavior relationship, therefore

improving the predictive ability of environmental behaviors.

In reexamining the effect of appreciative, consumptive and motorized forest recreation on

environmental attitudes and behaviors, Thapa (2000) found that participation orientation

(appreciative, consumptive and motorized) acted as a mediating effect on certain pro-

environmental consumer behaviors as assessed by self-reports. The author treated both

environmental attitudes and behaviors as multidimensional constructs (ecocentric, dualcentric

and technocentric), and measured outdoor recreation participation using the most important

activity reported from a list of activities rather than generic participation. Similar to prior

research, Thapa found that forest recreationists who engaged in appreciative activities

demonstrated stronger pro-environmental orientations than did those engaged in consumptive or









motorized activities. By utilizing factor analysis, the author extended the literature by dividing

environmental behavior into five separate dimensions (political activism, recycling, educational,

green consumerism and community activism) and demonstrating that behavioral indices were

influenced by activity orientation (e.g., those involved in consumptive activities were more likely

to participate in political activities than those engaged in appreciative activities).

Aside from the outdoor recreation literature, the body of research regarding general pro-

environmental behavior is varied and mostly beyond the scope of this review. However, a

cursory review of the types of inquiries that have been conducted lends insight into the myriad

lines of research.

Much of the environmental behavior research has focused on personality and demographic

characteristics of those reporting pro-environmental behavior. Contrasting, Geller's (1981)

findings that citizen education on specific behaviors to reduce one's ecological footprint did not

lead to energy conservation or other pro-environmental behaviors, Hines et al. (1986) concluded

that education level and pro-environmental behaviors were positively associated. Similarly,

Cottrell (1993) and Cottrell and Graefe (1997) found that environmental knowledge was a

predictor of pro-environmental boater behavior such as using sewage pumpout stations.

Additionally, in a reevaluation of his 1993 study, Cottrell (2003) concluded that income and age

were negative predictors of self-reported environmentally responsible concern (attitudes) as

measure by the New Environmental Paradigm scale. In his study, verbal commitment

(intentions) variables explained roughly 24% of the variability in self-reported responsible

environmental behavior (operationalized based on 10 questions evaluating the extent respondents

would go to protect the environment). His results also demonstrated that the predictive ability of

verbal commitment increased when sociodemographic variables were added to the regression









model. Finally, self-reported environmental knowledge (4 self-assessment items regarding

knowledge of water pollution, raw sewage, local environmental issues and knowledge of

ecology) were also found to be significant predictors of self-reported responsible environmental

behavior.

Exemplifying environmental attitude-behavior association research, Tarrant and Cordell

(1997) examined self-reports of general environmental behavior and their associations with five

environmental concern scales. Based on Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) assertion that attitudes are

beliefs about a particular object that predispose a person to behaving in a consistent way toward

that object, their research employed an 11-item self-reported behavior index that asked

respondents to indicate their agreement with participating in specific behaviors such as recycling,

carpooling and others. Of the five established environmental scales that were examined, the

New Environmental Paradigm (measuring broad-based beliefs regarding the spaceship earth

metaphor) and Awareness of Consequence scales were most strongly associated with general

environmental behavior. Though compromised by a somewhat low response rate (44%) their

research demonstrated that associations between general environmental behaviors and attitudes

decreased as income increased, education decreased and one became more politically

conservative.

Perhaps the most robust body of literature along this line of inquiry stems from the general

examination of cognitive, psychological and social variables associated with environmental

behavior. Studies within this realm have included costs and benefits (real and perceived) of

performing various behaviors (De Young, 1990); the knowledge required and/or difficulty in

performing behaviors (De Young, 1989); barriers and inconveniences to environmentally

friendly actions (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993); attitudes toward behaviors (e.g. Hines et al., 1986);









relationships between awareness of impacts and pro-environmental behaviors (Shultz & Zeleny,

1998); and sense of place and various behaviors (Cantrill, 1998; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001).

Of primary focus within the attitude-behavior debate is whether or not attitudes influence

overt behavior (Manfredo, Fulton & Pierce, 1997). Manfredo, et al. (1997) suggested that the

generally weak attitude-behavior associations found in research conducted during the 1960s and

1970s served to fuel the debate among psychologists as to the utility of the attitude model. The

authors also stated that contemporary advancements in theory and methodology served to

improve predictions of behavior based on attitudes, and that the relationship had been further

accepted.

Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings

Natural resource managers spend millions of dollars each year attempting to persuade

visitors to minimize impacts on the social and/or physical environment and otherwise follow

rules set forth by managing agencies. Researchers have devised a host of direct and indirect

management techniques to reduce unwanted visitor behaviors. Indirect techniques such as,

communication designed to educate, persuade and otherwise change behaviors have generally

been preferred in park settings (Hendee & Dawson, 2002; Manning, 1999; Roggenbuck, 1992).

Indirect techniques are considered to be most cost-effective, most likely to result in enduring

visitor behavior changes and consistent with the freedom tenet of outdoor recreation (Clark,

Hendee & Burgess, 1972). However, sanctions or punitive approaches are also relied upon when

unwanted behavior is especially costly. Regardless of the approach used to reduce or otherwise

control unwanted behaviors in outdoor settings, depreciative behavior remains a persistent issue

among managers.

Depreciative behavior (anti-environmental behavior) is generally understood as an act or

action that negatively impacts the social or physical environment (Clark et al. 1972), as









contrasted with vandalism, which is a willful act of damage to some facet of the environment

(Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995). Depreciative behavior within natural resource settings is

important due to its negative effects on the sustainability of natural ecosystems (Cole et al.,

1997), degraded visitor experiences (Christensen, Johnson & Brookes, 1992) and resulting

mitigation costs (Winter, Sagarin, Rhoads, Barrett & Cialdini, 2000).

Researchers have examined depreciative behavior since Clark et al.'s (1972) application of

social science theory (in the form of stimulus-reward and norm manipulation) as a means to

reduce specific park visitor behaviors such as littering. Since then, researchers have investigated

a range of issues relating to depreciative behavior, with most examinations focused on methods

of alleviating unwanted behavior.

Gramman and Vander Stoep (1987) were the first to put forward a taxonomy of

depreciative behavior, which offered theoretical insight into indirect management techniques for

reducing unwanted visitor actions. According to their taxonomy, unintentional violations occur

from a lack of knowledge or understanding of appropriate behavior, and may be the most

common and most easily remedied cause of unwanted behavior. The second type of normative

violation, releaser-cue, is derived from the field of ecological psychology and suggests that

environmental cues in the form of others' activities or social attributes can invite unwanted

behaviors. Third, uninformed violations occur when visitors are unaware that their behaviors

cause damage or other negative social or environmental impacts. The fourth type of violation,

responsibility-denial, occurs when an actor employees a defense mechanism to reduce cognitive

dissonance such as might occur when a rule is deemed unreasonable or impossible to abide by.

The fifth violation type, Status confirming, occur when individuals identify strongly with a group

displaying deviant behavior, or otherwise utilize deviant behavior to confirm their group status.









The last and most difficult from a managerial perspective, willful violations, are those committed

by individuals as a means of"financial gain, ideological protest, malice, revenge, or the desire to

inspire fear or respect in observers" (p.73).

Since its introduction, Gramann and Vander Stoep's taxonomy has gained wide acceptance

within the park and recreation field. Another classification system put forth by Hendee, Stankey

and Lucas (1990), which focuses less on depreciative behavior and vandalism and more on

general resource impacts, has met similar acceptance. Hendee et al. (1990) distilled the spectrum

of undesirable visitor actions into: illegal, careless, unskilled, uninformed and unavoidable and

as such, is similar in approach to Gramann and Vander Stoep's taxonomy.

Since the introduction of both taxonomies, resource managers and researchers have shifted

somewhat from the visitor as perpetrator of depreciative behavior, to the role played in the

facilitation of depreciative behavior by poor site design, environmental factors and site upkeep

(Knopf & Dustin, 1992; Vande Kamp, Johnson & Swearingen, 1994). In their review of the

depreciative behavior literature, Knopf and Andereck (2004) present the following overarching

interventions as a means of minimizing the expression of unwanted behavior (pp. 308-311):

1. Focus on the causes of depreciative behavior rather than the perpetrator.
2. Eliminate environmental cues.
3. Manage social norms by modeling or otherwise fostering desired norms.
4. Effectively communicate rules and regulations.
5. Provide insight and information into the consequences of unwanted behavior.
6. Provide reasonable options to unwanted behaviors.
7. Utilize positive rather than negative overtones.
8. Utilize personal rather than impersonal communication whenever possible.
9. Transmit messages as close, temporally and spatially, to the unwanted behavior.
10. Utilize uniformed personnel at high risk or highly valuable areas.
11. Institute appropriate reward system.
12. Utilize direct coercion only as a last resort.

Both taxonomies of depreciative violations and the list of overarching interventional

principles (above) provide insight into non-compliant behavior in natural resource settings,









especially pertaining to the importance of clear messaging. Much of the depreciative behavior

literature has focused on the effectiveness of alleviating vandalism and other unwanted behavior

in terrestrial parks and built settings by employing various forms and applications of media

(mostly print), with some demonstrating notable reductions in depreciative behavior.

Oliver, Roggenbuck and Watson (1985) determined that littering and tree damage were

reduced substantially by visitor brochures containing messages and sketches abut these unwanted

behaviors and their associated impacts and costs. The application of their treatment resulted in a

15% reduction in the number of camping groups that littered and a 19% reduction in the number

of groups who damaged one or more trees.

Vander Stoep and Gramann's (1987) test of message effectiveness (personally delivered

messages) relied on three message types: awareness of consequences; awareness of

consequences plus resource protector; and awareness of consequences plus resource protector

plus incentive. Resource protection involved telling subjects they were important in the overall

operation and protection of the onsite assets, whereas incentives were comprised of group

awards. They found that even basic interpretive messaging resulted in a reduction of child-

induced vandalism to cannons, statues and monuments within the Shiloh National Military Park,

and that the three message methodologies did not differ in their results (all achieved nearly 88%

reduction in depreciative behavior).

By integrating an awareness of consequences component into their examination of

recreationist behavior, Gramann, Bonifield and Kim (1995) found that visitors were significantly

impacted when messaging included both a rationale for established rules and an explanation of

the consequences to the physical or social environment when rules were not followed. They

specifically found that those visitors exposed to the awareness of consequences message were









significantly more likely to indicate an intention to obey the rules than those not receiving the

message.

Widner and Roggenbuck (2000) conducted an experiment designed to test the

effectiveness of three different interventions on reducing theft of petrified wood at the Petrified

Forest National Park. They found no difference in effectiveness among a signed pledge from

visitors, presence of an onsite park ranger and an interpretive sign placed at the trailhead. They

found that the interpretive sign was just as effective at reducing the amount of petrified wood

removal as the onsite ranger, but at a much-reduced cost. Importantly, the authors attribute their

results to a well-designed, well-written interpretive sign that that simply sate that "Removal of

petrified wood is prohibited." This research was eventually extended by Cialdini, Demain,

Sagarin, Barrett, Rhoads and Winter (2006) who examined message typologies with regard to

their effectiveness at reducing removal of researcher-placed faux petrified wood. They found

that a negatively worded injunctive message "Please don't remove the petrified wood from the

park" accompanied by a picture of someone stealing wood from the park produced greater

success than did a descriptive normative message "Many past visitors have removed the petrified

wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest" along with a picture of three

visitors taking wood.

In a similar study, Duncan and Martin (2002) exposed 237 participants to a series of slides

depicting an outdoor hiking experience intermixed with slides of sanction messages (e.g.,

mention of fines for campfires) and interpretive messages (e.g., paragraph how firewood

collection robs trees of nutrients), as well as a control set of slides containing no message.

Subjects were then administered a questionnaire in which they were given four different yet

likely hiking scenarios: firewood collection, human waste disposal, cultural artifact removal and









food scrap disposal. After slide exposure, each respondent was then asked their likelihood of

performing the desirable behavior with respect to each scenario. They found interpretive

messaging to be just as effective as sanction messaging overall and more effective than sanction

messaging with respect to the firewood collection scenario.

Adherence to boating rules has also been assessed as related to interpretive intervention.

Utilizing posters, signs, decals, newspaper articles and localized radio broadcasts pertaining to

boater safety, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees were able to increase boater compliance

on Detroit Lake. As a result of their interpretive efforts, boater compliance with water safety

markers increased, and boats intruding into marked danger zones decreased (both 53%).

Additionally, water skiing violations dropped 77%, with posters and signs having the greatest

overall effect on increasing compliance (Fritschen, 1984 as cited by Knudson et al., 1995).

Exemplifying yet another line of research, Gorzelany (2004) evaluated boater compliance

with manatee speed zones on several Florida waterways and found that on-water law

enforcement presence had significant impact on boater compliance. In Sarasota County he found

a statistically significant 13% increase in overall boater compliance and a 10% decrease in

blatantly noncompliant boater performance. He found a 10% increase in overall compliance and

a 6% decrease in blatant noncompliance in Lee County. Other such traffic related studies have

focused on automobile travel, and results suggest that the presence of law enforcement on roads

and highways substantially increases speed compliance (Edwards & Brackett, 1978; Graham,

1992; Leggett, 1996).

The breadth and depth of inquiry into depreciative behavior is impressive, and although

approaches, results and opinions vary, several common themes have emerged. Swearingen and

Johnson (1995) suggest that simple and well designed communication of agency rules,









regulations and desired behaviors can be effective in curbing all but the most malicious

depreciative behavior, a position substantiated by several studies. Researchers have found that

providing visitors with information about the impacts and costs associated with behaviors

(Gramann et al. 1995; Oliver et al., 1985; Vander Stoep & Gramann, 1987; Widner &

Roggenbuck, 2000) and rationale behind rules and regulations (Duncan & Martin, 2002;

Gramann et al. 1995) is similarly effective in reducing unwanted behaviors. Other lines of

examination of have focused on message typology and suggest that strongly injunctive messages

may be more effective than descriptive messages (Cialdini et al., 2006), while others have found

sanction messaging to be no more effective than interpretive messaging (Duncan & Martin,

2002). In general, emphasis within recent literature seems to have shifted from the visitor as

perpetrator of depreciative behavior to poor site upkeep and design as factors facilitating

unwanted behaviors (Knopf & Andereck, 2004; Knopf & Dustin, 1992; Vande Kamp et al.,

1994).

Personal communication is favored by some for its efficacy in delivering messages most

likely to result in positive attitudinal or behavioral change (Knopf and Dustin, Oliver et al. 1985;

Vander Stoep & Roggenbuck, 1996). However, despite the fact that personal communication

may be favored, high costs and logistical issues prevent the wide-scale use of personal

communication as a means of educating visitors and reducing depreciative behaviors in most

settings.

Given the constraints associated with personal communication, the most common approach

to educating visitors has been to simply provide some kind of information to them, usually in

print form. Many of the depreciative acts perpetrated by visitors may be a result of insufficient

knowledge, lack of skill or carelessness in their natural resource recreation pursuits (Knopf &









Dustin, 1992). Research has shown that providing information that demonstrates the linkage

between depreciative behavior and its impact is often sufficient to reduce the incidence of the

behavior (Gramann & Vander Stoep, 1987; Oliver et al., 1985). However, the approach also

may result in limited success. For example, although much money, time and effort has been

spent to educate, inform and otherwise convince Florida boaters to abide by manatee speed

zones, results have been disappointing (Flamm, pers. comm., 2005). Similarly, Jett (2000) found

that despite a substantial regional and local campaign to educate river floaters about the Illinois

River basin (Oklahoma), few floaters displayed more knowledge than would have been expected

by chance.

Boating-related studies in Florida have demonstrated that boaters desire increased

education and better information about boater and waterway rules and speed zone delineations

(Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly et al. 2003; Swett et al., 2005). Boaters congruently indicate a

limited understanding of waterway rules, laws, regulations and speed zone boundaries and

channel signage messaging (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly et al., 2003; Confer et al., 2003;

Futerfas, 2003). These points are particularly salient when considered in relation to depreciative

behavior literature suggesting that many unwanted behaviors can be eliminated by educating

visitors to the rules of the area (Gramann & Vander Stoep, 1987; Oliver et al., 1985; Swearing &

Johnson, 1995).

Failed attempts to educate visitors might be due, in part, to a poor understanding of the

communication process and the art of persuasion (Absher & Bright, 2004). Consistent with the

need for effective communication, three general models of persuasion have emerged in visitor

communication studies: 1) central route, 2) peripheral routes to persuasion (Roggenbuck, 1992;

Vande Kamp et al.1994) and 3) applied behavioral analysis (Manfredo, 1992). Effective visitor









management and/or educational strategies rely on one or more of the three general persuasion

models to facilitate behavior change (Manfredo, 1992). Each model relies upon a slightly

different mechanism and possesses a different level of complexity and receiver engagement.

Routes to Persuasion

Applied behavioral analysis utilizes environmental prompting, manipulation of the

environment and rewarding or punishing of behaviors (Geller, 1987). The applied behavioral

analysis approach is a relatively simple method of changing behavior by directly addressing

problems rather than influencing attitudes, beliefs or values (Manfredo, 1992). Although the

approach fails to address the "why" of a particular behavior, it is considered relatively effective

in dealing immediately with unwanted behavior as it requires little or no understanding of the

perpetrator.

Ham and Krumpe (1996) suggest that messages designed by resource managers often fail

because they do not account for the beliefs of intended receivers and how they influence

behavior. The field of social psychology provides insight into peripheral and central routes of

persuasion, and the specific attributes and efficacy of each. The Elaboration Likelihood Model

(ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), which formalizes this research, has been utilized to examine

factors that cause individuals to carefully consider a message (i.e., elaboration), and whether a

particular message results in attitudinal and/or behavioral change.

According to the ELM model, the central route to persuasion relies upon a receiver's

experience and knowledge acting to facilitate attention to and consideration of issue-relevant

messaging. The model suggests that when a message is internalized and evaluated positively it

will result in enduring attitude and/or behavioral changes. A generally strong relationship

between a visitor's response to persuasive messages and their prior experience and knowledge









has tended to bear this out (Manfredo & Bright, 1991). An understanding of visitor experience

and knowledge is key to effective messaging via the central route to persuasion.

Contrastingly, the peripheral route to persuasion relies on source credibility, message

attributes and cues rather than the message itself as a means of facilitating attitude and

behavioral change, and is considered less enduring than the central route (Petty, McMichael &

Brannon 1992). Despite being considered inferior for producing long-term behavioral changes,

it is nevertheless commonly relied upon by resource managers (Reid & Marion, 2006). This

approach often employs a well-known authority or spokesperson (perhaps a celebrity) conveying

a simple message to visitors needing constant reinforcement to perform a certain way (Petty et

al., 1992). Like applied behavioral analysis, behavior change facilitated by the peripheral route

requires little insight into the visitor, nor is advanced knowledge of a particular issue required of

the visitor. Importantly, although highly experienced recreationists tend to demonstrate

predictable behavior, they may be more difficult to influence than those who are less experienced

(Krumpe & Brown, 1982; Manfredo & Bright, 1991; Roggenbuck & Berrier, 1982). That is,

attitudes and behaviors of those most experienced may be substantially influenced by a selective

processing of informational inputs, which tend to reinforce their personal attitudes and beliefs

(Vincent & Fazio, 1992).

Predictors of Behavior

Other theories have also been tested to better understand behavioral predictors. The

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and its successor the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

provide insight into visitor behavior as a function of the relationships among behavior, attitudes,

beliefs, intentions and social norms (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). TPB differs from TRA in that it

adds a volitional control factor, an actor's belief that he/she has control over behavior. TRA and

TPB marked an important turning point in attitude theory, with focus now on the strength of









associations between attitudes and behaviors, rather than a questioning of whether the

association existed (Manfredo, Teel & Bright, 2004).

TRA has been used to predict and understand why people have engaged or not engaged in

a wide variety of behaviors. In short, the theory assumes that individuals are rational, process

available information and consider the implications of their actions prior to engaging in a

particular behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The theory states that beliefs produce either a

favorable or unfavorable attitude toward a particular behavior, and social conditions produce

perceived social pressure to engage or not engage in a behavior (subjective norm). These two

components combined lead to behavioral intention that is strengthened by favorable attitudes,

and social pressure in the form of subjective norms (Ajzen, 1988; Fishbein & Manfredo, 1992).

Within the literature, attitude has most often been measured by differential scales (e.g., it would

be: good-bad; healthy-unhealthy to perform this behavior), whereas subjective norm have been

measured by agreement with such statements as "those who are (important; near) me think I

should perform this behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980). As intentions are thought to be the best

predictors of behaviors, the TRA requires that managers wanting to change or reinforce certain

intentions must modify or reinforce visitor attitudes toward performing a particular behavior as

well as change or otherwise control the normative pressure to perform that particular behavior

(Fishbein & Manfredo, 1992).

TRA has generally been shown to be robust in its ability to predict or otherwise explain

behavior vis-a'-vis intentions. For example, Bright et al. (1993) successfully used TRA to model

behavioral change resulting from public perceptions of a National Park Service controlled bum

policy. They administered "belief-targeted messages" (p.271) (e.g., controlled burns: improve

conditions for wildlife, destroy natural settings, allows natural events to occur, affect private









property, etc.) to park visitors with diverse attitudinal positions and determined if the changes in

attitudes and intentions resulted. They found that a change in intention to support a controlled

burn policy was predicted by the level of attitude change and subjective norms.

In their study of citizen acceptance of forest fuel management techniques (prescribed

burning, mechanical fuel reduction and defensible space ordinances), Vogt, Winter and Fried

(2005) found similar success with a modified TRA model that excluded subjective norms as a

way of demonstrating the attitude-intention association. They surveyed citizens in several states

who lived at urban-wilderness interface and assessed their belief outcomes for various

management techniques (e.g., impacts scenery, extracts usable wood products, creates more

smoke in the short-term but less smoke over time, etc.). Measurements were made of negative or

positive attitudes and approval intentions regarding implementation of the various management

techniques. Additional variables outside the TRA model were measured including personal

experience with various fuel management practices and measurement of personal importance

each person attributed to each type of practice. The authors found that citizens with positive

beliefs toward the use of various fuel management methods also tended to have positive attitudes

toward their use. For example, homeowners who were most certain that management technique

such as prescribed fires could be controlled (beliefs) had more positive attitudes toward

prescribed fires. Additionally, while personal importance was a significant predictor of

acceptance of various management methodologies, past experience with a particular fuel

management technique was not.

Fulton, Skerl, Shank and Lime's (2004) examination of attitudes and beliefs about killing

as a means of deer management utilized a mail survey of Ohio residents designed to evaluate

attitudes toward, 1) no action and 2) reduction of deer population by lethal control. Attitudes









were assessed by respondents' agreement with each of the two methods of deer management. By

examining public comment documents, the authors developed 10 belief items regarding the

outcome of lethal deer control and included agreement with items such as taking no action (or

taking action) would: reduce the risk of deer-car collisions; reduce damage from deer to shrubs,

crops and gardens; decrease opportunities of seeing deer, etc. As with the prior study, subjective

norms were not measured. Their results demonstrated that the differences in the acceptability of

either lethal control or no action were strongly related to beliefs about the outcome of each

strategy, thereby lending support for the TRA. The authors concluded by suggesting that as

attitudes were associated with multiple beliefs, any communication strategy designed to change

attitudes would necessarily require a focus on changing multiple beliefs.

Providing insight into motorized vehicle operation, TRA has been utilized to investigate

driving behavior in terms of drinking and driving, tailgating, dangerous overtake and speeding.

Parker, Manstead, Stradling, Reason and Baxter (1992) asked respondents to indicate intention to

engage in various scenarios involving driving a car (by oneself or with passengers) and at

different times of day with respect to the aforementioned violations to evaluate, 1) whether the

attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control (testing the TPB) predictor variables

were stable across different scenarios and 2) whether the presence or absence of passengers

increased the predictive ability of the model via the subjective norm. Lists of six positive and

negative behavioral beliefs regarding the various violations were compiled for the study, and

respondents asked to rate each (in terms of likely-unlikely and good-bad). Normative beliefs

were measured with six items regarding how likely-unlikely it was that each of several referents

would approve of the driving behavior as indicated in the various scenarios, and motivation to

comply was measure by agreement with generally liking to drive in a way in which a referent









would approve. Additionally, intention to behave was ascertained by asking the respondent how

likely-unlikely it was that they would engage in the violation as presented in each scenario.

Analysis revealed that the subjective norm and attitudes toward speeding behavior accounted for

33% of the variability in intention to speed, and as the authors included control belief into the

model, this improved the explained variance by 14.5%. In summary, attitude and subjective

norm measures were significant predictors in the intention to perform non-compliant behaviors

as presented in each scenario, as were control beliefs and age and sex variables. Perceived

expectations of others as presented in each scenario and assessment of the ease in avoiding the

non-compliant behaviors were important in their influence on intentions.

Finally, Aipanjiguly (2000) and Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) employed the TRA to investigate

the relationships between boater attitudes toward speed zones, intentions to follow speed zones

and subjective norms in Tampa Bay, Florida. Telephone interviews were administered to boaters

with five-point Likert scale questions designed to evaluate 1) behavioral beliefs (for example, a

boater's belief that ignoring speed restrictions facilitated reaching their destination more

quickly); 2) boater attitudes with respect to statements about various behavioral actions such as

"disregarding speed zones is...very good to very bad"; 3) subjective norms, ascertained through

agreement with statements such as "most people who are important to me think that I should

follow manatee speed zones"; and 4) behavioral intentions, such as "I intend to follow speed

zones set forth for manatee protection" (Aipanjiguly et al., 2003, p. 1100). Results suggested that

behavioral beliefs toward disregarding speed zones were poorly correlated with attitudes toward

disregarding speed zones, while attitudes toward disregarding speed zones were significantly

correlated with intentions to comply (r=.32, p<.001). Moreover, normative beliefs toward

following speed zones were significantly correlated with subjective norms toward following









speed zones (r=.45, p<.001), and that subjective norms toward following speed zones and

behavioral intentions were significantly correlated (r=.70, p<.001). Normative pressures

therefore exerted the strongest influence on intention to follow speed zones, with motivation to

comply with law enforcement shown to be higher than motivation to comply with family, friends

or other boaters.

Recreation Specialization

The protection of outdoor recreation area resources has become a persistent contemporary

issue among resource managers. Successful efforts of reducing unwanted behavior and the

fostering of appropriate modes of visitation often depend on strategic education and messaging

based upon unique insight into visitor attributes and orientations (Jacobson, 1999). Recreation

specialization has been examined in a variety of ways to better understand visitors and as a

means of improving natural resource management (Table 2-2).

Recreation specialization was first introduced by Bryan (1977) to explain the continuum

of behaviors from general to specific, with one's specialization level reflected in his/her skills,

equipment and setting preferences. Bryan's seminal study was prompted by his participation in

fly-fishing, and his subsequent observation of other fly fishermen. His formal examination of the

nascent theory was conducted by interviewing and observing other anglers in Montana, Idaho

and Wyoming, and was intended primarily as a means by which intra-group (fly fishermen)

diversity could be explored.

Bryan (1977) assessed fishermen ideologies, values, attitudes and beliefs by asking

questions concerning: "1) Fishing preferences, 2) orientation toward the stream resource, 3)

history of interest and activity in the sport and 4) relationship of the leisure activity to other areas

of life (family, career, other leisure activities)" (p. 177). Supplementary data was also collected









as convenient and mostly based upon informal discussions. His analyses led him to propose four

types of fly fishermen (p.177):

1. Occasional Fishermen those who fish infrequently because they are new to the activity
and have not established it as a regular part of their leisure, or because it simply has not
become a major interest.

2. Generalists fishermen who have established the sport as a regular leisure activity and
use a variety of techniques.

3. Technique Specialists anglers who specialize in a particular method, largely to the
exclusion of other techniques.

4. Technique-Setting Specialists highly committed anglers who specialize in method and
have distinct preferences for specific water types on which to practice the activity.

Among his findings, Bryan (1977) noted that occasional fishermen had less particular

equipment preferences than did generalists or specialists and that those most specialized typically

relied on fewer but more expensive pieces of equipment. Occasional and generalist anglers also

emphasized the quantity of fish caught whereas specialists emphasized fish size and setting

attributes of the activity. Setting preferences also change along the continuum, with occasional

fishermen preferring easy access (lake or stream), with specialists preferring spring-fed streams

and whose fishing enjoyment was strongly associated with the setting. Bryan also noted that

occasional and generalist anglers preferred an active stocking policy among management, with

specialists indicating more interest in habitat management as a means of improving wild fish

populations. Specialists were found to travel longer distances to access fishing resources than

occasional or generalist fishermen, and were also more likely to take extended vacations.

Since Bryan's (1977) groundbreaking work, recreation specialization has been utilized to

explore a wide range of activities and recreationists (Table 2-1). Since then the construct has

been operationalized a number of different ways, with most defining specialization in terms of

behavior, attitudes, or a combination of the two. An examination of norms of depreciative









behaviors by Wellman et al. (1982) was perhaps the first to measure the construct by creating an

additive index from behavioral and attitudinal domains (measured by assessing respondent "river

canoeing experience, equipment ownership, linkage to other canoeists through organizations,

books, or periodicals, participation in canoe or kayaking building and formal canoeing

instruction, 1979 expenditures, and a series of self-descriptions of the role of canoeing in the

person's life" (p.327)). The study evaluated canoeists' perceptions of various depreciative

behaviors by first compiling a list of depreciative canoeing behaviors (including personal safety,

personal property, equipment related safety, damage to environment, drug and alcohol use, safety

toward others and other issues) and then asking canoeists their opinions of the severity of the

actions. The authors created an index of specialization by adding the standardized scores for all

variables and specialization level grouped into high and low. Results demonstrated that

specialization level had little effect on attitudes toward the seriousness of the depreciative

behaviors listed. Lending possible explanations to the findings, the authors noted that canoeing

may not have had sufficient time to for the activity to have developed a code of proper behavior

among its participants.

While Wellman et al. (1982) utilized past experience as one domain toward the creation

of the specialization index, others have opted to expand experience in an effort to capture its

broader elements. The Experience Use History (EUH) represented an evolution toward a more

sophisticated accounting of the intensity of behavioral involvement with one's activity. The

EUH, as compiled by Schreyer and Lime (1984), included three variables to produce a composite

index: 1) number of times respondents had floated rivers, 2) number of rivers one had floated

and 3) total number of river trips one had made. Employing this methodology, the authors

categorized river floaters as residing along the novice-beginner-local-collector-visitor-veteran









experience continuum. Other researchers have expanded the EUH concept to include a more

robust evaluation of experience based upon cognitive (skill, knowledge and understanding and

preference for setting attributes) and behavioral (experience with chosen activity and frequency

of participation) dimensions in which the activity occurs (McIntyre & Pigram, 1992). In this

regard, the EUH integrates the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of experience while ignoring

the affective psychological dimensions of participation in a recreation activity (McIntyre, 1989;

McIntyre & Pigram, 1992).

McIntyre (1989) was perhaps the first to formally examine the affective component of

specialization with a study on campsite choice. Representing the personal meaning of an

activity, "Enduring Involvement" (EI) was demonstrated by three dimensions: centrality, self-

expression and attraction to the activity. In his study, McIntyre concluded that the centrality

dimension of El was the most important in determining campsite location choice among

campers, and that high centrality scores were associated with campsite choices requiring high

levels of self-reliance. The author also concluded that attraction, although probably important in

the evolution toward higher levels of specialization, may not increase in tandem with higher

levels of involvement, and that the self expression domain may be most important for activities

which are highly individualistic such as rock climbing.

Specialization theory was further advanced with McIntyre and Pigram's (1992) proposed

model of specialization that included both behavioral and affective dimensions (EI). Their

model relied on the computation of a specialization index (termed recreation involvement) from

the behavioral components (years involved in an activity and number of times visited the site)

and multidimensional El components: 1) attraction (enjoyment derived from the activity), 2)

self-expression (freedom from everyday experiences and self-affirmation) and 3) centrality to









lifestyle (how central a role the activity is in one's life). McIntyre (1989) and McIntyre and

Pigram (1992) ushered in a new way of operationalizing the construct. Despite this supposed

advancement, McFarlane's (2004) examination of site choice among vehicle-based campers

demonstrated that the self-expression items within EI, as proposed by McIntyre and Pigram

(1992), may be unstable as an El measure, perhaps reflecting differing affective dimensions

across a geographic region or with respect to the different camping opportunities as represented

by her study.

In their 1992 examination of white water recreationists, Kuentzel and McDonald (1992)

found that the items used in their analyses factor analyzed into past experience, commitment and

lifestyle dimensions. However, frequency of participation was found to be more associated with

lifestyle than past experience, with the authors concluding frequency of participation more a

function of one's identity as an active participant. Self-reported skill assessment was found to be

associated with experience, and as skill is may be considered "less perishable than commitment

of lifestyle involvement, and thus more closely associated with the temporal component of

experience" (p. 14) the role of skill within the specialization construct should be further explored.

They further found that past experience was negatively associated with the environmental

characteristics of the river in which the activity occurred, and that the commitment dimension

was most strongly associated with such attributes as social interaction, water quality, fun, skill

and others. Highly experienced users seemed to be aware that the river provided opportunities

for high-density activities on within a somewhat unnatural river setting (a major highway runs

parallel to the river). Lifestyle, past experience and commitment dimensions were found to be

negatively associated with use limitations. Finally, the findings suggest that analyses based on

separate domains may be superior to those based on a composite specialization index. The data









used in the examination did not demonstrate linear relationships between the separate domains of

the specialization construct. In explaining this non-linearity, the authors suggest that having just

purchased boats, paddles and other equipment, paddlers may score high on economic

expenditure with entry into the activity while other specialization measures only increase with

the passing of time. In this regard, Kuentzel and McDonald (1992) provided insight into both the

need for analyzing individual domains, as well as the problems associated with behavioral and

expenditure measures.

There is disagreement on whether measurement of specialization is best accomplished by

combining the various dimensions into a single additive composite index as a means of depicting

a continuum of specialization, or whether individual dimensions should be analyzed separately

(Manning, 1999). Various authors have demonstrated that scores within separate domains vary

differentially, thus suggesting that the additive index may not be the best measure of

specialization. For example, Kuentzel and McDonald (1992) found little relationship among the

lifestyle, commitment and experience dimensions of river paddlers, leading them to conclude

that the separate dimensions did not necessarily increase linearly and congruently over time.

Similarly, Scott and Godbey (1994) found that while bridge players may commonly progress in

commitment toward their activity, many of them actually demonstrated low skill or knowledge

of advanced bridge practices despite substantial experience. In other words, commitment was

consistent with experience (time), while skill and knowledge was not. Kuentzel and Heberlein

(1997) further added to this position by demonstrating that mean responses among boater types

differed within the commitment, experience and frequency domains evaluated. Moreover,

Bricker and Kerstetter (2001) demonstrated that whitewater recreationists varied in their

responses within each of five dimensions studied (level of experience, skill level and ability,









centrality of lifestyle, enduring involvement and economic and equipment investment), and

consequently so did their level of specialization. Thus, although the additive index has been

widely relied upon, Scott and Shafer (2001) submit that the various measures of the

specialization construct are likely to differ with respect to other dimensions of activity

involvement, and therefore preclude its use.

Using confirmatory factor analysis, Lee and Scott (2004) utilized data from a behavior

survey administered to the American Birdwatchers Association to test the three dimensional

recreation specialization progression model put forth by Scott and Shafer (2001). The three

domains examined for their contribution to specialization theory included behavior, skill and

knowledge and commitment. Behavior was measured based on the number of trips taken in

2001 and the number of days pent on birding trips in that same year. Skill and knowledge was

measured by self-reports of the number of birds one could identify without a book; by sound

only; and by ability to observe and identify birds on a scale from novice to expert. Commitment

was operationalized by asking agreement with items such as "Other leisure activities don't

interest me as much as birding," and "I would rather go birding than do most anything else."

Their results showed that each of the indicators uniquely loaded on respective factors they were

meant to represent (included behavior, skill and knowledge and commitment) and that skill and

knowledge was more representative of birder specialization than either behavior or commitment

factors. Their results also demonstrated that the use of single additive indices of specialization

may be inappropriate, and that the behavioral domain might be problematic when situations such

as poor health prevent physical access to an activity although skill and commitment remain high.

Environmental Concern/Behavior

Among his other submissions, Bryan (1977) hypothesized that as one progressed through

the specialization continuum within a specific activity, he or she would come to increasingly









accept the rules, norms and procedures of that activity as well as the development of a greater

dependency on the resource (propositions 3 and 4, p.186):

3. As level of angling specialization increases, attitudes and values about the sport change.
Focus shifts from consumption of fish to preservation and emphasis on the nature and
setting activity. The experience becomes an end in and of itself.

4. The values attendant to specialization are inextricably linked to the properties of the
resource on which the sport is practiced. As level of angling specialization increases,
resource dependency increases.

Bryan found support for both hypotheses. Specifically, he found that those who were

highly specialized shifted focus from fish consumption to preservation, and emphasized the

nature and setting of the activity and become more dependent on the resource.

Researchers have examined the premise that specialization leads to pro-environmental

attitudes and/or behaviors. Katz's (1981) study of fly fishermen empirically evaluated Bryan's

(1977) third and fourth propositions and found that progress through the specialization

continuum was accompanied by an increase in attitude toward conservation. Kauffman (1984)

similarly explored Bryan's (1977) third and fourth propositions among canoeists on three rivers.

To assess these propositions, Kauffman (1984) created an additive specialization index based

upon participation, equipment, skill and centrality to lifestyle dimensions; while resource

attitudes were measured by evaluating setting preference, setting canoed most often, setting

selection factors, setting importance and environmental concern. The latter was evaluated by

respondent's willingness to spend an extra $100 the next year to promote the wise use of

resources. Kaufman's results supported Bryan's (1977) fourth proposition, with the most

specialized respondents indicating the highest sense of environmental concern.

In their examination of backcountry hikers from three primitive areas, Virden and Schreyer

(1988) posited two hypotheses: 1) that highly specialized hikers would be most likely to focus on









specific environmental attributes in which participation in their activity most depends and 2) that

highly specialized hikers will be most extreme in their environmental attribute preferences. They

measured specialization with an index based upon general and recent experience, equipment and

monetary commitment and centrality to lifestyle domain items. Environmental preferences were

operationalized with 38 setting attributes. Their findings supported the first hypotheses and

limited support for the second, suggesting that specialized hikers placed emphasis on naturalistic

components of the setting such as the presence of bears, rugged terrain and desert canyons and

that they were most negatively impacted by the presence of consumptive activities such as

logging and livestock grazing. Among the hikers, specialization level was significantly

associated with one-half of the social and physical setting attributes listed, and 60% of the

management attributes.

Mowen, Williams and Graefe (1997) surmised that outdoor recreation participants were

more likely to be perceptive of the characteristics of the setting where an activity takes place.

Their research was designed to better understand recreation specialization as it pertained to

general and site-specific environmental attitudes. They operationalized specialization with an

effective domain that included self-expression, centrality to lifestyle and attraction items and

skill level with respect to their specific activity. A slightly modified New Environmental

Paradigm scale as well as four site-specific environmental concern items were used to measure

environmental concern. Results indicated that the affective dimension was a better predictor of

environmental attitudes than skill (cognitive), and that those recreationists who were most

specialized reported more concern with site-specific rather than broad-based environmental

issues.









Recently, Thapa (2000) explored the mediation effect of forest recreationists'

(appreciative, consumptive and motorized) specialization level on environmental attitudes and

behaviors. Thapa computed a specialization index based upon behavioral, cognitive and

affective (El) domain items, and measured self-reported pro-environmental behavior in terms of

involvement in political activism, recycling, education, green consumerism and community

activism, within the appreciative, consumptive, motorized typologies. He found little evidence

to suggest a positive association between specialization and pro-environmental attitudes or

behaviors; however, he did find that forest recreationists engaged in appreciative activities were

more likely to participate in select environmental behaviors in their daily lives. Thapa concluded

that since specialization is a multidimensional construct, the use of a composite index maws a

limitation, and also each activity may be most appropriately evaluated individually rather than

collectively in terms of an appreciative, consumptive, motorized typology.

Hvenegaard (2002) examined the relationships between conservation involvement,

motivations and demographics differ among specialization levels. Specialization was measured

with economic commitment (3 items) and centrality to lifestyle (2 items). Based upon responses

to specialization questions he categorized birders into advanced-experienced, advanced-active

and novice groups. Hvenegaard found that although specialization level was positively

associated with conservation group membership, specialization was not associated with actual or

hypothetical financial contributions to conservation efforts. Age, income and percent male were

found to be positively associated with specialization level; education and occupational level were

not.

A further examination of recreation specialization and its association with environmental

attitudes was conducted by Dyck, Schneider, Thompson and Virden (2003). Recreation









specialization was operationalized based on past experience (e.g., number of trips taken in past

five years), economic investment (e.g., total money invested inn equipment) skill level (self-

reported skill level with respect to rope skills, rock climbing techniques, etc.) and centrality to

lifestyle items (e.g., agreement that one's life is organized around mountaineering) with each

domain comprised of between three to five indicators, later combined into a composite

specialization index. Environmental attitudes were measured via the New Environmental

Paradigm scale, while attitudes toward low impact practices were operationalized by 14

questions written by the researchers. Results demonstrated that general environmental attitudes

were not associated with recreation specialization level, which might partly have been explained

by little variability in attitudes among respondents. However, attitudes toward low impact

mountaineering were found to be associated with increasing levels of specialization. It should be

noted that the scale created assess attitudes toward low impact mountaineering was not tested by

other researchers, and thus it is not known how well it actually captured those attitudes.

Based on the previous work by Meyer (2002) showing that recreation specialization level

was associated with self-reports of avoiding coral reef contact while SCUBA diving, Thapa,

Graefe and Meyer (2005) further examined the moderator and mediator effects of specialization

on the environmental knowledge-environmental behavior contingency among divers.

Knowledge and behavior was measured with 16 items related to coral and reef ecology and

human impacts on coral reefs as well as from diving codes of conduct manuals. Specialization

was measured by items within the behavioral (5 items), cognitive (6 items, including diving

certification level questions) and affective domains (6 items, which included 4 items relating to

enduring involvement and 2 items relating to centrality to lifestyle). To most effectively

examine the moderator and mediator effects of specialization, a composite additive specialization









index was computed. Results suggested that pro-environmental diving behaviors (from among

questions related to contact diving behaviors, general diving behaviors and general educational

behaviors) were more common for respondents with higher marine-based knowledge. Similarly,

divers having higher levels of specialization also demonstrated higher levels of marine-based

knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors. Specialization was found to be a mediator (one

variable accounts for part of or all of the association between two other variables, Baron &

Kenny, 1986)) but not a moderator (the association between two variables changes as a function

of another variable) in the specialization, knowledge and behavior triad. That is, specialization

played a more important role in predicting pro-environmental behavior among SCUBA divers

than did marine-based knowledge, although both were significantly related to behavior.

Furthermore, in a related study, Thapa, Graefe and Meyer (2006) found that although the

composite index and individual dimensions explained a similar amount of variance in

environmental behaviors, analyses of individual specialization domains (behavioral, cognitive

and affective) resulted in differential predictive strengths according to specific diving behaviors.

Although low internal consistency among items (alpha = .68) may have hindered the analyses,

the behavioral dimension of the specialization construct was found to be a poor predictor of

depreciative diving behaviors (making contact with coral) and also a weak predictor of general

diving and education behavior. Overall, the affective dimension proved to be an especially

useful predictor of environmental behavior, with the authors suggesting the finding logical as

strong emotional ties to diving might naturally lead to increased participation in activities such as

reading diving books and participating in community clean up programs.

Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings

Despite the substantial social, environmental and managerial impacts depreciative

behaviors levy on outdoor recreation areas, few studies have examined the relationship between









depreciative behavior and recreation specialization. As previously discussed, Wellman et al.

(1982) evaluated attitudinal norms toward depreciative behavior and found that highly

specialized canoeists were very similar in their interpretation of the severity and importance of

depreciative behaviors than were those low on the specialization continuum. Their research

utilized past experience (total number of canoe trips, average number trips per year, total number

rivers floated) and involvement (canoeing investment dimension 3 items, centrality to lifestyle

dimension 4 items) to create an index of specialization. A list of depreciative behaviors which

one might display or be exposed to on a river was compiled by perusing books, literature and by

consulting expert river guides. Although no differences were found between specialization

levels (high and low), their research was limited by a small sample size, and by the fact that most

highly specialized canoeists might have viewed depreciative behaviors such as floating without a

life vest to be unimportant due to their skill level in avoiding tipping. In other words, canoeing

may not yet have developed a "code of proper behavior" (p.338). Additionally, Wellman et al.

(1982) were perhaps the first to note the problematic use of an additive index: "It is also possible

for a newcomer to canoeing to receive a high score on two of Bryan's three specialization

dimensions (investment and centrality to lifestyle) and thus to receive a relatively high

specialization index score" (p.339).

Meyer (2002) examined the relationship between recreation specialization, ecological

knowledge and self-reported environmental behavior among SCUBA divers in Florida. Meyer's

study relied on behavioral (5 items), cognitive (6 items) and psychological (El and centrality, 6

items) domains to measure the specialization construct. She utilized four environmental

behavior dimensions: 1) general environmental behavior (e.g., read books, watched programs

about environment), 2) diver education (participation in refresher courses, teacher role), 3)









physical impact with coral/wrecks (behaviors participated in that might damage coral and other

marine features) and 4) physical impact with marine life (general behaviors that may negatively

impact marine life). Her findings suggested that highly specialized divers exhibited more

environmentally responsible diving behaviors than those less specialized, with those scoring high

in the cognitive dimension least likely to engage in depreciative behaviors. It is important to

note that the development of SCUBA diving skills such as the ability to maintain neutral

buoyancy might naturally lead to pro-environmental behavior by allowing a diver to avoid

physical contact with coral and other marine resources.

Bireline (2005) evaluated potential bird impact behavior of Florida birders within the

specialization construct. In his investigation specialization was measured via experience (8

items), equipment and economic commitment (4 items) and centrality (5 items) domains; while

birder behavior measured based upon self-assessed participation in behaviors from a list of 20

potentially negative methods of facilitating bird viewing. Contradicting his primary hypothesis

that advanced birders would demonstrate the lowest frequency of depreciative behavior, he

found that highly specialized birders employed potentially negative behaviors such as "pishing"

(noise made to draw birds close) more often than did others. Bireline concluded that "When

looking further at the issue of severity of potential impacts, this study seemed to support an

advanced birder belief that the perceived benefits of observing birds outweigh the perceived

liabilities of birders' actions" (p. 10).

Boaters and Anglers

It may be logical to expect highly involved outdoor recreationists (i.e., high investment of

time and money in a particular activity) to demonstrate support of natural resource management

and to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors while in their recreation environment, if for

no other reason than to preserve that in which their activity depends. In re-conceptualizing









recreation specialization, and borrowing from previous findings, Ditton et al. (1992) submitted

eight propositions and definitions of the continuum. Among these, proposition four states that as

recreational fishing specialization level increases, so too does acceptance and support for the

procedures, rules, norms associated with angling. Ditton et al.'s sixth proposition postulated that

as specialization in recreational fishing increases, so too does one's dependency on a specific

resource.

Various examinations, both prior to and after Ditton et al. (1992) have demonstrated

positive associations between specialized freshwater fishermen and attitudes toward mandatory

catch and release areas, as well as minimum fish size restrictions (Bryan, 1977; Chipman &

Helfrich, 1988; Salz, et al., 2001). Chipman and Helfrich (1988) investigated the effects of

angler specialization on motivations, perceptions and preferences for management actions via

on-site and mail surveying. Items within the resource use, experience, investment and centrality

to lifestyle domains were utilized to classify angler specialization level. Cluster analysis was

employed to identify six types of anglers, from low to high specialization levels, with the

experience dimension explaining 24% of the variance, and a combination of resource, investment

and centrality dimensions accounting for 48% of the variability in the data. The authors found

that management preferences and perceptions of management were significantly related to

specialization. They also demonstrated that specialization level was related to non-consumptive

uses of the resource (appreciative uses), and that support for reduced bag limits and increased

minimum length limits was highest among highly specialized fishermen. Similar to Bryan

(1977), they found reduced support for fish stocking among those most specialized. More

importantly, low support of closed fishing seasons was demonstrated across all specialization

levels, a finding later supported by Salz et al. (2001) and Salz and Loomis (2005).









Salz et al. (2001) tested several hypotheses related to specialization and the use of

specialization indices. Among those tested, they evaluated Ditton et al.'s (1992) fourth

proposition that highly specialized recreationists would indicate greater support for regulations

and management rules than would less specialized participants. The authors chose a unique

approach in their development of the specialization index by categorizing participants as

strangers, tourists, regulars and insiders within the orientation, experiences, relationships and

commitment characteristics (domains) previously utilized by Unruh (1979). Statements that

described a respondent's connection with a particular activity as related to a specific

characteristic comprised the specialization measure and were ordered from least to most

specialized. A random sample of Massachusetts anglers were administered the mail survey and

asked to respond to question groups such as "Please indicate your general orientation to the sport

of fishing," "Please indicate how you would best describe yourself during a fishing experience,"

"Please indicate how you would best describe your relationships with other anglers," and "Please

indicate how you would best describe your commitment to fishing" (p.245). The authors chose

eleven items to evaluate support for management regulations including: creel limits, no stocking

allowed, maximum size, stocking non-native fish, minimum size limits, restricted fishing area,

mandatory catch and release, stocking native fish, slot limits, voluntary catch and release and

prohibiting the use of certain gear. Their findings lent support for Ditton et al.'s (1992) fourth

proposition in that more specialized anglers indicated greater support for rules than those less

specialized on 9 of the 10 significant items. Support for restricted fishing areas was found to be

lowest among the most specialized.

Salz and Loomis (2005) further investigated Ditton et al.'s (1992) fourth proposition by

evaluating angler attitudes toward, 1) restricted fishing areas and 2) mandatory catch and release









areas and their relationship to recreation specialization. Data were collected via mail survey,

with survey questions designed to gather information on membership in fishing organizations,

beliefs about recreational fishing, attitudes toward marine protected areas, recreation

specialization level and fishing enthusiasm. Recreation specialization was operationalized in the

same way as Salz et al.'s (2001) study, with segmented anglers with respect to "social world

characteristics (i.e. orientation, experiences, relationships, and commitment)" (p.192). Two

hypothetical marine protected areas were presented to respondents: 1) Type A catch and

release recreational fishing allowed, with no harvesting, and 2) Type B no fishing allowed of

any kind. Recreation fishing beliefs were measured by agreement with various fishing belief

statements such as, for example, "By limiting recreational fishing catch today we can improve

the quality of recreational fishing in the future," and "Recreational saltwater fish species

abundance is determined more by natural fluctuations than by the number of fish caught by

people" (p.194). No significant differences were found across specialization levels with respect

to attitudes toward catch and release marine protected areas, with responses, on average, between

oppose slightly and not sure/uncertain for all three specialization levels (moderately, very, most

specialized). Although not statistically significant, mean responses for support of "no fishing"

areas decreased with increased specialization, with mean responses low across levels (between

moderately oppose and oppose slightly). Furthermore, the most specialized anglers also

indicated the highest agreement with recreation fishing having a negative impact on marine

ecosystems, and that raising minimum size limits would lead to healthier fish populations.

Oh and Ditton (2006) further examined angler preferences using recreation specialization

theory. They sought to describe angler preferences for fish harvest restrictions by using a

preference choice model within the specialization framework. Specialization was









operationalized by eight items within the behavior (2 items), skill and knowledge (3 items) and

commitment dimensions (3 items). Findings suggest that acceptance and support of the rules and

procedures set forth by the managing agency varied by specialization level, with the authors

concluding that specialized anglers were likely had a more ecological view of the resource in

which their fishing took place. Based upon their approach, high levels of specialization were

associated with acceptance of more restrictive rules and less willingness to relax the rules and

regulations of the resource.

Although not specifically designed to evaluate recreation specialization, Futerfas' (2003)

study of boater attributes and manatee conservation attitudes among Florida boaters lends insight

into boater attributes that are often utilized in specialization research. Futerfas specifically

found:

1. The longer a person had been a boater the more likely they were to view zone/access
rules as too strict.

2. The longer a person had been a boater the more likely they were to disagree with
manatee rights to exist.

3. The longer the boat length the more likely to disagree with manatee rights to exist.
4. The higher the number of boating outings in summer the more likely to favor less strict
access rules.

5. Boaters who had not been members of boating related organizations were more likely to
agree with manatee rights to exist.

6. Boaters who had not received boating or nature publications are more likely to favor
stricter zone and access rules.

7. Boaters who had not received boating or nature publications are more likely to agree with
manatee rights to exist.

8. Boaters who had ever taken a boater education class were more likely to favor less strict
zone/access rules.

9. Boaters who stated that the class taught something helpful or interesting about manatees
were more likely to favor stricter zone/access rules.










10. Boaters who felt boating licenses should be required were more likely to favor stricter
zone/access rules.

11. The older the boater the more likely s/he is to favor less strict zone/access rules.

12. The higher the income, the more likely the boater is to favor less strict zone/access rules.

13. The higher the income, the less likely the boater is to agree with manatee right to exist.

Futerfas' findings shed light onto the environmental attitude/behavior literature as related

to recreation specialization, especially with respect to research that has demonstrated a positive

association between specialization and environmental attitudes/behaviors (Bryan, 1977; Katz,

1981; Kauffman, 1984; Meyer, 2002; Virden & Schreyer, 1988). Her findings are also

consistent with research that has found access-denial regulations generally unpopular among

anglers (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz & Loomis, 2005; Salz et al., 2001). More specifically,

her findings suggest that boaters: 1) with the most boating experience tend to demonstrate the

lowest support of existing rules and regulations; 2) with the most experience tend to indicate the

lowest conservation attitudes; 3) express reduced support for manatee rights if exposed to boater

literature or who are members of boating organizations; and 4) who operate longer boats tend to

disagree with manatee rights.

Reported Versus Actual Behavior

Studies examining environmental behaviors have mostly relied upon self-reports for their

ease of use and cost-effectiveness in the data gathering process and within a wide variety of

disciplines and examinations. Despite widespread use of the methodology, validity analysis is

lacking from most of the literature, with the few studies specifically addressing the issue casting

doubt on its usefulness.

Hagburg (1968) formally tested the validity of questionnaire data by comparing reported

and observed behavior. The author distributed questionnaires to Union Leadership Program









students as a means of assessing the number of classes each student reported attending by

responding to the question "How many Union Leadership Program classes did you attend the

first eight weeks (and second eight weeks) of this year?" Actual observed attendance was

obtained from attendance records kept by the instructor, with significant differences found

between the actual and reported number of classes attended (p<.001). His results also suggested

that temporal proximity (i.e. how soon after the eight week cycle the questionnaire was given)

had little relationship to either accurate or over-reporting; however, it did decrease the incidence

of under-reporting. The author concluded, "The data, in general, suggest that responses are in

the direction of ideal norms, i.e. high attendance in an educational program in accordance with

explicit expectations" (p.456).

In noting discrepancies in prior energy conservation behavior research, Warriner,

McDougall and Claxton (1984) submitted that inaccurate self-reports might be due to accident,

instrument design, or social norms of behavior. They further suggested that accurate self-reports

rely on one's willingness to answer correctly in the face of cognitive dissonance, and that one

must be given the ability to select the correct responses on a survey (i.e. clearly worded and

appropriate questions and answers). To evaluate the congruency between reported and actual

energy-consumption behavior, the authors asked telephone interview respondents to estimate

how much money they had spent during the past year on home fuels, and compared these

estimates to utility records. Overall, self-reported expenditures on energy-related fuels erred in

both directions between 25% and 29% when compared to actual records, with households

consuming large amounts of energy consistently underreporting their consumption and with

higher error.









Reported behavior is often utilized as a means of determining patient baseline and risk

factors, and as a means of creating and assessing individual health care strategies. Lichtman et

al. (1992) examined the reasons behind patients' inability to lose weight despite reporting caloric

restriction. The researchers divided their sample into two groups, each consisting of obese

subjects. The first group consisted of individuals with a history of diet resistance (poor

expenditure of energy in the form of food calorie), while the second group had no history of diet

resistance, thus serving as a control. The experimental group was instructed to continue their

dietary plan uninterrupted for 14 days with no modifications, while their actual energy intake and

expenditure (calories) was periodically measured by calorimetry and body composition

procedures. The second group was given no intervention. Their results demonstrated that there

were no differences in the thermic effects of either food or exercise between the two groups, thus

the authors rejected low energy expenditure as a factor in self-reported diet resistance. However,

group 1 subjects overreported their physical activity by an average of 51% while underreporting

their food intake by an average of 47%.

Social research has tended to rely heavily on reported attributes, attitudes and behaviors

as assessed by surveys and questionnaires. Although rarely discussed, research results may be

substantially biased from a general reluctance to divulge attitudes and behaviors that may appear

socially marginal. Mick (1996) conducted two separate studies to examine the self-report

methodology in light of socially desirable responding (SDR) (overreporting desirable and

underreporting undesirable behaviors) with respect to "dark-side" consumer behaviors. The first

study focused on the reporting of materialism and self-esteem by distributing questionnaires to

mall shoppers. Materialism and compulsive buying were measured via existing 18-item and 7-

item scales, respectively, while an existing 10-item scale measured self-esteem. Socially









desirable responding was assessed with a 33-item scale which was similarly pre-existent. The

findings of his first study suggested that materialism, compulsive buying and self-esteem were

all significantly related to SDR, with SDR biasing materialism and compulsive buying

downward. While the results are intriguing, the author points out that subjects may have

perceived a lack of survey anonymity, a factor which has apparently been implicated in SDR

bias.

Mick's (1996) second study extended the first by including the same variables and

methodology, a more refined scale of SDR, plus three additional components of materialism:

neuroticism ("tendency to experience aversive emotional states" (p. 112)), self-actualization and

impulse buying. Additionally, the author extracted a subset of respondents for later contacting as

a means of evaluating their perceptions of anonymity, which were found to be inconsequential to

both studies. Results of his second study suggested that materialism, compulsive buying and

impulsive buying were negatively correlated with SDR measures; that is, respondents biased

their scores downward in an effort to look better. Respondents in the second study tended to

underreport their materialism, compulsive buying, impulsive buying and neuroticism values

while concomitantly overreporting their self esteem and self-actualization values, resulting in

"measurement contamination" (p. 114). In summary, the author submits that despite the general

debate surrounding SDR measurement, SDR bias is important in social research relying on

questionnaires to assess attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviors. Furthermore, he suggests that despite

its potentially profound impact on data integrity, little effort has been conducted to consider how

such self-report bias may influence dark side and/or prosocial behavioral research (e.g., pro-

environmental behavior).









Summary

Motorized transportation can be an important factor in animal movement and mortality

(Trombulak & Frissell, 2000) with current estimates suggesting that as many as one million

vertebrates are killed by vehicles daily on U.S. roads (Lowy, 2001). Similarly, motorized

aquatic transportation can exact an important toll on marine life, as evidenced by the fact that

vessel strikes are currently the single most important cause of manatee mortality in Florida

(FWC, 206b). Despite indications that Florida's West Indian Manatee population may be stable

or increasing (O'Shea 1988, O'Shea & Ackerman, 1995, Runge et al., 2004), the large degree of

geographic variability in the data (FWC, 2005) and difficulties associated with manatee counts

(Lefebvre et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1998; O'Shea, 1988) preclude claims of success. While the

Upper St. John's and Northwest subpopulations have likely experienced growth in numbers over

the past 10 years (Runge et al., 2004), these subpopulations are small relative to the Atlantic and

Southwest populations, which are thought to be in decline (FWC, 2005; Runge et al., 2004,

respectively). Vessel strikes currently comprise 25-30% of all manatee deaths in Florida

(Ackerman et al., 1995), and as a result, Deutsch et al. (2002) suggests that a decline in manatee

survival over the next 50 years is conceivable.

Vessel strikes have played prominently in historical manatee population declines, and a

significant correlation has been found to exist between the number of registered boats in the state

and number of vessel-induced deaths (Ackerman et al., 1995). From 1978 to present a

substantial number of sanctuaries and speed restricted areas have been added to Florida's

waterways under the direction of the Federal Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP) as a means toward

population recovery (FWC, 2005; Reynolds, 1999). Speed reduction as the tertiary strategy

within the FMRP is based on the assumption that slower vessels cause less physical harm to an

animal and that reduced speeds allow both animal and boat operator more time for avoidance









(Laist & Shaw, 2006; O'Shea, 1995). Vessel speed reduction is facilitated by FWC-posted

seasonal and permanent idle and slow speed zones, with enforcement occurring through violation

ticketing. However, insufficient funding, large geographic areas, absence of a general boater

education program and the ever-increasing number of watercraft plying Florida's waters all act

to reduce the efficacy of this approach (FWC, 2005).

Recreation boating is, for some, a quintessentially Florida. There are nearly one million

registered boats in Florida (Florida Vessel Title Registration System, 2006), and the state is an

important marine recreation destination (Leeworth & Wiley, 2001), attracting boaters from many

geographic regions. With so many vessels plying its waterways, boat use often coincides with

manatee habitats in Florida. Therefore, as manatee speed zones have been demonstrated

effective in reducing manatee mortality (Laist & Shaw, 2006), speed zone compliance may be

crucial to a sustainable manatee population.

A limited number of manatee speed zone compliance studies have been conducted in the

state. Poor speed zone compliance has generally been found, with fewer than 50%-60% of

boaters fully obeying posted speed regulations (see Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Shapiro, 2001;

Tyson & Combs, 1999). Furthermore, these authors cite that between 9% and 16% of boat

operators demonstrate blatantly non-compliant behavior in manatee speed zones. Confounding

the issue, boat operators have indicated to have some difficulty in understanding manatee speed

zone delineations and/or messaging (Confer et al., 2003; Aipanjiguly, 2000; Aipanjiguly et al.,

2003). Regardless of whether boaters understand manatee zoning or not, research has generally

found that operators of small vessels are less compliant than operators of larger watercraft

(Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Shapiro, 2001; Tyson & Combs) and that rental, commercial, out-









of-state registered vessels, personal watercraft and johnboats have been similarly found least

compliant (Shapiro, 2001).

In other lines of inquiry such as Cottrell's (1993) examination of pro-environmental

behavior among boaters, boat type (motorized most compliant), boat length (longer were least

compliant), years of boater experience (most experienced were most compliant) and years of

site-specific boating experience (positively associated) were variously associated with compliant

use of environmentally friendly sewage pumpout stations. Equipment attributes such as boat

length and type and recreationist experience may be representative of the degree of specialization

as initially posed by Bryan (1977) and subsequently examined by numerous authors.

Recreation specialization was first proposed by Bryan (1977) to explore diversity among

individuals engaged in a particular activity. Bryan submitted that specialization was a continuum

of behavior from general to specific and reflected in one's skill level, equipment used and setting

preferences with respect to a particular activity. Bryan's examinations lead him to infer a

continuum of specialization levels reflected in a typology of anglers (p.177):

In addition, as one progressed through the continuum, a recreationist experienced

corresponding changes in attitudes toward the resource in which the activity takes place, the

activity itself and orientation toward the management of the resource. Since Bryan's (1977)

research, other researchers have examined a variety of activity groups, and have utilized a variety

of approaches to operationalize the construct.

Among others, recreation specialization has been utilized to explore recreationists'

environmental attitudes, environmental behaviors and attitudes toward and engagement in

depreciative behaviors, although approaches and findings differ markedly. Wellman et al.

(1982) found that highly specialized canoeists differed little in their norms of depreciative









behavior from other less specialized canoeists, though methodological issues limited their

findings. Thapa (2000) found little evidence to suggest a positive association between

specialization and attitudes or self-reported behaviors among forest recreationists. Contrastingly,

Meyer's (2002) examination of SCUBA diver behavior demonstrated that those most specialized

reported engaging in the fewest depreciative behaviors in the form of touching or otherwise

disturbing marine organisms while diving. Finally, Bireline (2005) determined that highly

specialized birders were more likely to rely on depreciative methods of attracting birds into view

than were less specialized birders.

Researchers have demonstrated negative associations between specialized fisherman and

attitudes toward various fishing regulations (Salz & Loomis, 2005). Contrastingly, others have

demonstrated positive associations between the two (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al.,

2001), with the notable exception that anglers, regardless of specialization level, seem to poorly

support access-denial regulations (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis,

2005).

Nearly all of the attitudinal and behavioral studies included in this review have relied upon

participant-reported rather than researcher-observed data gathering techniques. While self-

reports lend simplicity and efficiency to the data collection process, various lines of inquiry have

demonstrated that reliance on this method is a limitation in research (Lichtman et al., 1992;

Mick, 1996; Warriner et al., 1984).









Table 2-1. Boater compliance criteria (Gorzelany, 1996, 1998)
Any vessel in-use that was observed to maintain a speed consistent with the
Compliance
posted speed restriction in the sampling area, as defined by:
(1) Idle Speed: 1-3 mph (1.6-4.8 km)
(2) Slow Speed: 5 -7 mph (8 to 11.2 km)
Technical Any vessel observed to be in violation of the posted speed at a sampling site
Noncompliance as defined by:
(1) transitioning to one speed category faster than the posted speed limit
(2) excessive speed, but only for a relatively short distance within the
posted area
(3) traveling between 4-7 mph (6.4-11.2 km) if in Idle Speed zone
(4) traveling between 8-15 mph (12.9-24 km) if in Slow Speed zone
t A vessel transitioning at a speed greater than one speed category faster than
ant the posted limit through a significant portion of a speed-restricted area, or
Noncompliance
as defined by:
(1) traveling between 8-15 mph (12.9-24 km) if in Idle Speed zone
(2) traveling greater than 15 mph (24 km) if in Slow Speed zone












Table 2-2. Recreation Specialization: Activities Examined


Activity
Canoeing and river
floating


Hiking and
backpacking
Rock/mountain
climbing
Forest Recreation
Mountaineering
Birdwatching

Hunting
Bridge
Boating and sailing

Anglers


Camping
Mountain biking
Horseback riding
SCUBA diving


Authors
Bricker, 1998; Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Bryan, 1979; Hammit &
McDonald, 1983; Kauffman, 1984; Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992;
Schreyer & Lime, 1984; Schreyer et al. 1984; Wellman et al. 1982
Williams et al. 1990
Bryan, 1979; Graefe et al. 1986; Virden & Schreyer, 1988; Williams &
Huffman, 1986
Bryan, 1979; Ewert, 1985; Merrill, 1996; Merrill & Graefe, 1998
Mowen et al. 1997; Thapa, 2000;
Dyck et al. 2003
Bireline, 2005; Bryan, 1979; Cole & Scott, 1999; Hvenegaard, 2002; Lee &
Scott, 2004; Martin, 1997; McFarlane, 1994, 1996
Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1992; Miller & Graefe, 2000
Scott & Godbey, 1994
Cottrell, 1993; Cottrell et al. 2004; Donnelly et al. 1986; Kuentzel &
Heberlein, 1997
Bryan, 1977; Chipman & Helfirch, 1986; Choi et al. 1994; Ditton et al.
1992; Katz, 1981; Oh & Ditton, 2006; Salz & Loomis, 2005; Salz et al.
2001
McFarlane, 2004; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992
Hopkin & Moore, 1995
Hammit et al. 1989
Meyer, 2002; Thapa et al. 2005, 2006


Figure 2-1. Theory of Reasoned Action









CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES

This chapter is divided into the following sections: 1) Study sites, 2) Selection of subjects,

3) Operationalization of variables, 4) Data analysis, and 5) Telephone survey of non-

respondents.

Study Sites

This investigation took place on the St. Johns River in southwestern Volusia County,

Florida. Various manatee zone compliance studies have demonstrated that compliance varies

from site to site and with respect to zone type (i.e., slow or idle). For this study, one idle (site 1)

and one slow (site 2) speed zone were sampled, both of which were chosen due to their similar

situational attributes such as, year-round presence of manatees and watercraft, channel width,

depth, distance from zone signage and sufficiency of vessel traffic. Both sites were implemented

in the early 1990s (Bill Flowers, pers. Comm..) and are located near Blue Spring State park in

close proximity to one another (approximately 1409 m apart) (Figure 3-1).

Situated in the eastern half of the state of Florida, Volusia County is bordered on its

western edge by the St. Johns River, which flows south to north past DeLand and Blue Spring

State Park (Figure 3-1). Between the November and March, when river water drops below 680

Fahrenheit, Blue Spring becomes a vital warm water refuge for manatees (St. Johns River Water

Management District (SJWMD), 2006). The spring boil and its 712meter run to the St. Johns

River are designated Class III waters by the state, allowing recreation and providing for the

maintenance of healthy fish and wildlife populations (SJWMD, 2006). The spring and its run are

designated as critical manatee by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with

manatee count data demonstrating an increase in the number of individuals observed from 28 in

1 Critical habitat defined as an area necessary to the normal needs or survival of the species (USFWS, 2006).









1978 to 130 in 2004. Besides their winter presence in the spring and run, manatees are found

throughout the entire stretch of St. Johns River in Volusia County during all months of the year.

Since 2000, 30 manatee deaths have been attributed to vessel strikes in Volusia County (Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 2006a).

The St. Johns River is important for river transportation and recreational and commercial

fishing. There are currently more than 30,000 registered vessels in Volusia County, representing

a five percent increase in registrations since 2002 (Florida Department of Highway Safety and

Motor Vehicles, 2006). In addition, boaters from other Florida counties as well as other states

visit the river near Blue Spring State Park. Considerable daily use by watercraft in combination

with the river's importance in manatee conservation has resulted in the official posting of 326

slow and idle speed zones in the county, with 92 located on the St. Johns River (FWC, 2006b).

This investigation obtained observational data from the banks of the St. Johns River for

one slow speed zone and one idle speed zone (Figure 3-1). The idle speed zone, which

encompassed site 1, extends approximately 804m north of the confluence of the St. Johns River

and Blue Spring run (approximately 28056'50.94" N, 81020'22.52" W). Further, site 1 is located

18 m south of the entrance to a slow speed zone and 617m north of the confluence between the

Blue Spring run and the St. Johns River. Site 1 observations were performed overlooking the

water channel from east to west from a small sandy area among dense riparian vegetation. The

setting allowed the researcher to blend with the surrounding elements while maintaining a wide

view of boat traffic. The slow speed zone in which sampling site 2 was located extends

approximately 603m south of the confluence between the Blue Spring run and the St. Johns

River. Site 2 is located 189m south of the entrance to the idle speed zone and 792m south of

confluence. Site 2 sampling was similarly performed with the observations over the water









channel from east to west. Access to sampling site 2 required the researcher to navigate with the

use of a kayak south from the vicinity of site 1 to a small opening among the vegetation and

trees. Once at the respective destination, the kayak was pulled into the forest, and observations

were made with the researcher almost entirely hidden from the view of boaters. Channel widths

at sampling sites 1 and 2 were 89m and 84m respectively.

Selection of Subjects

Field observations were performed to establish vessel speeds at sampling sites 1 and 2, to

document various vessel, situational and party size attributes, and to obtain hull registration

numbers of sampled boats. Observational data collection occurred on 17 days between July 29,

2006 September 24, 2006 (see Table 3-1).

Field Observations

Based on a projected target population of 30,000 potential boaters within Volusia County,

and the assumption that boaters from other counties do not likely use the river, a sample size of

approximately 380 mail surveys were required to obtain a confidence interval of 5% and a

confidence level of 95% (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). A minimum sample size of approximately

1000 vessel observations was targeted, and each vessel that passed through a sampling site was

assessed. In total, 1669 vessels were observed, of which 150 were rental vessels, and 460 were

either repeat observations or vessels that possessed missing, illegible or invalid Florida numbers.

Rentals, repeat observations (hull numbers which had already been noted), and vessels with

missing, illegible or invalid Florida registration numbers were eliminated from the pool of

potential respondents.

Individual boats were only assessed upon their first pass, with subsequent passes ignored.

Additionally, at the conclusion of weekend observations and prior to survey mail out, hull

numbers were sorted to eliminate those vessels observed during prior outings. Law enforcement









and Coast Guard vessel speeds and attributes were not documented, although the presence of law

enforcement vessels was noted when identified within the researcher's field of view.

One site was sampled each day on Saturdays and Sundays (one Friday and Monday were

also sampled, the later of which was Labor Day), with most observations conducted between

9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Water depth (7.9m site 1; and 8.5m site 2) and distance to speed zone

signs (187m north of site 1, 189m north of site 2) were established during the first sampling

event (Figure 3-1). Date, AM/PM, ambient temperature (degrees Fahrenheit), site number, speed

posting (idle or slow), day of the week, and sky conditions (clear, partly cloudy, cloudy, rain)

were noted for each observation (see Field Data Sheet Appendix D).

Speed Calculation

Within each site, speed was assessed by first choosing two fixed markers (usually trees) on

opposite banks from observer position, and the angle from observer to each point determined

with hand held compass (Figure 3-2). Secondly, a laser range finder was utilized to determine

the distance (in feet) from the observer to a vessel once a vessel had crossed a line-of-site to first

fixed marker on the opposite bank. Once crossed, a stopwatch count was initiated until the

observed vessel crossed a second fixed marker, at which time the stopwatch was stopped and

another distance measurement conducted. Distance traveled was calculated according to cosine

law (1), and then speed (mph) determined (2):

1. a2 = b2 + C2 2ac cos 0

2. (((a / seconds) 60) 60) / 5280 = mph

Vessel speed determination was a crucial component of this research. Reliability data for

vessel speed calculations was generated via 30 automobile observations conducted at known

speeds. Speed calculations, as described above were then noted and the resultant speeds were

analyzed against known automobile speeds to determine if statistical differences occurred. A









paired t-test between known and calculated speeds found no statistical difference (t(29)=1.25,

p=.221).

Supporting Parameters

In addition to vessel speed parameters, supporting data were documented such as time of

observation, boat type (pontoon, sail, ski, johnboat, runabout, fish, yacht/cruiser, other), boat

length (less than 12 feet, 12 to 15 feet, 16 to 25 feet, 26 to 39 feet, 40 to 64 feet, 64 to 109 feet,

greater than 109 feet), party size, presence/absence of law enforcement within site of observer,

Florida hull registration number (for later querying), and whether or not the boat was a rental (if

obvious). The distribution of observation times are illustrated in Table 3-2

As other investigators have found that boat length may be associated with compliance,

boat length data was captured by estimates made during field observation and by responses to the

mail survey. The relationship between observed and respondent-indicated vessel length was

investigated using Pearson-r correlation. A positive and significant correlation between the two

variables was found, indicating a fairly high degree of association between observed and

reported vessel length (r=.364, p<.01).

Mail Survey

To facilitate the mail survey the Florida boat number was noted in the field used to obtain

the name and mailing address of the boat owner from the VTRS. The survey instrument was

mailed on the Monday or Tuesday immediately following weekend observations. In this way,

observed vessel speed and boat/boater attributes could be matched on a 1:1 basis with the follow-

up boater survey. It was assumed that individuals responding to the mail survey were those

observed on the water, and that they had not boated since being observed. Both assumptions

were evaluated with the mail survey instrument. Of the 236 surveys returned, 200 (85%)









indicated that their last boat outing corresponded to the date that they were observed on the

water, with 203 (86%) noting that they were the primary operator of the vessel.

The mail survey instrument included questions (Appendix A) to evaluate boater: 1)

recreation specialization level, 2) vessel attributes, 3) marine conservation attitudes, 4) self-

reported compliance behavior, 5) speed zone signage assessment, 6) operator knowledge and

history, 7) TRA, and 8) demographics. The mail survey used Dillman's (2000) method to

maximize response rates. Additionally, a bolded red label was affixed to each envelope with the

statement "Opinions needed for waterway management" as a means of generating interest in

participating in the survey. A total of 1059 surveys were mailed, 23 were returned as

undeliverable, and 236 were returned as useable resulting in a 23% response rate.

Operationalization of Variables

Vessel Use and Attributes

The question "When did you last operate your boat on the St. Johns River" was used to

determine if the participant was providing responses relative to the outing in which they were

observed on the water. Additionally, questions such as "Were you the primary vessel operator

during the trip," "Where did you last operate your boat," and "When did you last operate your

boat on the St. Johns River" helped to ascertain whether the respondent answered the survey

questions relative to observed boating behavior.

Respondents were asked to denote the type of boat they used during their last outing as a

means of determining whether certain vessel classes were more or less in violation of waterway

speed limits. Respondents were given a list of vessel types such as "Pontoon," "Fish," "Personal

Watercraft" and others (boat classes adapted from Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004). Respondents

were asked to indicate the length of the hull of the boat, since prior research indicated that vessel

length is associated with manatee speed zone compliance (Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Tyson









& Combs, 1999). In addition, a contingency question asked, "Does this boat have a

speedometer," the lack of which may help to explain vessel noncompliance within speed-

restricted areas.

Recreation Specialization

Recreation specialization was conceptualized based three dimensions: behavioral,

cognitive and affective. Within each recreation specialization domain, several items were

employed. Since the specialization items included a mix of ordinal, interval and ratio measures,

a composite additive index was created using Z-score transformations for all specialization

items. Furthermore, individual indices scores for the three domains (behavioral, cognitive and

affective) were created utilizing Z-score transformations. This process has been employed by

various researchers that have utilized the specialization construct (see Dyck et al., 2003; Meyer,

2002; Thapa, 2000; Virden & Schreyer, 1988; Wellman et al., 1982).

Behavioral Dimension

The behavioral domain consisted of four items adapted from the literature (Table 3-3).

The internal consistency of the behavioral dimension items were analyzed using Cronbach's

standardized alpha. The alpha value for this dimension was .62. Following reliability analysis,

the values of the items were summed to create a behavioral domain index.

Cognitive Dimension

The cognitive domain also consisted of four items adapted from the literature (Table 3-3).

The internal consistency of the cognitive dimension items were analyzed using Cronbach's

standardized alpha. The alpha value for this dimension was .77. Following reliability analysis,

the values of the items were summed to create a cognitive domain index.









Affective Dimension

The affective domain consisted of seven items adapted from the literature (Table 3-3). The

internal consistency of the cognitive dimension items were analyzed using Cronbach's

standardized alpha. The alpha value for this dimension was .75. Following reliability analysis,

the values of the items were summed to create an affective domain index.

Composite Recreation Specialization Index

Similarly, the composite specialization index was tested for internal consistency for all 15

items using Cronbach's standardized alpha. Following the analysis, the composite index

registered an alpha value of .81 (Table 3-3).

Marine Conservation Attitudes

Marine conservation attitudes were operationalized using four items tied to a 5-point Likert

scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on

two conceptual domains: attitudes toward manatee conservation (2 items); and attitudes toward

general marine conservation (2 items). The four items were combined to create a composite

marine conservation attitude index. Following the creation of the index, the items were

subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value

was .80.

Knowledge

In addition to marine conservation attitudinal items, several knowledge based questions

with respect to manatees were asked of respondents. Recently, FWC passed a vote

recommending that the manatee be downlisted in status from endangered to threatened at the

state level, with much publicity and controversy surrounding the decision. In order to assess

boater's knowledge of the current level of manatee listing, respondents were asked whether

manatees were officially listed in Florida as "Species of special concern." "Threatened,"









"Endangered," or "Manatees are not listed." Additionally, boater knowledge of boat speed

behavior in idle and slow speed zones was assessed by two questions: "When in an idle speed

zone, a boater should," and "When in a slow speed zone, a boater should." Correct answers for

each were based on state .

Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior

Two items were used to ascertain boaters' self-reported level of compliance and non-

compliance with vessel speed zones. The items were based on a five point Likert scale

(l=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), and prompted respondents to indicate their level of

agreement with the statements, "I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most

recent boating experience," and "I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed

zones during my most recent boating experience." The items were subjected to a reliability

analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value was .66. Following

reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a self-reported compliance

index. Furthermore, based on a dichotomous (yes/no) format, boaters were also asked to report

if they had ever been ticketed for violating boat speed restrictions.

Finally, boaters were asked to indicate the top five reasons for non-compliance with boat

speed restrictions. For this question, respondents were given 14 potential reasons, whereby five

ranked responses almostt important, 2= second most important, etc.) were solicited. Questions

were adapted from Futerfas (2003) (Table 3-5).







2 "Any vessel operating in a speed zone posted as "Idle Speed No Wake" must operate at the minimum speed that
will maintain steerageway." "Any vessel operating in a speed zone posted as "Slow Down Minimum Wake" must
operate fully off plane and completely settled in water.









Speed Zone Signage Assessment

Speed zone signage assessment was operationalized using six items tied to a 5-point Likert

scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on:

signage assessment in manatee zones (three items adapted from Confer et al., 2003), and general

boat safety zones (three items, researcher written).

Signage Assessment in Manatee Zones

Signage assessment in manatee zones was operationalized based on three items (Table 3-

6). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis. The

standardized alpha value was .87. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were

summed to create a manatee zone signage assessment index.

Signage Assessment in General Boat Safety Zones

Signage assessment in general boat safety zones was operationalized based on three items

(Table 3-6). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis.

The standardized alpha value was .88. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items

were summed to create a general boat safety zone signage assessment index.

Composite Signage Assessment Index

A composite signage assessment index was also computed for the values of all six

signage assessment items. Reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha registered a standardized

alpha of .91.

Theory of Reasoned Action

Theory of Reasoned Action was operationalized using nine items tied to a 5-point Likert

scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on

three conceptual domains: attitudes, subjective norm and intention. All but two items were

adapted from Aipanjiuguly (2001).









Attitudes

Attitude assessment within the TRA construct was operationalized based on three items

(Table 3-7). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis.

The standardized alpha value was .63. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items

were summed to create an attitude index.

Subjective Norm

Subjective norm assessment within the TRA construct was operationalized based on three

items (Table 3-7). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha

analysis. The standardized alpha value was .62. Following reliability analysis, the values of the

items were summed to create a subjective norm index.

Behavioral Intention

Behavioral intention assessment within the TRA construct was accomplished based on

three items (Table 3-7). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's

alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value was .76. Following reliability analysis, the values

of the items were summed to create a behavioral intention index.

Demographics

There were five demographic indicators used in the survey instrument. Items assessed

were gender, age, education (categories: "Less than High School," "High School diploma,"

"Attended business/technical school," "Some college or 2-year degree," "Completed 4-year

college degree," "Some graduate work," and "Completed graduate or advanced degree"), and

income (categories: "Less than $14,999," "$15,000 to $34,999," "$35,000 to $49,999," "$50,000

to $64,999," "$65,000 to $99,999," "$100,000 to $149,999," $150,000 to $199,999," and "Over

$200,000").









Supplemental Items

Two questions were additionally posed to respondents. The first question, "How do you

feel about removing manatees from the endangered species list" was coded on a five point Likert

scale format (l=strongly disagree with removing them, 2=disagree with removing them,

3=neither agree nor disagree with removing them, 4=agree with removing them, 5=strongly

agree with removing them, and 6=not sure/nor response). The second question, "Please check

the number of times you have seen manatee while boating during the past 12 months" (choices:

"Never," "1 to 2 times," "3 to 4 times," "5 to 6 times," "7-8 times," "9-10 times," "Greater than

10," "Not sure") was adapted from Confer et al. (2003).

Telephone Survey of Non-Respondents

Mail surveying is a heavily relied upon method for conducting social research; however,

low response rates can be problematic. Low response rates in mail surveying may impart bias to

a sample if non-respondents differ in characteristic from respondents, in which case sample

means may differ from those of the population of interest. Although Babbie (2004) contends that

a response rate of 50% is adequate for statistical analyses, there seems to be little consensus

about an acceptable response rate for mail survey research (Dolsen & Machlis, 1991). For this

particular study, a 23% response rate was achieved. Based on a procedure used by Cottrell

(1993), non-response bias was evaluated by conducting a telephone survey of a random sample

of non-respondents based on 14 questions from the mail survey instrument (Appendix B).

A systematic random sample of 40 vessel owners representing five percent (N=800,

interval = 20) of all non-respondents were selected to be surveyed by telephone between

November 27 and December 5, 2006. Telephone numbers of non-respondents selected for phone

surveying were procured by searching the Internet based on the names and addresses generated

for the initial survey mail out.









Fourteen telephone numbers could not be located, and as a result fourteen replacement

names were randomly selected. Of these replacements, five telephone numbers could not be

located, six refused the survey for various reasons, and four numbers were never found. In an

effort to contact at least 30 non-respondents, a systematic random sample of 20 additional vessel

owners was conducted. Of this sample, five phone numbers were never found, two were never

reached and two declined the survey. In total, 36 telephone interviews were conducted, with the

sample means and distributions of questions compared on a per question basis with the original

mail survey results.

Variables examined in the phone survey analyses included 1) number of years a boater,

2) boat type, 3) hull length, 4) self-assessed general boating skill, 5) agreement with manatees

being worth saving despite regulation, 6) agreement with boat safety zones causing too many

inconveniences, 7) agreement with fully complying with manatee speed zones during most

recent boating experience, 8) agreement with manatee speed zones being well marked, 9) general

support for Florida's boating rules and regulations, 10) knowledge of idle speed zone definition,

11) ticketing history, 12) agreement with removing manatees from the endangered species list,

13) importance of having the freedom to get to a destination quickly while boating, and 14)

intention to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time one boated. Both the question

wording and response choices were identical to those of the mail survey instrument.

Results of the analyses are presented in Appendix C. Fourteen variables were examined

for distribution and/or statistically significant differences between the mail survey and phone

survey results. Of those tested for significance, six were found to differ at the .05 level of

significance. Employing an independent samples t-test, significant differences were found

between mail and phone respondents with respect to the number of years a boater (t = -2.45; p









<.05), with mail respondents boating more years (mean = 26 yrs) than phone respondents (mean

= 19 yrs). The median vessel length was the same for both groups (both 3.0, indicated that the

boats between the length of 16ft and 25ft were the most commonly used for both respondents

and non-respondents). Mail respondents depicted themselves as having slightly higher general

boating skills than telephone respondents, although the difference was not statistically

significant. Mail respondents indicated significantly higher agreement with the statement that

"Manatees were worth saving despite the need for regulations" (mean 3.9) than did phone

respondents (mean 3.5) (t = -2.21; p = <.05). Similarly, mail and telephone respondents differed

significantly in their agreement that "Boat safety zones caused too many inconveniences" (t =

3.6; p<.05), with mail respondents indicating much higher agreement (mean = 3.2) than did

telephone respondents (mean = 2.5). Both groups were very similar in their high level of

agreement with fully complying with manatee speed zones during their last boat outing, although

the two groups differed significantly in their agreement with manatee speed zones being well

marked (mean 3.0 and mean 3.5, phone and mail respondents, respectively) (t = 2.92; p <05).

Mail respondents indicated significantly greater support for Florida's boating rules and

regulations (mean = 3.9) than did those interviewed by telephone (mean = 3.5; t = 2.94; p <.05).

Finally, mail respondents did not differ from telephone respondents in agreement with their

feelings toward removing manatees from the endangered species list; importance in the freedom

to get to one's boating destination; or intention to follow manatee speed zone restrictions during

one's next boat outing.

Chi square analysis demonstrated that mail respondents had been ticketed more often

than telephone respondents (X2 = 13.49; p <.05). Boat types were then compared between mail

and phone respondents. Although chi square analysis could not be utilized due to insufficient









expected cell frequencies, percentages of vessel types within each category did not differ greatly

between mail and phone data. Twenty-three and 28% were fishing vessels (mail and phone

responses, respectively); 5% and 11% were johnboats (mail and phone responses, respectively);

11% and 17% were yachts/cruisers (mail and phone responses, respectively); 25% and 17% were

pontoons (mail and phone responses, respectively); 3% and 6% were personal watercraft (mail

and phone responses, respectively); 25% and 14 % were runabouts (mail and phone responses,

respectively); and about 8% were ski boats in both samples.

Responses to the question "when in an idle speed zone, a boater should..." was examined

for both mail and phone respondents. Approximately four percent mail and eight percent of the

phone respondents chose answer "A" ("Travel no faster than 5 mph"); 81% of mail and 72% of

phone respondents chose correct answer "B" ("Create no wake"); 12% of mail and 11% of phone

respondents chose "C" ("Create minimum wake"); and 3% of mail and 8% of phone respondents

chose "D" ("Not sure"). A Chi-square test of independence suggests that the proportion of mail

respondents who answered this correctly was not significantly different from the proportion of

telephone respondents who answered correctly.

Data Analyses

Data was stored and analyzed with SPSS version 14.0, with all analyses evaluated at the

.05 level of significance unless otherwise noted. In addition to research question and hypotheses

testing, the sample of boaters and key constructs were first described by frequencies and other

appropriate descriptive methods.

Specialization analyses were based on separate domain indices (behavioral, cognitive and

affective) as well as a composite index. Similarly, marine conservation attitude analyses were

based upon separate domain indices for analysis (attitudes toward manatee conservation, and

attitudes toward general conservation) and a composite index. With the exceptions noted, all









Likert scale data generated by the survey instrument were converted to indices for analyses;

therefore, parametric statistical methods were utilized (Agresti & Finlay, 1997).

Unless otherwise noted, vessel speed discrepancy (observed speed minus the maximum .

speed within the zone) was utilized as a response variable for those analyses relying on vessel

speed. Utilizing speed discrepancies rather than absolute speeds served to standardize the data

generated within the two different zones (Idle, site 1; and Slow, site 2). Furthermore, the speed

discrepancy calculation allowed a full exploration of the degree to which a boater was compliant

or non-compliant with boat speed restrictions.

In summary, the overarching purposes of the analyses that follow were to evaluate the

relationships between observed vessel speed and recreation specialization, marine conservation

attitudes and self-reported compliance behavior. Additionally, Theory of Reasoned Action, boat

and boater attributes, and situational factors were examined as predictors of boater compliance

within speed restricted manatee conservation zones.

Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing

Research question one was tested using an independent samples t-test to determine if

mean speed discrepancy (observed speed minus maximum allowable speed) differed between

those who had been ticketed and those who had not in the past for boat speed violations.

Research question two also an independent samples t-test to evaluate whether mean speed

discrepancy differed between the two sampling sites (slow and idle speeds). Question three used

a regression analysis to evaluate whether or not speed discrepancy was influenced by vessel

party size as observed on the water. For question four, one-way ANOVA was used to determine


3 Maximum allowable vessel speeds are defined by Sarasota County (2006) according to the following: Idle zone:
generally not to exceed 3 mph; Slow zone: generally not to exceed 7 mph.









if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed between the categories of vessel lengths. Similarly,

for question five the mean difference in vessel speed discrepancy between the various vessel

types (pontoon, fish, personal watercraft, runabout, johnboat, sail, yacht/cruiser, ski, and other)

was evaluated with ANOVA. Research question six was evaluated with one-way ANOVA to

determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed based on the number of times a manatee

was observed while boating during the past 12 months. Research question seven used Pearson r

correlation analysis to examine boater's assessment of on-water signage on vessel speed

discrepancy. Similarly, for research question eight, a Pearson r correlation was used to examine

the association between recreation specialization (behavioral, affective, cognitive, and composite

specialization indices based on Z-scores) and speed zone signage assessment (manatee speed

zones, general boat safety speed zones, and composite speed zone signage assessment indices).

Finally, Research question nine was analyzed by first employing a series of Pearson r

correlations between the TRA indices, after which multiple regression was performed between

the same TRA indices.

Hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4 were testing using Pearson r correlations to determine if recreation

specialization was associated with observed vessel speed discrepancy, self-reported compliance

behavior, marine conservation attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Prior to hypothesis testing,

responses to the recreation specialization items were first converted to Z-scores. Vessel speed

discrepancy (observed speed minus maximum allowable) was used to standardize the different

maximum allowable speeds within the slow speed and idle speed zones. Responses to questions

within the recreation specialization, marine conservation attitude and behavioral intention

domains were summed to create indices for hypothesis testing.









Pearson r correlation was employed to test Hypothesis five, which evaluated the

association between the index self-reported compliance behavior and observed speed

discrepancy. An independent samples t-test was additionally performed to determine if

compliant boaters (as determined by field observation) differed from non-compliant boaters in

their level of self-reported compliance behavior.

Hypotheses 6, 7 and 8 were tested using Pearson r correlations to evaluate the association

between marine conservation attitudes, vessel speed discrepancy, behavioral intentions, and self-

reported compliance behavior. Indices of marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions

and self-reported compliance behavior were used for hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses 9 and 10 were tested using Pearson r correlations to evaluate the associations

between behavioral intentions and self-reported compliance behavior and vessel speed

discrepancy. Indices of behavioral intention and self-reported compliance behavior were used

for hypothesis testing.

Prior to performing a path analysis to test the hypothesized associations presented in the

proposed model (Figure 1-1), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the

scales used in the survey instrument. CFA was used to discern factor loading, and to determine

item deletion due to cross loading on more than one factor (Pallant, 2005). As a result of the

CFA analysis, number of boating-related magazine subscriptions and/or books, number of

boating-related items, and number of boating-related clubs were dropped from the affective

domain of the recreation specialization construct. Similarly, the affective domain item "Boating

and boating-related activities are one of the most enjoyable things I do," the entire behavioral

domain of the recreation specialization construct, and "I generally support Florida's boating rules

and regulations" from marine conservation attitudes were deleted due to low convergent validity.









After model modification, a path analysis was performed to determine the predictive validity

between recreation specialization, marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-

reported compliance behavior, and vessel speed discrepancy. AMOS 7.0 software was employed

for both CFA and path analyses.







St. Johns River


Idle Speed Sampling Site (Site 1) -




Blue Spring Boil Mpd







- Slow Speed Sampling Site (Site 2)


q.
ir^s~


1000 m


Figure 3-1. St. Johns River sampling sites









Table 3-1. Sampling schedule and observations
Date Day Zone type
7/29/2006 Sat Idle
7/30/2006 Sun Slow
8/12/2006 Sat Slow
8/13/2006 Sun Idle
8/18/2006 Fri Idle
8/19/2006 Sat Idle
8/20/2006 Sun Slow
8/26/2006 Sat Slow
8/27/2006 Sun Idle
9/2/2006 Sat Idle
9/3/2006 Sun Slow
9/4/2006 Mon Idle
9/9/2006 Sat Slow
9/16/2006 Sat Slow
9/17/2006 Sun Idle
9/23/2006 Sat Idle
9/24/2006 Sun Slow
Total


Vessels observed
146
122
148
78
13
65
127
71
79
88
145
109
84
137
87
78
87
1670


Observer


Vessel travel


Figure 3-2. Vessel speed calculation











Table 3-2. Field observation attributes
Parameter Frequency


Time
0900-0959
1000-1059
1100-1159
1200-1259
1300-1359
1400-1459
1500-1559
1600-1659
Vessel length (ft)
<12
12-15
15.1-25
25.1-39
39.1-64


Vess
Fishii
Johnl
Yach
Ponte
Person
Runa
Ski
Other


16
102
248
263
239
211
114
14

43
323
744
86
12


el type
ng 278
)oat 54
t/cruiser 138
)on 298
>nal watercraft 39
bout 299
92
r 11
* The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 100%


Percent*









Table 3-3. Reliability analysis for recreation specialization
Corrected Alpha if Corrected Alpha if
item total item item item
Recreation specialization correlation deleted correlation deleted
Behavioral a, 1 Individual dimensions Overall index
Number of years a boater .32 .61 .47 .80
Number of days boated in past 12 months .66 .34 .53 .79
Number of days boated in Volusia County in .52 .42 .80
past 12 months
Number of different water bodies boated during .16 .71 .21 .82
.16 .71 .21 .82
your life
Standardized item alpha .62
Cognitive b, 2
My general boating skill level .71 .49 .53 .79
My knowledge of general boating rules and .62 .53 .53 .79
regulations
My knowledge of Volusia County waterway .31 .65 .33 .81
rules and regulations
My comfort level with operating a boat 20 or
more miles offshore
Standardized item alpha .77
Affective '
Number of items owned which are related to
boating, excluding tow vehicle 1
Total number of boating magazine subscriptions .42 .73 .31 .81
and boating-related books 1
Number of boating-related clubs 1 .24 .77 .18 .82
I find that a lot of my life is organized around
S3 .49 .71 .40 .81
boating
Boating and related activities are one of the most
3 .58 .69 .57 .79
enjoyable things I do
Boating is very important to me 3 .54 .70 .49 .80
Boating says a lot about who I am3 .60 .68 .66 .80
Standardized item alpha .75
Composite index standardized alpha = .81
1 Based on total count
2 Likert scale: 1 lowest to 10 highest
3 Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
a Adapted from Donnelly et al. (1986), Virden & Schreyer (1988)
b Adapted from McIntyre & Pigram (1992), Meyer (2002)
Adapted from Bricker & Kerstetter (2000), Donnelly et al. (1996), Hvenegaard (2000),
Sutton & Ditton (2001), Virden & Schreyer (1988)









Table 3-4. Reliability analysis for marine conservation attitudes
Corrected Alpha if
item item
Manatee conservation attitude correlation deleted
Overall index
Manatees worth saving despite need for regulations a, .62 .74
Boat speed reduction is an effective manatee protection strategy a, .73 .67
Boat speed reduction is an effective general marine conservation .
.60 .75
strategy
I generally support Florida's boating rules and regulations 1 .50 .79
Composite index standardized alpha = .80
1Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
a Adapted from Aipanjiguly (2001)


Table 3-5. Reasons for choosing non-compliance
Reasons you may not comply Mean*
a. Gets too hot when boat goes slow 2.9
b. Need to get somewhere 2.9
c. Other boats are going fast 3.1
d. Other people on my boat want to go faster 3.7
e. It's fun to go faster 3.8
f. Those I learned from never complied 5.0
g. To get out of the rain 2.4
h. I don't care about speed zones 3.1
i. Bad zone signage/can't understand 2.0
j. I don't like being told how to operate my boat 3.8
k. I don't agree with the zone 2.5
1. I know that there are no officers in the area 4.5
m. Not paying attention 2.5
n. Other (please list) lightning most commonly cited
* Number represents the mean response, with smaller means=more important









Table 3-6. Reliability analysis for speed zone signage assessment
Corrected Alpha if Corrected Alpha if
item total item item item
Speed zone signage assessment correlation deleted correlation deleted
Signage assessment in manatee zones a, 1 Individual dimensions Overall index
Manatees speed zones are well marked .79 .79 .76 .89
Manatee speed zone signs are easy to read .81 .78 .79 .89
I can always tell when I'm in a manatee speed .68 .89 .72 .90
zone
Standardized item alpha .87
Signage Assessment in General Boat Safety
Zones
General boat safety speed zones are well marked .81 .78 .82 .89
General boat safety speed zone signs are easy to
ra .78 .82 .77 .89
read
I can always tell when I'm in a general boat
.71 .88 .59 .91
safety zone
Standardized item alpha .88
Composite index standardized alpha = .91
1Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
a Adapted from Confer et al. (2003)









Table 3-7. Reliability analysis for theory of reasoned action constructs
Corrected item Alpha if
TRA total correlation item deleted
Attitudes a, 1
Having the freedom to get to my destination quickly while34 .72
boating is important
Having no threat of ticketing for disregarding boat speed zones .50 .45
is important
Having fun while on my boat is more important than obeying 54 45
boat speed zones
Standardized item alpha .63
Subjective Norm a, 1
When boating, I want to do what my family and friends think I63
should do
When boating, I want to do what other boaters think I should do .68 .09
When boating, I want to do what law enforcement officers think
I should do
Standardized item alpha .62
Behavioral Intentions 1
I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time
T a .61 .73
I boat
I intend to follow general boat safety speed restrictions the next65 .64
time I boat
Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that will not harm the .1
.61 .68
environment
Standardized item alpha .76
1 Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
a Items adapted from Aipanjiuguly except those noted









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Field Observation

In situ speed, vessel and operator attributes were collected for boaters in Southwestern

Volusia County, Florida during June 2006 September 2006. Of the 1670 vessel observations

made, 1059 were useable after the repeat observations, rentals and those with missing, illegible,

or unlisted vessel numbers were removed from the database. Rental vessels comprised about

12% of the total useable sample, none of which where utilized for the mail survey portion of the

investigation, as rental vessel operator names and addresses could not be queried with the Florida

Vessel Title Registration System.

The mean party size observed in the vessels was about three people (median=3.0), with

group sizes ranging from one to fifteen persons. However, most vessels (82%) had four

passengers or fewer, including the operator. Most vessels were between 15.1-25 ft in length

(60%), followed by 12-15 ft in length (30%) (Table 4-1). With respect to vessel types observed

on the water, runabouts were the most common (28%), followed by fishing vessels (26%) and

pontoons (16%).

Of the 1059 useable vessel observations, 633 (59%) were observed in the idle speed, and

426 (41%) were observed in the slow speed zones. Within the idle speed zone (maximum

allowable speed = 3 mph), mean vessel speed was 4.22 mph (standard deviation = 1.31), with a

range from 1 to 10 mph. Within the slow speed zone (maximum allowable speed = 7 mph),

mean vessel speed was 6.42 mph (standard deviation = 4.00 mph), with a range from 1 to 36

mph. Rental vessels (n = 150) demonstrated a mean speed discrepancy (observed speed minus

posted speed limit) of .35 mph, while non-rentals (n = 909) demonstrated a .50 mph discrepancy.

A one-sample t-test was performed to determine if either of these two means was significantly









different from zero. Mean speed discrepancy for rentals was not significantly different from zero

(t (149) = 1.64; p = .102); however, mean non rental vessel speed discrepancy was found to

differ significantly from zero (t (1058) = 5.67; p<.01). Positive mean discrepancies for both

groups indicate that on average, both groups violated speed limits; however, non-rental operators

violated at higher speeds, on average, than rental vessel operators.

Profile of Subjects

Based on the vessel observations conducted on the St. Johns River, 1059 surveys were

mailed to the respective boaters. Twenty-three surveys were returned as undeliverable and 236

completed surveys were received, for a 23% response rate.

There was a high degree of association between the date boaters were observed in the field

and the date of their last boat outing as indicated on the mail survey (85%; n = 200). An

insignificant independent sample t-test demonstrated that the mean self-reported compliance

index did not differ between respondents who answered the survey questions with respect to the

date they were observed on the water, or those who answered with respect to a more recent date.

Consequently, respondents were analyzed as if the correspondence between the date boaters

were observed in the field and the date of their last boat outing as indicated on the mail survey

matched perfectly. Furthermore, 94% (n = 205) of the respondents indicated being the "primary"

vessel operator during their last boat outing. However, it is not possible to be absolutely certain

whether the person responding to the survey was, in fact, the person observed on the water. A

majority (75%) of the respondents indicated that their vessels were equipped with speedometers.

The average respondent was male (90%), 52 years of age, fairly well educated with some

college or a 2-year degree, with most (89%) having some education beyond a high school

diploma. The average household income was between $65,000 to $99,000 per year, with 44 %

earning $100,000 per year or more. DeLand, Florida was the single most cited place of









residence (20%). In addition to Deltona, Sanford, Apopka, and Orlando were also the most

common Florida cities listed as the place of residence, all of which are within 45-minute driving

distance from the sampling sites (Table 4-2).

With respect to manatee sightings during the past 12 months of boating, nearly 22% had

never seen a manatee, and 35 % indicated seeing manatees between one and four times. Few

boaters (19%) had been ticketed for speed violations while boating. Respondents belonged to

few environmental organizations, with more than 78% noted to belong to none. Furthermore,

19% strongly disagreed with removing manatees from the endangered species list, while 24%

agreed1 with removing them.

Recreation Specialization

Recreation specialization was conceptualized based on three dimensions: behavioral,

cognitive and affective. Following an examination of the distribution of each item within the

three domains, responses were converted to Z-scores to create individual indices and a composite

specialization index for testing of hypotheses.

Behavioral Domain

Four items were used for the behavioral domain, with mean responses presented in Table

4-3. Respondents had a mean of 25 years of boating experience, with 28% having boated for 10

or fewer years. Respondents had boated 47 days during the proceeding 12 months, with

approximately 25% boating more than 55 times during that period. On average, boaters operated

their vessels 29 days in Volusia County during the proceeding 12 months, and had boated on five

different water bodies during that same period.





1 Agreed reflects the combined responses for "Agreed" and "Strongly Agreed"









The ratio-scale data generated by the items within the behavioral domain measured

different aspects of the boating experience, and thus generated widely varying results. For

example, one person indicated being a boater for 50 years, while only boating once in the past 12

months. Another respondent indicated to have boated for 50 years, but had also boated 156

times during the past 12 months.

Cognitive Domain

The cognitive domain was operationalized using four items based on a likert scale format

(1-10, with 10 the highest). Respondents were asked to rate their skill level with respect to: 1)

general boating skill, 2) knowledge of general boating rules and regulations, 3) knowledge of

Volusia County waterways, and 4) comfort in operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore. The

mean values for the items are illustrated in Table 4-3. Respondents indicated a high average

general boating skill level (mean = 8.5), and a high average knowledge of general boating rules

and regulations (mean = 8.4). More than 80% responded with an "8," "9" or "10" to "General

boating skill level," and "Knowledge of general boating rules and regulations."

Lower mean values were demonstrated for knowledge of Volusia County waterways

(mean = 6.2), and comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore (mean = 5.4).

This suggests that while boaters may have a high degree of boating skill, some have

unfamiliarity with Volusia County and offshore environments. Fifty two percent of the

respondents indicated that their knowledge of Volusia County waterways was between "1" and

"5" (i.e., relatively poor knowledge). Similarly, 51% of respondents rated their comfort level

with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore between "1" and "5."

Affective Domain

This domain was conceptually based on centrality to lifestyle (3 items) and enduring

involvement (4 items), with mean responses presented in Table 4-3. Respondents reported a









wide range of boating magazine subscriptions and/or boating-related books currently owned

(range 0-500). This had the effect of skewing the data somewhat, as the next lowest number was

50 items (mean, including outlier = 5.6, mode, including outlier = 1.0). Consequently, the outlier

(500 items) was removed for the analysis. After its removal, 74 % indicated owning three, and

90% reported owning seven or fewer boating subscriptions and/or boating-related books (mean =

3.7). Similarly, the number of boating-related items owned was varied. The distribution was

highly skewed due to the presence of several outliers (range 0-10,000; mean, including outlier =

120.5; mode, including outlier = 30.0). Thus, outliers greater than 200 boating-related items (10

respondents) were removed for the analysis. After the removal, nearly one half (47%) indicated

to own 28 items or fewer, with 19% reported to own 100 items or more (mean = 46.2 items)

(Table 4-3). Sixty one percent of respondents did not belong to any boating-related clubs, while

28% reported to belong to one club.

For the enduring involvement items within the affective domain, Likert-scale responses

(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) were used.

Respondents indicated strong agreement with boating being one of the most enjoyable activity

they participated in (mean=4.6), and also for boating being very important (mean=4.5). The

questions, "Boating says a lot about who I am," and "I find that a lot of my life is organized

around boating" both had lower means (mean=4.0 and 3.8, respectively).

Marine Conservation Attitudes

Marine conservation attitudes were conceptually divided into 1) manatee conservation

attitudes (2 items), and 2) general marine conservation attitudes (2 items). The four items were

tied to a Likert scale format (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly

Agree). Table 4-4 presents the distribution and means of these items. Overall results

demonstrated that respondents generally possessed positive marine conservation attitudes. More









specifically, 71% that manatees were worth saving despite the need for regulations, and a

majority (81%) agreed that they supported Florida's boating rules and regulations. Despite these

high percentages, only 47% of respondents agreed that boat speed reduction was as an effective

manatee conservation strategy, and fewer (42%) agreed boat speed reduction was an effective

general marine conservation strategy.

The highest mean value (3.9) (on a five point Likert scale) was identified for the item "I

generally support Florida's boating rules and regulations," while the lowest mean value (3.0) was

registered for "Boat speed reduction is an effective general marine conservation strategy."

Additionally, respondents registered a mean of 3.2 for "Boat speed reduction is an effective

manatee conservation strategy."

Knowledge

Boater knowledge of state manatee protection status and Florida boating speed restriction

definitions was assessed by three questions. The first question, "In Florida, manatees are

officially listed as," was answered correctly by only 34% of respondents, with most selecting

"Endangered" as the incorrect choice (58%) (Table 4-5). The second question, "When in an idle

speed zone, a boater should," offered respondents four possible answer choices. Respondents

(81%) overwhelmingly selected the correct answer "Create no wake." The third knowledge

question, "When in a slow speed zone, a boater should," was similarly answered correctly,

"Create minimum wake," by most respondents (83%).









1 Agreed reflects the combined responses for "Agreed" and "Strongly Agreed"









Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior

With respect to self-reported compliant behavior, several questions were assessed of

respondents. About 84% .that they fully complied with manatee speed zones during their most

recent boating experience (mean = 4.3). An overwhelming majority (92%) agreed with fully

complying with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones during their most recent boating

experience (mean = 4.5). Responses to "Overall, how often do you comply with boat speed

zones," garnered a very high mean score of 4.7 (out of 5), with 94% noting they complied more

than half of the time, or all of the time. Furthermore, only 18% reported having been ticketed for

violation of boat speed restrictions. These percentages and means of self-reported compliance

behaviors are interesting considering the majority (55%) of observed boaters failed to fully

comply with vessel speed limits.

With respect to lack of compliance with boat speed restrictions, respondents were asked

to indicate the top five out of 14 reasons. Based on the responses, mean values were calculated,

and smaller means represented those reasons of most importance, and larger means representing

reasons of least importance. The results demonstrate that poor or unclear signage was the single

most important reason for lack of full compliance (mean = 1.9). The second most important

reason was to get out of the rain (mean = 2.4), while the third response was "other," in which

respondents were asked to list other reasons for not fully complying as well as ranking its

importance (mean = 2.5) (Table 4-6). Lightning and bad weather were listed by respondents as

the most common reason within the "other" category (n = 20). Problems such as a sinking vessel

or a poorly running engine were the second most commonly listed reason (n = 11). The third



1 Agreed reflects the combined responses for "Agreed" and "Strongly Agreed"









reason for non-compliance within the "other" category was for medical emergencies (n = 9)

(Table 4-7).

Speed Zone Signage Assessment

As the previous section noted, boaters may have difficulty reading or understanding boat

speed restriction signs, and thus may not always have been aware of zone requirements. Two

conceptual domains were employed to operationalize speed zone signage assessments: 1)

manatee speed zones (3 items), and 2) general boat-safety zones (3 items). The six items were

tied to a five point Likert scale format (l=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree,

5=Strongly Agree) (Table 4-8).

Roughly 58% agreed1 that manatee speed zones were well marked, and 59% agreed that

manatee signs are easy to read. Forty seven percent agreed that they could always tell when they

were in a manatee speed zone, while 48% agreed they could always tell when they were in a

general boat safety zone. Fifty two percent agreed that general boat safety speed zones are well

marked, and that general boat safety speed zone signs are easy to read.

Means for the all six zone assessment items were close to or slightly above 3.0 or

"Neutral." For example, the item "Manatee speed zones are well marked," resulted in the

highest mean (3.5). The lowest mean was identified for the question "I can always tell when I'm

in a manatee speed zone" (3.1).

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

Nine items tied to a five point Likert scale format (l=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree,

3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) were used to evaluate: 1) attitudes (3 items), 2)

subjective norm (3 items), and 3) behavioral intentions (3 items). Frequency distributions and

means are presented in Table 4-9.









Attitudes

Approximately 41% that the freedom to get to one's destination quickly while boating

was important. Few respondents (11%) agreed that an absence of a threat of ticketing for

disregarding boat speed zones was important, and a very low percentage (3%) agreed that having

fun while boating was more important than obeying boat speed zones. Low means were

identified for both "Having fun while on my boat is more important than obeying boat speed

zones" (1.7), and "Having no threat of ticketing for disregarding boat speed zones is important"

(2.2).

Subjective Norm

About 21% agreed that when boating they wanted to do what family and friends thought

they should do, and 19% agreed that they wanted to do what other boaters thought they should

do when boating. Contrastingly, a strong majority (80%) agreed that they wanted to do what law

enforcement officers thought they should do. Mean responses were also generated for the items

that related to wanting to do what family and friends think they should do (2.4) and with what

other boaters think they should do (2.3). However, a high mean was found with wanting to do

what law enforcement officers wanted them to do (4.1).

Intentions

A majority of the respondents agreed (81%) that they intended to follow manatee speed

zones during their next boat outing. Similarly, 94% agreed that they intended to follow general

boat safety speed restrictions the next time they boated; and nearly all (97%) agreed that they

intended to boat in a way that would not harm the environment during their next outing.

Respondents generally demonstrated a high level of agreement with intentions to comply with

1 Agreed reflects the combined responses for "Agreed" and "Strongly Agreed"









speed restrictions. For example, a high mean was identified for "Next time I boat I intend to boat

in a way that will not harm the environment (4.5). Large mean responses were also found for

intention to follow general boat safety speed zones (4.5), as well as intention to follow manatee

speed zones during the next outing (4.2).

Results of Research Questions Tested

1. Does boat speed violation ticketing history influence speed discrepancy?

An independent samples t-test was performed to determine if mean speed differed

between those who had been ticketed for boat speed violations in their past, and those who had

not. Only 45 respondents indicated to have been ticketed. The mean speed discrepancy did not

differ significantly between those who had (mean = 1.03, SD = 2.61) and those who had not

(mean = .48, SD = 3.31) been ticketed (t (232) = -1.03; p=.30). Therefore, prior boat speed

violation ticketing history did not appear to have any influence on boater's vessel speed through

manatee conservation zones.

2. Does boater speed discrepancy differ between idle and slow speed zones?

An independent samples t-test was utilized to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy

differed between the two sampling sites (site 1, Idle speed, maximum allowable speed 3mph; and

site 2, Slow speed, maximum allowable speed 7mph). A statistically significant difference in

mean speed discrepancy was identified between site 1 (mean = 1.24, SD = 1.36) and site 2 (mean

= -.623, SD = 3.81, t (1207) = 10.4; p<.01). The results suggest that vessel compliance differed

on a per-site basis.







2 Speed discrepancy defined as observed vessel speed minus the maximum allowable per zone.









3. Does party size influence speed discrepancy?

A regression analysis was performed between party size and speed discrepancy. Results

indicate that speed discrepancy was not influenced by party size. Party size was a poor predictor

of speed discrepancy, and explained less than one percent of the variability in speed discrepancy

(B = -.04).

4. Does vessel length influence speed discrepancy?

A one-way ANOVA was employed to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy

differed between the observed vessel length categories (<12', 12'-15', 16'-25', 26'-39', 40'-64',

>64') as documented in the field. Analysis revealed a significant difference in speed discrepancy

between vessel lengths (F = 2.62, p = .03). A Bonferroni multiple comparison was also

performed to determine differences within vessel length categories. Significant differences were

found between vessel length category two (12'-15') and vessel length category three (16'-25')

(mean speed discrepancy for category one = .06, category two = .61, p< .05). Operators of

longer vessel were more likely than operators of small vessels to violate speed restrictions.

5. Does vessel type influence speed discrepancy?

A one-way ANOVA was utilized to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed

among vessel categories (pontoon, fish, personal watercraft, runabout, johnboat, sail,

yacht/cruiser, ski, and other). Results identified that mean vessel speed discrepancy did not

differ among the various vessel categories as the relationship was not statistically significant

(F(7, 1208)= .89, p=.52).









6. Does a boater's history of seeing manatees influence speed discrepancy?

A one-way ANOVA was used to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy

differed based on the number of times a manatee was observed while boating during the

past 12 months (Never, 1-2 times, 3-4 times, 5-6 times, 7-8 times, 9-10 times, >10 times, Not

sure). Results of the analysis identified that the number of times a manatee had been observed

by a boater had no influence on vessel speed discrepancy (F(7, 228) = 1.6, p=.15).

7. Does a boater's speed zone signage assessment influence speed discrepancy?

Pearson r correlations were performed between speed zone signage assessment (manatee

zone, general boat safety zones and composite signage assessment index) and vessel speed

discrepancy (Table 4-10). Results indicated that vessel speed discrepancy was not significantly

associated with speed zone signage assessment. Neither the manatee sign assessment index (r = -

.07), general boat safety speed zone index (r = -.12), nor the composite sign assessment index (r

= -.10) were significantly associated with vessel speed discrepancy.

8. Does boater's level of recreation specialization influence speed zone signage
assessment?

Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation

specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), the composite specialization index,

the two speed zone signage assessment indices (manatee zone, general boat safety zones), and

the composite speed zone signage assessment index (Table 4-11). Results indicated that

specialization level was significantly associated with speed zone signage assessment. For

example, the behavioral index was negatively and significantly associated with the manatee zone

signage assessment index (r = -.16, p<.05) and the composite signage assessment index (r = -.13,

p<.05). The affective specialization index was negatively and significantly associated with the

manatee zone signage assessment index (r = -.20, p<.01), general boat safety zone signage index









(r = -.19, p<.01), and the composite signage assessment index (r = -.21, p<.01). Although the

cognitive specialization index was not found to be significantly associated with any of the

signage assessment indices, the composite specialization index was significantly associated with

the composite zone signage assessment index (r = -.22, p<.01). Therefore, as boaters become

more specialized they concomitantly report a reduction in their assessment of boat zone signs.

9. Are the relationships between past behavior (observed and self-report) attitudes,
norms and intentions consistent with Figure 4-1 (TRA)?

Based on the procedures by Alabarracin et al. (2001), the TRA model was evaluated by

first employing a series of Pearson r correlations, after which a multiple regression was

performed. The composite index (self-reported compliance behavior, attitudes, subjective norm,

and behavioral intentions) was used for each analysis. The following steps were used to evaluate

this research question, with the results of the tested model shown in Figure 4-1:

Correlations:

Step 1: Speed discrepancy (observed) and behavioral intentions.
Step 2: Speed discrepancy (observed) and subjective norms.
Step 3: Speed discrepancy (observed) and attitudes.
Step 4: Self-reported compliance behavior and behavioral intentions.
Step 5: Self-reported compliance behavior and attitudes.
Step 6: Self-reported compliance behavior and subjective norms.
Step 7: Attitudes and behavioral intentions.
Step 8: Subjective norms and behavioral intentions.

Results of the Pearson r correlations (Steps 1-8) suggest that part of the model is consistent

with TRA theory. Specifically, results indicate:

Step 1: Speed discrepancy (observed) was not significantly associated with behavioral intention.

Step 2: Speed discrepancy (observed) was not significantly associated with subjective norm.

Step 3: Speed discrepancy (observed) was not significantly associated with attitude.

Step 4: Self-reported compliance behavior and behavioral intentions were significantly
associated (r = .55, p<.01). Thus, an increase in self-reported compliance with speed-









restricted zones was significantly associated with an increase in intention to comply with
speed zones during a boater's next outing.

Step 5: Self-reported compliance behavior and attitudes were significantly associated (r = .44,
p<.01). An increase in self-reported compliance with speed-restricted zones was
significantly associated with an increase in attitudes.

Step 6: Self-reported compliance and subjective norm were not significantly associated.

Step 7: Attitude and behavioral intentions were significantly associated (r = .50, p<.01). An
increase in attitudes was significantly associated with intention to comply with speed
zones during a boater's next outing.

Step 8: Subjective norm and behavioral intentions were not significantly associated.

Multiple Regression:

The multiple regression model employed attitudes, subjective norms, self-reported

compliance behavior and vessel speed discrepancy as predictor variables and behavioral

intentions as the criterion variable. The composite attitude, subjective norm, self-reported

compliance, and behavioral intention indices were used for this analysis.

Results of the multiple regression analysis (Table 4-12) show that the model is a

significant predictor of behavioral intention (F = 41.63; p<.01). The predictor variables explain

about 43% of the variability in behavioral intentions. Results also demonstrate that self-reported

compliance behavior contributes more to the predictive ability of the regression model

(standardized beta = .42; p<.01) than do attitudes (standardized beta = -.37; p<.01). However,

neither the subjective norm nor vessel speed discrepancy uniquely contributed to the predictive

ability of the model.

The TRA model presented was found partially consistent with TRA theory.

Specifically, self-reported compliance (r = .55, p<.01) and attitudes (r = .50, p<.01) were both

significantly associated with behavioral intention to fully comply with speed zones during next

boat outing. Self-reported compliance and attitudes were also significantly associated (r = -.44,









p<.01). Results of the multiple regression analysis demonstrate that attitudes and self-reported

compliance combined to uniquely explain about 43% of the variability in behavioral intention.

An examination of beta weights suggests that self-reported compliance weighted more heavily (B

=.42) than did attitudes (B = -.37) on behavioral intentions.

Results of Hypothesis Testing

Recreation Specialization

HI: There is a negative association between boater's specialization level and observed
speed discrepancy.

Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation

specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), the composite specialization index,

and observed vessel speed discrepancies (Table 4-13). Results indicated that neither the

individual specialization domain indices nor the composite specialization index were statistically

associated with speed discrepancies. Specifically, the Pearson r correlations between speed

discrepancy and the behavioral index (r = -.07), affective index (r = .03), cognitive index (r = -

.09), and composite index (r = .03) were all very small values. Therefore, the hypothesis was

rejected as lack of negative associations existed between boater's specialization level and

observed vessel speed discrepancies.

H2: There is a positive association between boater's specialization level and self-reported
compliant behavior.

Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation

specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), the composite specialization index,

two self-reported compliance items, and a composite self-reported compliance index (Table 4-

14). Self-reports of compliance within manatee zones were significantly associated with the

behavioral (r = -.27, p<.01), cognitive (r = -.38, p<.01), and composite specialization indices (r =

-.234, p<.01), but insignificantly associated with the affective index. Contrastingly, only the









cognitive index (r = -.19, p<.01) was significantly associated with self-reported compliance

within general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones. Further, the composite index of self-

reported compliance was found to be significantly related to the behavioral (r = -.23, p<.01),

cognitive (r = .34, p<.01) and the composite specialization indices (r = -.20, p<.01).

Correlations between the affective dimension of the specialization construct and measures

of self-reported compliance were found to be statistically insignificant. However, all other

correlations between the specialization dimensions and self-report measures were negative and

statistically significant. In general, higher levels of boater specialization were associated with a

reduction in the level of self-reported compliance. Thus, the hypothesis was rejected as a positive

association between boater's specialization level and self-reported compliance did not exist.

H3: There is a positive association between boater's specialization level and marine
conservation attitudes.

Pearson r correlations were performed between the two marine conservation attitude index

and the three individual (behavioral, cognitive and affective) and composite specialization

indices (Table 4-15). All correlations between marine conservation attitude indices and

specialization indices were negative and statistically significant. For example, marine

conservation attitudes were negatively and significantly associated with the behavioral index (r =

-.35, p<.01), the affective index (r = -.30, p<.01), the cognitive index (r = -.37, p<.01) and the

composite specialization index (r = -.43, p<.01). Overall, as respondents became more

specialized they concomitantly demonstrated lower marine conservation attitudes. Therefore, this

hypothesis was rejected, as a positive association did not exist between specialization level and

marine conservation attitudes.









H4: There is a positive association between boater's specialization level and intention to
fully comply with manatee speed zone restrictions.

Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation

specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), composite specialization index, and a

composite index of behavioral intention (Table 4-16). Results identified that behavioral

intention was negatively and significantly associated with the behavioral (r = -.23, p<.01),

cognitive (r = -.27, p<.01), and composite specialization indices (r = -.17, p<.05).

Findings suggest that an increase in boating specialization generally coincides with a

decrease in intention to comply. The hypothesis was rejected as a positive association between

specialization and intention to fully comply with speed restrictions did not exist.

Reported vs. Observed Compliance Behavior

H5: There is a negative association between self-reported compliant behavior and
observed speed discrepancy.

Pearson r correlations were performed between the two self-reported compliance items, the

self-reported compliance composite index and observed vessel speed discrepancy (Table 4-17).

Results identified that reported behavior may be a poor proxy for actual behavior. For example,

the correlation coefficient between observed speed discrepancy and agreement with full

compliance with manatee speed zones during the most recent outing (r = .03), as well as

agreement with full compliance in general boat safety speed zones (r = -.05), were both

extremely weak, and statistically insignificant. Similarly, the correlation between observed

speed discrepancy and composite of both self-reported compliance items was weak and

statistically insignificant (r = -.01).

The hypothesis was rejected, as a negative relationship did not exist between observed

speed discrepancy and reported compliance. Results of this analysis indicate that while

respondents generally self-report a high level of manatee zone compliance (mean = 4.3 on a five









point scale), and general, non-manatee zone compliance (mean = 4.5 on a five point scale), their

observed behavior suggest otherwise.

As a follow up, an independent samples t-test was performed to determine if. boaters

differed from non-compliant boaters (observed) in their mean responses to the items, "I fully

complied with manatee speed zones during my most recent boating experience," "I fully

complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones during my most recent boating

experience," and "Overall, how often do you comply with boat speed zones" (Table 4-18). The

mean scores for each of the compliance measures did not differ significantly among compliant

and non-compliant boaters (observed). The results further added evidence that self-reports may

poorly represent actual behavior. In conclusion, hypothesis five and its ancillary hypothesis

were both rejected.

Marine Conservation Attitudes

H6: There is a negative association between marine conservation attitudes and
observed speed discrepancy

Pearson r correlations were performed between observed vessel speed discrepancy and the

marine conservation attitude index. Results identified a weak and statistically insignificant

association between observed speed discrepancy and marine conservation attitudes (r = .04).

Therefore the hypothesis was rejected as a negative association between vessel speed

discrepancies and marine conservation attitudes did not exist.

H7: There is a positive association between marine conservation attitudes and intention to
fully comply with manatee speed zone restrictions.

A Pearson r correlation was performed between the marine conservation attitude index and

the behavioral intention index. Results noted a positive and statistically significant association



3 Compliant and non-compliant boaters as determined by field observations.









between intentions to fully comply with speed restrictions and marine conservation attitudes (r =

.44, p<.01). The hypothesis was accepted, as a positive association existed between respondents'

intention to fully comply with speed restrictions and marine conservation attitudes. Therefore,

increases in marine conservation attitudes result in an increase in intention to fully comply with

speed zones.

H8: There is a positive association between marine conservation attitudes and self-
reported compliance behavior.

Pearson r correlations were performed between the marine conservation attitude index,

individual self-reported compliance items as well as the self-reported compliance composite

index (Table 4-19). Results identified that marine conservation attitudes were significantly

associated with self-reported compliance. For example, the association between the marine

conservation attitude index and the composite self-reported compliance index was positive and

statistically significant (r = .27, p<.01). In fact, all the correlations were found to be positive and

statistically significant.

The hypothesis was accepted as a positive association existed between marine

conservation attitudes and self-reported compliance. Therefore, an increase in marine

conservation attitudes results in an increase in the level of self-reported compliance.

Behavioral Intentions

H9: There is a positive association between intention to fully comply with manatee speed
zone restrictions and self-reported compliance behavior.

A Pearson r correlation was performed between the behavioral intention composite index

and self-reported compliance composite index. Results identified that the behavioral intention

composite index was significantly associated with the self-reported compliance composite index

(r = .67, p<.01). The hypothesis was accepted as a positive association existed between

behavioral intention and self-reported compliance. An increase in intention to fully comply with









speed restrictions during next boat outing results in an increase in the level of self-reported

compliance.

H10: There is a negative association between intention to fully comply with
manatee speed zone restrictions and observed speed discrepancy.

A Pearson r correlation was performed between observed vessel speed discrepancies and

the behavioral intention composite index. Results identified a very weak and statistically

insignificant association between the two variables (r = .09). The hypothesis was rejected as a

negative association behavioral intention and observed speed discrepancy did not exist.

Path Analysis

A path analysis was employed to determine the predictive validity between

recreation specialization, marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-reported

compliance behavior and observed speed discrepancy. The proposed model was first examined

through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the indices. As a result of the CFA,

poorly performing items were removed and the factor loadings were all significant (p<.05)

(Table 4-20). Since all factor loading values were greater than thresholds set forth by Litwin

(1995), the results demonstrated convergent validity.

Next, the overall model was tested and identified to be a reasonably good fit to the data as

shown by the fit indices in Figure 4-2. For example, the X2/df ratio of 2.7 was lower than the 3.0

suggested by Kline (1998). Additionally, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (.92) satisfied the .95

recommended cutoff, while the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value (.09)

was slightly higher than .08 cutoff as suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999).

The proposed model was tested by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Results of the

SEM demonstrate that the fit of the model was acceptable ( X2/df ratio = 2.7; CFI = .90; RMSEA

= .09). However, the hypothesized path model was generally found to poorly explain the









relationships between the individual constructs (Figure 4-2). Results demonstrate that recreation

specialization had a strong negative influence on marine conservation attitudes (B = -.57). That

is, a one-unit increase in recreation specialization resulted in a .57 mean agreement decrease in

marine conservation attitudes. Specialization was found to be a poor predictor of self-reported

compliance behavior, behavioral intentions, and observed vessel speed discrepancy.

Marine conservation attitudes exhibited a strong positive influence on behavioral

intentions (B = .33), which demonstrated that for every unit increase in marine conservation

attitudes, mean behavioral intention increased by .33. Mean self-reported compliance behavior

demonstrated an increase of .63 for every unit increase in behavioral intentions. However, a

weak influence on observed speed discrepancy was identified. The postulated theoretical model

was generally weak in accounting for the relationships between the latent variables.









Table 4-1. Vessel use and attributes from field observations
Vessel Attribute N
Vessel Length (ft)
<12 43
12-15 316
15.1-25 631
25.1-39 63
39.1-64 6
Vessel Type
Fishing 272
Johnboat 50
Yacht/cruiser 135


Pontoon
Personal watercraft
Runabout
Ski
Other
Party Size
1
2


165
37
297
92
11

84
426
238
246
100
57
25
16
9


>9 6
Observed Vessel Speeds Idle Zone
0-2 mph 43
2.01-4 mph 308
4.01-6 mph 307
6.01-8 mph 47
8.01-10 mph 6
10.01-12 mph 1
Observed Vessel Speeds Slow Zone
0-2 mph 5
2.01-4 mph 63
4.01-6 mph 240
6.01-8 mph 135
8.01-10 mph 23
10.01-12 mph 4
12.01-14 mph 4
>14 mph 20
*The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 100%


Percentage*

4
30
60
5
1

26
5
13
16
3
28
8
1

7
35
20
20
8
5
2
1
1
1

6
42
43
7
1
1

1
12
49
27
5
1
1
4









Table 4-2. Socio-demographic profile of respondents
N Percentage*
Gender
Male 209 90
Female 24 10
Age
20-30 10 5
31-40 33 14
41-50 60 26
51-60 81 35
61-70 28 12
>70 18 8
Education
Less than High School 1 0
High school diploma 24 11
Attended business/technical school 28 12
Some college or 2-year degree 86 38
Completed 4-year degree 46 21
Some graduate work 10 5
Completed graduate or advanced degree 29 13
Income
$15,000 to $34,999 9 4
$35,000 to $49,999 14 7
$50,000 to $64,999 49 24
$65,000 to $99,999 45 22
$100,000 to $149,999 55 26
$150,000 to $199,999 13 6
Over $200,000 22 11
Top five place of residence (all cities in Florida)**
Deland 47 20
Deltona 15 7
Sanford 13 6
Apopka 12 5
Orlando 10 4
*The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 100%
**Percentages do not equal 100%









Table 4-3. Recreation specialization domains
Behavioral 1 Mean
Number of years a boater 25.2
How many days did you boat during the past 12 months 46.9
How many days did you boat in Volusia County in the past 12 months 29.2
How many different water bodies have you boated on in the past 12 months 4.5
Cognitive 2
My general boating skill level 8.5
My knowledge of general boating rules and regulations 8.4
My knowledge of Volusia County waterway rules and regulations 6.2
My comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore 5.4
Affective
How may boating magazine subscriptions and/or boating-related books do you 3.7
currently own 1
Approximately how many items do you own that are directly related to boating, 46.2
excluding tow vehicle 1
How many boating-related clubs do you currently belong to 1 .60
Boating and related activities are one of the most enjoyable things I do 3 4.6
Boating is very important to me 3 4.5
Boating says a lot about who I am 3 4.0
I find that a lot of my life is organized around boating 3 3.8
1 Ratio-scale data
2 Likert scale: 1=lowest to 10=highest
3 Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5









Table 4-4. Marine conservation attitude items


Marine conservation
attitudes1'**
Manatees are worth saving
despite the need for
regulations
Boat speed reduction is an
effective manatee
conservation strategy
Boat speed reduction is an
effective general marine
conservation strategy
I generally support Florida's
boating rules and
regulations


Strongly
disagree


5%


12.7


12.3


2.3


Disagree Neutral


SStrongly
Agree agree
agree


7.7% 16.4% 37.7% 33.6%


18.6


22.7


5.0


21.4


22.7


11.4


34.5


36.4


56.8


12.7


Mean*



3.8


3.2


5.9 3.0


24.5


Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
* "Not sure/no response" was combined into the "Neutral" category
**Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding


Table 4-5. Boater knowledge


Knowledge Item**

When in an idle speed zone, a boater should



When in a slow speed zone, a boater should


Travel no
faster than
5 mph
4.0%
Travel no
faster than
10 mph
6.8%
Species of
special
concern


In Florida, manatees are officially listed as 6.(
* Correct response
** Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding


0%


Response choices
Create
Create no m
minimum
wake*
wake
81.4% 11.9%
Create
Create no m
minimum
wakewake*
2. 83.wake
2.1% 83.2%


Threatened*

34.3%


Endangered

58.8%


Not sure

2.6%

Not sure

7.7%
Manatees
are not
listed
<1%









Table 4-6. Reasons for non-compliance
Reasons n Mean *
Bad zone signage/can't understand 120 1.9
To get out of the rain 114 2.4
Other** 51 2.5
Not paying attention 96 2.5
I don't agree with the zone 81 2.6
Need to get somewhere 73 2.9
Gets too hot when boat goes slow 74 2.9
I don't care about speed zones 14 3.1
Other boats are going fast 44 3.1
Other people on my boat want to go faster 12 3.8
I don't like being told how to operate my boat 17 3.8
It's fun to go faster 22 3.8
I know that there are no officers in the area 25 4.5
Those I learned from never complied 5 5.0
* Small value equals greater importance
**Summarized in Table 4-7


Table 4-7. Reasons for non-compliance ("Other" category)
Other Frequency
Lightning/bad weather 20
Problem with boat 11
Medical emergency 9
Bad signage/missing signage 6
Always comply 4
Manatees stay along banks 2
Time restrictions 1









Table 4-8. Sign zone signage assessment
Strongly
disagree


Disagree


Neutral Agree


Manatee zonesl*


Manatee speed zones are well
Marked
Manatee speed zone signs are easy
to read
I can always tell when I'm in a
manatee speed zone
General boat safety speed
zones
General boat safety speed zones
are well marked
General boat safety speed zone
signs are easy to read
I can always tell when I'm in a
general boat safety zone
1 Likert scale: strongly disagree=


6.3% 19.3% 16.1% 43.5% 14.9% 3.5


8.1 18.8


28.3



25.2


5.1 23.1


25.8


14.1

14.6



17.5

20.1

22.3


44.9

38.2



42.7

40.2

39.9


14.1

9.0



9.0

11.5


1, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5


*Not sure/no response" was combined into the "Neutral" category
** Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding


Strongly
agree


Mean*









Table 4-9. Theory of reasoned action
TTI A -^i*m Strongly Strongly
TRA item*Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Stron Mean*
disagree agree


Attitudes
Having the freedom to get to my
destination quickly while boating
is important
Having no threat of ticketing for
disregarding boat speed zones is
important
Having fun while on my boat is
more important than obeying
boat speed zones
Subjective norm
When boating, I want to do what
my family and friends think I
should do
When boating, I want to do what
other boaters think I should do
When boating, I want to do what
law enforcement officers think I
should do
Behavioral intentions
I intend to follow manatee speed
zone restrictions the next time I
boat
I intend to follow general boat
safety speed restrictions the next
time I boat
Next time I boat I intend to boat in
a way that will not harm the
environment


11.8


30.5


46.7



27.9


32.9


2.7



1.5


0


.9


18.6


39.5


43.6



37.4


34.2


4.4



7.1


28.5 31.6


19.3


6.7



14.0


14.4


12.4


6.3 4.5


2.2



10.4


.9 1.7


10.4


8.1 10.4


44.4


10.4 32.0


1.3 4.3


38.2


1.3 40.3


36.0



49.1


56.2


57.1


1 Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
*Not sure/no response" was combined into the "Neutral" category
** Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding









Table 4-10. Zero-order correlations: vessel speed discrepancy and signage assessment


Manatee zone General zone Composite
signage signage zone signage
Speed assessment assessment assessment
discrepancy index index index
Spneed discrepnancv


Manatee zone
signage assessment index
General zone signage
assessment index
Composite zone signage
assessment index
Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


07

12

09


.94*


.93*











Table 4-11. Zero order correlations: recreation specialization and zone signage assessment
Manatee
Composite
Behavioral Affective Cognitive pitezone signage
specialization
index index index eiiin assessment
indexindex
index


General zone
signage
assessment
index


Composite
zone signage
assessment
index


Behavioral index
Affective index
Cognitive index
Composite specialization
index
Manatee zone signage assessment
index
General zone signage assessment index
Composite zone signage assessment
index


* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
**Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)


.31*
.45*
71*


.39*

.81*


.78*

-.13


-.44*


.74*

.94*


.93*









Table 4-12. Regression analysis summary for predicting behavioral intention
Predictor Variable B SEB B
Attitudes -.23 .03 -.37*
Subjective norms .001 .03 .00
Self-reported compliance behavior .57 .07 .42*
Observed vessel speed discrepancy .04 .03 .07
*Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)


Table 4-13. Zero-order correlations: speed discrepancy and recreation specialization
Speed Behavioral Affective Cognitive Composite
discrepancy index index index specialization
index
Speed discrepancy
Behavioral index -.08
Affective index .02 .32* -
Cognitive index -.07 .45* .38* -
Composite specialization index -.05 .70* .82* .77*
*Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)











Table 4-14. Zero order correlations:


Self-reported compliance in manatee
speed zones
Self-reported compliance in general, .64*
non-manatee speed zones
Composite index of self-reported .91*
compliance
Behavioral index -.19*
SAffective index .03
e Cognitive index -.23*
Composite specialization index -.14**
Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
**Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)


self-reported compliance and recreation specialization
Self-reported
Self-reported .Composite
compliance in Composite
compliance in index of Behavioral Affective Cognitive
e se general, non- specialization
manatee speed no self-reported index index index specialization
manatee speed i. ndex
zones compliance
zones


.89*


-.12
.14**
-.14**
-.02


.09
-.21*
-.09


.32*
.45*
.70*


.38*
.82*










Table 4-15. Zero order correlations: recreation specialization and marine conservation attitudes


Affective Cognitive
index index


Marine
Composite
Composite conservation
specialization attitude
index in
index


Behavioral index
Affective index
Cognitive index
Composite specialization index
Marine conservation attitude index
Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


Behavioral
index


.32*
.45*
.70*
-.35*


.38*
.82*
-.30*


.77*
-.37*


-.43*









Table 4-16. Zero-order correlations: behavioral intention and recreation specialization
Behavioral Behavioral Affective Cognitive Composite
specialization
intention index index index index specialization
index
Behavioral intention index
Behavioral index -.27* -
Affective index .02 .32*
Cognitive index -.32* .45* .38* -
Composite specialization index -.21** .70* .82* .77*
*Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
**Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)









Table 4-17. Zero order correlations: self-reported compliance and vessel speed discrepancy
Self-reported
Self-reported Self-reported
S. compliance in Composite self-
Speed compliance in
Se c pi general, non- reported
discrepancy manatee speed general, non- reported
S e s manatee speed compliance index
zones
zones


Speed discrepancy
Self-reported compliance in manatee
speed zones
Self-reported compliance in general,
non-manatee speed zones
Composite self-reported compliance
index
*Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


.64*

.91*


.89*


Table 4-18. Independent samples t-tests, reported compliance among compliant and non-
compliant boaters
Non-
Compliant comp
(observed) (compliant
(observed) c p
(observed)


Self-Reported Compliance Items1 Mean SD Mean SD
I fully complied with manatee speed
zones during my most recent 4.3 1.0 4.4 .95
boating experience
I fully complied with general (non-
manatee) boat safety speed zones
4.5 .66 4.5 .79
during my most recent boating
experience
Overall, how often do you comply 4.7 .67 4.7 .65
with boat speed zones
1Likert scale: strongly disagree=l, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=5
*None were significant at .05 level of significance


df t*

229 -.94


230


232


T










Table 4-19. Zero order correlations: marine conservation attitudes and self-reported compliance
Self-reported
Marine Self-reported Selfeped Composite
,. compliance in
conservation compliance e self-reported
attitude in manatee general, non-compliance
manatee .in
index speed zones eed index
speed zones
Marine conservation attitude index
Self-reported compliance in manatee .32*
speed zones
Self-reported compliance in general, non- 16** .63
manatee speed zones
Composite self-reported compliance .27* .91* .89*
index
Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
**Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
















r=.55* B=.42*


r=-.44*


r=.50*, B=-.37*


r=-.09


r=.04


'A


B=.04


r=.08


r=.08, B = .07
L -------------------- -----------------------I
*Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


Figure 4-1. Theory of reasoned action



























154









Table 4-20. Factor loadings and Cronbach's alpha
Factor
Scale items a lo
loading
Affective (recreation specialization) .86
I find that a lot of my life is organized around boating and boating- 91
related activity
Boating says a lot about who I am .85
Boating is very important to me .72
Cognitive (recreation specialization) .81
My general boating skill level .90
My knowledge of general boating rules and regulations .80
Comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore .60
Marine conservation attitudes .79
Boat speed reduction is an effective manatee protection strategy .89
Manatees are worth saving despite the need for regulations .70
Boat speed reduction is an effective general marine conservation .67
strategy
Behavioral intentions .82
I intend to follow general boat safety speed restrictions the next time I82
boat
Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that twill not harm the .79
environment
I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time I boat .72
Self-reported compliance behavior .78
I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most recent 87
boating experience
I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones
during my most recent boating experience
All significant at .05 level


















- 57*


IALAa tii 33*
^ \ Specialization y.-_


S-17



--15 Beh
Inte

*Beta values significant at .05 level
Solid lines indicate paths that were significant at the .05 level
Dotted lines indicate paths that were not significant at the .05 level


',.09







.63*


.05


Speed
Discrepancy


Fit Statistics
X2/df = 2.7
CFI= .90
RMSEA = .90


Figure 4-2. Final structural model










CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between observed vessel speeds in

manatee conservation zones, recreation specialization, marine conservation attitudes, self-

reported compliance behavior, speed zone sign assessment, TRA, and vessel and operator

attributes. The study was based on the paucity of research and recommendations from the

literature.

Summary of Procedures

Selection of Subjects: Observation

Data for this study were collected by on-site vessel observations and a subsequent mail

survey. Vessel speeds (n=1670) within two delineated manatee protection zones were determined

using on-site measurements and trigonometric calculation. The two sites were located on the St

Johns River, near DeLand, Florida, with both sampled during June 2006 through September

2006. Besides vessel speed, data collected during field observations included, hull registration

number, vessel length, vessel type, party size, presence of law enforcement, and supporting

parameters such as percent cloud cover and observation time.

Of the 1670 vessels observed, 1059 were useable after repeat observations, rentals and

those with missing, illegible, or unlisted vessel numbers were removed from the database. Of

these, 633 (59%) were observed in the idle speed zone and 426 (41%) in the slow speed zones.

Within the idle speed zone (maximum allowable speed = 3 mph), mean vessel speed was 4.2

mph (standard deviation = 1.3), with a range from 1 to 10 mph. Within the slow speed zone

(maximum allowable speed = 7 mph), mean vessel speed was 6.4 mph (standard deviation = 4.0

mph), with a range from 1 to 36 mph. Rental vessels (n = 150), which were analyzed separately,

demonstrated a mean speed discrepancy of .35 mph, while non-rentals (n = 909) were at .50 mph









discrepancy. Positive mean discrepancies (observed speed minus maximum .) for both groups

indicate that on average, both violated speed limits, although non-rental operators violated at

higher speeds, on average than rental vessel operators.

Seventy two percent of the on-site observations were made between the hours of 0900 and

1400, with nearly all completed by 1600, after which vessel traffic volume decreased

considerably. Most vessels observed were between 15.1 and 25 ft in length (57%), followed by

vessels between 12 and 15 ft in length (30%). Runabouts were the most commonly observed

vessel type (28%), and fishing and pontoon vessels the second and third most common (26% and

16%, respectively). Finally, rental vessels comprised about 12% of the total useable sample.

Fifty five percent of the observed vessels were non-compliant with maximum allowable speeds

within the manatee zones.

Selection of Subjects: Mail Survey

Based on observed hull registration numbers, boat operators were mailed a survey

instrument so that 1:1 analyses could be conducted between observed behavior and respondent's

profile. Items within the survey instrument were adapted from previous research on recreation

specialization, manatee conservation attitudes, manatee zone sign assessment, and TRA. In

addition, several questions were related to self-reported compliance behavior, ticketing history,

and knowledge of "idle" and "slow" speed zone definitions. A total of 236 completed surveys

were returned, representing a 23% response rate. To examine non-response bias, a telephone

survey (n=36) was also conducted between November 27 and December 5, 2006.

There was a high degree of association between the date boaters were observed in the field

and the date of their last boat outing as indicated on the mail survey (85%; n = 200). The


1 "Idle" speed estimated maximum allowable: 3 mph; "Slow" speed estimated maximum allowable: 7 mph (Sarasota
County, 2006).









average respondent was male (90%), 52 years of age with some college or a 2-year degree, and a

2005 annual household income of $65,000 to $99,000. More respondents were from nearby

DeLand, Florida than from any other city (20%). Despite their year round presence near both

sampling sites and within the St Johns River in general, nearly 57% reported seeing a manatee

four times or fewer during the previous 12 months of boating. Few respondents (19%) reported

having been ticketed for speed violations while boating. Only 22% of respondents reported

belonging to an environmental organization.

Respondents averaged 25 years of boating experience, while 12% indicated 40 years or

more boating experience. On average, respondents boated 47 days during the proceeding 12

months, with approximately 25% that noted boating more than 55 times during that period. On

average, boaters operated their vessels 29 days in Volusia County, while 42% had boated 10

days or fewer during the proceeding 12 months. Eighty two percent indicated to have boated on

six different water bodies within the previous 12 months, with 13% reported to have boated only

on the St Johns River.

The majority of respondents (90%) reported owning seven or fewer books and/or

magazine subscriptions. About 50% said they owned 28 or fewer boating-related items, and

19% owned 100 items or more. Only 28% of respondents belong to a boating. Overall, boaters

believed themselves to be highly skilled and knowledgeable, but much less so with respect to the

either the specific waterway in which the study was conducted, or their ability to operate a vessel

offshore.

Operationalization of Variables

Recreation specialization

Recreation specialization was conceptualized based on three dimensions: behavioral,

cognitive and affective. To assess the behavioral dimension of recreation specialization, four









questions related to the number of years a boater, number of days boated in past 12 months,

number of days boated in Volusia County in past 12 months, or number of water bodies boated

during past 12 months were used. Cronbach's alpha analysis registered a standardized alpha

value of .67.

The affective dimension of the recreation specialization construct was evaluated with

seven questions, three of which generated ratio scale data, and four that generated Likert scale

responses (l=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree).

Cronbach's alpha analysis identified a standardized alpha value of 81.

For the cognitive domain, four Likert scale (1=lowest, 10=highest) items were employed to

measure self-reported boating skill, knowledge of boating rules and regulations, experience with

Volusia County waterways, and comfort level operating a vessel 20 or more miles offshore.

Cronbach's alpha analysis of these items identified a standardized alpha value of .77.

A composite specialization was also calculated by adding individual domains indices. A

Cronbach's alpha analysis for the composite specialization index registered a standardized alpha

value of .81. Following an examination of the distribution of each item within the three

domains, raw responses were converted to Z-scores to create individual indices and a composite

specialization index for testing of hypotheses.

Marine conservation attitudes

Marine conservation attitudes were conceptually divided into 1) attitudes toward manatee

conservation (3 items), and 2) attitudes toward general marine conservation (3 items). The six

items were tied to a Likert scale format (l=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree,

5=Strongly Agree). Three manatee conservation questions measured boater agreement with

manatees worth saving despite the need for regulations, manatee protection causing too many

inconveniences, and vessel speed reduction is an effective manatee protection strategy.









Three general marine conservation attitude items measured boater agreement with boat

speed as an effective general marine conservation strategy, general support of Florida's boating

rules and regulations, and boat safety speed zone causing too many inconveniences. Four items

were combined to create a composite marine conservation attitude index as two items were

dropped. A Cronbach's alpha analysis for the composite marine conservation attitude index

registered a standardized alpha value of .80.

Knowledge

Boater knowledge of state manatee protection status and Florida boating speed restriction

definitions were assessed by three multiple-choice questions: "In Florida, manatees are officially

listed as," "When in an idle speed zone, a boater should," and "When in a slow speed zone, a

boater should." The correct answer choices for the latter two questions were based upon official

state definitions of compliance operation in each zone.

Non-compliance/compliance behavior

Two items were used to ascertain boaters' level of self-reported compliance and non-

compliance with vessel speed zones. The items were based on a five point Likert scale

(l=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), and prompted respondents to indicate their level of

agreement with the statements, "I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most

recent boating experience," and "I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed

zones during my most recent boating experience." The items were subjected to a reliability

analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis, with the standardized alpha value of .66. Following

reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a self-reported compliance

index. Furthermore, based on a dichotomous (yes/no) format, boaters were asked to report if

they had ever been ticketed for violating boat speed restrictions.









Boaters were also asked to indicate the top five reasons for non-compliance with boat

speed restrictions. For this question, respondents were given 14 potential reasons, whereby five

ranked responses almostt important, 2= second most important, etc.) were solicited.

Speed zone signage assessment

Speed zone signage assessment was operationalized using six items tied to a 5-point Likert

scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on:

signage assessment in manatee zones, and signage assessment in general boat safety zones.

Signage assessment in manatee zones was operationalized based on three items: assessing

how well manatee speed zones are marked, how easy the signs are to read, and ability to tell

when in a manatee speed zone. Based on reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha, a

standardized alpha value of .87 was identified. Following reliability analysis, the values of the

items were summed to create a manatee zone signage assessment index.

Signage assessment in general boat safety zones was operationalized based on three items,

assessing how well general boat safety speed zones are marked, how easy the signs are to read,

and ability to tell when in a general boat safety speed zone. Similarly, a reliability analysis using

Cronbach's alpha analysis was conducted, with a standardized alpha value of .88 identified.

Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a general boat

safety zone signage assessment index.

A composite signage assessment index was also computed for the values of all six signage

assessment items. Reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha registered a standardized alpha of

.91.









Theory of reasoned action

Theory of Reasoned Action was operationalized using nine items tied to a 5-point Likert

scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on

three conceptual domains: attitudes, subjective norms and behavioral intentions.

Attitudes were operationalized based on three questions, relating to disregarding boat

speed restrictions: "Having the freedom to get to my destination quickly while boating is

important," "Having no threat of ticketing for disregarding boat speed zones is important," and"

having fun while on my boat is more important than obeying boat speed zones." The items were

subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis, with the standardized alpha

value of .63. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create an

attitude index.

Subjective norms within the TRA construct were operationalized based on three items,

regarding perceptions of what referents want the respondent to do while boating: "When boating,

I want to do what family and friends think I should do," "When boating, I want to do what other

boaters think I should do," and When boating, I want to do what law enforcement officers think

I should do." The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis,

with the standardized alpha value of .62. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items

were summed to create a subjective norm index.

Behavioral intentions within the TRA construct was operationalized based on three

questions regarding intention to follow vessel speed restrictions and boating in an

environmentally responsible manner during next boat outing. The items were subjected to a

reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha analysis, with the standardized alpha value registering

.76. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a behavioral

intention index.









Summary of Findings

Results of Research Questions Tested

Mean speed discrepancy (observed speed minus maximum allowable) did not differ

between those who had, and those who had not been ticketed for boat speed violations in the

past. Mean speed discrepancy did differ significantly between the slow and idle speed zones,

with mean vessel speed discrepancy higher in the idle speed zone than in the slow speed zone

(t(1207) = 10.4; p<.01). Party size did not influence vessel speed discrepancy, nor did vessel

type. However, mean speed discrepancy was significantly higher for vessel length of between

16'-25' than any of the other categories (<12', 12'-15', 26'-39', 40'-64', >64') (F = 2.62; p<.05).

A Bonferroni multiple comparison was performed to determine differences within vessel length

categories, with significant differences found between vessel length category two (12'-15') and

vessel length category three (16' -25') (p<.05). Neither a boater's history with seeing manatees,

nor their assessment of zone signage influenced vessel speed discrepancy.

A boater's level of specialization was significantly associated with zone signage

assessment. An increase in recreation specialization was found to be associated with a reduction

in zone signage assessment (e.g., composite specialization index and composite signage

assessment index correlation: r = -.22; p<.01).

Telephone interviews used to examine non-response bias resulted in a significant

difference in the level of agreement with the statement "Manatee speed zones are well marked,"

with non-respondents reporting lower agreement (3.0 of on a Likert scale format where

1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree and 5=Strongly Agree) than respondents

(3.5 of 5.0) (p<.05). The results suggest that the manatee and composite signage assessment

indices may have differed between respondents and non-respondents.









Lastly, several of the TRA components were significantly associated with each other. An

index of self-reported compliance behavior was significantly correlated with the behavioral

intention index (r = .55; p<.01) as well as the attitudes index (r = -.35; p<.01). The attitude index

was also significantly and negatively associated with behavioral intentions (r = -.52). Next, a

multiple regression was employed, with results demonstrating that self-reported compliance was

a stronger predictor of behavioral intentions (standardized beta = .42; p<.01) than were attitudes

(standardized beta = -.37; p<.01). Neither subjective norms nor vessel speed discrepancy were

significant predictors of behavioral intentions. In general, the results partially substantiate the

TRA model.

Results of Hypotheses Tested

Recreation specialization

Recreation specialization was not found to be associated with vessel speed discrepancy

(hence compliance), although the behavioral (r = -.19; p<.01), cognitive (r = -.23; p<.01), and the

composite specialization indices (r = -.14; p<.05) were found to be significantly and negatively

associated with self-reported compliance behavior in manatee speed zones. Self-reported

compliance behavior within general, non-manatee speed zones was also found to be significantly

associated with the affective (r = .14; p<.05) and cognitive indices (r = -.14; p<.05), and the

composite index of self-reported compliance behavior was found to be significantly and

negatively related to the behavioral (r = -.17; p<.01) and cognitive indices (r = -.21; p<.01).

Marine conservation attitudes were found to be negatively and significantly associated with the

behavioral index (r = -.35, p<.01), the affective index (r = -.30, p<.01), the cognitive index (r = -

.37, p<.01) and the composite specialization index (r = -.43, p<.01). Similarly, behavioral

intentions were found to be negatively and significantly associated with the behavioral (r = -.23,

p<.01), cognitive (r = -.27, p<.01), and composite specialization indices (r = -.17 p<.05).









Telephone interviews conducted to examine non-response bias resulted in a significant

difference in the number of years of boating experience, with non-respondents reporting fewer

years experience (mean =19) than respondents (mean=26) (p<.05). The results suggest that the

behavioral and composite recreation specialization indices may have differed between

respondents and non-respondents.

Reported vs. observed compliance behavior

The statistically insignificant association between self-reported compliance behavior and

observed vessel speed discrepancy suggest that self-reported compliance behavior was a poor

proxy for actual (observed) boating behavior. Additionally, an independent samples t-test found

that the mean scores for each of the compliance measures did not differ significantly among

compliant and non-compliant boaters (observed), further demonstrating that self-reported

compliance behavior did not accurately reflect observed behavior.

Marine conservation attitudes

A weak and statistically insignificant association between observed speed discrepancy and

the marine conservation attitude index was found. However, results indicated a strong positive

and statistically significant association between behavioral intentions to fully comply with speed

restrictions and marine conservation attitudes (r = .44, p<.01). Similarly, the associations

between the marine conservation attitude index and self-reported compliance behavior in

manatee speed zones (r = .32; p<.01), general boat safety speed zones (r = .16; p<.05) and the

composite self-reported compliance behavior index (r = .27; p<.01) were found to be positive

and statistically significant.

Telephone interviews conducted to examine non-response bias resulted in a significant

difference in the level of agreement with the statement "Manatees are worth saving despite the

need for regulations," with non-respondents reporting lower agreement (mean=3.9 on a Likert









scale format where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree and 5=Strongly

Agree) than respondents (mean=3.5) (p<.05). Additionally, a significant difference in the level

of agreement with "I generally support Florida's boating rules and regulations" was found to

exist between non-respondents (mean=3.5) and respondents (mean=3.9) (p<.05). The results

suggest that the general marine conservation attitude index and composite marine conservation

attitude index may have differed between respondents and non-respondents.

Behavioral intentions

A positive and significant association between the composite behavioral intentions index

and the composite index of self-reported compliance behavior was found (r = .67, p<.01).

Despite this finding, behavioral intentions were found to be weakly associated with observed

vessel speed discrepancy.

Path analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the scales. After dropping

several poorly performing items, the results of the CFA demonstrated strong evidence of

reliability and convergent validity.

Despite the model being a good fit to the data, the hypothesized path model was generally

found to poorly explain the relationships between the individual constructs. Recreation

specialization had a strong negative influence on marine conservation attitudes (B = -.57); marine

conservation attitudes exhibited a strong positive influence on behavioral intentions (B = .33);

and behavioral intentions had a strong positive influence on self-reported compliance behavior

(B = .63). The postulated theoretical model was generally weak in accounting for the

relationships between the latent variables.









Discussion

Watercraft-related impacts currently account for 24% of the deaths suffered by the

federally listed endangered manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) (FWC, 2006b). Although

the Federal Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP) focuses on reducing watercraft-induced mortality

through the use of boat speed regulatory zones, manatee deaths have increased 10% per year

over the past decade (FWC, 2006b).

Although manatee speed zones have been preliminarily shown to reduce manatee mortality

(Laist & Shaw, 2006), not all boaters comply with zone speed restrictions. Fifty five percent of

the vessels observed in this study were non-compliant with maximum allowable speeds in their

respective zones (slow and idle). The results of this study are remarkably similar to other

compliance studies (mostly qualitative) that have been conducted in Florida (see Gorzelany,

2001, 2004; Tyson, 2001; Tyson & Combs, 1999). For example, Gorzelany's (2004)

examination of the wake propagation of 26,000 vessels in southwest Florida found between 63%

and 58% of vessel operators to be fully compliant with posted signage in Sarasota and Lee

Counties, respectively. Previous researchers have found an association between vessel length

and manatee zone non-compliance. For example Gorzelany (2004) found that the relative

proportion of boaters who were fully compliant with speed restrictions decreased with decreasing

vessel size. Thus, operators of shorter vessels such as personal watercraft and johnboats (often

less than 12' in length) were generally found to be less compliant than operators of longer

vessels such as cruisers and yachts. The present study found vessels between 16' and 25' to be

the least compliant boat length category, and as such the results are contrary to some prior

findings. In her study of Haulover Canal, Florida boaters, Tyson (2001) also found that

compliance depended on vessel length; however, contrasting Gorzelany (2005) and consistent

with the present study, she found that larger vessels tended to be less compliant than vessels









under 25' in length. The site-specific nature of boater compliance (Shapiro, 2001) may explain

the apparent divergence. Incongruities in the compliance-vessel length association might also be

related to channel morphology and boat density. Both factors might artificially inflate

compliance levels among operators of longer vessels when boating in narrow, shallow or dense

conditions, where maneuverability and safety necessitates slower vessel speeds.

Gorzelany's (1996) boater compliance study (which included a mix of qualitative and

quantitative speed assessment) found that personal watercraft and j ohnboats were less compliant

of manatee speed zones than the other vessel types observed, with two out of every three

personal watercraft sightings evaluated as blatantly non-. at one site. Gorzelany also found

considerable variability in compliance among vessel types when examined across different sites.

The present study found vessel speed discrepancy (hence compliance) independent of boat type.

This might be partly explained by the aforementioned finding that non-compliance was found to

be higher among vessel lengths of between 16' and 25' than among shorter or longer vessels.

Personal watercraft and j ohnboats, both of which were found least compliant in Gorzelany's

(1996) study, tended to be shorter vessels (usually less than 15" in length). It is also worth

noting that the results of the present study mirror Gorzelany's (1996) findings in that the level of

compliance was found to be higher among operators of rental vessels than for operators of non-

rental vessels. It is a logical assumption that those who rent vessels spend less time on the water

than those who own their own vessels. Perhaps spending relatively less time boating results in a

reduction in waterway familiarity and increased caution, which is manifested in reduced boat

speeds.


2 Blatantly non-compliant defined as a vessel transitioning at a speed greater than one speed category faster than the
posted limit through a significant portion of a speed-restricted area, or as defined by 1) traveling between 8-15 mph
if in Idle Speed zone, or 2) traveling greater than 15 mph if in Slow Speed zone (adapted from Gorzelany, 1996,
1998).









Gorzelany (1996) also found that boater compliance with respect to weekend versus

weekday was significantly related to site for all sites combined, and that the presence of law

enforcement resulted in the highest level of compliance (74%) and the lowest level of blatant

non-compliant behavior (8%). On-water observations for the present study were conducted

almost exclusively on weekends, and few officers were observed (43 of 1670 total vessel

observations). Although weekend sampling and low frequency of officer presence serve to limit

comparisons to his 1996 study, the present research found that self-reported ticketing history for

boat speed violations had no bearing on observed vessel speeds.

Boater non-compliance can be considered a form of depreciative behavior. Direct and

indirect management techniques have been employed in a variety of park and managed settings

to reduce unwanted visitor behaviors. Indirect techniques such as communication designed to

educate, persuade, and otherwise change behaviors have generally been the preferred method in

park settings (Hendee & Dawson, 2002; Manning, 1999; Roggenbuck, 1992). Although indirect

techniques such as on-water signage is thought to be most cost-effective and most likely to result

in enduring visitor behavioral changes (Clark, et al., 1972), the communication circuit often fails

due to poor understanding of the communication process (Absher & Bright, 2004).

Knopf and Andereck (2004) recommended that to minimize the expression of unwanted

behaviors, resource managers should focus on the causes of the depreciative behavior rather than

the perpetrator, and to effectively communicate the rules and regulations of the resource. In

Florida, vessel speed reduction in manatee zones is primarily facilitated by on-water signage

meant to communicate waterway speed limits and other restrictions to boaters. On average,

about one-third of the boaters surveyed in this study either disagreed or strongly disagreed with

manatee and general, non-manatee boat zone signs being well marked, easy to read, and zones









being delineated in such a way as to facilitate full understanding of being in a speed-restricted

zone. Although speed zone signage assessment was not associated with vessel speed

discrepancy, the signage assessment results are similar to Florida boater signage assessments by

Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) and Confer et al. (2003). Considering these findings, boater non-

compliance might partly be described as an "unintentional violation," which occurred as a result

of a lack of knowledge or understanding of appropriate conduct (Gramman & Vander Stoep,

1987). If poor waterway sign cognition results in boater non-compliance (unintentional

violation), then its presence may serve as a "releaser-cue" which invites increasing levels of non-

compliance as the behavior becomes normalized (Gramman & Vander Stoep, 1987).

Various examinations of the validity of self-reports as a surrogate of actual behavior have

demonstrated incongruity between what people report on surveys and their real behavior

(Hagburg, 1968; Lichtman et al., 1992; Mick, 1996; Warriner, et al., 1984). Along this line,

Mick (1996) evaluated self-reports of purchase behavior within the context of socially desirable

response (general reluctance to divulge attitudes and behaviors that may appear socially

marginal) (SDR). He concluded that SDR bias is important in social research that rely on

questionnaires to assess attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviors. Mick also acknowledged that despite

its potentially profound impact on data integrity, little effort has been conducted to determine

how this self-report bias may influence depreciative and/or prosocial behavioral research (e.g.,

pro-environmental behavior).

This investigation examined the correspondence between self-reports of compliance

behavior (compliance with manatee and general boat safety zones during one's last boat outing)

and level of observed compliance measured as vessel speed discrepancy. The findings support

the notion that self-reports of behavior may poorly reflect actual behavior. A very weak and









statistically insignificant association was found between observed boat speeds and self-reports of

compliance behavior. The results lend credence to Mick's (1996) concept of SDR. While 55%

of the boaters observed in this study were not fully compliant with on-water speed restrictions,

most self-reported a very high level of agreement with fully complying with boat speed

restrictions during their most recent boating experience. In fact, none strongly disagreed or

disagreed with either of the self-reported compliance behavior items. Researchers such as

Warriner at al. (1984) have suggested that accurate self-reports rely on one's willingness to

answer correctly in the face of cognitive dissonance such as, when actual behavior clashes with

social norms. The high level of self-reported compliance behavior and the lack of association

between self-reported compliance behavior and observed behavior suggest that boaters may

provide survey responses that are deemed to be socially desirable when their actual behavior

conflicts with regulations or with their stated attitudinal positions.

Results of the path analyses suggest that behavioral intentions had a strong positive

influence on self-reported compliance behavior. Consequently, it is possible that boaters

possessed neither the skill nor the knowledge to know when they were not in full compliance

with speed restrictions. If boaters fully intended to follow speed restrictions, but lacked the skill

to do so, then non-compliance should be evaluated as a form of unskilled behavior and targeted

with educational intervention (Hendee et al., 1990). The overall uncertainty of the non-

compliance issue suggests that a better understanding of the psychological attributes leading to

non-compliance is warranted.

TRA frames behavior in terms of attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). TRA has generally been shown to be robust in its ability to predict or

otherwise explain behavior visa-a'-vis intentions, as intentions are thought to be the single best









predictor of behavior. Although a few studies have examined the association between past

behavior, attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions (Albarracin et al., 2001), the

majority of the outdoor recreation literature lacks the past behavior variable in the TRA model.

Given the applicability in outdoor recreation research, utilization of past behaviors to predict

intentions and future behaviors offers an important opportunity to further examine outdoor

recreationists.

The present study examined the associations between past behavior (self-reported

compliance behavior as well as observed vessel speed discrepancy), attitudes, subjective norms

and behavioral intentions. Attitudes were found to be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions

to fully comply with speed restrictions during the next boat outing. Past behavior in the form of

self-reported compliance was also found to be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions,

although observed behavior (speed discrepancy, a past behavior) was not. Subjective norms

were also identified to be a poor predictor of behavioral intentions.

Consistent with the present study, natural resource management research using the TRA

has found that attitudes are often a strong predictor of behavioral intentions. For example, Bright

et al.'s (1993) examination of public perceptions of a National Park Service controlled burn

policy found that a change in intention to support a controlled burn policy was predicted by the

level of attitude change. Bright et al. (1993) also found that subjective norms were a strong

predictor of behavioral intentions. In contrast, Aipanjiugly (2000) concluded that both attitudes

and subjective norms regarding manatee conservation were strong predictors of behavioral

intentions among Florida boaters. Along this line, a general lack of consistency regarding the

predictive ability of attitudes and subjective norms on behavioral intention is exemplified in

automobile driving behavior research. For example, a study by Rothengatter et al. (1985)









demonstrated that attitudes explained 53% of the variation in intention to exceed posted roadway

speed limits, whereas subjective norms explained 8% of the variation. Contrastingly, Parker et

al. (1992) identified that subjective norms explained the majority of the variation in intention to

speed on roads through built environments. Respondents in this study portrayed themselves as

practically devoid of motivation to behave how referents (family, friends and other boaters)

wanted them to behave while boating. This lack of motivation helps explain the poor predictive

ability of subjective norms on behavioral intentions.

Within the TRA, past behavior in the form of self-reported compliance was found to be a

strong predictor of behavioral intentions. Ouellette and Wood (1998) argue that past behavior

tends to predict intentions and future behavior, although the argument is typically made with

respect to behaviors that become habitual (e.g., smoking), and therefore automatic through

rehearsal. Though the role that past behavior plays within the TRA model seems to have gained

acceptance within the contemporary psychology literature (Albarracin et al., 2001; Ouellette &

Wood, 1998; Conner, Sheeran, Norman & Armitage, 2000) rarely has it been examined within a

natural resource context.

The results of the present study are consistent with Knussen, Yule, MacKenzie, and Wells

(2004) who found that self-reports of past recycling behavior made a significant contribution to

behavioral intention toward future recycling. In fact, very similar correlations were found to

exist between past behavior and behavioral intentions among Knussen et al.'s (2004) study (r =

.67) and the present study (r = .55). As a cautionary note, self-reports of behavior as a surrogate

for actual behavior serve to limit the findings of each study. Additionally, recycling behavior is

easily rehearsed on a daily basis, while boating behavior may not be due to the considerable

time, effort and money required to transport and launch a vessel. Despite these limitations in









comparisons, past behavior in the form of self-reported compliant boat operation was found to be

a strong predictor of intention to follow boat speed restrictions during future boat outings, and is

thus consistent with the literature.

Concomitantly, it may be logical to expect a person with positive conservation attitudes to

exhibit pro-environmental behavior. Marine conservation attitudes were found to be poorly

associated with observed vessel speed discrepancy in this study. Although the association was

found to be weak, marine conservation attitudes were found to be generally high. Consequently,

boaters might not consider vessel speed violations, or lack thereof, a manifestation of their

respective conservation attitudes, or boaters may exhibit compliant boating behavior only when

convenient. Despite the poor association between marine conservation attitudes and vessel

speeds, the findings are consistent with other researchers who have found similarly weak causal

connections between conservation attitudes and self-reported behavior (Tarrant & Cordell, 1997;

Thapa, 2000; Theodori et al., 1998; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981).

In examining the general lack of association between conservation attitudes and pro-

environmental behavior, Diekmann and Preisendorfer (1992) submit that people generally find a

way to offer a favorable account of their behavior, regardless of their behavior; and that people

follow their environmental concern by acting consistent with it only in "low cost" situations, and

when convenient. Within the context of the present study, boaters may have reported that they

were "pro-environment" (high marine conservation attitudes) regardless of their boating

behavior. It is also possible that regardless of their overall desire to comply, boaters may not

have possessed the skill or knowledge to operate their vessels in a "pro-environmental"

(compliant) way. In fact, boaters may have been entirely unaware that they were in "violation"

of speed restrictions. Boaters are not typically issued citations based upon miles-per-hour









violations while in "idle" and/or "slow" speed zones, but rather are ticketed based upon

qualitative assessment of vessel by law enforcement officers. Therefore, boaters may possess

little understanding of how idle and slow speeds translate to miles-per-hour.

Diekmann and Preisendorfer (1992) further suggest that people act on environmental

concern only when doing so represents little cost in terms of money, time or effort. Boaters

surveyed in this study self-reported a high degree of compliance behavior and behavioral

intention to boat in concert with speed restrictions during their next boat outing, with both

attributes positively associated with marine conservation attitudes. Self-reported compliance

behavior and behavioral intention may be an inexpensive way of demonstrating environmental

concern. Despite generally reporting high degrees of marine conservation attitudes, behavioral

intentions, and level of self-reported compliance behavior, these did not translate to actual

compliance behavior on the water.

The lack of association between marine conservation attitudes and observed compliance

behavior should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the difficulty of assessing environmental

attitudes, several attitudinal scales have emerged. Scale development is a complex process and

there seems to be evidence that different environmental attitude scales measure different

underlying constructs (Stern & Oskamp, 1987). For example, Tarrant and Cordell (1997)

examined the relationships between self-reported environmental behavior and five separate

environmental attitude scales. Despite their use of well-established scales (e.g., the New

Environmental Paradigm; and the Awareness of Consequences scales), three were found to be

most strongly associated with behavior, and among those, two were significantly affected be


3 Idle Speed: The minimum speed that maintains steerage of a vessel; little or no displacement of water is from
either the bow or stem; vessel remains level in the water at all times. Slow speed: The speed at which vessels are
completely off plane; fully settled in the water. Some minimal water displacement at either the bow or stern (or
both) may be observed. Florida Administrative Code 62N-22.









respondent attributes. With respect to the present study, the use of different attitude items might

have lead to substantially different results in the attitudes-behavior association. Weigel (1983)

stated that the attitude-behavior correspondence might be weak for a variety of reasons,

including reliance on "a poor quality attitude measure" (p.262). The attitude assessment items

used within the present study were not subject to the rigorous testing required to create a high

quality scale. Consequently, a lack of relationship between marine conservation attitudes and

vessel compliance might be due, in part, to this lack of rigor.

Recreation specialization theory was tested within the context of vessel speeds, marine

conservation attitudes, self-reported compliance behavior, and behavioral intentions. Bryan

(1977) hypothesized that as an individual progressed through the specialization continuum

(novice to expert) within a specific activity, he or she would increasingly accept the rules, norms

and procedures of that activity and become more conservation oriented. There has existed an

underlying assumption that highly specialized outdoor recreationists will possess a high level of

concern for resource conservation. The reasoning behind this assumption is that highly

specialized recreationists may be more cognizant of their own contributions to environmental

impacts and will thus have greater concern for reducing impacts upon the resource with which

their recreation depends (Bryan, 1977; Ditton et al., 1992).

Findings generally suggest that as recreationists proceed along the specialization

continuum they concomitantly report higher levels of environmental concern (Katz, 1981;

Kaufman, 1984; Mowen et al., 1997), site-specific environmental concern (Mowen et al., 1997),

and support for resource management rules and regulatory procedures (Ditton et al., 1992).

Additionally, although support for waterway management rules and regulations in the form of

fishing limits have been found among the most highly specialized anglers (Chipman & Helfrich,









1988; Oh & Ditton, 2006; Salz et al., 2001), poor support for access-denial regulations has also

been found among anglers regardless of their level of specialization (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988;

Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005).

Despite the advancements in recreation specialization research, previous examinations of

the theory have all relied upon self-reports of behavior, and none have attempted to observe

recreation participants while engaged in their respective activities. The present study uniquely

observed recreationists while they were engaged in recreational boating. Results suggest that

specialization had little to do with the manifestation (or lack thereof) of depreciative behavior in

the form of non-compliant vessel operation.

Results also demonstrated that higher levels of recreation specialization were significantly

and negatively associated with marine conservation attitudes. Though these results seem contrary

to specialization theory, they are not surprising given that several of the marine conservation

questions either directly or indirectly addressed agreement with access control in the form of

speed restriction as a conservation strategy. Although it is not known how similar general

boaters are to anglers in terms of their marine conservation attitudes, findings of the present

study are consistent with angler research identifying access-denial restriction to be an

increasingly unpopular issue with higher levels of specialization (Salz et al., 2001). Recreation

specialization theory also predicts that as specialization level increases, so too does dependency

on that specific resource (Bryan, 1977; Ditton et al., 1992). Therefore, dependency on the

resource with increasing specialization level might result in a reduction in marine conservation

attitudes when attitudes are assessed with access-denial issues.

Two recent studies have examined self-reports of specific depreciative behaviors as they

relate to recreation specialization. For instance, Meyer (2002) found that the most highly









specialized SCUBA divers self-reported the fewest depreciative behaviors such as touching or

standing on coral while diving. The cognitive dimension of the recreation specialization

construct was found to be more useful in explaining general diving behaviors than the behavioral

dimension, a logical conclusion as skill could be expected to increase one's ability to maintain

neutral buoyancy and allow a diver to avoid coral contact. In a re-examination of this study,

Thapa et al. (2006) concluded that the behavioral domain of the recreation specialization

construct was a weak predictor of depreciative contact with coral while diving. The authors

suggested that more experienced divers may have had more time to rehearse such negative

behaviors, and then come to accept them as normal diving tradition. Similarly, the present study

found that self-reported compliance behavior was negatively associated with the behavioral

domain of the specialization construct. However, contrary to Thapa et al. (2006) findings, the

cognitive domain was also found to be negatively associated with self-reported compliance

behavior. Perhaps as boaters' self-perceived skill level increases, so too does the belief that

speed restrictions become less important as evidenced by their willingness to disclose their non-

compliance behaviors.

In another study of depreciative behavior, Bireline (2005) demonstrated that highly

specialized birders self-reported to employ potentially harmful methods to attract birds more

frequently than did those lower on the specialization continuum. He concluded that highly

specialized birders might consider personal lifelong birding "bag" lists to be more important than

the potential harm done by "pishing" to attract birds for viewing. Bireline (2005) also

acknowledged the limitation of reliance on self-reports of birding behavior.

Similarly, the present research demonstrated that self-reports of compliant boating

behavior (compliant with boat speed restrictions) were lowest among the most highly specialized









boaters, as was intention to fully comply with boat speed restrictions. Progression through the

continuum of specialization may be accompanied by feelings of, or desire to express one's

autonomy. Indeed, boaters expressed little agreement with subjective norm items (i.e., desire to

do what others wanted them to do), and generally portrayed themselves as highly independent.

Alternatively, highly specialized boaters may consider vessel speed limits a form of access-

denial, in which case the results are consistent with previous research demonstrating access

restrictions to be generally unpopular among water-based recreationists (Chipman & Helfrich,

1988; Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005).

This study also demonstrated that as boaters became more specialized they concomitantly

reported a general reduction in their assessment of boat zone signs. Perhaps a higher level of

specialization results in greater exposure to the myriad sign designs found throughout Florida's

waterways, which in turn creates a certain level of confusion among waterway users. Highly

specialized boaters might also report poor signage as a justification for failing to fully comply

with speed restrictions.

Results of the present study are mixed when compared to previous specialization research.

Differences may be attributed, in part, to the myriad ways in which specialization has been

measured and analyzed. The instrumentation and analyses in this examination relied on

individual specialization domains (behavioral, affective and cognitive) as well as a composite

specialization index. Several researchers have relied on a single, multiple-item additive index as

a measure of specialization (Donnelly et al., 1986; Wellman et al., 1982; Virden & Schreyer,

1988), while others have shown that an examination of individual domains may offer better

predictive validity as it avoids the masking effect of a composite index (Bricker & Kerstetter,

2000; Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992; Lee & Scott, 2004; McFarlane, 2004; McFarlane et al.,









1998; Meyer, 2002). Although acceptance of examining individual domains seems to be

growing among recreation specialization researchers, the individual domains, or the items that

comprise the domains remains largely unresolved. Therefore, strong inference from the present

study or recreation specialization research in general should be made with caution.

Secondly (to the author's knowledge), this study represents the first time behavioral

observations have been used to examine recreation specialization and recreational behavior, as

most have relied on self-reports (Bireline, 2005; Cottrell, 1993; Choi et at., 1994; Cottrell &

Graefe, 1997; Donnelly et al., 1986; Meyer, 2002; Thapa, 2000). Consequently, the association

between recreation specialization and environmental behavior has previously existed only insofar

as self-reports accurately portray behavior. Like other research findings (Lichtman et al., 1992;

Mick, 1996; Warriner et al., 1984) the study demonstrates the limitation of using self-reports as

proxy for actual behavior.

Conclusions and Implications

The general inabilities to predict and shape recreational boating behaviors have had serious

consequences in Florida, especially with respect to manatees. Collisions with motorized

watercraft represent the single greatest cause of manatee mortality in Florida, with 24% of the

deaths due to hull crushing or propeller wounds (FWC, 2006b). Although considerable effort

has gone into reducing vessel speeds on waterways inhabited by manatees, various boater

compliance studies (including the present investigation) have found substantial levels of non-

compliance in speed-restricted zones. A better understanding of the factors behind this form of

depreciative behavior is important in manatee conservation strategy.

This study introduced an improvement in the assessment of vessel compliance as

conducted by previous researchers. Vessel compliance was not limited to a subjective,

qualitative evaluation of wake propagation; rather, vessel speeds (mph) were generated based









upon trigonometric calculation. The study was unique in that it matched field observations of

vessel speeds with a mail survey to better understand the predictors of vessel operation.

Although past behavior has recently gained acceptance within TRA (Albarracin et al.,

2001; Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Conner, Sheeran, Norman & Armitage, 2000), rarely has it been

examined from an outdoor recreationist behavioral perspective. This study uniquely integrated

past behavior as both self-reported compliance behavior and observed vessel speed. Lending

support to its usefulness within the TRA model, self-reported compliance behavior (past

behavior) was found to be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions. Attitudes were also found

to be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions, though observed vessel speed (past behavior)

and subjective norms were not. The failure of the subjective norm to make a contribution to

behavioral intention was not surprising since norms often explain less variability than attitudes

(Armitage & Conner, 2001).

The lack of association between observed vessel speed and behavioral intention helps to

elucidate the evolution of the TRA to that of the more recent Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

(Ajzen, 1991). TPB integrates an assessment of perceived behavioral control (the extent to

which an individual feels able to perform a particular behavior) into the existing TRA model.

The reasoning behind the inclusion of PBC is that behavior may be influence by perceived

behavioral control, particularly when the behavior is deemed (by the actor) to be difficult or

complex (Knussen et al., 2004). For example, in their examination of citizen recycling (a

relatively simple behavior) using past behavior and PBC, Knussen et al. (2004) found that both

past behavior and PBC made significant contributions to intentions toward future recycling.

Within the context of the present study, an examination of the extent boaters feel capable of

operating their vessels in a compliant manner might provide additional insight into factors









behind non-compliance. Although past behavior in the form of observed vessel operation was

found to be a poor predictor of behavioral intention, comparison to other studies may be

somewhat inappropriate as most have tended to examine past behavior in terms of habitual

patterns. As a complex behavior, boating requires that the operator continually adapt to changing

environmental and social conditions, thereby preventing their actions from becoming routinized.

This study examined the assumption that self-reports of behavior accurately represent

actual behavior. Although previous studies have shown how self-reports differ from actual

behavior (Hagburg, 1968; Lichtman et al., 1992; Mick, 1996; Warriner, et al., 1984),

environmental conduct is often difficult to directly observe, and reliance on self-reports remains

high. Results of the present study demonstrate limitations on the correspondence between self-

reports and actual behavior. Although boaters generally rated themselves as being highly

compliant with manatee and general boat safety speed zones, more than 55% percent of the

boaters failed to be in full compliance with vessel speed limits. While this incongruity appears

egregious, it should be noted that boat speeds for this research were measured against estimated

maximum speeds allowable for each zone category (idle and slow) as defined by Sarasota

County (2006). Therefore, inference from this and other analyses relying on vessel speeds

should be made within the context of estimated rather than strictly established maximum

allowable speeds, as exact miles-per-hour speed limits are rarely applied to the definitions of

"slow" and "idle" within Florida's waterways. Furthermore, a standard deviation of 2.72 among

speed discrepancies meant that although 55% of boaters failed to fully comply with the strict

speed limit definitions used in this study, the violations were rather small on average.

Although observed boater compliance was less than ideal, marine conservation attitudes

among boaters were found to be high. Respondents generally agreed with manatees being worth









saving, and portrayed themselves of being strongly supportive of Florida's boating rules and

regulations. Concomitantly, one-third considered vessel speed reduction to be ineffective as both

a manatee and general marine conservation strategy. Therefore, conservation attitudes may be

positive only to the extent that few behavioral sacrifices are required of boaters. As such, the

results are consistent with angler and boater research showing the unpopularity of access-

restrictions (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Futerfas, 2003; Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005).

Highly specialized recreationists are assumed to be more aware of their contributions to

environmental impacts than less specialized recreationists, and will thus have greater concern for

mitigating impacts upon the resource with which their recreation depends (Bryan, 1977; Ditton et

al., 1992). Although previous research has generally demonstrated an increase in resource

conservation concern with increasing recreation specialization level (Hvenegaard, 2002; Virden

& Schreyer, 1988), the present study demonstrated that specialization level had very little

association with compliant vessel speeds and a strong negative association with marine

conservation attitudes. Additionally, the negative bivariate associations between specialization,

marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, and self-reported compliance behavior

contrast the aforementioned assumption that highly specialized recreationists have greater

concern for their recreational resource than those less specialized. As further evidence of this,

path analysis demonstrated that specialization had a negative, albeit statistically insignificant

influence on behavioral intentions. While results of the study offer little support for the

specialization-environmental concern association, they do demonstrate the general unpopularity

of access-denial regulations in the form of vessel speed reduction.

With respect to recreation specialization, the predominant approach among recreation

specialization researchers has been to focus on single recreationist typologies (e.g., anglers,









birders, canoists, hikers, SCUBA divers, etc.). The present study departed from past

specialization research by examining boaters as a general recreationist type, within which a

number of more specifically defined recreational pursuits (e.g., angling skiing, wildlife watching,

etc.) may have existed. Within the context of the present study, it is not known how general

boaters differed from these more explicitly defined boater subtypes.

Boater non-compliance remains a threat to the health and stability of manatee populations

in Florida. If policy makers and resource managers are to effectively reduce vessel speeds within

manatee conservation zones, they need to better understand the factors influencing both

compliant and non-compliant behavior within specific sites. A better understanding of these

factors might eventually lead to a more efficacious allocation of fiscal and personnel resources,

with the ultimate goal of not necessarily adding boating restrictions to the waterways, but

tailoring those interventions already in place to be more effective. Results obtained from this

study were employed to test a predictive model of boater speed compliance within manatee

conservation zones. In an attempt to provide a more holistic understanding of the boater

compliance issue, this investigation adds insight into several modes of inquiry that proved

effective, as well as several that need to be modified in future examinations.

From a practitioner's standpoint, the results of the study are consistent with previous

Florida boater studies by demonstrating a generally poor level of compliance in critical manatee

habitat. Assessing predictors of boater behavior, Gorzelany (1996, 2001) demonstrated that

boater compliance with manatee conservation zone speed restrictions in southwest Florida was

significantly improved in the presence of on-water law enforcement officers. Although the

presence of law enforcement did not result in an appreciable reduction in observed vessel speeds

in the present study, the absence of a significant reduction in vessel speeds may have been









attributed to the small number of officers observed in the study. In fact, only 43 of the total 1670

observations (2.5%) were law enforcement vessels in the present study, with 38 of those

observations made during Labor Day weekend, 2006. Contrary to the present findings, other

research has shown that boat operators are more likely to comply with speed restrictions when

officers are present. Despite this, limited fiscal resources prevent a consistent policing presence

on Florida's waterways. As a cost effective measure, perhaps the boating community should

consider self-policing as a means of ensuring boater compliance. A model of self-policing is

provided by the Florida Airboaters Association (FAA), which has adopted an "Airboaters Code

of Ethics" as a way of formalizing the kind of good-will stewardship efforts needed to ensure

their continued access to aquatic resources. Many of Florida's airboaters have embraced this

code of ethics. Those behaving in a manner inconsistent with this code are subject to peer

pressure as a means of ensuring compliance by all members of the airboating community. A

fostering of boater compliance should be promoted among the motorized boating community

through the acceptance of a similar code and encouraged and reinforced through boater

networks. To facilitate this process, a small number of law enforcement officers or boating

representatives should be employed to educate boaters and serve as ambassadors to ensure

sustainable access by all interests.

The study also establishes that a more effective signage strategy to communicate boating

rules and regulations may be needed. As a corollary, speed limit signage on America's highways

is strictly uniform in design, with different geographic regions differing little in presentation. In

contrast, boaters on Florida's waterways can encounter a variety of sign sizes, colors, types,

placement locations and messages, all of which may create confusion. Perhaps in addition to the

qualitative speed definitions associated with idle and slow speed designation, a miles-per-hour









speed limit should be included in sign design. Supporting this, 75% of the respondents in this

investigation reported that their vessels were equipped with speedometers. The inclusion of a

miles-per-hour speed limit on manatee zone signs would reduce the ambiguity of existing slow

and idle speed definitions.

Borrowing from highway safety programs, several other cost-effective methods of

encouraging vessel speed reduction may be considered. For example, Shapiro (2001) suggests:

"...the use of feedback signs, personalized advisory letters, replica patrol cars, roadside

speedometers, and highly integrated education and enforcement programs" (p.10). Poor boater

compliance combined with the budget constraints faced by managing agencies indicates that

these methods should be further examined for their efficacy in reducing vessel speeds in critical

manatee habitat.

Additionally, results of the TRA demonstrate that management strategies designed to

change attitudes might ultimately be more effective in influencing boater behavior than other

interventions. The Airboaters Code of Ethics should be examined as a model of attitude change

among waterway users.

Delimitations

The investigation was delimited to observed registered Florida boaters 18 years and older

sampled during summer and fall, 2006 within two St. Johns River sampling sites in Volusia

County, Florida.

Limitations

This study was limited by sampling only one waterway within one county in Florida;

consequently, the results of the study may not be generalizable to the entire state. Manatee

protection and boating are contentious issues, with periodic media coverage of the various

factions and disputes related to the topic. For example, during the beginning phase of









observations for this investigation, a controversial vote to reduce the Florida manatee from

endangered to threatened status was passed by FWC. The impact on the study as a result of the

publicity surrounding the vote is unknown.

Sampling was predominantly performed during daylight hours on weekends, both of which

may have served to limit the generalizability of findings. Self-reported compliance behavior

relative to the date boaters were observed did not differ from those who reported having boated

during a more recent date. Consequently, responses were analyzed as if the observation date and

the date of their last boat outing as indicated on the mail survey matched perfectly. Although

86% (n = 203) of respondents indicated being the primary vessel operator during their last boat

outing, it was not possible to know whether the person responding to the survey was, in fact, the

person observed on the water. Furthermore, since boat owner data within the VTRS pertains

only to registered vessels in Florida, observed boaters from other states and/or from rental

facilities were not included in the follow-up mail sail survey.

A 23% response rate was generated in this study. An examination of non-response bias

demonstrated several significant differences between mail and telephone survey respondents. To

check for non-response bias, 36 telephone interviews were conducted, with the sample means

and distributions of questions compared on a per question basis with the original mail survey

results (Appendix C). Mail and telephone survey respondents differed significantly in their

number of years boating, agreement with manatees worth saving despite the need for regulations,

boat safety speed zones causing too many inconveniences (an item dropped from the primary

analyses), manatee speed zones being well marked, and support for Florida's boating rules and

regulations. The two respondent groups also differed in their reporting of the number of times

ticketed for boat speed violations.









Recommendations for Future Research

The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between observed vessel speeds

in manatee conservation zones, recreation specialization, marine conservation attitudes, self-

reported compliance behavior, speed zone sign assessment, TRA, and vessel and operator

attributes. Although recreation specialization was a predominant component of the research,

there is little precedent in the literature for employing observed behavior within the context of

specialization. Consequently, future research should continue to examine how observed

recreational behavior fits into the framework of specialization theory.

While various authors may advocate that individual domains of recreation specialization

should be analyzed separately due to the potential to vary relative to each other (Kuentzel &

McDonald, 1992; Scott & Shafer, 2001; Thapa et al., 2006), operationalization of the construct

remains largely unresolved. The behavioral domain within the present study failed to perform

adequately and was ultimately dropped from the path analysis. Within this study, part of the

failure of the behavioral domain was partially attributed to data skewness, outliers, and absence

of normality. Furthermore, it may not be logical to include measures of behavior (e.g., number

of years engaged in an activity; number of days engaged in an activity in the past year) within the

specialization construct. For example, one boater within the present study reported to have more

than 70 years boating experience, while having boated only once in the past 12 months. The

behavioral measure may be more representative of the current personal constraint and situational

factors influencing activity participation than level of specialization.

Similarly, three of the affective domain items, number of boating-related books owned,

number of boating-related items owned, and number of boating-related club memberships,

performed poorly and were removed from the path analysis. Although items such as the number

of books and items owned have been commonly used by recreation specialization researchers,









responses to these items may be more a function of ability to pay than level of specialization.

Further research is needed to more closely examine the efficacy of the behavioral and affective

domains of the specialization construct.

TRA studies have relied heavily on self-reports of behavior. Behavioral intentions within

the TRA model should be validated by future research to determine how intentions correspond to

the actual performance of that behavior. Additionally, boater non-compliance should be further

evaluated by employing measures of behavioral control as facilitated by the Theory of Planned

Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Expanded assessments of knowledge, experience, and skill might

provide further insight into factors associated with depreciative boating behavior.

Consistent with the need to better understand behavioral control, an assessment of

boater's knowledge of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) quantitative

definitions of idle and slow speed zones should be offered. The present investigation

demonstrated that respondents overwhelmingly understood the qualitative definitions set forth by

FWC; however, their understanding of the quantitative definitions (mph) associated with these

zone criteria remained unknown. Furthermore, as only 58% of respondents either agreed or

strongly agreed that on-water manatee zone signage was easy to read or well marked, manatee

conservation managers may want to place more emphasis on a uniform signage standard based

upon further research into effective sign presentation.

An intriguing finding is that as boaters became more experienced, they concomitantly

reported lower agreement with sign effectiveness in marine conservation and boat safety speed

zones. Resource managers should focus on how to better inform vessel operators as to what is

expected of them while boating. Knopf and Andereck (2004) suggested several overarching

ways to minimize unwanted behavior in natural settings. Among these they list effective









communication of the rules and regulations as essential to visitor management. Effective

communication as a means of reducing depreciative non-compliant behavior is especially

important when the environment harbors endangered or threatened species such as those found in

many Florida waterways. As this investigation and others have revealed that boaters may not

fully understand zone signs and zone delineations, more research should be conducted to fully

understand this lack of understanding.

Summarizing the boat zone compliance issue, Shapiro (2001) suggested that compliance

varies by season, site, time, and days of the week. This examination was limited by sampling

only two sites near Blue Spring State Park in DeLand, Florida during summer and fall months of

2006, and primarily on weekends between the hours of 0900 and 1600. Therefore, it is

suggested that this type of study be conducted to capture different sites, months, days, and times

to more fully understand the non-compliance issue.

In summary, understanding depreciative behavior such as boater non-compliance is a

multifaceted and exceedingly complex task. Aquatic habitats, and the multitude of species that

rely on them may best be preserved by understanding the attitudes, values, knowledge, and other

factors that influence the way recreationists behave while engaged in aquatic recreation. While

theories such as recreation specialization and TRA are valuable in framing behavior, much more

research is needed to operationalize the constructs, and to ultimately integrate the findings into

coherent and efficacious management strategy.









APPENDIX A
MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT


Florida Boater Profile Study

University of Florida
Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism

Thank you for your interest in completing this survey!

The following questions pertain to you and your boating experience within Florida waters. This
survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill out to the best of your ability, and
be assured that your responses will be held in strict confidence and your anonymity is
guaranteed. There are no anticipated risks associated with completing this survey, nor are there
any compensations or direct benefits to you as a participant in this research. You do not have to
answer questions you do not wish to answer. You may discontinue your participation at any
time and without any consequence. Addresses for this study were obtained from boat hull
registration numbers and the Vessel Title Registration System.

If you have any questions regarding this survey or the research objectives, please contact John
Confer (supervisor) or John Jett (352) 392-4042 at PO Box 118208, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611.


Thank you for your participation!


9br.-









Experience

1. How many years have you been a boater? (years)

2. How many days did you boat during past 12 months? (days)

3. How many days did you boat in Volusia County in the past 12 months? (days)

4. How many different water bodies have you boated on in the past 12 months? (number)

5. Please check the number of times have you seen manatees while boating during the past 12
months.
Never 1 to 2 times 3 to 4 times 5-6 times
7-8 times 9-10 times greater than 10 Not sure

6. When did you last operate your boat on the St. Johns
River? (month/day/year). Were you the primary vessel operator on this
trip (yes/no)

7. Where did you last operate your boat? (water body)





Boating Equipment and Related Activity

8. What kind of boat did you use during your last outing? (please check)
Pontoon Fish Personal watercraft Johnboat
Sail Yacht/cruiser Ski Other (list)

9. How long is the hull of the boat you mentioned above (#8)? (feet). Does this boat have
a speedometer? (yes/no).

10. How many boating magazine subscriptions and/or boating-related books do you currently
own? (number)

11. Approximately how many items do you own that are directly related to boating, excluding
tow vehicle?_(number). **Items may include, for example, life vests, GPS unit, rod and
reel, anchor, tie ropes, whistle, emergency buoy, tackle box, etc.

12. How many boating-related clubs do you currently belong to? (number)

13. How many environmental organizations do you currently belong to? (number)









Attitudes and Boating Skill
14. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the highest), how would you rate each of the following?
My general boating skill level
My knowledge of general boating rules and regulations
My knowledge of Volusia County waterways
Comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore

15. Please circle the response corresponding to your attitudes toward marine
conservation issues and strategies. (SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral,
A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree, NA=Not Applicable)
SD D N A SA NA

Manatees are worth saving despite the need for regulations 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Manatee protection causes too many inconveniences 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Boat speed reduction is effective manatee protection strategy 1 2 3 4 5 NA
Boat speed reduction is effective as a general marine 1 2 3 4 5 NA
conservation strategy
I generally support Florida's boating rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Boat safety speed zones cause too many inconveniences 1 2 3 4 5 NA

16. Please circle the response corresponding to how boating and boating related activities fit into
your life. (SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree,
NA=Not Applicable)


SD D N A SA NA
Boating and boating-related activities are one of the most
enjoyable things I do
Boating is very important to me 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Boating says a lot about who I am 1 2 3 4 5 NA
I find that a lot of my life is organized around boating and 1 2 3 4 5 NA
boating-related activity











17. Please circle your assessment of boat zones and your personal adherence to waterway rules


and regulations. (SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, N:
Agree, NA=Not Applicable)


Neutral, A=Agree, SA=Strongly


SD D N A SA NA
I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most 1 2 3 4 5 NA
recent boating experience
I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety 1 2 3 4 5 NA
speed zones during my most recent boating experience

Manatee speed zones are well marked 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Manatee speed zone signs are easy to read 1 2 3 4 5 NA

I can always tell when I'm in a manatee speed zone 1 2 3 4 5 NA

General boat safety speed zones are well marked 1 2 3 4 5 NA

General boat safety speed zone signs are easy to read 1 2 3 4 5 NA

I can always tell when I'm in a general boat safety zone 1 2 3 4 5


18. When in an idle speed zone, a boater should (please circle):
a. Travel no faster than 5 mph.
b. Create no wake
c. Create minimum wake
d. Not sure

19. When in a slow speed zone, a boater should (please circle):
a. Travel no faster than 10 mph
b. Create no wake
c. Create minimum wake
d. Not sure

20. Overall, how often do you comply with boat speed zones? (please circle)
a. Never
b. Less than half the time
c. About half the time
d. More than half the time
e. All of the time
f. Don't know/no response

21. Have you ever been ticketed for violating boat speed restrictions? (please circle)
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don't know/no response











22. In Florida,
a.
b.
c.
d.


manatees are officially listed as? (please circle)
Species of special concern
Threatened
Endangered
Manatees are not listed


23. Indicate the top five reasons why you may not fully comply with boat speed restrictions. In
the right column put a "1" for the most important reason, "2" for the second most important
reason, and so on.
Reasons you may not comply Order (top five)
o. Gets too hot when boat goes slow
p. Need to get somewhere
q. Other boats are going fast
r. Other people on my boat want to go faster
s. It's fun to go faster
t. Those I learned from never complied
u. To get out of the rain
v. I don't care about speed zones
w. Bad zone signage/can't understand
x. I don't like being told how to operate my boat
y. I don't agree with the zone
z. I know that there are no officers in the area
aa. Not paying attention
bb. Other (list)


24. Please provide your opinion by circling the best response. (SD=Strongly Disagree,
D=Disagree, N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree, NA=Not Applicable)
SD D N A SA NA
I get where I 'want to go more quickly on my boat if I disregard 1 2 3 4 5 NA
boat speed zones
I will be fined if I disregard boat speed zones 1 2 3 4 5 NA
I have a greater chance of damaging my boat if I disregard boat 1 2 3 4 5 NA
speed zones
Having the freedom to get to my destination quickly while boating 1 2 3 4 5 NA
is important
Having no threat of ticketing for disregarding boat speed zones is 1 2 3 4 5 NA
important 1 2 3 4 5 NA
important
Having fun while on my boat is more important than obeying boat 1 2 3 4 5 NA
speed zones
Family and friends think I should comply with boat speed zones 1 2 3 4 5 NA



























25. How do you feel about removing manatees from the endangered species list?
e. Strongly disagree with removing them
f. Disagree with removing them
g. Neither agree nor disagree with removing them
h. Agree with removing them
i. Strongly agree with removing them
j. Not sure/no response


(please circle)


Information about Yourself


26. Where is your place of residence?

27. What is your gender? (please check)


28. What is your age?


.(city)_


Male


(zip code)


Female


(years)


29. What is the highest education level you have attained? (please check one)
Less than High School Completed 4-year college degree
High School diploma Some graduate work
Attended business/technical school Completed graduate or advanced degree
Some college or 2-year degree

30. Which best describes your annual household income in 2005, before taxes? (please check
one)
Less than $14,999 $65,000 to $99,999
$15,000 to $34,999 $100,000 to $149,999
$35,000 to $49,999 $150,000 to $199,999
$50,000 to $64,999 Over $200,000


Law enforcement officers think that I should comply with boat
1 2 3 4 5 NA
speed zones
Other boaters think I should comply with boat speed zone 1 2 3 4 5 NA
When boating, I want to do what family and friends think I should
1 2 3 4 5 NA
do
When boating, I want to do what other boaters think I should do 1 2 3 4 5 NA
When boating, I want to do what law enforcement officers think I
should do
I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time I
boat1 2 3 4 5 NA
boat
I intend to follow general boat safety speed restrictions the next 1 2 3 4 5 NA
1 2 3 4 5 NA
time I boat
Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that will not harm the 1 2 3 4 5 NA
environment










Thank you for your effort in completing this survey!
If you have any questions regarding this investigation, please contact John Confer (supervisor) or
John Jett
Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism
PO Box 118209
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-8209
(352) 392-4042
Email: jconfer@hhp.ufl.edu orjjett@ufl.edu
Any questions regarding your rights as a research participant should be directed to the University
of Florida Institutional Review Board, PO Box 112252, Gainesville, FL 32611, 352-392-0433

TO RETURN: Please fold the survey in half and staple or tape the two sides together so that the
Business Reply address is shown on the outside. Thank You.


.-,-.


"^::^,;i~i~c~,g~t~Ynl~E~I*II~~


I .









APPENDIX B
TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT


Non-respondent Telephone Survey
Florida Boater Compliance Study, 2006

Hello, may I please speak with Mr./Ms.

Hi, my name is John Jett. I am a graduate student at the University of Florida where I am
studying boating issues. A couple of months ago I sent you a mail questionnaire regarding your
boating behavior and attitudes. A number of boat operators did not respond so now I would like
to ask you a few questions to better understand why people did not respond to the initial survey.
Are you willing to spend about five minutes to answer some very simple questions? Your
participation is completely voluntary and your responses will be held in strict confidence.

Yes No

1. How many years have you been a boater?

2. What kind of boat did you use on your last outing?
a. Pontoon
b. Sail
c. Fish
d. Yacht/cruiser
e. PWC
f. Ski
g. John
h. Other

3. How long is the hull?

4. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest, how would you rate your general boating
skill?

5. To what extent do you believe:

a. Manatees are worth saving despite the need for regulation. (SD, D, N, A, SA, NA)
b. Boat safety speed zones cause too many inconveniences. (SD, D, N, A, SA, NA)
c. You fully complied with manatee speed zones during your most recent boating
experience. (SD, D, N, A, SA, NA)
d. Manatee speed zones are well marked. (SD, D, N, A, SA, NA)
e. I generally support Florida's boating rules and regulations. (SD, D, N, A, SA,
NA)









6. When in an idle speed zone, a boater should?
a. Travel no faster than 5 mph
b. Create no wake
c. Create minimum wake
d. Not sure

7. Have you ever been ticketed for violating a boat speed restriction? (Y, N, Don't know/no
response)

8. How do you feel about removing manatees from the endangered species list?
a. Strongly disagree with removing them
b. Disagree with removing them
c. Neither agree nor disagree with removing them
d. Agree with removing them
e. Strongly agree with removing them
f. Not sure/ no response

9. Please tell my your level of agreement with:
a. Having the freedom to get to me destination quickly while boating is important.
(SD, D, N, A, SA, NA)
b. I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time I boat. (SD, D, N,
A, SA, NA)









APPENDIX C
NON-RESPONSE BIAS ANALYSES


Table C1. Mail and telephone respondent t-tests
Mail


Telephone


Item
Years a boater
Hull length (categories)
General skill
Manatees are worth saving despite
need for regulations
Boat safety zones-too many
inconveniences
Fully complied with manatee speed
zones last time boating
Manatee speed zones-well marked
Support of Florida's boating rules
and regulations
Feel about removing manatees from
endangered species list
Freedom to get to my boating
destination quickly is important
Intend to follow manatee speed
zone next time boating
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed)


M
26.2
2.7
8.5
3.9

3.2

4.4
3.5
3.9

3.0


SD
16.7
.67
1.3


M
18.9
2.5
8.4


1.1 3.5

1.3 2.5


SD
14.9
.65
1.2


df
268
268
268


t
2.45*
1.51
.37


1.2 268 2.21*

1.0 268 3.61*


.98 4.1 .75 268 1.88


1.2 3.0
.89 3.5

1.6 3.4


3.1 1.2 3.1


.87 267 2.92*
.70 268 2.94*

1.0 212 -1.88


.75 261


4.1 .79 262 1.12


Table C2. Mail and telephone respondent X2 test
Item Mail (n=234) Telephone(n=36) X2
Have you ever been 13.49*
19.2 13.9 13.49*
ticketed
*Significant at .05 level (2-tailed)










APPENDIX D
FIELD DATA SHEET

Boater Compliance Research Data Sheet


AM/PM:
Day:
Speed Posting:


Sheet #:
circle one
Sky (clear, pcloudy, cloudy, rain, other)


Boat
Obs Time type


Length Activity # in boat


D. D.
Law Elapsed In Out FL Boat # Rental Comments


Boat type: pontoon (pt); sail (s); ski (sk); johnboat (j); runabout (r); fish (f);
yacht/cruiser (y); other (o)
Length: <12' (1); 12'-15' (2); 16'-25' (3); 26'-39' (4); 40'-64'
(5); 64'-109'(5)
Activity: fishing (fish); pleasure (pl); skiing (ski); traveling (tr);
other (ot)


Date:
Temp:
Site #:


Notes:









LIST OF REFERENCES


Absher, J.D. and Bright, A.D. (2004). Communication research in outdoor recreation and natural
resources management. In Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., Bruyere, B.L., Field, D.R., and
Brown, P.J. (Ed.) Society and Natural Resources (pp. 305-314). Jefferson, MO: Modern
Litho.

Ackerman, B. B., Wright, S.D, Bonde, R.K, Odell, D.K, and Banowetz, D.J.(1995). Trends and
patterns in mortality of manatees in Florida,1974-1992. Pages 223-258. In T. J.
O'Shea, B. B. Ackerman,and H. F. Percival, editors. Population biology of the Florida
manatee:information and technological report 1. National Biological Services, Ft.
Collins, Colorado.

Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Aipanjiguly, S. (2001). Knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions of Florida
boaters regarding manatee conservation and recommendations for communications.
Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Aipanjiguly, S., Jacobson, S.K and Flamm, R.O. (2003). Conserving manatees: knowledge,
attitudes, and intentions of boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conservation Biology,
17(4):1098-1105.

Albarracin, D., Fishbein, M., Johnson, B.T., and Muellerleile, P.A. (2001). Theories of reasoned
action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(1): 142-161.

Alessa, L, Bennett, S.M and Kliskey, A.D. (2003). Effects of knowledge, personal attribution
and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviors in the intertidal zone of
Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 68: 207-
218.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.









Antonini, G., Fann, D, and Roat, P. (1999). A Historical Geography of .SlhilI est Florida
Waterways Volume One: Anna Maria Sound to Lemon Bay. Florida Sea Grant
Publication SGEB47. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Banks, F.G., C.L. Irwin, G.L. Evink, M.E. Gray, S. Hagood, J.R. Kinar, A. Levy, D. Paulson,
B. Ruediger, R.M. and Sauvajot. (2002). Wildlife habitat connectivity across European
highways. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
International Technology Exchange Program.

Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bireline, H. (2005). Recreation specialization and reports ofpotential impact behaviors among
birders attending birding festivals. Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.

Barichivich, W.J. and Dodd, K.C. (2002). Phase II post-construction. Final Report to the Florida
Department of Transportation.

Bricker, K.S. (1998). Place and preference: A study ofwhitewater recreationists on S~,uih Fork
of the American River. Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania.

Bricker, K. and Kerstetter, D.L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An
exploratory story of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22,233-257.

Bright, A. D., Fishbein, M., Manfredo, M.J., and Bath, A. 1993. Application of the theory of
reasoned Action to the National Park Service controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure
Research, 25, 263-281.

Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout
fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9(3), 174-187.

Bryan, H. (1979). Conflict in the great outdoors. Birmingham, AL: The Birmingham Publishing
Co.

Cantrill, J.G. (1998). The environmental self and a sense of place: communication foundations
for regional ecosystem management. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
26(3): 301-318.









Chipman, B.D. and Helfirch, L.A. (1988). Recreational specialization and motivations of
Virginia river anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 8, 390-398.

Choi, S., Loomis, D., and Ditton, R. (1994). Effect of social group, activity, and
specialization on recreation substitution decisions. Leisure Sciences, 16, 143-159.

Cialdini, R.B., Demain, L.J., Sagarin, B.J., Barrett, D.W., Rhoads, K. and Winter, P.L. (2006).
Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3-15.

Cole, D. N. (1998). Written appeals for attention to low-impact messages on wilderness trailside
bulletin boards: experimental evaluations of effectiveness. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration (pp. 65-79).

Cole, D. N., Hammond, T. P., & McCool, S. F. (1997). Information quantity and communication
effectiveness: low impact messages on wilderness trailside bulletin boards. Leisure
Sciences (pp. 59-72).

Cole, J. and Scott, D. (1999). Segmenting participation in wildlife watching" A comparison of
casual wildlife watchers and serious birders. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 4(4), 44-61.

Chipman, B.D. and Helfrich, L.A. (1988). Recreation specialization and motivations of Virginia
river anglers. North American Journal ofFisheries Management, 8, 390-398.

Choi, S., Loomis, D.K. and Ditton, R.B. (1994). Effect of social group, activity, and
specialization on recreation substitution decisions. Leisure Sciences, 16, 143-159.

Christensen, H.H. (1981). Bystander intervention and litter control: evaluation of an appeal to
help program. (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-287). Portland,
OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Christensen, H.H., Johnson, D.R., and Brookes, M.H. (Eds.) (1992). Vandalism: Research,
prevention, and socialpolicy (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-
GTR-293). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Clark, R.N., Hendee, J.C. and Burgess, R.I. (1972). The experimental control of littering.
Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 22-28.

Cockrell, D., Bange, S. and Roggenbuck, J. (1984). Persuasion and normative influence in
commercial river recreation. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 15(4), 20-26.

Cole, D.N., Hammond, T.P., and McCool, S.F. (1997). Information quantity and communication
effectiveness. Leisure Sciences, 19(1), 59-72.

Cooley, R.R. (2005). The effectiveness of signage in the reduction of litter in backcountry and
frontcountry campsites. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Manitoba.









Confer, J., Holland, S. and Grist, R. (2003). Timucuan Preserve environs visitor study Duval
County, Florida. Final Report prepared for Preservation Project Jacksonville, Inc by
University of Florida.

Conner, M., and Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and
avenues for further research. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 28, 1430-1464.

Cottrell, S.P. (1993). Predictors of responsible environmental behavior among boaters on the
Chesapeake Bay: An exploratory analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Cottrell, S.P. and Graefe, A.R. (1997). Testing a conceptual framework of responsible
environmental behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 29(1), 17-21.

Cottrell, S.P., Graefe, A.R. and Confer, J. (2004). Recreation specialization: hierarchy of boating
subactivities revisited. World Leisure, 4:35-47.

Ditton, R.B., Loomis, D.K. and Choi, S. (1992). Recreation specialization : re-conceptualization
from a social world perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 33-51.

Derksen, L. and Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling." American Sociological
Review, 58:434-442.

DeYoung, R. (1989) Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: The role
of information. Journal ofEnvironmental Systems, 18(4) 341-351.

DeYoung, R. 1990. Some psychological aspects of living lightly: desired lifestyle patterns and
conservation behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Systems 20, 215-227.

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In
Deci, E.L. and Ryan.R.M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68-78.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1995). Human autonomy: the basis for true self-esteem. In Deci,
E.L. and Ryan.R.M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan.R.M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.









Diekmann, A. and Preisendorfer, P. (1992). Ecology in everyday life inconsistencies between
environmental attitudes and behaviors. Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und
Sozialpsychologie, 44 (2): 226-251.

Dillman DA. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley
and Sons.

Ditton, R.B., Loomis, D.K. and Choi, S. (1992). Recreation specialization: reconceptualization
from a social world's perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(1), 33-51.

Dolsen, D.E. and Machlis, G.E. (1991). Response rates and mail recreation survey results: how
much is enough? Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (3), 272-277.

Donnelly, M.P., Vaske, J.J. and Graefe, A.R. (1986). Degree and range of recreation
specialization: toward a typology of boating related activities. Journal of Leisure
Research, 18(2), 81-95.

Duncan, G.S. and Martin, S.R. (2002). Interpretive and sanction messages for influencing
wilderness visitors' intended behavior. International Journal of Wilderness, 8(2), 20-25.

Dunlap, R.E. and Heffernan, R.B. (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: an
empirical examination. Rural Sociology, 40(1), 18-30.

Dunlap, R.E. and Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The "new environmental paradigm." Journal of
Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Dyck, C., Schneider, I., Thompson, M., & Virden, R. (2003). Specialization among mountaineers
and its relationship to environmental attitudes. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 21(2), 44-62.

Edwards, M.L. and Brackett, R.Q (1978). The management of speed. Traffic Safety, 18-30.

Ewert, A. (1985). Why people climb? The relationship of participant motives and experience
levels to mountaineering. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(3), 241-250

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to
theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Fishbein, M. and Manfredo, M.J. (1992). A theory of behavior change. In M. Manfredo (Ed.)
Influencing human behavior: theory and applications in recreation, tourism and natural
resources management (pp.210-261). Champagne, IL: Sagamore.

Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. (2006). Florida vessel owners: the
facts and figures. Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved 4/1/2006:
http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/dmv/vslfacts.html.









Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2005). Preliminary Biological Status
Review of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
FL.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
(2006a). Descriptions of manatee death categories. St. Petersburg, Florida. Retrieved
4/19/2006: http://research.myfwc.com/features/.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
(2006b). Manatee mortality-database search. St. Petersburg, Florida. Retrieved
4/19/2006: http://research.myfwc.com/manatees/search_summary.asp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
(2006c). Waterway marker search. St. Petersburg, Florida. Retrieved 6/7/2006:
http://myfwc.com/boating/waterwaymarkers/iwmfind. asp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2006d). State boating law summary.
Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved 6/18/2006:
http://myfwc.com/boating/safety/law_summary.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2006e). Bears and Roads. Retrieved
6/19/2006: http://www.wildflorida.org/bear/roads.htm.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Diversity Conservation.
(2001). A summary of Florida panther mortality caused by vehicular collisions. Naples,
Florida. Retrieved 6/19/2006:
http://www.panther.state.fl.us/pdfs/FloridaPantherMortalityCausedbyVehicular.pdf

Fritschen, J.A. (1984). Interpretation for management. In Supplements to a Guide to Cultural and
Environmental Interpretation in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, MS:
Environmental Laboratory, Recreation Research Program, Instruction Report R-84-1.

Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., and Lipscomb, J. 1996. Wildlife value Orientations: a
conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 24-47.

Fulton, D.C., Skerl, K., Shank, E.M. and Lime, D.W. (2004). Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal
management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(4):
1166-1176.

Futerfas, J. (2003). Correlates of boater knowledge and views regarding the Florida manatee
and manatee related issues. Master's Thesis, Florida International University, Miami,
Florida.









Futerfas, J., Gladwin, H. and Flamm, R. (2003). Working paper 1: boater-manatee study
frequencies: survey of boat owners. Unpublished paper, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.

Geisler, C. C., Martinson, O. B. and Wilkening, E. A. (1977). Outdoor reaction and
environmental concern: A restudy. Rural Sociology, 42, 241-249.

Geller, E.S. (1981) Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough? Journal
of Consumer Research, 8(3), 331-335.

Geller, E.S. (1987). Applied behavioral analysis and environmental psychology: From strange
bedfellows to a productive marriage. In M. Manfredo (Ed.) Influencing human behavior:
theory and applications in recreation, tourism and natural resources management
(pp.210-261). Champagne, IL: Sagamore.

Gerstein, E.R. (2002). Manatees, bioacoustics and boats. American Scientist, 90(2): 154-163.

Gorzelany, J.F. (1996). Evaluation of boater compliance I i/l speed regulations in Sarasota
County, Florida. Final Report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Bureau of Protected Species Management.

Gorzelany, J.F. (2001). Effects of increased police enforcement on boater compliance in speed
restricted areas. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report Number 782: Sarasota, FL,
p.30.

Gorzelany J.F. (2004). Evaluation of boater compliance with manatee speed zones along the Gulf
Coast of Florida. CoastalManagement, 32(3), 215-226.

Graefe, A.R., Donnelly, M.P. and Vaske, J.J. (1986). Crowding and specialization: A
reexamination of the crowding model. In Proceedings of The National Wilderness
Research Conference: Current Research (pp.333-338). General Technical Report INT-
212, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Gramann, J.H., and Vander Stoep. (1987). Prosocial behavior and natural resource protection.
Journal of Environmental Management, 24, 247-257.

Gramann, J.H., Bonifield, R.L. and Kim, Y. (1995). Effect of personality and situational factors
on intentions to obey rules in outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research,
27(4): 326-343.

Hagburg, E.C. (1968). Validity of questionnaire data: reported and observed attendance in an
adult education program. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(3), 453-456.

Ham, S. H. and Krumpe, E.E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal
environmental education: a theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 1:11-23.









Hammit, W.E. and McDonald, C.D. (1983). Past on-site experience and its relationship to
managing river recreation resources. Forest Science, 29(2), 262-266.

Hammitt, W.E., McDonald, C.D. and Hughes, J.L. (1983). Experience level and participation
motives of winder wilderness users. In Proceedings of The National Wilderness Research
Conference: Current Research (pp.269-277). General Technical Report INT-212, USDA
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Hammit, W.E., Knauf, L.R. and Noe, F.P. (1989). A comparison of user vs. research determined
level of past experience on recreation preference. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 202-
213.

Hendee, J. C., & Dawson, C. P. (2002). Wilderness management. stewardship and protection of
resources and values (3rd Ed.). Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press.

Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H. and Lucas, R.C. (1990). Wilderness management. 2nd ed. Golden,
CO: North American Press. In M. Manfredo (Ed.) Influencing human behavior: theory
and applications in recreation, tourism and natural resources management (pp.210-261).
Champagne, IL: Sagamore

Hendricks, W.W. (1993). Direct and indirect park and recreation resource management: An
identification decision-making model. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City, Utah.

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. and Tomera, A.N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental
Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Hopkin, T.E. and Moore, R.L. (1995). The relationship of recreation specialization to the setting
preferences of mountain bicyclists. In G.A. Vander Stoep Compp.), Proceedings of the
1994 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (pp.71-75). Gen.Tech. Rep. NE-
198. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station.

Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Hvenegaard, G.T. (2002). Birder specialization differences in conservation involvement,
demographics, and motivations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 21-36.

Jackson, E.L. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leisure
Studies, 5, 1-23.









Jacobi, C. (2003). Leave the rocks for the next glacier. International Journal of Wilderness (pp.
30-31). Wirsching, A, Leugn, Yu-Fai and Attarian, A. Swatting litter bugs: what agencies
can do to decrease depreciative visitor behavior. Parks and Recreation Research Update
from November 03.

Jacobson, S.K. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.

Jett, J.S. (2000). An evaluation of knowledge, attributes and satisfaction of recreational floaters
on the Illinois River. Master's Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Katz, M.S. (1981). An assessment of intra-group differences in conservation attitudes and
environmentalism as a function of activity involvement amongfly fishermen. Doctoral
Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania

Kauffman, R.B. (1984). The relationship between activity specialization and resource related
attitudes and expected rewards for canoeists. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland

Kim, S. (1995). Effects of information on users' normative standards, perceived conflict, and
depreciative behavior at campgrounds of Chiri-Mountain National Park, Korea.
Doctoral Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kim, Y. (1990). Depreciative behavior in outdoor recreation settings: An experimental
application of prosocial behavior theory. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:
Guilford.

Knopf, R.C. and Andereck, K.L. (2004). Managing depreciative behavior in natural settings. In
Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., Bruyere, B.L., Field, D.R., and Brown, P.J. (Ed.) Society and
Natural Resources (pp. 305-314). Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho.

Knopf, R.C., and Dustin, D.L. (1992). A multidisciplinary model for managing vandalism and
depreciative behavior in recreation settings. In M. Manfredo (Ed.) Influencing human
behavior: theory and applications in recreation, tourism and natural resources
management (pp.210-261). Champagne, IL: Sagamore.

Knussen, C, Yule, F., MacKenzie, J. and Wells, M. (2004). An analysis of intentions to recycle
household waste: The roles of past behavior, perceived habit, and perceived lack of
facilities. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 24, 237-246.

Krumpe, E. and Brown. P.J. (1982). Redistributing backcountry use through information related
to recreation experiences. Journal ofForestry, 360-364.









Kuentzel, W.F. and Heberlein, T. (1997). Social status, self-development, and the process of
sailing specialization. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(3), 300-319.

Kuentzel, W.F. and McDonald, (1992). Differential effects of past experience commitment, and
lifestyle dimensions on river use specialization. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 300-
319.

Laist, D.W. and Shaw, C. (2006). Preliminary evidence that boat speed restrictions reduce deaths
of Florida manatees. Marine Mammal Science, 22(2), 472-479.

Lee, J.H and Scott, D. (2004). Measuring birding specialization: A confirmatory factor analysis.
Leisure Sciences, 26: 245-260.

Leeworthy, V. and Wiley, P. (2001). National Survey on Marine Recreation and the
Environment 2000: Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation. A report to the
U.S. Department of Congress National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration.
Silver Springs, Maryland.

Lefebvre, L.W., B.B. Ackerman, K.M. Portier, and K.H. Pollock. (1995). Aerial survey as
a technique for estimating trends in manatee population size problems and prospects.
Pages 63-74 in T.J. O'Shea, B.B. Ackerman, and H.F. Percival (eds.). Population Biology
of the Florida Manatee. National Biological Service, Information and Technology Report
No. 1. Washington D.C.

Leggett,L.M.W. (1988). The effect on accident occurrence of long-term, low-intensity
police enforcement." Proceedings of the 14th Annual Road Research Board Conference,
pp.92-104.

Leggett, L.M.W. (1996). Using police enforcement to prevent road crashes: the randomized
scheduled management system. Land Transport and Safety Division, Queensland.

Leston, D. (2002). Florida coastal environmental resources: a guide to economic valuation
and impact analysis. Florida Sea Grant Report, SGR 124. University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Letirand, F., and Delhomme, P. (2005). Speed behavior as a choice between observing and
exceeding the speed limit. Transportation Research Part F 8, 481-492.

Lichtman, S.W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E.R., Pestone, M., Dowling, H., Offenbacher, E., Weisel,
H., Heshka, S., Matthews, D.E., and Heymsfield, S.B. (1992). Discrepancy between self-
reported and actual caloric-intake and exercise in obese subjects. New England Journal
ofMedicine, 327(27): 1893-1898.

Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.









Lopez, R.R., Silvy, N.J., Owen, C.B. and Irwin, C.L. (2003). Habitat connectivity
placement of crossing structures, conservation strategies in the Florida Keys: Formula for
success. ICOET Proceedings.

Manfredo, M.J. (Ed.) (1992). Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in
recreation, tourism, and natural resource management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Manfredo, M.J. and Bright, A.D. (1991). A model for assessing the effects of communication on
recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(1), 1-20.

Manfredo, M.J., Fulton, D.C. and Pierce, C.L. (1997). Understanding voter behavior on wildlife
ballot initiatives: Colorado's trapping amendment. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2, 22-
39.

Manfredo, M.J., Teel, T.L. and Bright. A.D. (2004) Application of the concepts of values and
attitudes in human dimensions of natural resources research. In Manfredo, M.J., Vaske,
J.J., Bruyere, B.L., Field, D.R., and Brown, P.J. (Ed.) Society and Natural Resources (pp.
305-314). Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho.

Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction.
Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Marmontel, M., S.R. Humphrey, and T.J. O'Shea. (1997). Population viability analysis of the
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Conservation Biology 11(2): 467-481.

Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multi method
matrices. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 20, 231-248.

Martin. S.R. (1997). Specialization and differences in setting preferences among wildlife
viewers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(1), 18.

McDougall, G.H.G., Claxton, J.D., Ritchie, J.R. and Anderson, C.D. (1981). Energy consumer
research: a review. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 343-354.

McFarlane, B.L. (1994). Socialization and motivations of birdwatchers. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 22, 361-370.

McFarlane, B.L. (1996). Socialization influences of specialization among birdwatchers. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(1), 35-50.

McFarlane, B.L. (2004). Recreation specialization and site choice among vehicle-based
campers. Leisure Sciences, 26, 309-322.

McFarlane, B. L., Boxall, P. C.,&Watson, D. O. (1998). Past experience and behavioral choice
among wilderness users. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 195-213.









McIntyre, N. (1989). The personal meaning of participation: Enduring involvement. Journal of
Leisure Research, 21(2), 167-179.

McIntyre, N. and Pigram, J.J. (1992). Recreation specialization reexamined: The case of vehicle
based campers. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 3-16.

Merrill, K., and Graefe, A.R.. (1998). The relationship between activity specialization and
preferences for setting and route attributes of selected rock climbers. In H. Vogelsong
Compp.), Proceedings of the 1997 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (pp.89-
92). Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-241. Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Meyer, L.A. (2002). Recreation specialization and environmental behaviors: An exploratory
analysis among scuba divers. Masters Thesis, University of Florida.

Mick, D.G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable
responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 106-119.

Miller, C.A. and Graefe, A.R. (2000). Degree and range of specialization across related hunting
activities. Leisure Sciences, 22: 195-204.

Miller, K.E., B.B. Ackerman, L.W. Lefebvre, and K.B. Clifton.(1998). An evaluation of strip-
transect aerial survey methods for monitoring manatee populations in Florida. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 26(3):561-570.

Moore, T.H. (1995). The use of signage in reducing the destructive behavior of trail users.
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Mowen, A.J., Williams, D.R. and Graefe, A.R. (1997). Specialized participants and their
environmental attitudes: Re-examining the role of "traditional" and psychological
specialization dimensions. In W. Kuentzel (comp.). Proceedings of the 1996
Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (pp. 134-138). Gen Tech Rep. NE=232.
Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station.

Newhouse, N. (2003). The wildlife protection system: Early successes and challenges using
infrared technology to detect deer, warn drivers, and monitor deer behavior. ICOET
Proceedings.

Nielsen, C. and Buchanan, T. (1986). A comparison of the effectiveness of two interpretive
programs regarding fire ecology and fire management. Journal ofInterpretation. 11(1):
1-10.

Nord, M., Luloff, A.E., and Bridger, J. (1998). The association of forest recreation with
environmentalism. Environment and Behavior, 30(2), 235-246.









Oh, C.O., and Ditton, R.B. (2006). Using recreation specialization to understand multi-attribute
management preferences. Leisure Sciences, 28: 369-384.

Ouellette, J. A., and Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple
processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
54-74.

O'Shea, T.J. (1988). The past present, and future of manatees in the southeastern United States:
Realities, misunderstandings, and enigmas. Pages 184-204 in Odum, R.R., K.A.
Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier (eds.). Proceedings of the Third S.1i,,ith\ie 1e Nongame and
Endangered Wildlife Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Social
Circle, Georgia.

O'Shea, T.J. (1995). Waterborne recreation and the Florida manatee. In: Knight, R.L.,
Gutzwiller, K.J. (Eds.), Wildlife andRecreationists. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp.
297-311.

O'Shea, T. J., and B. B. Ackerman. 1995. Population biology of the Florida manatee: an
overview. Pages 280-287 in T. J. O'Shea, B. B. Ackerman, and H. F. Percival, editors.
Population Biology of the Florida Manatee. National Biological Service Information and
Technology Report 1. Washington, D.C. 289 pp.

O'Shea, T.J., Lefebvre, L.W., Beck, C.A., 2001. Florida manatees: perspectives on popluations,
pain and protection. In: Dierauf, L.A., Gulland, F.M.D. (Eds.), CRC Handbook ofMarine
MammalMedicine. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 31-43.

Oliver, S.S., Roggenbuck, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1992). Education to reduce impacts in forest
campgrounds. Journal ofForestry, 83(4), 234-236.

Olson, E.C., Bowan, M.L. and Roth, R.E. (1984). Interpretation and nonformal environmental
education in natural resources management. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 15(4),
6-10.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Parker, S. (1989). Report on a Survey of Florida's Registered Boat Owners for the Save the
Manatee Club. Survey Research Laboratory, Policy Sciences Program, Fla. State Univ.
Tallahassee, FL

Parker, S. and Wang, K. (1996). Report on a Survey of the Florida Public on Manatee Protection
and other Topics Related to Florida's Environment for the Save the Manatee Club.
Survey Research Laboratory, Policy Sciences Center, Fla. State Univ. Tallahassee, FL.

Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., Reason, J. T., and Baxter, J. S. (1992).
Intentions to commit driving violations: an application of the theory of planned behavior.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 94-101.









Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/Verlag.

Petty, R.E., McMichael, S. and Brannon, L.A. (1992). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion: applications in recreation and tourism. In M. Manfredo (Ed.) Influencing
human behavior: theory and applications in recreation, tourism and natural resources
management (pp.210-261). Champagne, IL: Sagamore.

Pinhey, T. K., & Grimes, M. D. (1979). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: a
restudy. Leisure Sciences, 2(1), 1-11.

Reid, S. and Marion. J. (2006). The efficacy of visitor education programs. Retrieved 5/4/2006:
http://archive.lnt.org/

Reynolds, J.E., III. (1999). Efforts to Conserve the Manatee. Pp. 332-341. In J.R. Twiss and
R.R. Reeves (eds.), Conservation and management of marine mammals, Smithsonian
Press, Washington, D.C.

Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. In:
Manfredo, M. J., (Ed) Influencing human behavior: theory and applications in
recreation, tourism and natural resources management (pp.210-261). Champagne, IL:
Sagamore.

Roggenbuck, J.W. and Berrier, D.L. (1982). A comparison of the effectiveness of two
communication strategies in dispersing wilderness campers. Journal of Leisure Research,
14(1), 77-89.

Roggenbuck, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1986). Providing information for management purposes. In
Manfredo (Ed.) Influencing human behavior: theory and applications in recreation,
tourism and natural resources management (pp.210-261). Champagne, IL: Sagamore.

Romin, L.A. and Bissonette, J.A. (1996). Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring
activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24:276-283.

Rothengatter, J. A., Riedel, W. J., & De Bruin, R. A. (1985). De invloed van gericht
verkeerstoezicht op het snelheidsgedrag op 80-km wegen. Traffic Research Centre
Report VK 85-01. Traffic Research Centre, University of Groningen, Haren. In Letirand,
F., and Delhomme, P. (2005). Speed behavior as a choice between observing and
exceeding the speed limit. Transportation Research Part F 8, 481-492

Runge, M. C., C. A. Langtimm, and W. L. Kendall. 2004. A stage-based model of manatee
population dynamics. Marine Mammal Science. 20:361-385.

Salz, R.J. and Loomis, D.K. (2005). Recreation specialization and anglers' attitudes towards
restricted fishing areas. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10: 187-199.









Salz, R.J., Loomis, D.K and Finn, K.L. (2001). Development and validation of a specialization
index and testing of specialization theory. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(3), 239-258.

Sarasota County. (2006). Boat speed zones, fishing licenses and boating safety, Mayakka
river boat speed zones. Sarasota County, Florida. Retrieved 5/2/2006:
http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/navigator/.

Save the Manatee Club (2006). Manatee fact sheet. Maitland, Florida. Retrieved 4/01/2006:
http://www.savethemanatee.org.

Schrag, A.M. (2003). Highways and wildlife: Review of mitigation projects throughout Europe,
Canada and the United States. Retrieved 6/19/2006: http://www.i90wildlifebridges.org/

Schreyer, R. & Beaulieu, J. T. (1986). Attribute preferences for wildland recreation settings.
Journal of Leisure Research, 18(4), 121-247.

Schreyer, R. and Lime, D.W. (1984). A novice isn't necessarily a novice. The influence of
Experience Use History on subjective perceptions of recreation participation. Leisure
Sciences, 6(2), 131-149.

Schreyer, R., Lime, D.W. and Williams, D.R. (1984). Characterizing the influence of past
experience on behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(1), 35-50.

Schultz, P.W. and Zelesny, L. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five country
survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.

Scott, D. and Godbey, G. (1994). Recreation specialization in the social world of contract bridge.
Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3), 275-295.

Shapiro, S.L. (2001). Boater compliance update. Manatee News Quarterly, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, 5(4), 1-16.

Sidman, C., Fik, T and Sargent, B. (2004). A recreational boating characterization for Tampa
and Sarasota Bays. Florida Sea Grant publication. University of Florida, Gainesville

Sorice, M.G., Flamm, R.O. and McDonald, S.L. (2004). Evaluation of vessel compliance with
manatee speed zones and an investigation of methods to improve compliance rates, Part 1
Improving compliance rates. Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

St. Johns River Water Management District. Blue Spring, Volusia County establishing a
minimum flow regime. Palatka, Florida. Retrieved on 6/7/2006:
http://sjr.state.fl.us/programs/plan_monitor/.









Stern, P.C. and Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce environmental resources. In:D. Stokols & I.
Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, 2, pp. 1043-
1088). New York: John Wiley.

Sutton. S.G. and Ditton, R.B. (2001). Understanding catch-and-release behavior among U.S.
Atlantic bluefin tuna anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 49-66.

Swearingen, T.C. and Johnson, D.R. (1995). Visitors' responses to uniformed park employees.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13, 73-85.

Swett, R., Fann., S. and DeLaney, J. (2005). An assessment ofFlorida boaters and their
awareness of the Clean VesselAct and Clean Marina Program. Florida Sea Grant
publication. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Swett, R., Sidman, C., Fik, T. and Sargent, B. (2004). Florida's vessel title registration system as
a source of boat locations and characteristics: a case study in Lee andManatee
Counties. Florida Sea Grant publication TP 138. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Tarrant, M.A., and H.K. Cordell. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general
environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment andBehavior, 29(5), 618-
633.

Tarrant, M.A., and G.T. Green. (1999). Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity of
environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 21: 17-30.

Thapa, B. (2000). The association of outdoor recreation activities and environmental attitudes
and behaviors among forest recreationists. Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A.R. and Absher, J.D. (2002). Information needs and search behaviors: A
comparative study of ethnic groups in the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests,
California. Leisure Sciences, 24:89-107.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A.R. and Meyer, L.A. (2005). Moderator and mediator effects of scuba
diving specialization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behavior contingency.
The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 37(1), 53-67.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A.R. and Meyer, L.A. (2006). Specialization and marine based
environmental behaviors among SCUBA divers. Journal of Leisure Research, 38(4),
601-614.

Theodori, G.L., Luloff, A.E. and Willits, F.K. (1998). The association of outdoor recreation and
environmental concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology,
63(1), 94-108.









Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. (2000). The ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities: a review. Conservation Biology, 14: 18-30.

Tyson, S. and Combs, L. (1999). Canaveral Barge Canal boater activity and compliance study
Brevard County, Florida. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Field
Office, Jacksonville, FL.

Unruh, D. R. (1979). Characteristics and types of participation in social worlds. Symbolic
Interaction, 2, 115-130.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). United States census. Retrieved 4/01/2006:
http://www.census.gov/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2001). Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus manatus
latirostris), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp. +
appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. (2006). Species accounts: West
Indian manatee. Retrieved 11/21/2006: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/a/saa0c.html.

Vande Kamp, M.E., Johnson, D.R., and Swearingen, T.C. (1994). Deterring minor acts of
noncompliance (U.S. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/PNRUM/NRTR-
92/08). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources.

Vander Stoep, G.A. (1986). The effect ofpersonal communication and group incentives on
depreciative behavior by organized youth groups in a national park (Tennessee).
Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Park, Texas.

Vander Stoep, G.A. and Roggenbuck, J.W. (1996). Is your park being 'loved to death?": Using
communications and other indirect techniques to battle the park "love bug." In Lime, D.
(Ed.), Congestion and crowding in the National Park system (pp.85-132). St. Paul, MN:
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.

Van Liere, K.D. and Noe, F.P. (1981). Outdoor recreation and environmental attitudes: further
examination of the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology, 46(3), 505-513.

Vaske, J.J. and Kobrin, K.C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior.
Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 32(4):16-21.

Vincent, M.A. and Fazio, R.H. (1992). Attitude accessibility and its consequences for judgment
and behavior. In M. Manfredo (Ed.) Influencing human behavior: theory and
applications in recreation, tourism and natural resources management (pp.210-261).
Champagne, IL: Sagamore.

Virden, R.J. and Schreyer, R. (1988). Recreation specialization as an indicator of environmental
preference. Environmental andBehavior, 20(6), 721-739.









Vogt, C.A., Winter, G. and Fried, J.S. (2005). Predicting homeowners' approval of fuel
management at the Wildland-urban interface using the theory of reasoned action. Society
and Natural Resources, 18: 337-354.

Warriner, G.K, McDougall, G.G., and Claxton, J.D. (1984). Any data or none at all? Living with
inaccuracies in self-reports of residential energy consumption. Environment and
Behavior, 16(4), 503-526.

Washburne, R.F. and Cole, D.N. (1983). Problems and practices in wilderness management: A
survey of managers. Res. Paper INT-304. Ogeden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 56p.

Water Use Zoning Team Draft Report and Options. (2002). Board of county commissioners
strategic plan for 2001-2002. Alachua County, Florida.

Waterways Commission of the Jacksonville City Council. (2005). Annual update 2004-2005
Duval County manatee protection plan population inventory and analysis. Prepared by
Jacksonville University for the Waterways Commission of the Jacksonville City Council.

Weigel, R.H. (1983). Environmental attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In N.R. Feimer
and E.S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: direction and perspectives. New
York: Praeger.

Wellman, J.D., Roggenbuck, J.W. and Smith, A.C. (1982). Recreation specialization and norms
of depreciative behavior among canoeists. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(4), 323-340.

Winter, P. L., Sagarin, B. J., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D. W., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Choosing to
encourage or discourage: Perceived effectiveness of prescriptive versus proscriptive
messages. Environmental Management (pp. 589-594).

Widner, C. J. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (2000). Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest
National Park. Journal ofInterpretation Research (pp. 1-18).

Williams, D.R. and Huffman, M. (1986). Recreation specialization as a factor in backcountry
trail choice. In Proceedings of The National Wilderness Research Conference: Current
Research (pp.339-344). General Technical Report INT-212, USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Williams, D.R., Schreyer, R. and Knopf, R. (1990). The effect of experience use history on the
multidimensional structure of motivations to participate in leisure activities. Journal of
Leisure Research, 22, 36-54.

Winter, P.L., Sagarin, B.J., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D.W., and Cialdini, R.B. (2000). Choosing to
encourage or discourage: perceived effectiveness of prescriptive versus proscriptive
messages. Environmental Management, 26, 589-594.









Young, R. A., and Kent, A.T. 1985. Using the theory of reasoned action to improve the
understanding of recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 90-106
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

John Jett was born on October 4, 1966 in Kansas City, Kansas. In 1989, Mr. Jett graduated

from the University of Kansas with a bachelor's degree in environmental studies. Mr. Jett was

then employed at an environmental testing and consulting firm in Kansas City until 1992, where

he performed field sampling and testing as well as laboratory analyses and report preparation.

After his employment in Kansas City, he went to work as a marine mammal behaviorist at Sea

World in Orlando, Florida. There he conducted daily behavioral and physiological research with

killer whales, sea lions, walruses, and otters. He also regularly performed educational

presentations with killer whales, as well as regular husbandry and operative conditioning

presentations to various professional groups and audiences.

In 2000, Mr. Jett received his master of science in environmental science from Oklahoma

State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma. He accepted a position as director of environmental

affairs at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida. At Stetson he was engaged in campus-wide

environmental planning, energy efficiency monitoring, and a native landscape initiative. Mr. Jett

also developed several interpretive programs, showcasing the campus as an environmental

classroom, and played a key role in the design, construction, and certification of one of Florida's

first certified "green" buildings.

In 2003, Mr. Jett began his doctoral program at the University of Florida in Gainesville,

Florida. While there he taught a variety of courses and served as a research assistant for a

number of projects including a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant; and helped in the

development of a Waterway Master Plan for Alachua County, Florida. He received his Ph.D. in

2007.





PAGE 1

1 BOATER COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR IN MANATEE CONSERVATION ZONES: RECREATION SPECIALIZATION, ATTI TUDES AND SITUATIONAL FACTORS By JOHN S. JETT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 John S. Jett

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My life has been filled with contributions from many great individuals. Thanking them all is an almost impossible task. I want to firs t thank my lovely wife Marla for providing me the inspiration, and heart to pursue this project. Ma rla is the single most intelligent, caring and empathetic soul Ive ever had th e pleasure of knowing, and to have her in my life has truly been a blessing. Marlas has always infused me with the energy necessary to put thoughts into motion. Having her as a teammate has been a gift. As a child my parents always pushed me in th eir subtle and encourag ing ways to seek out my interests. My moms compassion for lost, hurt or disowned critters has been instrumental in my love of wild things. Im sure she would be proud of my efforts in providing a happy and safe haven for the many animals that have come through our home and yard. I sincerely hope she is in a good place. Likewise, hiking with my father at a young age provided me critical contact with nature that so many children are missing today. My fa ther has always offere d a secure and certain backdrop to my decision-making. As a friend my dad has never faltered; as a parent he has always been solid and caring, and as a mentor he has reliably provide d me insight, advice and encouragement when needed. I cannot thank eith er of my parents enough for all they have done for me. Thanks are also in order for Marlas mother and father, Lynnette and Kevin. Both have been terrific in-laws, and both ha ve assisted us in countless wa ys. Their continuous support and encouragement in our lives has added a di mension that is most appreciated. Dr. Bob Sitler and his wife June have been great friends from the first day we met. It came as no surprise when they extended themselves to me during the data collection phase of this project. Without their gene rous help and support this inve stigation would have been much,

PAGE 4

4 much less enjoyable, and a great deal more difficult. Their positive attitudes toward life inspires me to be a better person, and the friendship we share has added immeasurab ly to the quality of my life. Bob and June are humans in their finest form. I would be remiss if I failed to thank Dr. Br uce Bradford and his wife Susan for all their friendship and support during the last few years. In his loving and fatherly way, Bruce has helped me to sort out some of the career opti ons one is faced with wh en completing a doctoral degree. Bruce and Susan are deserving of many thanks from my wife and me. Id like to give a hearty thanks to Dr. John Stevenson and his assistant Vance of the Orthopedic Clinic. Their surgical skills have allowe d me to return to norma l life. We all try to do good things while on this earth; these two change peoples lives. It is no wonder Dr. Brijesh Thapa has so many graduate students vying for his time. Brij always has the students best in terest at heart, and he has ne ver failed to take time out to critically evaluate my ideas and approaches, or to just chat. I have always appreciated his candor, and I particularly like the fact that wh en he reviews a piece of work such as this dissertation, he really engages himself. There is no slipping by his critiq ue! Most importantly, I want to thank Brij for being such a good friend during our stay in Gainesville. Dr. John Confer deserves kudos for his help in so rting this research ou t. In fact, it was Dr. Confer who attracted me to the University of Florida. A lthough during the writing of this document he relocated to a differe nt university, Dr. Confer remain ed interested in seeing this project through to its finish, and I sincerely appr eciate the supportive phon e calls along the way. Besides his professional assistan ce, John has been a good friend to Marla and me. Oh yea, and we also enjoyed hanging with Biggy-D!

PAGE 5

5 Dr. Steve Holland deserves thanks for helping me with the writing of this document. His help in providing funding, letters of recomm endation, and many other boring, tedious, but otherwise important tasks helped the process go smoothly. Dr. Hollands humor, especially pertaining to politics, was alwa ys uplifting, and his dedication to environmental issues is something that I deeply respect. Last, but certainly not least among my co mmittee members, Id like to thank Dr. Bob Swett of Florida Sea Grant for his valuable inpu t on this project. Dr Swetts understanding of boating issues was important to the success of this research. Furthermore, his methodological concerns made me reconsider several of the key details associated with the collection of data, and his help with the VTRS made the entire thi ng come together. Dr. Swetts research abilities were an inspiration to me throughout this process. Thanks are also due the Departments suppor t staff. My sincere appreciation goes to Nancy Gullic, Donna Walker and Judy Hopper. Th eir efforts and cheery demeanor were always uplifting. Thanks also go to Luis Suau. He proved to be a valuable sounding board through this process, and his friendship is something that I wi ll carry with me through life. Yong Jae Ko also deserves thanks for spending time helping me sort out the struct ural equation modeling component of this research. Fi nally, my friend Eric Schmacker has reinforced my belief in the importance of surrounding oneself w ith bright and thoughtful people.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......12 LIST OF TERMS.................................................................................................................. .........13 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................16 Statement of Problem........................................................................................................... ..25 Purpose of Study............................................................................................................... ......27 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....27 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................... .........28 Recreation Specialization................................................................................................28 Self-Reported vs. Observed Compliant Behavior:..........................................................28 Marine Conservation Attitudes:......................................................................................28 Behavioral Intentions:.....................................................................................................28 Path Analysis.................................................................................................................. .29 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................31 Motorized Travel and Wildlife Impacts.................................................................................31 Terrestrial wildlife...........................................................................................................31 Manatees....................................................................................................................... ...33 Boating in Florida............................................................................................................. ......36 Proliferation.................................................................................................................. ...36 Boater Compliance with Speed Zones............................................................................37 Florida Vessel Title Registration System (VTRS)..........................................................41 Outdoor Recreation and Associat ion with Environmentalism...............................................42 Environmental Attitudes / Environmental Behavior.......................................................42 Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings............................................................................50 Routes to Persuasion........................................................................................................58 Predictors of Behavior.....................................................................................................59 Recreation Specialization...................................................................................................... .64 Environmental Concern/Behavior...................................................................................70 Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings.....................................................................75 Boaters and Anglers........................................................................................................77 Reported Versus Actual Behavior..........................................................................................82

PAGE 7

7 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........86 3 PROCEDURES..................................................................................................................... .92 Study Sites.................................................................................................................... ..........92 Selection of Subjects.......................................................................................................... .....94 Field Observations...........................................................................................................94 Speed Calculation............................................................................................................95 Supporting Parameters.....................................................................................................96 Mail Survey.................................................................................................................... .96 Operationalization of Variables..............................................................................................97 Vessel Use and Attributes...............................................................................................97 Recreation Specialization................................................................................................98 Behavioral dimension...............................................................................................98 Cognitive dimension................................................................................................98 Affective dimension.................................................................................................99 Composite recreation sp ecialization index...............................................................99 Marine Conservation Attitudes........................................................................................99 Knowledge...................................................................................................................... .99 Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior.......................................................................100 Speed Zone Signage Assessment..................................................................................101 Signage assessment in manatee zones....................................................................101 Signage assessment in general boat safety zones...................................................101 Composite signage assessment index.....................................................................101 Theory of Reasoned Action...........................................................................................101 Attitudes.................................................................................................................102 Subjective Norm.....................................................................................................102 Behavioral Intention...............................................................................................102 Demographics................................................................................................................102 Supplemental Items.......................................................................................................103 Telephone Survey of Non-Respondents...............................................................................103 Data Analyses.................................................................................................................. .....106 Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing.......................................................................107 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .....118 Field Observation.............................................................................................................. ....118 Profile of Subjects............................................................................................................ .....119 Recreation Specialization.....................................................................................................120 Behavioral Domain........................................................................................................120 Cognitive Domain.........................................................................................................121 Affective Domain..........................................................................................................121 Marine Conservation Attitudes.............................................................................................122 Knowledge...................................................................................................................... ......123 Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior...............................................................................124 Speed Zone Signage Assessment..........................................................................................125 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)......................................................................................125

PAGE 8

8 Attitudes...................................................................................................................... ..126 Subjective Norm............................................................................................................126 Intentions..................................................................................................................... ..126 Results of Research Questions Tested..................................................................................127 Results of Hypothesis Testing..............................................................................................132 Recreation Specialization..............................................................................................132 Reported vs. Observed Compliance Behavior...............................................................134 Marine Conservation Attitudes......................................................................................135 Behavioral Intentions.....................................................................................................136 Path Analysis.................................................................................................................137 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................157 Summary of Procedures........................................................................................................157 Selection of Subjects: Observation................................................................................157 Selection of Subjects: Mail Survey...............................................................................158 Operationalization of Variables.....................................................................................159 Recreation specialization........................................................................................159 Marine conservation attitudes................................................................................160 Knowledge.............................................................................................................161 Non-compliance/compliance behavior...................................................................161 Speed zone signage assessment..............................................................................162 Theory of reasoned action......................................................................................163 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................164 Results of Research Questions Tested...........................................................................164 Results of Hypotheses Tested........................................................................................165 Recreation specialization........................................................................................165 Reported vs. observed compliance behavior..........................................................166 Marine conservation attitudes................................................................................166 Behavioral intentions..............................................................................................167 Path analysis...........................................................................................................167 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ........168 Conclusions and Implications...............................................................................................181 Delimitations.................................................................................................................. .......187 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........187 Recommendations for Future Research................................................................................189 APPENDIX A MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT........................................................................................192 B TELPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT..............................................................................199 C NON-RESPONSE BIAS ANALYSES................................................................................201 D FIELD DATA SHEET.........................................................................................................202

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................203 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................221

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-2 Recreation Specializati on: Activities Examined................................................................91 3-1 Sampling schedule and observations...............................................................................112 3-2 Field observation attributes..............................................................................................113 3-3 Reliability analysis fo r recreation sp ecialization.............................................................114 3-4 Reliability analysis for ma rine conservation attitudes.....................................................115 3-5 Reasons for choosing non-compliance............................................................................115 3-6 Reliability analysis for speed zone signage assessment..................................................116 3-7 Reliability analysis for theo ry of reasoned action constructs..........................................117 4-1 Vessel use and attributes from field observations............................................................139 4-2 Socio-demographic pr ofile of respondents......................................................................140 4-3 Recreation specialization domains...................................................................................141 4-4 Marine conservation attitude items..................................................................................142 4-5 Boater knowledge........................................................................................................... .142 4-6 Reasons for non-compliance............................................................................................143 4-7 Reasons for non-compliance (Other category).............................................................143 4-8 Sign zone signage assessment..........................................................................................144 4-9 Theory of reasoned action................................................................................................145 4-10 Zero-order correlations: vessel speed discrepancy and signage assessment...................146 4-11 Zero order correlations: recreation speci alization and zone signage assessment............147 4-12 Regression analysis summary for predicting behavioral intention..................................148 4-13 Zero-order correlations: speed disc repancy and recreation specialization......................148 4-14 Zero order correlations: self-reported compliance and recreation specialization............149 4-15 Zero order correlations: recreation specia lization and marine conservation attitudes.....150

PAGE 11

11 4-16 Zero-order correlations: behavioral intention and recreation specialization...................151 4-17 Zero order correlations: self-reported compliance and vessel speed discrepancy...........152 4-18 Independent samples t-tests, repo rted compliance among compliant and noncompliant boaters.............................................................................................................152 4-19 Zero order correlations: marine conserva tion attitudes and self-reported compliance....153 4-20 Factor loadings and Cronbachs alpha.............................................................................155 C1 Mail and telephone respondent t-tests..............................................................................201 C2 Mail and telephone respondent X2 test............................................................................201

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Hypothesized conceptual model........................................................................................29 3-1 St. Johns River sampling sites.........................................................................................111 3-2 Vessel speed calculation..................................................................................................112 4-1 Theory of reasoned action................................................................................................154 4-2 Final structural model..................................................................................................... .156

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF TERMS Marine conservation attitudes Respondent s agreement with manatee protection and protection strategies, as well as general boat mana gement strategies. Items were adapted from Aipanjiguly (2001). Observed speed discrepancy Observed sp eed minus the maximum allowable speed per boat speed restriction zone. This calculation se rved to standardize obser ved vessel speeds within both idle and slow speed zones, and also repr esented the degree to which a boat operator was compliant or non-compliant with speed restric tions. Vessel speeds are defined by Sarasota County (2006) according to the following: Idle zone : generally not to exceed 3 mph; Slow zone: generally not to exceed 7 mph. Party size The number of people in an obs erved vessel, including vessel operator. Prior exposure to manatees An evaluation of th e number of times a boater has seen a manatee during the previous 12 months. Prior ticketing Evaluation of whether a re spondent had been previously ticketed for violating boat speed restrictions. Recreation specialization Con tinuum of behavior exhibi ted from novice to expert. Specialization was measured by items within the behavioral, cognitive an d affective domains, both as individual additive indices as well as a composite index. Self-reported compliance behavior Based upon a boaters agreement w ith full vessel speed compliance during most recent boat outing Situational factors Refers to time, date, pres ence of law enforcement and weather (estimated % cloud cover; precipitation, ambient temperature) Criteria were adapted from Gorzelany (1999, 2001, 2004). Theory of reasoned action A theory that frames human behavior in terms of the relationships between beliefs, attitudes and intentions (Fis hbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Items were adapted from Aipanjiguly (2001). Law enforcement presence Observation of the presence or absence of law enforcement officials. Vessel attributes Refers to boat type (pontoon, sail, ski, johnboat, runabout, fish, yacht/cruiser, other and boat leng th (less than 12 feet, 12 to 15 feet, 16 to 25 feet, 26 to 39 feet, 40 to 64 feet, 64 to 109 feet, greater than 109 feet). Adapted from Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004). Zone sign assessment Boaters assessment of speed zone signage and zone delineation effectiveness.

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BOATER COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR IN MANATEE CONSERVATION ZONES: RECREATION SPECIALIZATION, ATTI TUDES AND SITUATIONAL FACTORS By John S. Jett August 2007 Chair: Brijesh Thapa Major: Health and Human Performance My study investigated the f actors associated with compliant and non-compliant vessel speeds in speed-restricte d manatee conservation zones on the St Johns River, Florida during the summer and fall of 2006. Recreation specializati on theory, theory of reasoned action (TRA), marine conservation attitudes, boater knowledge and situational factors were examined as predictor variables to vessel speed discrepancies (observe d vessel speed minus maximum allowable per zone). The study was conducted by first observing vessel speed and vessel and operator attributes, after which a mail survey was sent to the vessel operator observed on the water. Recreation specialization was found to be poorly associated with vessel speed discrepancy, and found to be nega tively associated with marine conservation attitudes. Marine conservation attitudes were also found to be poor ly associated with vessel speed discrepancy. However, marine conservation attitudes had a st rong positive influence on behavioral intention to fully comply with vessel sp eed zones during next outing. Although most respondents self-reported be ing in full compliance with boat speed restrictions during their last bo at outing, these responses were w eakly associated with observed

PAGE 15

15 vessel speed compliance. In th is investigation, self-reported be havior served as poor proxy to actual behavior. Vessel length was poorly associated with c onservation attitudes, although mean vessel speed discrepancies were found to differ among various boat lengths. Operators of longer vessels and non-rental vessels were found to violate speed restrictio ns to a greater extent than those of shorter vessels or rentals. Within the TRA progression, past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior) and attitudes were unique contributors to behavioral intentions to fully comply with speed restrictions during next boat outing. Past be havior (self-reported complian ce behavior) was found to have a strong negative influence on attitudes. Past behavior in the form of observed vessel speed discrepancy was weakly associated with attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions. Fewer than half of the vessels observed fo r this investigation were in full compliance with speed restrictions. As with past studies, approximately one-third of the respondents in this investigation disagreed or strong ly disagreed with on-water boater informational signage (both in manatee and general boat safety speed zones) as easy to read, easy to see or effectively delineating manatee and general boat speed zones. Results of the study suggest that a more efficacious approach to reducing vessel speeds may be necessary in critical manatee conservation areas. Furthermore, management strategies desi gned to change boater attitudes may be most effective in encouraging complia nce with manatee speed zones.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Concern over the health, integrity and manage ment of Floridas aquatic resources has grown in concert with the states population gr owth during the last several decades. Much attention has been focused on hab itat loss, reduced water quality, invasive species and declining wildlife populations. Few issues have been as co ntentious as the protection of the West Indian manatee ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ). In Florida, cold stress, hurricanes, red tid e poisoning and a variety of other maladies negatively impact manatees. Manatees are also affected by human-induced phenomena including crushing in locks and flood gates, fish ing line and net entanglement and ingestion of man-made debris (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), 2006a). However, propeller wounds, hull impacts and crushing by recreational wa tercraft have been the single greatest cause of mortality from 1974-2005. Data suggests that approximately 24% of manatee deaths have been caused by watercraft strikes (FWC, 2006b). Fu rthermore, 97% of surviving manatees listed in the scar identification catalog possess hull and prop scar patterns indicating multiple vessel strikes (OShea, Lefebvre & Beck. 2001). The manatee is currently protected under both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Florida Rule 68A-27.003, Florida Administ rative Code) (FWC, 200 5) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. To facil itate recovery of the species, the Federal Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP) specifically fo cuses on reducing watercra ft-induced mortality. Under the umbrella of the FMRP, the State of Florida has implemented manatee protection through the use of manatee counts and mortality data to direct county protection plans and boat speed regulatory zones (Reynolds, 1999). Despite these efforts, manatee deaths as a result of watercraft-induced injury have increased 10% pe r year, on average, over the past decade (FWC,

PAGE 17

17 2006b). If growth in the Florid a boating population is commensu rate with the projected 80% general population growth by the year 2030 (U.S. Ce nsus Bureau, 2006), then a future decline in manatee numbers can reasonabl y be expected (FWC, 2005). Recreational boating is one of the pervasive elements of Floridas aquatic environment with more than 1,000,000 registered pleasure boats in the state (Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2006). Furthermore, Florida ranks as the number one marine recreation destination in the United States (Leeworth & W iley, 2001). With manatee habitat often coinciding with recreationa l boating areas, manatee conser vation zones that effectively reduce vessel speeds may be cruc ial to the long-term surviv ability of the species. Vessel speed reduction has been preliminarily shown to reduce manatee mortality (Laist & Shaw, 2006). In Florida, complian ce with boat speed restrictions is facilitated primarily through 1) informational signage delineating manatee ha bitat that indicate permissible vessel speeds (usually in the form of qualit ative categories such as idle and slow, 2) law enforcement officers covering large areas a nd 3) boat no-entry zones. Several qualitative boater complia nce studies have been performed in Floridas waterways with similar results. For example, Gorzelany s (2004) compilation of se veral compliance studies (which included some quantitative speed asse ssments) conducted in the late 1990s evaluated 26,000 vessels in Sarasota and Lee counties and found 63% and 58% compliant respectively (17% and 16% blatantly noncompliant). His co mpilation also demonstr ated that compliance varied significantly with the presence of law enforcement, boater activ ity, vessel type, vessel composition, size and site location. Other complia nce studies such as Tyson and Combs (1999) evaluation of Banana River (Florida) boaters have found similar levels of compliance.

PAGE 18

18 Boater compliance can be examined from an environmental attit udinal and behavioral framework; however, the general body of environmental attitude and environmental behavior literature remains varied, both in focus and findi ngs, especially pertaining to outdoor recreation participation. Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) were first to test the hypothe sis that contact with nature as a result of outdoor recreation participation was positively associated with environmental concern. They f ound, 1) associations between outdoor recreation participation and general environmental concern were mixed, 2) general environmental concern was more positively associated with appreciative recreation than with consumptive recreation 1, and 3) concern for the environment was more strongly as sociated with the specific environment where ones outdoor recreation takes place than for genera l environmental issues (i.e., concern was site specific). Utilizing a refined measure of e nvironmental concern (the New Environmental Paradigm Scale), Dunlap and Van Liere (1978 ), and Van Liere and Noe (1981) found little corroboration with Dunlap and He ffernans (1975) conclusions. In contrast, Jackson (1986) substantiated their second and third hypotheses, most notably in that recreationists engaged in appreciative behavior had higher environmental a ttitudes than those partic ipating in consumptive activities. Jackson (1986) al so concluded that appreciative recreationists possessed stronger preservation orientations than did consumptive and mechanized recreatio nists who demonstrated stronger pro-development orientations. Ot her researchers have found the hypothesized association between outdoor recrea tion participation and pro-environmental attitudes to be weak or nonexistent (Geisler, Martinson & Wilken ing. 1977; Pinhey & Grimes, 1979; Thapa, 2000), 1 Consumptive activities, typified by hunting and fishing, involve taking something from the environment and thus reflect a utilitarian orientation toward it. In contrast, appreciative activities (e.g., hiking, camping and photography) involve attempts to enjoy the natural e nvironment without altering it. Such activities are thus compatible with the preservationist or ientation which attempts to maintain the environment in its natural state. (Dunlap & Heffernan, 1975, p19-20).

PAGE 19

19 with these studies concludi ng environmental concern more a function of individual characteristics than types and levels of recreational activity. Similarly, researchers have ut ilized self-reports to examin e whether outdoor recreation participation leads to various pro-environmenta l behaviors. Nord, Luloff and Bridger (1998) found that forest recreation was positively associat ed with pro-environmental behaviors such as reducing reliance on lawn chemicals. Simila rly, Theodori, Luloff and Willits (1998) found evidence that participation in outdoor recreation was positively associated with proenvironmental behaviors such as contributing mo ney or time to an environmental or wildlife conservation group, attending a public meeting about the environment and others. Specifically, they found that appreciative-type recreation ac tivities (e.g., hiking and camping) were more strongly associated with pro-environmental beha viors than were resour ce-utilization activities (e.g., hunting and off-road vehicle use). They al so reported that partic ipation in fishing was more strongly associated with pro-environmental behavior th an was mountain biking, skiing and picnicking, possibly due to the involvement in catch and release fishing among those sampled. Thapa (2000) also found that recr eationists engaged in appreciati ve activities re ported greater participation in several pro-environmental beha viors, such as recycling and green purchasing, than those involved in co nsumptive activities. In contrast to pro-environmental behaviors, depreciative behavior within natural resource settings is important due to its negative imp acts upon the sustainability of natural ecosystems (Cole, Hammond & McCool, 1997). Depreciative beha viors in natural settings may also degrade visitor experiences (Christensen, Johnson & Br ookes, 1992), increase operating and mitigation costs (Winter, Sagarin, Rhoads & Barrett, 2000) and play a principal ro le in manatee deaths when in the form of non-compliant boat speeds (L aist & Shaw, 2006). Much of the depreciative

PAGE 20

20 behavior literature has focused on the effectivenes s of various forms and a pplications of media in decreasing vandalism and other unwanted behavior in terrestrial parks and built settings, with some demonstrating reductions in destructive behavior (Cole, et al., 1997; Oliver, Roggenbuck & Watson, 1985). Other researchers have found combinations of personal and printed communication are most effective in conveyi ng messages and changing visitor behavior (Cockrell, Bange & Roggenbuck, 1984; Ols on, Bowan & Roth, 1984; Roggenbuck & Berrier, 1982). Although personal communication stands as the preferred method of communication for some visitors (Knopf & Dustin, 1992; Vander Stoep & Roggenbuck, 1996), costs and logistical issues often prevent its wholesale use as a m eans of reducing depreciative behaviors in outdoor settings. Efforts to reduce unwanted behaviors in outdoor settings often fail due to poor understanding of the communication proce ss (Absher & Bright, 2004; Jacobson, 1999; Manfredo, 1992). Along this line, important shor tcomings in efforts to communicate messages to Florida boat operators have been demonstr ated. For example, boa ters may prefer better information about waterway rules and speed zo ne delineations (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly, Jacobson & Flamm, 2003; Park er & Wang, 1996; Swett, Fann & DeLaney, 2005), and report a deficiency in their understanding of rules, laws regulations, speed zone boundaries and channel messages (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly et al., 2003; Confer, Holland & Grist, 2003). Much of the human-element research in recreation has occurred under the guise of developing informational strategies to influen ce behavior and philosophical positions (Fishbein & Manfredo, 1992). Congruent with the need to understand why a person may or may not engage in particular behaviors, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) frames behavior as a function of attitudes, subjective norms and

PAGE 21

21 intentions. The TRA has been utilized to explore a variety of natural res ource-related behaviors including citizen voting behavi or with respect to a proposed animal trapping amendment (Manfredo, Fulton & Pierce, 1997), public support for a National Park Service controlled burn policy (Bright, Fishbein, Manfredo & Bath, 1993), attitudes influencing decisions to engage in consumptive outdoor recreation activities (Ful ton, Manfredo & Lipscomb, 1996), understanding of outdoor recreation behavior (Young & Kent, 1985), and beliefs attitudes and behavioral intentions among Florida boaters (Aipanjiguly, 2 001; Aipanjiguly et al., 2003). The TRA has generally been found to be a robus t model to explain and predict intentions to perform future behavior due to its reliance on understanding an individuals beliefs and attitudinal position. Furthermore, TRA has also been expanded to in corporate past behavior as a predictor of intentions and future behaviors. Although such re search has been utilized in the public health discipline (, Albarracin, Fishbe in, Johnson and Muellerleile, 2001) it is generally lacking in outdoor recreation and natural res ource management research. Give n its applicability in outdoor recreation research, utiliza tion of past behaviors to predict inte ntions and future behaviors offers an important opportunity to furthe r examine outdoor recreationists. Influencing visitor beliefs, at titudes and behavior is impor tant in the management of natural resource recreation areas; however, simply providing information may result in limited success (Jett, 2000; Manfredo, 1992). Boater non-co mpliance in Florida suggests that the current reliance on on-water signage as the primary stra tegy of reducing vessel speeds may be somewhat ineffective. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) em phasize the importance of understanding ones knowledge and experience to frame issues in whic h attitudes and behavior s can be effectively shaped. Boater behavior in manatee conserva tion zones suggests that a better understanding of boater attributes is warranted.

PAGE 22

22 Recent research about boater attributes, att itudes and behaviors have established several interesting associations. Fo r example, based on empirical research conducted among boat operators in south Florida boat operators, Futerfas, Glad win and Flamm (2003) found: 1. Boater experience was positively associated with opinions that manatee speed zones were too strict. 2. Boater experience was negatively associated with agreement with manatee rights. 3. Boaters who were not members of boating organizations, as well as those who had no exposure to boating publications, were more likely to agree with manatee rights and to favor stricter boat zone rules. 4. Boaters who had taken a boate r education class favored le ss strict zone rules. 5. Boat length was negatively associated with attitudes toward manatee rights. Furthermore, boater compliance research has generally found operators of personal watercraft and other small vessels to be less co mpliant than operators of larger watercraft (Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Shapiro, 2001; Tyson & Combs, 1999). Other studies such as Cottrells (1993) examination of self-reported boater behaviors established that boat length (negatively associated), boat type (non motori zed less compliant than motorized), years of boating (negatively associated) and site-specific boating experience (positively associated) were predictors of environmentally compliant boati ng behaviors as measured by intent to use mandatory sewage pumpout stations. Attributes such as vessel size, vessel composition, boater experience, membership in activity organizations publication subscriptions and agreement with and adherence to management rules may be repr esentative of the degree of specialization a recreational boater has attained. Recreation specialization theory has been examined in a variety of contexts and in a number of ways since its form al introduction by Bryan (1977) as a means of explaining the continuum of recreationist behavior and adva ncement from entry-level beginner to seasoned

PAGE 23

23 expert. Based on his observation of anglers, Brya ns initial proposal on the theory suggested that ones progression from low to high specialization was, over time, accompanied by an increase in experience with and commitment to a specific activit y, as well as change in behaviors, attitudes and preferences. More specifica lly, Bryan discovered an attitude shift from resource (fish) consumption to preservation, as well as prefer ence for management interventions that favored healthy native fish populations. Since its formal introduction, recreation specialization theory has been utilized to assess a wide variety of r ecreation participants and activities (Scott & Shafer, 2001). Although recreation specialization theory has be en extensively incorporated in empirical research, there is much debate about the operatio nalization and analysis of the construct. In general, the specialization construct has evolve d from behavioral measures to multiple-item indices that comprise behavi oral, psychological a nd cognitive components (Scott & Shafer, 2001). The behavioral domain has focused on familiarity with and investment in an activity, frequency of participation, number of sites vi sited and years of experience; whereas, the psychological (affective) dimension has been utilized to assess how central an activity is to ones life. The cognitive dimension has focused on participant skill and knowledge (either selfreported or as indicated by certi fication or other objective measure). As the construct has been refined, the psychological domain has been expa nded to include an enduring involvement dimension, which includes attraction to an activ ity, self-affirmation and centrality to lifestyle (McIntyre & Pigram, 1992). Despite advancement, evaluation of the spec ialization construct remains an unresolved issue. Several researchers have relied on a single, and multiple-item additive index as measures of specialization (, Donne lly, Vaske & Graefe, 1986; Wellman, Roggenbuck & Smith, 1982;

PAGE 24

24 Virden & Schreyer, 1988), while others have de monstrated that an examination of individual domains may offer better predictive validity as it avoids the masking effect of a composite index ( Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Kuentzel & McD onald, 1992; Lee & Scott, 2004; McFarlane, 2004; McFarlane, Boxall & Watson, 1998; Meyer, 2002; Thapa, Graefe & Meyer, 2006). In summary, Kuentzel and McDonald (1992) submit that, a co mposite index treatment of specialization may miss much of the explanatory detail available from a separate analysis of multiple underlying constructs (p.283). Researchers have used recreation specializa tion theory to examine environmental and conservation attitudes (Dyck, Schneider, T hompson & Virden, 2003; Katz, 1981; Kauffman, 1984; McFarlane, 1994; Meyer, 2002; Mowen, Williams & Graefe, 1997; Thapa, 2000; Virden & Schreyer, 1988), management preferences (Bricker, 1998) and depreciative behaviors (Bireline, 2005; Meyer, 2002; Wellman, R oggenbuck & Smith, 1982). Findings support the general contention that as recr eationists proceed through the speci alization continuum (from low to high) they concomitantly report higher levels of general environmental concern (Katz, 1981; Kaufman, 1984; Mowen et al., 1997), site-specifi c environmental concern (Mowen et al., 1997) and support for resource management rules and re gulatory procedures (Ditton, Loomis & Choi 1992). Similarly, support for waterway management rules in the form of fishing regulations have been found among the most specialized angl ers (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al., 2001). Also, a greater reception of and support for management approaches such as harvest limits designed to mitigate user impacts have been identified (Oh & Ditton, 2006). However, poor support for access-denial regulations has also been found among anglers, regardless of their level of specialization (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988 ; Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005).

PAGE 25

25 Despite the fact that depreciative behavior is an increasingly important and expensive issue in park and natural settings (C ole et al., 1997), rarely has it b een examined using recreation specialization theory. In one of the few studies, Wellman et al. (1982) found a weak relationship between level of specialization and recreationists norms of de preciative behavior, although the findings may have been compromised by methodol ogical concerns and a small sample size. Similarly, Thapa (2000) found weak relationships between recreation sp ecialization and selfreported pro-environmental behavi or. However, Meyers (2002) study of self-reported behaviors among SCUBA divers demonstrated that those who were highly specialized were more likely to be engaged in environmentally friendly diving be haviors. Contrastingl y, Bireline (2005) found that highly specialized birders re ported to be more likely than le ss specialized birders to rely on depreciative methods such as pis hing (a noise made by a birder to attract birds) to facilitate bird viewing. Generally, recreation speci alization and environmental behavi or research has tended to rely on self-reported rather than investigator-obser ved behaviors (Bireline, 2005; Cottrell, 1993; Choi, Loomis & Ditton 1994; Cottrell & Graefe, 1997; Donnelly, Vaske & Graefe, 1986; Meyer, 2002; Nord et al., 1998; Thapa, 2000; Theodori et al., 1998; Sutton & Ditton, 1992). Self-reports of behavior represent a limitati on in specialization research as self-reports may poorly reflect actual behavior and may bias research results. Over all, there is a paucity of research with respect to the relationship between recreation specializat ion and depreciative behaviors. Additionally, the few studies have all relied on self-reported behaviors. Statement of Problem The current tertiary strategy for protecting Flor idas West Indian manatee relies on boater compliance with manatee speed zones. Although speed reduction has been shown to reduce manatee mortality (Laist & Shaw, 2006), limited rese arch has demonstrated that fewer than 60%

PAGE 26

26 of Floridas boaters typically comply with established speed restri ctions ( Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Tyson & Combs, 1999). Boater regulation compliance has been shown to vary according to boater/boat attributes such as boa t length, type of vessel, observed activity and knowledge of the local environment and regulat ions (Cottrell, 1993; Gorzelany, 2004; Tyson & Combs, 1999). Recreation specialization theory posits that as a recreationist becomes more highly specialized he/she congruently indicates greater support for the rules, norms and regulatory procedures set forth by resource managers (Ditton et al., 1992). Several angler studies on catch and release and size limits generally support this proposition (Bryan, 1977; Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; 1982; Salz et al., 2001); how ever, the hypothesized relati onship may deteriorate when management rules prohibit access (spatially or te mporally) to boating acti vities or resources (Chipman & Helfirch, 1988; Salz & Loomis, 2005; Salz et al., 2001). Furthermore, the relationship between specializati on and support of boat speed reduc tion as a marine conservation strategy remains unknown. Past research demonstrates inconsistenc ies in the association between recreation specialization and proenvironmental behaviors (Bireline, 2005; Meyer, 2002; Thapa, 2000). Besides Wellman et al.s (1982) examination of canoeists norms of depreciative behaviors, Meyers (2002) investigation of SCUBA divers and Birelines (2005) study of birders, little research has been conducted on recreation speci alization and depreciativ e behaviors, and none have utilized observational methods. Poor co mpliance implies that the current information provided to boaters may be ineff ective, boaters may be choosing to ignore the information or that they are devoid of the skill or knowledge to behave appropriately. Therefore, a better understanding of boater be havior is warranted.

PAGE 27

27 Purpose of Study Based on the paucity of research and recommen dations from the literature, the purpose of this study was to examine relationships between observed vessel speeds in manatee conservation zones, recreation specialization, marine cons ervation attitudes, self-reported compliance behavior, speed zone sign assessment, TRA, and vessel and operator attributes (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). More specifically, th e research was designed to: 1. Compare reported with observe d compliance behavior. 2. Determine how vessel speeds and situ ational factors were associated. 3. Determine how vessel speeds differed betw een slow and idle speed zones. 4. Evaluate Theory of Reasoned Action as it re lated to both in-situ observation and selfreports of compliance. 5. Reexamine the general hypothesis that a pos itive association exists between level of specialization and proenvironmental behavior as demons trated by observed boat speed in manatee conservation zones. 6. Assess the associations between level of specialization and boaters marine conservation attitudes. 7. Assess the association between marine conservation attitudes and observed boat speed. 8. Employ path analysis to determine the predictive validity between recreation specialization, marine conser vation attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-reported compliance behavior and observed speed discrepancy. Research Questions 1. Does boat speed violation ticke ting history influence speed discrepancy 1? 2. Does boater speed discrepancy differ be tween idle and slow speed zones? 3. Does boat party size influe nce speed discrepancy? 4. Does vessel length influence speed discrepancy? 1 Speed discrepancy defined as observed vessel speed minus the maximum allowable per zone.

PAGE 28

28 5. Does vessel type influence speed discrepancy? 6. Does boaters history with seeing mana tees influence speed discrepancy? 7. Does boaters speed zone signage asse ssment influence speed discrepancy? 8. Does boaters level of recrea tion specialization influence sp eed zone signage assessment? 9. Are the relationships between past behavior (observed and self-repor t) attitudes, norms and intentions consistent with the TRA model. Hypotheses Recreation Specialization H1: There is a negative association betw een boater specialization and observed speed discrepancy. H2: There is a positive association betw een boater specializati on and self-reported compliant behavior H3: There is a positive association between boater specialization and marine conservation attitudes. H4: There is a positive association betw een boater specialization and intention to comply with manatee speed zone restrictions. Self-Reported vs. Observed Compliant Behavior: H5: There is a negative association between self-reported compliant be havior and observed speed discrepancy. Marine Conservation Attitudes: H6: There is a negative association be tween marine conservation attitudes and observed speed discrepancy. H7: There is a positive associ ation between marine conservati on attitudes and intention to comply with manatee speed zone restrictions. H8: There is a positive association between ma rine conservation attitudes and self-reported compliance behavior. Behavioral Intentions: H9: There is a positive association between intention to comply with manatee speed zone restrictions and self-reported compliance behavior.

PAGE 29

29 H10: There is a negative association betw een intention to comply with manatee speed zone restrictions and observed speed discrepancy. Path Analysis A path analysis will be employed to determ ine the predictive valid ity between recreation specialization, marine co nservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, self-reported compliance behavior and observed speed discrepancy (Figure 1-1). Figure 1-1. Hypothesized conceptual model Recreation Specialization Marine Conservation Attitudes Behavioral Intentions Self-Reported Compliance Behavior Observed Vessel Speed Discrepancy H4 H1 H2 H3 H5 H6 H7 H8 H 9 H10

PAGE 30

30 Figure 1-2. Theory of reasoned action (Adapted from Albarracin et al., 2001). Self-reported compliance behavior Observed Vessel Speed Discrepancy Attitudes Subjective norms Behavioral intentions

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Motorized Travel and Wildlife Impacts Terrestrial wildlife An examination of the negative impact of ro ads and vehicle traffic on terrestrial animals serves as a corollary to the manatee-watercraft is sue. Roads can be an important factor in the ecology of an area, especially with respect to animal movement and mortality (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000). An estimated one million vertebrates are killed on U.S. roads every day (Lowy, 2001) and several approaches have been employed in an effort to reduce the magnitude of the problem, including structures such as culverts, overpasses, fences, flas hing lights and signage, among others. It is generally thought that signs combined with speed limits and flashing lights have been successful in reducing collisions, al though not as successful as physical deterrents (Banks, Irwin, Evink, Gray, Hagood, Kinar, Levy, Paulson, Ruediger & Sauvajot, 2002). Due to the number of threatened and enda ngered species residing within its borders, Florida is thought to be a leader in wildlife collision mitigation (Schrag, 2003). In demonstrating the crucial need for effective mitigati on, 44 of the endangered Florida panther ( Felis concolor coryi ) have been killed by vehicle collisions since 1972 (FWC, 2001). As a result, wildlife crossings, fencing and reduced nighttime speed limits were put into place on a particularly deadly 40-mile stretch of highway, with the re sult that no further panther impacts occurred. Although the approach appears to have reduced pa nther collisions, FWC ( 2001) notes that it is impossible to evaluate the impacts of such z ones, as it is not know n how many deaths would have resulted absent any intervention. Furthermore, they indicate that pant hers have been killed by very slow moving vehicles (<25 mph), and s uggest that education and enforcement of speed

PAGE 32

32 zones probably only has a temporary effect on re ducing speeds and speed itself may not be the sole determinant of panther roadkills (p.1). As the Florida black bear ( Ursus americanus floridanus ) is a much more widely dispersed species than the Florida panther, strategies to reduce mortality from vehicle strikes have faced considerable challenges. The threatened black bear has suffered substantially from vehicle traffic, with 84% of bear mortality due to ve hicle collisions. Howeve r, the large geographic distribution has precluded wholes ale management approaches such as erecting barrier fencing (FWC, 2006e). Instead, black bear protection has primarily been facilitated by warning signs, reduced speed zones and the strategic placem ent of wildlife underpa sses. Despite these interventions, and perhaps due to a variety of f actors, bear deaths have steadily risen since 1976 (FWC, 2006e), and although it appears that these strategies have not been particularly effective, they have not been formally evaluated (Sorice, Flamm & McDonald, 2004). In Florida, wildlife along a two-mile stretch U.S. Hwy 441 through Paynes Prairie State Preserve, Alachua County, have suffered high leve ls of vehicle-induced mortality for 80 years (Barichivich & Dodd, 2002). In an effort to reduce the large number of deaths, a 1.1 m high concrete barrier wall was built to guide animals to an animal underpass. Although meant primarily as a method of funneling small amphi bians and reptiles across the highway, it was discovered that the wall also discouraged mamm als from entering the highway and similarly guided them to the underpass and to safety. Overa ll, the barrier and culvert system resulted in a 41% reduction in traffic-related wildlife mortality on this particular stretch of highway. Finally, Floridas Key deer ( Ococoileus virginianus clavium ) is compromised by vehicle collisions, which account for approximately 67% of the known deaths of the endangered animal. Although land ownership along the Highway US 1 corridor confounds the use of fencing and

PAGE 33

33 other physical approaches in most of the habitat, deer grating, underpasses and fencing is utilized wherever possible (Lopez, Silvy, Owen, Irwin, 2003). To further mi nimize collisions, strictly enforced speed reduction zones are in place thro ughout important Key deer habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999). However, as with th e Florida black bear, these mitigation strategies do not appear to have been evaluated since the program was instituted. Despite considerable effort at reducing wildlife collisions, attempts to modify driver behaviors with awareness strategi es may be marginally successf ul (Romin & Bissonette, 1996). The exception to this may be in active awareness strategies in which animals are electronically detected on the roadside and drivers made awar e of collision potential through flashing lights, etc. (Newhouse, 2003). Due to the general lack of success with this approach, the prevailing methods of reducing collisions re lies on physical designs such, as underpasses, fencing or other means of segregating wildlife from automobile traffic. Although physical design strategies may be the preferred approach in terrestrial settings, the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the water column and often dispersed nature of marine animals such as manatees limit this approach from being widely utilized in aquatic environments. Manatees Manatees are large herbivor ous marine mammals of up to three meters in length and weighing between 360 and 544 kilograms. As a mi gratory species, manatees tend to concentrate in the relatively warm waters of Florida in the winter and ar e found during summer months from Texas to Virginia, as well as waterways in bot h Central and northern South America (Save the Manatee Club, 2006). Manatees occupy a wide vari ety of habitats including the many shallow, slow-moving rivers, bays, canals and coastal waters of Florida. Manatees have enjoyed protection in the st ate of Florida since 1893 when killing of manatees was outlawed (FWC, 2005). In 1978, w ith the acknowledgement that the manatee

PAGE 34

34 population was in precipitous de cline, additional sanctuarie s and state protections were constructed in areas where manat ees were likely to be encountered or otherwise deemed essential for the survival of the species (U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service, 2001). Between 1979 and 2005 a large number of safe havens and boating speed -restricted areas were added to Floridas waterways (FWC, 2005). The manatee was listed as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act, a precurs or to the Endangered Species Act under which it now resides At the time of my research, the manatee was dow nlisted at the state level from endangered to threatened status. Under the umbrella of the Fe deral Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP), the State of Florida has implemented manatee protection through the us e of manatee counts, county protection plans and boat speed regulatory zones (Reynolds, 199 9), though this approach has met numerous impediments. At the core of the FMRP lies the task of obtaining manatee count data. However, accurate long-term manatee populati on viability estimates are difficult to ascertain, with some scientists (Miller, Ackerman, Lefebvre & Cl ifton, 1998) suggesting th at population surveying limitations preclude an accurate understand ing of population trends altogether. Both aerial and ground counts are currently the primary source for population trend estimations. Although much effort has been c onducted to understand pop ulation dynamics since the 1970s, scientists have been relatively uns uccessful in developing a useful means of monitoring population trends in the southeaste rn United States (OShea, 1988; Lefebvre, Ackerman, Portier & Polloc k, 1995). Researchers such as Lefebvr e et al. (1995) and Miller et al. (1998) submit that the many uncont rolled variables related to th is method limit their use in accurate population modeling.

PAGE 35

35 Although current population da ta suggests that the total number of manatees has risen since the 1970s (OShea 1988, OShea & Ac kerman, 1995, Runge, Langtimme & Kendall, 2004), data reveals substantial degree of va riability between geographically separate subpopulations (FWC, 2005). A cursory review of the data indicates that 10-year population growth trend estimates for the Atlantic subpopul ation are between -1.2% to 2.0% (95% CI), although not significantly different from zero (Runge et al., 2004). However, more recent data (5-year) suggests that the s ubpopulation may be in decline (9 5% CI: -6.2% to -.2%) (FWC, 2005). Contrastingly, the Northwest subpopula tion (currently the second smallest subpopulation) has demonstrated growth of be tween 1.6% 5.6% (95% CI) over the past 10 years (Runge et al., 2004). Th e largest subpopulation (Southwest Florida) has been found in general decline over the eight years prior to 2002 (95% CI: -5 .4%-2.4%), while the Upper St. Johns River subpopulation has shown generally st rong growth over the past 10 years (95%CI: 1.6%-5.6%) (Runge et al., 2004). Although the U pper St. Johns River subpopulation numbers are thought to be on the rise, its relative cont ribution to the total manatee population is small (FWC, 2005). According to Deutsch, Ackerm an, Pitchford and Rommel (2002), A gradual decline in survival over the next half century is conceivable gi ven the high rate of increase (10.3% per year) in watercraft-related deaths ra nge-wide over the past decade (p.10) (Deutsch, C. J., Ackerman, B.B., Pitchfor d, T.D., and Rommel, S.A. (2002). Trends in Manatee mortality in Florida. Manatee Population Ecology and Ma nagement Workshop, Gainesville, FL. April 1-4, 2002). Boating has exacted a considerable toll on the Florida manatee, with 1385 known animals killed by watercraft since 1974 when carcass sa lvage began (FWC, 2006b). The annual number of animals killed by watercraft has increas ed approximately 5.3% per year from 1986-1992

PAGE 36

36 (Ackerman, Wright, Bonde, Odell & Banowetz, 1995), 6.9% per year from 1993 to 2005 (FWC, 2006b), and current estimates suggest that the pe rcentage of manatee deaths caused by vessel collisions has remained approximately 24% since record keeping began (FWC, 2006b). As recreational boats are now designed with greater power and ability to traverse shallow water, it is reasonable to expect vessel strikes to continue to be an important cause of manatee mortality, especially given the dramatic increase in vessel numbers in Florida. Boating in Florida Proliferation Current human population trends suggest that nearly 5.5 million people will be added to Floridas borders in the next 25 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), with many of these new arrivals living close to coastal or other waterway s. Boating in Florida has resulted in both positive economic and negative environmental impacts across many of the states waterways (Leston, 2002), with manatees being one of the most affected. Recreation boating is one of th e essential elements of Florid as aquatic environment with over one million registered pleasure boats in the state (Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2006). Furthermore, Floi rda ranks as the number one marine recreation destination in the United States (Leeworth & W iley, 2001). There currently exists approximately one registered boat for every 17 Florida residents, and more than 22 million people are either directly or indirectly involved with boati ng in the state (Leeworth & Wiley, 2001). With manatee habitat often coinciding with recreational boating areas, manatee speed zones have been implemented congruent with manatee habitat an d movement patterns, boat traffic, geographic and habitat conditions, as well as public commen t. With so many vessels plying Floridas waterways, speed zone compliance is deemed im portant to the long-term survivability of the manatee (Laist & Shaw, 2006).

PAGE 37

37 Implementation of speed zones as a manatee recovery strategy was first established in 1989 in 13 Florida counties. Boat speed and regu lation zones are configured and defined in a variety of ways including channel-exempt (s low speeds that only apply outside of marked channels), shoreline speed zones (reduced speed s apply to certain dist ances from shore) and channel-inclusive zones (slow speed applies w ithin and outside of ma rked channels) (FWC, 2006c; Laist & Shaw, 2006). Within each of these z one types, various vessel speed limits are imposed including idle, slow and specific sp eed (e.g., 25 mph) (FWC, 2006c), with each configuration based upon manatee, vesse l traffic and habitat variables. Boater Compliance with Speed Zones Speed reduction as a strategy within the FMRP is based upon the assumptions that, 1) slower watercraft create less physical damage to the animal if struck and 2) slow moving watercraft allow both boater and animal incr eased time for avoidance maneuvering (Laist & Shaw, 2006; OShea, 1995). Boater compliance w ithin manatee zones is currently enforced through law enforcement ticketing; however, insu fficiently-funded law enforcement efforts and the absence of a general boater licensing program both serve to re duce the effectiveness of this approach (FWC, 2005). Several boater compliance st udies performed on Floridas waterways demonstrate that absence law enforcement, approximately 54 to 63 % of boat operators fully comply with speed zones, 20 to 51% are technically non-compliant (see Table 2-1 for speed categories), and the rest are blatantly non-compliant (Gorzelany 1996, 2001; Shapiro, 2001). For example, in 1995 Gorzelany (1996) conducted a one -year evaluation of boater co mpliance in Sarasota County using a subjective qualitative categorization for various important manatee sites (22,324 vessels recorded), quantitative radar gun readings (4,881 vessels recorded), qualitative aerial surveys (1,662 vessels recorded) and qua litative 44-hour sampling to evaluate off-peak hours (3,913

PAGE 38

38 vessels recorded). Surveying was performed on weekend and weekdays during all months of the year. Chi-square analyses sugge sted significantly different levels of compliance existed between sites (p<.0001), although complia nce among the three most common types of vessels (fishing, ski/runabout and yacht/cruiser) were similar and not statistically different. Personal watercraft and johnboats demonstrated lower levels of complia nce than did the other vessel types, with two of every three personal watercraft sightings eval uated as blatantly non-compliant at one site. Consistent with this, a distinct trend was noted toward decreasing compliance and boat size. Boater compliance with respect to weekend vers us weekday sampling was significantly related to site (p<.0001 for all sites combined), and co mpliance and time of day was significant for all sites combined (p<.0001). The presence of law enforcement resulted in the highest level of compliance (74%), and the lowest level of bl atantly non-compliant behavior (8%). Finally, although compromised by the small amount of data collected during nighttime hours, analysis suggested a significant reduction in boate r compliance from 2000-2359 hours and 0000-0359 hours. To determine if law enforcement presence has a lasting effect, Gor zelany (2001) evaluated boater compliance before and after a two-week pe riod of law enforcement presence in idle and 25 mph speed zones in Southwest Florida. He us ed qualitative evaluations of boater compliance for: 1) four weeks prior to o fficer presence (pre-treatment), af ter which 2) officers were then instructed to actively enforce boat speeds for two weeks (treatment) and then 3) compliance evaluations continued for anothe r four weeks (post-treatment). Boaters were surveyed during week and weekend days between 0900 and 1600 hours and at times when speeds did not appear to be influenced by heavy boat traffic. Physic al attributes such as weather, wind speed and boating conditions were logged w ithin the two sites sampled, with 3,000 boats observed in one

PAGE 39

39 and 2,594 observed in the other. Pre-treatment compliance within the idle speed zone demonstrated a moderate degree of variabil ity, with 13-21% of a ll vessels blatantly noncompliant, 43-51% technically non-compliant an d 29-44% compliant. Dramatic differences were observed during the two-week treatment period, with complia nt rates increased to 64-73%, while technical and blatant non-compliant beha vior decreased. By week nine of the posttreatment period (weeks 7-10), compliance and non-compliance rates ha d returned to pretreatment levels for both weekend and weekday rates. Analysis indicated that compliance levels were significantly different between pretreatment weeks (1-4) and weeks 5-8. Results for the 25 mph zone were similar to those for the idle speed zone: there was 70% compliance during the treatment period versus 44 to 52% during the pre-treatment period. Blatant non-compliance ranged from 6 to 12% duri ng pre-treatment and declined to less than 2% during the treatment period, with analyses demonstr ating the halo effect (the lasting influence boat operator behavior beyond the point and time when enforcement is applied or when an officer or other law enforcement symbol is obser ved) that was again present during weeks 7-9. Gorzelany noted that media coverage and the une xpected additional law enforcement with the 25 mph zone may have influenced boater behavi or during weeks 8 and 0, thus confounding the results. Gorzelany (2004) summarized his prior evalua tions of 26,000 vessels in Sarasota and Lee counties between 1995 and 1998 and found 63% a nd 58% compliance respectively (17% and 16% blatantly noncompliant), with compliance vary ing significantly with vessel type and size. Gorzelanys summary also revealed a high degr ee of inter-county compliance variability (4071% in Sarasota County; 30-77% in Lee County). It should be noted th at although his research has contributed important in sight into compliance behavi or, Gorzelanys (1996, 2001, 2004)

PAGE 40

40 reliance on chi-square analyses with large sample sizes may have resulted in a greater number of statistically significant relations hips than might be found with more appropriate analytical methods such as Analysis of Variance. Other studies such as Tyson & Combs (1999) qualitative evaluation of Banana River (Florida) boaters found similar levels of manatee zone noncompliance (9.2% blatantly noncompliant and 22.6% technical non-compliance). A qualitative investigation of boaters in Brevard County b y Tyson (2001) revealed an overall compliance rate of 70.8% in Haulover Canal (range from 45% to 80.7%), with 26.0% technically non-compliant and 1.0% blatantly non-compliant, and overall compliance of 67.8% in the Canaveral Barge Canal. As with previous studies, Tyson (2001) found that co mpliance varied with vessel length; however, contrasting others, she found that larger vessels were less compliant than vessels under 25 ft. in length. Lending insight into possible factors behi nd boater non-compliance, Aipanjiguly (2001) and Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) determined that ro ughly one third of Florid a boaters surveyed in their study indicated that manatee speed zones we re inadequately marked, a point substantiated by Confer et al.s (2003) finding that 49% of Timucuan Pres erve (Florida) boaters surveyed strongly disagreed, disagreed, or were neutral in their response to the statement I can always tell when Im in a manatee zone (p.136). While boater non-compliance can be regarded as depreciative behavior, the above findings suggest that some may engage in this depreciative behavior due partly to a lack of awareness of, or an boat speed zone signage or zone delineations. Shapiro (2001) summarized the state of knowledge with regard to boat zone compliance: 1. Compliance is dependent on vessel type and size, with blatant non-compliance decreasing with increasing vessel size (a conclusion that contrasts with Tyson, 2001).

PAGE 41

41 2. Seasonal variation in comp liance is site-specific. 3. Boat traffic is higher on weekends and during the afternoon, and, at many sites, compliance is higher on the weekends due in part to higher traffic volumes equating to a higher likelihood of ticketing by law enforcement. 4. Rental, commercial and vessels registered out of state vessels are more likely to violate zone speeds. 5. The presence of law enforcement negate s the influence of other variables on compliance. Compliance significantly increases when law enforcement is present. 6. The residual effect (halo effect) of law enforcement presence on compliance seems inconclusive. 7. The complexity of the issue dictates th at compliance be evaluated on a per site basis. Furthermore, Shapiro (2001) states: To reduce boat speeds and increase compliance in manatee speed zones, we may be able to borrow some speed-reducing techniques histor ically utilized by the police and highway patrol. These techniques may provide a cost-effective alte rnative to the very laborintensive patrols necessary to produce a time-h alo effect, and include the use of feedback signs, personalized advisory le tters, replica patrol cars, road side speedometers, and highly integrated education and en forcement programs (p.10). Florida Vessel Title Regi stration System (VTRS) There is an increasing need to better unde rstand boat attributes and boat mooring and docking locations within the state of Florida. To this end, the Florida Vessel Title Registration System (VTRS) has been shown to be an effici ent method of obtaining spatially accurate boat and boater information. The VTRS is a database of registered boats that is continuously updated. Boat owners in Florida are requir ed to register their boats with the state on an annual basis, and to affix a Florida registration number decal (at least 3 high letters) to the bow of their boat (FWC, 2006c). Notable exemptions to this re gistration requirement include 1) non-motorized vessels, 2) vessels only operated on private ponds or lakes, 3) U.S. Government-owned vessels,

PAGE 42

42 4) lifeboats for ships and 5) vessels from othe r states that are temporarily (fewer than 90 consecutive days) using Florida waters (S wett, Sidman, Fik & Sargent, 2004). Swett et al. (2004) examined the utility of th e VTRS to facilitate a spatial inventory of watercraft based on the mailing addresses of boa t owners. They evaluated the accuracy and reliability of vessel location and attribute info rmation contained in the VTRS by assessing the congruency between an on-water census of vessels and VTRS records for a variety of waterways in Lee and Manatee counties. The VTRS captured the highest pe rcentage of the boat population (80% compared with 60% for th e on-water census). Furtherm ore, a 92% agreement was found between the boat owner address listed in the VTRS (based upon hull number query) and actual owner address established by tele phone interview. The authors concluded that the VTRS was a viable method of describing boats locations. Outdoor Recreation and Association with Environmentalism Environmental Attitudes / Environmental Behavior Compliance within manatee speed zones can be considered pro-environmental behavior and non-compliance, depreciative behavior. Even though widely researched, the general body of environmental attitude and environmental behavior literature remains varied both in focus and findings. Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) were among the fi rst to formally test the hypothesis that outdoor recreation participation might foster envi ronmental concern. They asked subjects to indicate frequency of par ticipation in a variety of activities in order to evaluate three hypotheses related to the associ ation between: 1) outdoor recreation and envir onmental concern, 2) appreciative versus consumptiv e recreation activities and envir onmental concern and 3) outdoor recreation and protecting partic ular outdoor areas necessary fo r specific activities and outdoor recreation. Weak support was found for the firs t hypothesis, modest support for the second and

PAGE 43

43 somewhat stronger support for th e third. Recreationi sts engaged in appr eciative activities demonstrated greater environmental concern than those engaged in consumptive activities; and subjects indicated more concern for environments in which their activities relied than for general environmental issues such as water pollution. Af ter controlling for the effects of age, income, education, residence and gender, th e authors concluded that there is a non-spurious relationship between involvement in outdoor re creational activities (especiall y appreciative activities) and environmental concern (p.25). Although groundbreaking, Dunlap and Heffern ans (1975) study was not without limitations. Their operationalization of envir onmental concern (eight items total) was incomplete and focused on issues relating to s ubjects concern for pollution (five items) and commitment towards nature (three items). Al so, only one of the th ree items within the commitment domain pertained to nature for na tures sake (commitment toward protection of wildlife and endangered species). In a study designed to reassess Dunlap and He ffernans (1975) findi ngs, Geisler et al. (1977) further refined the measure of recreat ionists by including a consumptive orientation (motorized recreation in the form of snowmobiling). Nine measur es of environmental awareness were included: stream, lake, noise and air po llution, trash, erosion, wildlife impoverishment, overcrowding and people living too close to re creation areas. Strong support was found for Dunlap and Heffernans (1975) fi rst hypothesis, weak support for the second, while the third was not tested. Additionally, they c oncluded that recreationi sts were more influenced by individual characteristics than by their c hosen activity. Their study, while important, was limited in its operationalization of environmental concer n by focusing on human-induced problems and anthropocentric issues rather than natures inherent value.

PAGE 44

44 Advancing the line of inquiry, Van Liere and Noe (1981) expanded the participation component of Dunlap and Heffernans original hypotheses by including average number of hours and number of days engaged in a particular activ ity at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Most importantly though, the authors utilized the Ne w Environmental Paradigm (NEP) created by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The 12-item, 4 po int Likert scale NEP expanded the contracted nature of prior environmental concern instrume nts by moving beyond an anthropocentric view of environmental issues (i.e., how environmental issu es relate to or impact humans) to that of general biocentric viewpoints. Nevertheless, Van Liere and Noe s (1981) investigation failed to support Dunlap and Heffernans (1975) first hypo thesis and demonstrated only moderate support for the second. The authors concluded that freq uency or type of activity disregards crucial personal factors influencing ones interpretation of a particular recreational experience. Contrastingly, Jacksons (1986) examination of Canadian residents, with slight modifications to Van Liere and Noes (1981) approach, found support for both the second and third hypotheses. Jacksons methods differed from previ ous approaches by combining participation categories into participants and nonparticipants. He also measured environmental attitudes with items from the Environmental A ttitudes Scale (including ite ms from the NEP), the Dominant Social Paradigm Scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978), and other items derived from the environmental literature. Recreat ion attitudes were measured with the Recreation Attitude Scale (Knopp & Tyger, 1973), which evaluated ones cont rol of recreation activity as related to environmental factors and wilderness development. Jacksons results showed that participants engaged in appreciative recreation such as canoeing, hiking and skiing had higher scores than fishing and boating participants in both envir onmental and recreational attitude measures. Moreover, he found that fishing a nd boating participants differed l ittle in attitude from those

PAGE 45

45 engaged in snowmobiling, hunting or biking. Due in part to inconsistenc ies in approach, outdoor recreation-environmental attitude research has been problematic and inconclusive. The environmental behavior literature has seemingly faired no better. Nord et al. (1998) attempted to determine if forest recreation and pro-environmental behaviors were positively associated by test ing Dunlap and Heffernans (1975) first two hypotheses and then adding a third, namely, that pro-environmental behavior was positively associated with appreciative forest recreation. The authors measured environmental concern with one item (importance of the quality of environment); pro-environmental behavior with several items (e.g., purchasing behavior influen ced by environmental impacts of a product); and outdoor recreation operationalized by frequency of forest visits as well as types of activities engaged in. Their findings suggested a positiv e association between forest recreation and environmental behaviors (selfreported), although a weak relati onship was found between forest recreation and environmental concern. Nord et al. (1998) concluded, It is quite possible that outdoor recreation leads to pro-environmental behavior, even though it does not lead to environmentalism as measured by attitude (p.12). Expanding this line of research, Theodori et al (1998) assessed the relationship between outdoor recreation participation a nd pro-environmental behaviors, with the added dimension of activity orientation (appreciative to utility, wher e utility was similar to consumptive). They evaluated participation by asking respondents to indicate frequency of participation among nine different outdoor recreation activitie s. The authors further divide d activities into appreciative, slight utility and moderate to intensive utility categories, while environmental behavior was evaluated by asking respondents to check (yes/no) whether they had participated in any or all of seven listed behaviors (e.g., gr een voting, environmentally fr iendly consumer behaviors,

PAGE 46

46 engagement in reading environmentally oriented l iterature). Their finding s suggested that selfreported pro-environmental behaviors were more positively associated with activities on the appreciative end of the recreati on participation scale than with activities on the moderate to intensively utilitarian end, but only to a point. That is, the significant differences in proenvironmental behavior between appreciativ e and consumptive recreationists became insignificant after controlling for age, gender, ed ucation, income and political ideology. Despite this detail, their results generally supported Dunl ap and Heffernans (1975), Van Liere and Noes (1981), and Jacksons (1986) findi ngs that the outdoor recrea tion-environmental attitude associations were non-spurious af ter age, gender, education, inco me and political ideology were controlled. Jackson concluded th at socio-economic characteristics of individual recreationists accounted for differences in engagement with pro-environmental behaviors rather than the activities in which they participated. Tarrant and Green (1999) similarly examined outdoor recreation and its influence on the predictive validity of environmental attitudes. More specifically, they examined three explanations for the generally poor attitude-beh avior consistency found within environmental behavior literature. Their objec tive was to investigate both the moderating and mediating effects of different types of outdoor recreation (consump tive, appreciative and motorized) on attitude as a consistent predictor of behavi or. The authors measured genera l environmental attitudes using the New Environmental Paradigm scale (12 items), the EC (16 items), the ROPER (9 items), the AC (9 items) and a version of the FV scale (8 items), with each respondent randomly assigned to one of the environmental attitude scales. Environmental behavior was assessed using a single behavioral index created by as king respondents how often, in th e past two years, they had participated in recycling, environmen tally friendly purchasing, carpooling, watching

PAGE 47

47 environmental programs and reading environmen tal literature. Part icipation in outdoor recreation was evaluated based upon yes/no resp onses to having participated in various recreation activities in the past 12 months. Par ticipation was categorized as appreciative (e.g., birdwatching and hiking) and consumptive (e.g., hunting and motorboating) behaviors. Results suggested that moderating effects were weak or non-existent, a lthough poor internal reliability measures may have compromised the results. Contrastingly, participation in appreciative outdoor recreation was shown to mediate the environmental attitude-environmental behavior relationship, though participation in motorized and/or consumptive re creational activiti es did not. Although the results offer important insight into the relatively poor attitude-behavior consistency found within the environmental be havior literature, the study ma y have been compromised by a relatively low telephone survey response rate and no examination of non-response bias was provided. Despite the limitations, the findings suggest that particip ation in appreciative forms of outdoor recreation may act as a mediator of the attitude-behavior re lationship, therefore improving the predictive ability of environmental behaviors. In reexamining the effect of appreciative, consumptive and motorized forest recreation on environmental attitudes and behaviors, Thapa (2000) found that par ticipation orientation (appreciative, consumptive and motorized) ac ted as a mediating effect on certain proenvironmental consumer behaviors as assessed by self-reports. Th e author treated both environmental attitudes and behaviors as multidimensional constructs (ecocentric, dualcentric and technocentric), and measured outdoor recrea tion participation usin g the most important activity reported from a list of activities rather than generic pa rticipation. Similar to prior research, Thapa found that forest recreationi sts who engaged in appreciative activities demonstrated stronger pro-environmental orientati ons than did those engaged in consumptive or

PAGE 48

48 motorized activities. By utilizing factor analys is, the author extended the literature by dividing environmental behavior into five separate dimens ions (political activism, recycling, educational, green consumerism and community activism) and demonstrating that behavioral indices were influenced by activity orientation (e.g., those invo lved in consumptive activities were more likely to participate in political ac tivities than those engaged in appreciative activities). Aside from the outdoor recreation literature, the body of research re garding general proenvironmental behavior is vari ed and mostly beyond the scope of this review. However, a cursory review of the types of i nquiries that have been conducted lends insight into the myriad lines of research. Much of the environmental behavior research has focused on personality and demographic characteristics of those repor ting pro-environmental behavior Contrasting, Gellers (1981) findings that citizen education on specific behaviors to reduce one s ecological footprint did not lead to energy conservation or ot her pro-environmental behaviors, Hines et al. (1986) concluded that education level and pro-environmental beha viors were positively associated. Similarly, Cottrell (1993) and Cottrell and Graefe ( 1997) found that environmental knowledge was a predictor of pro-environmental boater behavior such as using sewage pumpout stations. Additionally, in a reevaluation of his 1993 study, Cottrell (2003) c oncluded that income and age were negative predictors of self-reported envi ronmentally responsible concern (attitudes) as measure by the New Environmental Paradigm scale. In his study, verbal commitment (intentions) variables explained roughly 24% of the variability in self-reported responsible environmental behavior (operationalized based on 10 questions evaluating the extent respondents would go to protect the environment). His results also demonstrated that the predictive ability of verbal commitment increased when sociodemogr aphic variables were added to the regression

PAGE 49

49 model. Finally, self-reported environmenta l knowledge (4 self-assessment items regarding knowledge of water pollution, raw sewage, loca l environmental issues and knowledge of ecology) were also found to be significant predictors of self-reported resp onsible environmental behavior. Exemplifying environmental attitude-behavio r association researc h, Tarrant and Cordell (1997) examined self-reports of general environmen tal behavior and their a ssociations with five environmental concern scales. Based on Fishbein and Ajzens (1975) assertion that attitudes are beliefs about a particular object that predispose a person to behavi ng in a consistent way toward that object, their research em ployed an 11-item self-reported behavior index that asked respondents to indicate their agreemen t with participating in specific behaviors such as recycling, carpooling and others. Of the five established environmental scales that were examined, the New Environmental Paradigm (measuring broadbased beliefs regardi ng the spaceship earth metaphor) and Awareness of Consequence scales we re most strongly asso ciated with general environmental behavior. Though compromised by a somewhat low response rate (44%) their research demonstrated that asso ciations between general envir onmental behaviors and attitudes decreased as income increased, education decreased and one became more politically conservative. Perhaps the most robust body of literature along th is line of inquiry stems from the general examination of cognitive, psychological and social variables associated with environmental behavior. Studies within this realm have incl uded costs and benefits (r eal and perceived) of performing various behaviors (De Young, 1990); th e knowledge required and/or difficulty in performing behaviors (De Young, 1989); barriers and inconveniences to environmentally friendly actions (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993); att itudes toward behaviors (e.g. Hines et al., 1986);

PAGE 50

50 relationships between awareness of impacts and pro-environmental behaviors (Shultz & Zeleny, 1998); and sense of place and various behavior s (Cantrill, 1998; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). Of primary focus within the at titude-behavior debate is whether or not attitudes influence overt behavior (Manfredo, Fulton & Pierce, 1997). Manfredo, et al. (1997 ) suggested that the generally weak attitude-behavior associations found in research conducted during the 1960s and 1970s served to fuel the debate among psychologists as to the utility of the attitude model. The authors also stated that cont emporary advancements in theory and methodology served to improve predictions of behavior based on attitude s, and that the relationship had been further accepted. Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings Natural resource managers spend millions of dollars each year attempting to persuade visitors to minimize impacts on the social and/or physical en vironment and otherwise follow rules set forth by managing agencies. Researcher s have devised a host of direct and indirect management techniques to reduce unwanted visi tor behaviors. Indire ct techniques such as, communication designed to educat e, persuade and otherwise cha nge behaviors have generally been preferred in park settings (Hend ee & Dawson, 2002; Manning, 1999; Roggenbuck, 1992). Indirect techniques are c onsidered to be most cost-effective, most likely to result in enduring visitor behavior changes and consistent with the freedom tenet of out door recreation (Clark, Hendee & Burgess, 1972). However, sanctions or punitive approaches are also relied upon when unwanted behavior is especially costly. Regardless of the appro ach used to reduce or otherwise control unwanted behaviors in outdo or settings, depreciative behavi or remains a persistent issue among managers. Depreciative behavior (anti-environmental beha vior) is generally unde rstood as an act or action that negatively impacts the social or physical environment (Clark et al. 1972), as

PAGE 51

51 contrasted with vandalism, which is a willful ac t of damage to some f acet of the environment (Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995). Depreci ative behavior within natu ral resource settings is important due to its negative effects on the sust ainability of natural ecosystems (Cole et al., 1997), degraded visitor experiences (Chris tensen, Johnson & Brookes, 1992) and resulting mitigation costs (Winter, Sagarin, Rhoads, Barrett & Cialdini, 2000). Researchers have examined depreciative behavior since Clark et al.s (1972) application of social science theory (in the form of stimulus-reward and nor m manipulation) as a means to reduce specific park visitor behaviors such as litt ering. Since then, resear chers have investigated a range of issues relating to depreciative behavior, with most examinations focused on methods of alleviating unwanted behavior. Gramman and Vander Stoep (1987) were th e first to put forward a taxonomy of depreciative behavior, which offered theoretical insight into indirect management techniques for reducing unwanted visitor actions According to their taxonomy, unintentional violations occur from a lack of knowledge or understanding of appropriate behavior, and may be the most common and most easily remedied cause of unwan ted behavior. The second type of normative violation, releaser-cue, is derived from the field of eco logical psychology and suggests that environmental cues in the form of others acti vities or social attribut es can invite unwanted behaviors. Third, uninformed violations occur when visitors are una ware that their behaviors cause damage or other negative social or environm ental impacts. The fourth type of violation, responsibility-denial occurs when an actor employees a defense mechanism to reduce cognitive dissonance such as might occur when a rule is deemed unreasonable or impossible to abide by. The fifth violation type, Status confirming occur when individuals identify strongly with a group displaying deviant behavior, or ot herwise utilize deviant behavior to confirm their group status.

PAGE 52

52 The last and most difficult from a managerial perspective, willful violations, are those committed by individuals as a means of finan cial gain, ideological protest, ma lice, revenge, or the desire to inspire fear or respect in observers (p.73). Since its introduction, Gramann and Vander St oeps taxonomy has gained wide acceptance within the park and recreation fi eld. Another classification syst em put forth by Hendee, Stankey and Lucas (1990), which focuses less on deprec iative behavior and vandalism and more on general resource impacts, has met similar acceptance. Hendee et al. (1990) distilled the spectrum of undesirable visitor actions in to: illegal, careless, unskille d, uninformed and unavoidable and as such, is similar in approach to Gramann and Vander Stoeps taxonomy. Since the introduction of both taxonomies, resour ce managers and researchers have shifted somewhat from the visitor as perpetrator of depr eciative behavior, to the role played in the facilitation of depreciative behavior by poor si te design, environmental factors and site upkeep (Knopf & Dustin, 1992; Vande Kamp, Johnson & Sw earingen, 1994). In their review of the depreciative behavior literatu re, Knopf and Andereck (2004) pr esent the following overarching interventions as a means of minimizing the expression of unwanted behavior (pp. 308-311): 1. Focus on the causes of depreciative beha vior rather than the perpetrator. 2. Eliminate environmental cues. 3. Manage social norms by modeling or otherwise fostering desired norms. 4. Effectively communicate rules and regulations. 5. Provide insight and information into th e consequences of unwanted behavior. 6. Provide reasonable options to unwanted behaviors. 7. Utilize positive rather than negative overtones. 8. Utilize personal rather than impersonal communication whenever possible. 9. Transmit messages as close, temporally a nd spatially, to the unwanted behavior. 10. Utilize uniformed personnel at high risk or highly valuable areas. 11. Institute appropriate reward system. 12. Utilize direct coercion only as a last resort. Both taxonomies of depreciative violations and the list of overa rching interventional principles (above) provide insigh t into non-compliant behavior in natural resource settings,

PAGE 53

53 especially pertaining to the importance of clear messaging. Much of the depreciative behavior literature has focused on the effectiveness of al leviating vandalism and other unwanted behavior in terrestrial parks and built settings by employing various forms and applications of media (mostly print), with some demonstrating notab le reductions in depr eciative behavior. Oliver, Roggenbuck and Watson (1985) determin ed that littering and tree damage were reduced substantially by visitor brochures cont aining messages and sketches abut these unwanted behaviors and their associated impacts and costs. The application of thei r treatment resulted in a 15% reduction in the number of camping groups that littered and a 19% reduction in the number of groups who damaged one or more trees. Vander Stoep and Gramanns (1987) test of me ssage effectiveness (p ersonally delivered messages) relied on three message types: aw areness of conseque nces; awareness of consequences plus resource protector; and awaren ess of consequences plus resource protector plus incentive. Resource prot ection involved telling subjects they were important in the overall operation and protection of the onsite assets, whereas incentiv es were comprised of group awards. They found that even basic interpre tive messaging resulted in a reduction of childinduced vandalism to cannons, statues and monume nts within the Shiloh National Military Park, and that the three message methodologies did not di ffer in their results (all achieved nearly 88% reduction in depreciati ve behavior). By integrating an awareness of consequen ces component into th eir examination of recreationist behavior, Gramann, Bonifield and Kim (1995) found that visitors were significantly impacted when messaging included both a rationale for established rules a nd an explanation of the consequences to the physical or social environment when ru les were not followed. They specifically found that those visi tors exposed to the awareness of consequences message were

PAGE 54

54 significantly more likely to indicate an intenti on to obey the rules than those not receiving the message. Widner and Roggenbuck (2000) conducted an experiment designed to test the effectiveness of three different interventions on reduci ng theft of petrified wood at the Petrified Forest National Park. They found no differen ce in effectiveness among a signed pledge from visitors, presence of an onsite park ranger and an interpretive sign placed at the trailhead. They found that the interpretiv e sign was just as effective at re ducing the amount of petrified wood removal as the onsite ranger, but at a much-reduced cost. Importantly, the authors attribute their results to a well-designed, well-written interpretive sign that that simply sate that Removal of petrified wood is prohibited. This research was eventually extended by Cialdini, Demain, Sagarin, Barrett, Rhoads and Wi nter (2006) who examined message typologies with regard to their effectiveness at reducing removal of researcher-placed faux petrified wood. They found that a negatively worded injunctive message Pl ease dont remove the petr ified wood from the park accompanied by a picture of someone st ealing wood from the park produced greater success than did a descriptive normative message M any past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the state of the Pe trified Forest along with a picture of three visitors taking wood. In a similar study, Duncan and Martin (2002) expo sed 237 participants to a series of slides depicting an outdoor hiking experience intermix ed with slides of sanction messages (e.g., mention of fines for campfires) and interp retive messages (e.g., paragraph how firewood collection robs trees of nutrients), as well as a control set of slides containing no message. Subjects were then administered a questionnaire in which they were given four different yet likely hiking scenarios: firewood collection, human waste disposal, cultura l artifact removal and

PAGE 55

55 food scrap disposal. After slide exposure, each respondent was then as ked their likelihood of performing the desirable behavior with respect to each scenario. They found interpretive messaging to be just as effec tive as sanction messaging overall and more effective than sanction messaging with respect to the fi rewood collection scenario. Adherence to boating rules has also been assess ed as related to interpretive intervention. Utilizing posters, signs, decals, newspaper articles and localized radio broadcasts pertaining to boater safety, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers empl oyees were able to increase boater compliance on Detroit Lake. As a result of their interpretiv e efforts, boater compliance with water safety markers increased, and boats intruding into marked danger zones decreased (both 53%). Additionally, water skiing viola tions dropped 77%, with posters and signs having the greatest overall effect on increasing compliance (Frits chen, 1984 as cited by Knudson et al., 1995). Exemplifying yet another line of research, Gorzelany (2004) evaluated boater compliance with manatee speed zones on several Florid a waterways and found that on-water law enforcement presence had significant impact on boa ter compliance. In Sarasota County he found a statistically significant 13% increase in overall boater comp liance and a 10% decrease in blatantly noncompliant boater performance. He found a 10% increase in overall compliance and a 6% decrease in blatant noncomp liance in Lee County. Other such traffic related studies have focused on automobile travel, and results suggest that the presence of law enforcement on roads and highways substantially increases speed co mpliance (Edwards & Brackett, 1978; Graham, 1992; Leggett, 1996). The breadth and depth of inquiry into deprec iative behavior is im pressive, and although approaches, results and opinions vary, several common themes have emerged. Swearingen and Johnson (1995) suggest that simple and we ll designed communication of agency rules,

PAGE 56

56 regulations and desired behavior s can be effective in curbing all but the most malicious depreciative behavior, a position su bstantiated by several studies. Researchers have found that providing visitors with information about the impacts and costs associ ated with behaviors (Gramann et al. 1995; Oliver et al., 1985; Vander Stoep & Gramann, 1987; Widner & Roggenbuck, 2000) and rationale behind rules an d regulations (Duncan & Martin, 2002; Gramann et al. 1995) is similarly effective in reducing unwanted behaviors. Other lines of examination of have focused on message typology and suggest that strongly injunctive messages may be more effective than descriptive messages (Cialdini et al., 2006), while others have found sanction messaging to be no more effective th an interpretive messagi ng (Duncan & Martin, 2002). In general, emphasis with in recent literature seems to have shifted from the visitor as perpetrator of depreciative beha vior to poor site upkeep and design as factors facilitating unwanted behaviors (Knopf & Andereck, 2004; Knopf & Dustin, 1992; Vande Kamp et al., 1994). Personal communication is favored by some fo r its efficacy in delivering messages most likely to result in positive attitudinal or behavior al change (Knopf and Dus tin, Oliver et al. 1985; Vander Stoep & Roggenbuck, 1996). However, desp ite the fact that pe rsonal communication may be favored, high costs and logistical issu es prevent the wide-scale use of personal communication as a means of educating visitors and reducing depreciative behaviors in most settings. Given the constraints associated with pers onal communication, the most common approach to educating visitors has been to simply provide some kind of information to them, usually in print form. Many of the depreciative acts perpetra ted by visitors may be a result of insufficient knowledge, lack of skill or carel essness in their natu ral resource recrea tion pursuits (Knopf &

PAGE 57

57 Dustin, 1992). Research has shown that providi ng information that demonstrates the linkage between depreciative behavior and its impact is often sufficient to reduce the incidence of the behavior (Gramann & Vander Stoep, 1987; Oliver et al., 1985). However, the approach also may result in limited success. For example, although much money, time and effort has been spent to educate, inform and otherwise convi nce Florida boaters to abide by manatee speed zones, results have been disa ppointing (Flamm, pers. comm., 2005) Similarly, Jett (2000) found that despite a substantia l regional and local campaign to educat e river floaters about the Illinois River basin (Oklahoma), few floa ters displayed more knowledge than would have been expected by chance. Boating-related studies in Fl orida have demonstrated that boaters desire increased education and better information about boater and waterway rules and speed zone delineations (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Aipanjiguly et al. 2003; Swett et al., 2005). Boaters congruently indicate a limited understanding of waterway rules, laws, regulations and speed zone boundaries and channel signage messaging (Aipanjiguly, 2001; Ai panjiguly et al., 2003; Confer et al., 2003; Futerfas, 2003). These points are particularly salient when consid ered in relation to depreciative behavior literature suggesting that many unwanted behaviors can be eliminated by educating visitors to the rules of the area (Gramann & Vander Stoep, 1987; Oliver et al., 1985; Swearing & Johnson, 1995). Failed attempts to educate visitors might be due, in part, to a p oor understanding of the communication process and the art of persuasion (A bsher & Bright, 2004). Consistent with the need for effective communication, three general models of persua sion have emerged in visitor communication studies: 1) central route, 2) peripheral routes to persuasion (Roggenbuck, 1992; Vande Kamp et al.1994) and 3) a pplied behavioral analysis (Man fredo, 1992). Effective visitor

PAGE 58

58 management and/or educational strategies rely on one or more of the three general persuasion models to facilitate behavior change (Manfredo, 1992). Each model relies upon a slightly different mechanism and possesses a different le vel of complexity and receiver engagement. Routes to Persuasion Applied behavioral analysis utilizes e nvironmental prompting, manipulation of the environment and rewarding or punishing of beha viors (Geller, 1987). The applied behavioral analysis approach is a relatively simple me thod of changing behavior by directly addressing problems rather than influencing attitudes, be liefs or values (Manfredo, 1992). Although the approach fails to address the why of a particul ar behavior, it is consid ered relatively effective in dealing immediately with unwan ted behavior as it requires lit tle or no understanding of the perpetrator. Ham and Krumpe (1996) suggest that message s designed by resource managers often fail because they do not account for the beliefs of intended receivers and how they influence behavior. The field of social psychology provides insight into pe ripheral and central routes of persuasion, and the specific attr ibutes and efficacy of each. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), which formalizes th is research, has been utilized to examine factors that cause individuals to carefully consider a message (i .e., elaboration), and whether a particular message results in attit udinal and/or behavioral change. According to the ELM model, the central ro ute to persuasion relies upon a receivers experience and knowledge acting to facilitate attention to and c onsideration of issue-relevant messaging. The model suggests that when a message is internalized and evaluated positively it will result in enduring attitude and/or behavi oral changes. A generally strong relationship between a visitors response to persuasive me ssages and their prior experience and knowledge

PAGE 59

59 has tended to bear this out (Manfredo & Bright 1991). An understanding of visitor experience and knowledge is key to effective messagi ng via the central route to persuasion. Contrastingly, the peripheral route to persuasion relies on source credibility, message attributes and cues rather than the message it self as a means of f acilitating attitude and behavioral change, and is considered less enduri ng than the central r oute (Petty, McMichael & Brannon 1992). Despite being considered inferior for producing long-term behavioral changes, it is nevertheless commonly relied upon by reso urce managers (Reid & Marion, 2006). This approach often employs a well-known authority or spokesperson (perhaps a celebrity) conveying a simple message to visitors needing constant re inforcement to perform a certain way (Petty et al., 1992). Like applied behavioral analysis, behavior change facili tated by the peripheral route requires little insight into the vi sitor, nor is advanced knowledge of a particular issue required of the visitor. Importantly, although highly e xperienced recreationists tend to demonstrate predictable behavior, they may be more difficult to influence than those who are less experienced (Krumpe & Brown, 1982; Manfredo & Bright, 1991; Roggenbuck & Berrier, 1982). That is, attitudes and behaviors of those most experienced may be substantially influenced by a selective processing of informational inputs, which tend to reinforce their personal attitudes and beliefs (Vincent & Fazio, 1992). Predictors of Behavior Other theories have also been tested to better understand behavior al predictors. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and its succes sor the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) provide insight into visitor behavi or as a function of the relations hips among behavior, attitudes, beliefs, intentions and social norms (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). TP B differs from TRA in that it adds a volitional control factor, an actors belief that he/she has control over behavior. TRA and TPB marked an important turning point in attitude theory, with focus now on the strength of

PAGE 60

60 associations between attitude s and behaviors, rather than a questioning of whether the association existed (Manfre do, Teel & Bright, 2004). TRA has been used to predict and understand why people have engaged or not engaged in a wide variety of behaviors. In short, the theo ry assumes that individu als are rational, process available information and consider the implicati ons of their actions prior to engaging in a particular behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Th e theory states that beliefs produce either a favorable or unfavorable attit ude toward a particular behavi or, and social conditions produce perceived social pressure to engage or not e ngage in a behavior (subj ective norm). These two components combined lead to behavioral intentio n that is strengthened by favorable attitudes, and social pressure in the form of subjective norms (Ajzen, 1988; Fis hbein & Manfredo, 1992). Within the literature, attitude has most often been measured by differential scales (e.g., it would be: good-bad; healthy-unhealthy to perform this behavior), wher eas subjective norm have been measured by agreement with such statements as those who are (important; near) me think I should perform this behavior (Ajz en & Fishbein 1980). As intenti ons are thought to be the best predictors of behaviors, the TRA requires that ma nagers wanting to change or reinforce certain intentions must modify or reinforce visitor atti tudes toward performing a particular behavior as well as change or otherwise cont rol the normative pressure to perf orm that particular behavior (Fishbein & Manfredo, 1992). TRA has generally been shown to be robust in its ability to predict or otherwise explain behavior vis-a'-vis intentions. For example, Bri ght et al. (1993) successfully used TRA to model behavioral change resulting from public percep tions of a National Park Service controlled burn policy. They administered belief-targeted messages (p.271) (e.g., controlled burns: improve conditions for wildlife, destroy na tural settings, allows natural events to occur, affect private

PAGE 61

61 property, etc.) to park visitors wi th diverse attitudinal positions a nd determined if the changes in attitudes and intentions resulte d. They found that a change in intention to support a controlled burn policy was predicted by the level of attitude change and subjective norms. In their study of citizen acceptance of fore st fuel management techniques (prescribed burning, mechanical fuel reduction and defensible space ordinances), Vogt, Winter and Fried (2005) found similar success with a modified TR A model that excluded subjective norms as a way of demonstrating the attitude-intention associat ion. They surveyed citizens in several states who lived at urban-wilderness interface and assessed their belief outcomes for various management techniques (e.g., impacts scenery, extracts usable wood products, creates more smoke in the short-term but less smoke over time, et c.). Measurements were made of negative or positive attitudes and approval intentions regarding implementation of the various management techniques. Additional variab les outside the TRA model were measured including personal experience with various fuel management pract ices and measurement of personal importance each person attributed to each type of practice. The authors found that citizens with positive beliefs toward the use of various fuel management methods also tended to have positive attitudes toward their use. For example, homeowners who were most certain that management technique such as prescribed fires could be controlled (beliefs) had more positive attitudes toward prescribed fires. Additionally, while pers onal importance was a signi ficant pred ictor of acceptance of various management methodologies, past experience with a particular fuel management technique was not. Fulton, Skerl, Shank and Limes (2004) examina tion of attitudes and beliefs about killing as a means of deer management utilized a mail survey of Ohio residents designed to evaluate attitudes toward, 1) no action a nd 2) reduction of deer population by lethal control. Attitudes

PAGE 62

62 were assessed by respondents agreement with each of the two methods of deer management. By examining public comment documents, the auth ors developed 10 belief items regarding the outcome of lethal deer contro l and included agreement with items such as taking no action (or taking action) would: reduce the ri sk of deer-car collisions; redu ce damage from deer to shrubs, crops and gardens; decrease opportunities of seei ng deer, etc. As with the prior study, subjective norms were not measured. Their results demonstrat ed that the differences in the acceptability of either lethal control or no action were strong ly related to beliefs about the outcome of each strategy, thereby lending support fo r the TRA. The authors conc luded by suggesting that as attitudes were associated with multiple belief s, any communication strategy designed to change attitudes would necessarily require a focus on changing multiple beliefs. Providing insight into motorized vehicle operation, TRA has b een utilized to investigate driving behavior in terms of drinking and driving, ta ilgating, dangerous overtake and speeding. Parker, Manstead, Stradling, Reas on and Baxter (1992) asked responde nts to indicate intention to engage in various scenarios involving driving a car (by oneself or w ith passengers) and at different times of day with resp ect to the aforementioned violati ons to evaluate, 1) whether the attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control (testing the TP B) predictor variables were stable across different scenarios and 2) whether the presence or absence of passengers increased the predictive ability of the model via the subjective norm. Lists of six positive and negative behavioral beliefs rega rding the various violations we re compiled for the study, and respondents asked to rate each (in terms of lik ely-unlikely and good-bad). Normative beliefs were measured with six items regarding how likel y-unlikely it was that each of several referents would approve of the driving behavior as indica ted in the various scenarios, and motivation to comply was measure by agreement with generally liking to drive in a way in which a referent

PAGE 63

63 would approve. Additionally, intention to behave was ascertained by asking the respondent how likely-unlikely it was that they would engage in the violation as presented in each scenario. Analysis revealed that the subjective norm and attitudes toward speeding behavior accounted for 33% of the variability in intention to speed, and as the authors included control belief into the model, this improved the explained variance by 14.5%. In summary, attitude and subjective norm measures were significant predictors in th e intention to perform non-compliant behaviors as presented in each scenario, as were control beliefs and age and sex variables. Perceived expectations of others as presented in each scen ario and assessment of the ease in avoiding the non-compliant behaviors were important in their influence on intentions. Finally, Aipanjiguly (2000) and Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) employed the TRA to investigate the relationships between boater at titudes toward speed zones, in tentions to follow speed zones and subjective norms in Tampa Bay, Florida. Te lephone interviews were administered to boaters with five-point Likert scale ques tions designed to evaluate 1) beha vioral beliefs (for example, a boaters belief that ignoring sp eed restrictions facilitated re aching their destination more quickly); 2) boater attitu des with respect to statements about various behavioral actions such as disregarding speed zones isve ry good to very bad; 3) subj ective norms, ascertained through agreement with statements such as most peopl e who are important to me think that I should follow manatee speed zones; and 4) behavioral intentions, such as I intend to follow speed zones set forth for manatee protection (Aipanji guly et al., 2003, p.1100). Results suggested that behavioral beliefs toward disregarding speed zones were poorly correlated with attitudes toward disregarding speed zones, while attitudes towa rd disregarding speed zones were significantly correlated with intentions to comply (r=.32, p< .001). Moreover, normative beliefs toward following speed zones were significantly correla ted with subjective norms toward following

PAGE 64

64 speed zones (r=.45, p<.001), and that subjectiv e norms toward following speed zones and behavioral intentions were significantly co rrelated (r=.70, p<.001). Normative pressures therefore exerted the strongest in fluence on intention to follow speed zones, with motivation to comply with law enforcement shown to be higher than motivation to comply with family, friends or other boaters. Recreation Specialization The protection of outdoor recrea tion area resources has become a persistent contemporary issue among resource managers. Successful e fforts of reducing unwan ted behavior and the fostering of appropriate modes of visitation often depend on st rategic education and messaging based upon unique insight into visitor attributes and orientations (Jac obson, 1999). Recreation specialization has been examined in a variety of ways to bette r understand visitors and as a means of improving natural res ource management (Table 2-2). Recreation specialization was first introduced by Bryan (1977) to explain the continuum of behaviors from general to specific, with ones specialization level reflected in his/her skills, equipment and setting preferences. Bryans semi nal study was prompted by his participation in fly-fishing, and his subsequent obs ervation of other fly fishermen. His formal examination of the nascent theory was conducted by interviewing and observing othe r anglers in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and was intended primarily as a means by which intra-group (fly fishermen) diversity could be explored. Bryan (1977) assessed fishermen ideologi es, values, attitudes and beliefs by asking questions concerning: ) Fishi ng preferences, 2) orientation to ward the stream resource, 3) history of interest and activity in the sport and 4) relationship of the leisure activity to other areas of life (family, career, ot her leisure activities) (p.177). Supplementary data was also collected

PAGE 65

65 as convenient and mostly based upon informal disc ussions. His analyses led him to propose four types of fly fishermen (p.177): 1. Occasional Fishermen those who fish infreque ntly because they are new to the activity and have not established it as a regular part of their leisure, or because it simply has not become a major interest. 2. Generalists fishermen who have established the sport as a regular leisure activity and use a variety of techniques. 3. Technique Specialists angler s who specialize in a particular method, largely to the exclusion of other techniques. 4. Technique-Setting Specialists highly comm itted anglers who specialize in method and have distinct preferences for specific wate r types on which to practice the activity. Among his findings, Bryan (1977) noted that occasional fishermen had less particular equipment preferences than did generalists or spec ialists and that those mo st specialized typically relied on fewer but more expensive pieces of equi pment. Occasional and generalist anglers also emphasized the quantity of fish caught whereas specialists emphasized fish size and setting attributes of the activity. Setti ng preferences also change along the continuum, with occasional fishermen preferring easy access (lake or stream), with specialists preferring spring-fed streams and whose fishing enjoyment was strongly associat ed with the setting. Bryan also noted that occasional and generalist angler s preferred an active stocking policy among management, with specialists indicating more interest in habitat management as a means of improving wild fish populations. Specialists were found to travel longer distances to access fishing resources than occasional or generalist fishermen, and were also more likely to take extended vacations. Since Bryans (1977) groundbreaking work, recrea tion specialization has been utilized to explore a wide range of activities and recreationists (Table 21). Since then the construct has been operationalized a number of different ways, with most defining specialization in terms of behavior, attitudes, or a comb ination of the two. An examin ation of norms of depreciative

PAGE 66

66 behaviors by Wellman et al. (1982) was perhaps the first to measur e the construct by creating an additive index from behavioral and attitudinal domains (measu red by assessing respondent river canoeing experience, equipment ownership, linkage to other ca noeists through organizations, books, or periodicals, participation in canoe or kayaking building and formal canoeing instruction, 1979 expenditures, and a series of self-descriptions of the role of canoeing in the persons life (p.327)). The study evaluated can oeists perceptions of various depreciative behaviors by first compiling a list of depreciative canoeing behaviors (inc luding personal safety, personal property, equipment relate d safety, damage to environment, drug and alcohol use, safety toward others and other issues) and then asking canoeists their opinions of the severity of the actions. The authors created an index of specia lization by adding the standa rdized scores for all variables and specialization leve l grouped into high and low. Results demonstrated that specialization level had little effect on attit udes toward the seriousne ss of the depreciative behaviors listed. Lending possibl e explanations to the findings, the authors noted that canoeing may not have had sufficient time to for the activit y to have developed a code of proper behavior among its participants. While Wellman et al. (1982) utilized past e xperience as one domain toward the creation of the specialization inde x, others have opted to expand experi ence in an effort to capture its broader elements. The Experien ce Use History (EUH) represente d an evolution toward a more sophisticated accounting of the intensity of beha vioral involvement with ones activity. The EUH, as compiled by Schreyer and Lime (1984), included three variables to produce a composite index: 1) number of times respondents had floate d rivers, 2) number of rivers one had floated and 3) total number of rive r trips one had made. Employi ng this methodology, the authors categorized river floaters as re siding along the novice-beginner-l ocal-collector-v isitor-veteran

PAGE 67

67 experience continuum. Other re searchers have expanded the E UH concept to include a more robust evaluation of experience based upon cognitive (skill, knowledge and understanding and preference for setting attributes) and behavioral (experience with chosen activity and frequency of participation) dimensions in which the activ ity occurs (McIntyre & Pigram, 1992). In this regard, the EUH integrates the behavioral and cognitive dimensi ons of experience while ignoring the affective psychological dimensions of particip ation in a recreation ac tivity (McIntyre, 1989; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992). McIntyre (1989) was perhaps the first to fo rmally examine the affective component of specialization with a study on campsite choice. Representing the personal meaning of an activity, Enduring Involvement (EI) was demonstrated by three dimensions: centrality, selfexpression and attraction to the activity. In hi s study, McIntyre conclude d that the centrality dimension of EI was the most important in determining campsite location choice among campers, and that high centrality scores were associated with campsite choices requiring high levels of self-reliance. The author also conc luded that attraction, alt hough probably important in the evolution toward higher levels of specia lization, may not increase in tandem with higher levels of involvement, and that the self expression domain may be most important for activities which are highly individualistic such as rock climbing. Specialization theory was further advanced with McIntyre and Pi grams (1992) proposed model of specialization that in cluded both behavioral and affec tive dimensions (EI). Their model relied on the computation of a specialization index (terme d recreation involvement) from the behavioral components (years involved in an activity and number of times visited the site) and multidimensional EI components: 1) attrac tion (enjoyment derived from the activity), 2) self-expression (freedom from everyday experiences and self-affirmation) and 3) centrality to

PAGE 68

68 lifestyle (how central a role th e activity is in ones life). McIntyre (1989) and McIntyre and Pigram (1992) ushered in a new way of operationa lizing the construct. Despite this supposed advancement, McFarlanes (2004) examination of site choice among vehicle-based campers demonstrated that the self-expression items w ithin EI, as proposed by McIntyre and Pigram (1992), may be unstable as an EI measure, pe rhaps reflecting differing affective dimensions across a geographic region or with respect to th e different camping opportunities as represented by her study. In their 1992 examination of white water r ecreationists, Kuentzel and McDonald (1992) found that the items used in their analyses factor analyzed into past experience, commitment and lifestyle dimensions. However, frequency of part icipation was found to be more associated with lifestyle than past experience, with the aut hors concluding frequency of participation more a function of ones identity as an active participant. Self-reported skill asse ssment was found to be associated with experience, and as skill is may be considered less perishable than commitment of lifestyle involvement, and thus more closel y associated with the temporal component of experience (p.14) the role of skill within the specialization construc t should be further explored. They further found that past experience was ne gatively associated w ith the environmental characteristics of the river in which the activ ity occurred, and that the commitment dimension was most strongly associated with such attribut es as social interaction, water quality, fun, skill and others. Highly experienced users seemed to be aware that the ri ver provided opportunities for high-density activities on within a somewhat unnatural river setting (a major highway runs parallel to the river). Lifest yle, past experience and commitme nt dimensions were found to be negatively associated with use limitations. Fina lly, the findings suggest that analyses based on separate domains may be superior to those base d on a composite specialization index. The data

PAGE 69

69 used in the examination did not demonstrate linear relationships between th e separate domains of the specialization construct. In explaining this non-linearity, the authors s uggest that having just purchased boats, paddles and other equipm ent, paddlers may score high on economic expenditure with entry into the activity while other specialization meas ures only increase with the passing of time. In this re gard, Kuentzel and McDonald (1992) provided insight into both the need for analyzing individual domains, as well as the problems associated with behavioral and expenditure measures. There is disagreement on whether measuremen t of specialization is best accomplished by combining the various dimensions into a single additive composite index as a means of depicting a continuum of specialization, or whether individual dimensions should be analyzed separately (Manning, 1999). Various authors have demonstrated that scores within separate domains vary differentially, thus suggesting that the additive index may not be the best measure of specialization. For example, Kuentzel and Mc Donald (1992) found little relationship among the lifestyle, commitment and experien ce dimensions of river paddlers, leading them to conclude that the separate dimensions did not necessari ly increase linearly and congruently over time. Similarly, Scott and Godbey (1994) found that wh ile bridge players may commonly progress in commitment toward their activity, many of them actually demonstrated low skill or knowledge of advanced bridge practices despite substantia l experience. In other words, commitment was consistent with experience (tim e), while skill and knowledge was not. Kuentzel and Heberlein (1997) further added to this position by demonstr ating that mean responses among boater types differed within the commitment, experience an d frequency domains evaluated. Moreover, Bricker and Kerstetter (2001) demonstrated th at whitewater recreationi sts varied in their responses within each of five dimensions studie d (level of experience, skill level and ability,

PAGE 70

70 centrality of lifestyle enduring involvement and economic and equipment investment), and consequently so did their level of specializa tion. Thus, although the additive index has been widely relied upon, Scott and Shafer (2001) s ubmit that the various measures of the specialization construct are likely to differ w ith respect to other dimensions of activity involvement, and therefore preclude its use. Using confirmatory factor analysis, Lee and Scott (2004) utilized da ta from a behavior survey administered to the American Birdwatche rs Association to test the three dimensional recreation specialization progres sion model put forth by Scott and Shafer (2001). The three domains examined for their contribution to sp ecialization theory included behavior, skill and knowledge and commitment. Behavior was measured based on the number of trips taken in 2001 and the number of days pent on birding trips in that same year. Skill and knowledge was measured by self-reports of th e number of birds one could identify without a book; by sound only; and by ability to observe and identify birds on a scale from novice to expert. Commitment was operationalized by asking agreement with ite ms such as Other leisure activities dont interest me as much as birding, and I would rather go birding than do most anything else. Their results showed that each of the indicators uniquely loaded on respective factors they were meant to represent (included behavior, skill a nd knowledge and commitment) and that skill and knowledge was more representative of birder specialization than e ither behavior or commitment factors. Their results also demonstrated that th e use of single additive indices of specialization may be inappropriate, and that th e behavioral domain might be pr oblematic when situations such as poor health prevent physical access to an activity although skill and commitment remain high. Environmental Concern/Behavior Among his other submissions, Bryan (1977) hy pothesized that as one progressed through the specialization continuum within a specific ac tivity, he or she would come to increasingly

PAGE 71

71 accept the rules, norms and procedures of that acti vity as well as the development of a greater dependency on the resource (propositions 3 and 4, p.186): 3. As level of angling specialization increases, attitudes and values about the sport change. Focus shifts from consumption of fish to preservation and emphasis on the nature and setting activity. The experience b ecomes an end in and of itself. 4. The values attendant to specialization are inextricably linked to the properties of the resource on which the sport is practiced. As level of angling specialization increases, resource dependency increases. Bryan found support for both hypotheses. Speci fically, he found that those who were highly specialized shifted focus from fish c onsumption to preservation, and emphasized the nature and setting of the activity and become more dependent on the resource. Researchers have examined the premise that specialization leads to pro-environmental attitudes and/or behaviors. Ka tzs (1981) study of fly fisherme n empirically evaluated Bryans (1977) third and fourth propos itions and found that progre ss through the specialization continuum was accompanied by an increase in a ttitude toward conservation. Kauffman (1984) similarly explored Bryans (1977) third and fourth propositions among canoeists on three rivers. To assess these propositions, Kauffman (1984) cr eated an additive specialization index based upon participation, equipment, skill and central ity to lifestyle dimensions; while resource attitudes were measured by ev aluating setting preference, se tting canoed most often, setting selection factors, setting importance and enviro nmental concern. The latter was evaluated by respondents willingness to spend an extra $100 th e next year to promote the wise use of resources. Kaufmans results supported Bryans (1977) four th proposition, with the most specialized respondents indi cating the highest sense of environmental concern. In their examination of backcountry hikers fr om three primitive areas, Virden and Schreyer (1988) posited two hypotheses: 1) that highly specialized hikers w ould be most likely to focus on

PAGE 72

72 specific environmental attributes in which particip ation in their activity most depends and 2) that highly specialized hikers will be most extreme in their environmental attribute preferences. They measured specialization with an index based upon general and re cent experience, equipment and monetary commitment and centrality to lifestyle domain items. Environmental preferences were operationalized with 38 setting attributes. Their findings s upported the first hypotheses and limited support for the second, sugge sting that specialized hikers placed emphasis on naturalistic components of the setting such as the presence of bears, rugged terrain and desert canyons and that they were most negatively impacted by th e presence of consumptive activities such as logging and livestock grazing. Among the hike rs, specialization level was significantly associated with one-half of the social and physic al setting attributes listed, and 60% of the management attributes. Mowen, Williams and Graefe (1997) surmised th at outdoor recreation participants were more likely to be perceptive of the characterist ics of the setting where an activity takes place. Their research was designed to better understa nd recreation specializatio n as it pertained to general and site-specific environm ental attitudes. They operati onalized specialization with an effective domain that included self-expression, centrality to lifes tyle and attraction items and skill level with respect to their specific activ ity. A slightly modified New Environmental Paradigm scale as well as four site-specific en vironmental concern items were used to measure environmental concern. Results in dicated that the affective dimens ion was a better predictor of environmental attitudes than skill (cognitive), and that those recreationists who were most specialized reported more concern with site-sp ecific rather than broad-based environmental issues.

PAGE 73

73 Recently, Thapa (2000) explored the media tion effect of forest recreationists (appreciative, consumptive and motorized) specialization level on environmental attitudes and behaviors. Thapa computed a specializati on index based upon behavioral, cognitive and affective (EI) domain items, and measured self-reported pro-envir onmental behavior in terms of involvement in political activism, recycli ng, education, green cons umerism and community activism, within the appreciative, consumptive, motorized typologies. He found little evidence to suggest a positive association between specia lization and pro-environmental attitudes or behaviors; however, he did find that forest recreationists en gaged in appreciative activities were more likely to participate in select environmental behaviors in their daily lives. Thapa concluded that since specialization is a multidimensional construct, the use of a composite index maws a limitation, and also each activity may be most appropriately evaluated individually rather than collectively in term s of an appreciative, consumptive, motorized typology. Hvenegaard (2002) examined the relations hips between conservation involvement, motivations and demographics differ among specia lization levels. Specia lization was measured with economic commitment (3 items) and centrality to lifestyle (2 items). Based upon responses to specialization questions he categorized birders into advanc ed-experienced, advanced-active and novice groups. Hvenegaard found that a lthough specialization level was positively associated with conservation group membership, sp ecialization was not associated with actual or hypothetical financial contributions to conservation efforts. Age, income and percent male were found to be positively associated with specializat ion level; education and occupational level were not. A further examination of recreation specializa tion and its association with environmental attitudes was conducted by Dyck, Schneider, Thompson and Virden (2003). Recreation

PAGE 74

74 specialization was operationalized based on past experience (e.g., number of trips taken in past five years), economic investment (e.g., total mo ney invested inn equipment) skill level (selfreported skill level with respect to rope skills, rock climbing techniques, etc.) and centrality to lifestyle items (e.g., agreement that ones life is organized around mountai neering) with each domain comprised of between three to five indicators, later combined into a composite specialization index. Environmental attitudes were meas ured via the New Environmental Paradigm scale, while attitudes toward low impact practices were operationalized by 14 questions written by the researchers. Results de monstrated that general environmental attitudes were not associated with recreat ion specialization level, which mi ght partly have been explained by little variability in attitude s among respondents. However, attitudes toward low impact mountaineering were found to be as sociated with increasing levels of specialization. It should be noted that the scale created asse ss attitudes toward low impact mountaineering was not tested by other researchers, and thus it is not known how well it actually captured those attitudes. Based on the previous work by Meyer (2002) sh owing that recreation specialization level was associated with self-reports of avoiding coral reef contact while SCUBA diving, Thapa, Graefe and Meyer (2005) further examined the moderator and medi ator effects of specialization on the environmental knowledge-environmenta l behavior continge ncy among divers. Knowledge and behavior was measured with 16 items related to coral and reef ecology and human impacts on coral reefs as well as from diving codes of conduct manuals. Specialization was measured by items within the behavioral (5 items), cognitive (6 items, including diving certification level questions) and affective domains (6 items, which included 4 items relating to enduring involvement and 2 items relating to centr ality to lifestyle). To most effectively examine the moderator and mediator effects of specializ ation, a composite additive specialization

PAGE 75

75 index was computed. Results suggested that pro-environmen tal diving behaviors (from among questions related to contact di ving behaviors, general diving be haviors and general educational behaviors) were more common for respondents with higher ma rine-based knowledge. Similarly, divers having higher levels of specialization also demonstrated higher levels of marine-based knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors. Sp ecialization was found to be a mediator (one variable accounts for part of or all of the association between two other variables, Baron & Kenny, 1986)) but not a moderator (the association between two variables changes as a function of another variable) in the sp ecialization, knowledge and behavior triad. That is, specialization played a more important role in predicting pro-environmental behavior among SCUBA divers than did marine-based knowledge, although both were significantly related to behavior. Furthermore, in a related study, Thapa, Gr aefe and Meyer (2006) found that although the composite index and individual dimensions explained a similar amount of variance in environmental behaviors, analyses of individual specialization domains (behavioral, cognitive and affective) resulted in differe ntial predictive strengths accordi ng to specific diving behaviors. Although low internal consistency among items (a lpha = .68) may have hindered the analyses, the behavioral dimension of the specialization construct was found to be a poor predictor of depreciative diving behaviors (mak ing contact with coral) and also a weak predictor of general diving and education behavior. Overall, the a ffective dimension proved to be an especially useful predictor of environmental behavior, wi th the authors suggesti ng the finding logical as strong emotional ties to diving might naturally lead to increased part icipation in activ ities such as reading diving books and participating in community clean up programs. Depreciative Behavior in Outdoor Settings Despite the substantial social, environmental and managerial impacts depreciative behaviors levy on outdoor recreatio n areas, few studies have exam ined the relationship between

PAGE 76

76 depreciative behavior and recr eation specialization. As previously discussed, Wellman et al. (1982) evaluated attitudinal norms toward de preciative behavior and found that highly specialized canoeists were very similar in their interpretation of the seve rity and importance of depreciative behaviors than were those low on the specialization continuum. Their research utilized past experience (total number of canoe tr ips, average number trips per year, total number rivers floated) and involvement (canoeing investme nt dimension 3 items, centrality to lifestyle dimension 4 items) to create an index of special ization. A list of depreciative behaviors which one might display or be exposed to on a rive r was compiled by perusing books, literature and by consulting expert river guides. Although no di fferences were found between specialization levels (high and low), their research was limited by a small sample size, and by the fact that most highly specialized canoeists might have viewed depr eciative behaviors such as floating without a life vest to be unimportant due to their skill level in avoiding tipping. In other words, canoeing may not yet have developed a code of proper be havior (p.338). Additionally, Wellman et al. (1982) were perhaps the first to no te the problematic use of an addi tive index: It is also possible for a newcomer to canoeing to receive a high score on two of Bryan s three specialization dimensions (investment and centrality to lifesty le) and thus to receiv e a relatively high specialization index score (p.339). Meyer (2002) examined the relationship between recreation speci alization, ecological knowledge and self-reported environmental behavi or among SCUBA divers in Florida. Meyers study relied on behavioral (5 items), cognitive (6 items) and psychological (EI and centrality, 6 items) domains to measure the specialization co nstruct. She utilized four environmental behavior dimensions: 1) general environmenta l behavior (e.g., read books, watched programs about environment), 2) diver education (participa tion in refresher course s, teacher role), 3)

PAGE 77

77 physical impact with coral/wrecks (behaviors participated in that might damage coral and other marine features) and 4) physical impact with ma rine life (general behavi ors that may negatively impact marine life). Her findings suggested th at highly specialized di vers exhibited more environmentally responsible divi ng behaviors than those less speci alized, with those scoring high in the cognitive dimension least lik ely to engage in depreciative be haviors. It is important to note that the development of SCUBA diving skills such as the ability to maintain neutral buoyancy might naturally lead to pro-environm ental behavior by allo wing a diver to avoid physical contact with coral a nd other marine resources. Bireline (2005) evaluated potential bird imp act behavior of Florida birders within the specialization construct. In his investigation specialization was measured via experience (8 items), equipment and economic commitment (4 items) and centrality (5 items) domains; while birder behavior measured based upon self-assessed participation in behaviors from a list of 20 potentially negative methods of facilitating bird viewing. Contradicti ng his primary hypothesis that advanced birders would demonstrate the lo west frequency of depreciative behavior, he found that highly specialized bird ers employed potentially negative behaviors such as pishing (noise made to draw birds close) more often th an did others. Bireline concluded that When looking further at the issue of severity of poten tial impacts, this study seemed to support an advanced birder belief that the perceived bene fits of observing birds outweigh the perceived liabilities of birders actions (p. 10). Boaters and Anglers It may be logical to expect highly involved outdoor recreationists (i.e ., high investment of time and money in a particular ac tivity) to demonstrate support of natural resource management and to engage in environmentally friendly behavior s while in their recreation environment, if for no other reason than to preserve that in whic h their activity depends. In re-conceptualizing

PAGE 78

78 recreation specialization, and borrowing from pr evious findings, Ditton et al. (1992) submitted eight propositions and definitions of the continuum. Among these, proposition four states that as recreational fishing specializa tion level increases, so too doe s acceptance and support for the procedures, rules, norms associated with angling. Ditton et al.s sixth proposition postulated that as specialization in recreational fishing increa ses, so too does ones dependency on a specific resource. Various examinations, both prior to and afte r Ditton et al. (1992) have demonstrated positive associations between specialized freshw ater fishermen and attitudes toward mandatory catch and release areas, as well as minimum fi sh size restrictions (Bryan, 1977; Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz, et al., 2001) Chipman and Helfrich (1988) investigated the effects of angler specialization on motivatio ns, perceptions and preferences for management actions via on-site and mail surveying. Items within the res ource use, experience, inve stment and centrality to lifestyle domains were utilized to classify an gler specialization level. Cluster analysis was employed to identify six types of anglers, fr om low to high specializ ation levels, with the experience dimension explaining 24% of the varian ce, and a combination of resource, investment and centrality dimensions accounting for 48% of th e variability in the da ta. The authors found that management preferences and perceptions of management were significantly related to specialization. They also demonstrated that sp ecialization level was re lated to non-consumptive uses of the resource (apprecia tive uses), and that support for reduced bag limits and increased minimum length limits was highest among highly sp ecialized fishermen. Similar to Bryan (1977), they found reduced support for fish st ocking among those most specialized. More importantly, low support of closed fishing seas ons was demonstrated ac ross all specialization levels, a finding later supported by Salz et al. (2001) and Salz and Loomis (2005).

PAGE 79

79 Salz et al. (2001) tested several hypotheses related to specializa tion and the use of specialization indices. Among those tested, they evaluate d Ditton et al.s (1992) fourth proposition that highly speciali zed recreationists would indicate greater support for regulations and management rules than would less speciali zed participants. The authors chose a unique approach in their development of the specialization index by ca tegorizing part icipants as strangers, tourists, regulars and insiders within the orientation, experiences, relationships and commitment characteristics (domains) previously utilized by Unruh (1979). Statements that described a respondents connection with a pa rticular activity as related to a specific characteristic comprised the specialization m easure and were ordered from least to most specialized. A random sample of Massachusetts anglers were administered the mail survey and asked to respond to question groups such as Pleas e indicate your general orientation to the sport of fishing, Please indicate how you would best describe yourse lf during a fishing experience, Please indicate how you would best describe your relationships w ith other anglers, and Please indicate how you would best describe your commit ment to fishing (p.245). The authors chose eleven items to evaluate support for management regulations including: creel limits, no stocking allowed, maximum size, stocking non-native fish, minimum size limits, restricted fishing area, mandatory catch and release, stocking native fi sh, slot limits, voluntary catch and release and prohibiting the use of certain gear. Their finding s lent support for Ditton et al.s (1992) fourth proposition in that more specialized anglers i ndicated greater support for rules than those less specialized on 9 of the 10 signifi cant items. Support for restricted fishing areas was found to be lowest among the most specialized. Salz and Loomis (2005) further investigated Ditton et al.s (1992) fourth proposition by evaluating angler attitudes towar d, 1) restricted fishing areas a nd 2) mandatory catch and release

PAGE 80

80 areas and their relationship to recreation specialization. Data were collected via mail survey, with survey questions designed to gather info rmation on membership in fishing organizations, beliefs about recreational fish ing, attitudes toward marine protected areas, recreation specialization level and fishing enthusiasm. R ecreation specialization was operationalized in the same way as Salz et al.s (2001) study, with se gmented anglers with respect to social world characteristics (i.e. orientati on, experiences, relationships, an d commitment) (p.192). Two hypothetical marine protected areas were presented to responde nts: 1) Type A catch and release recreational fishing allo wed, with no harvesting, and 2) T ype B no fishing allowed of any kind. Recreation fishing beliefs were meas ured by agreement with various fishing belief statements such as, for example, By limiting re creational fishing catch today we can improve the quality of recreational fishing in the futu re, and Recreational sa ltwater fish species abundance is determined more by natural fluctu ations than by the number of fish caught by people (p.194). No significant differences were found across speci alization levels with respect to attitudes toward catch and release marine prot ected areas, with responses, on average, between oppose slightly and not sure/uncerta in for all three specialization levels (moderately, very, most specialized). Although not statistically significant, mean responses for support of no fishing areas decreased with increased specialization, with mean respons es low across levels (between moderately oppose and oppose slightly). Furthe rmore, the most specialized anglers also indicated the highest agreement with recreation fishing having a negati ve impact on marine ecosystems, and that raising minimum size limits would lead to healthier fish populations. Oh and Ditton (2006) further examined angler preferences using re creation specialization theory. They sought to describe angler prefer ences for fish harvest restrictions by using a preference choice model within the specia lization framework. Specialization was

PAGE 81

81 operationalized by eight items within the behavior (2 items), skill and knowledge (3 items) and commitment dimensions (3 items). Findings sugg est that acceptance and support of the rules and procedures set forth by the managing agency vari ed by specialization level, with the authors concluding that specialize d anglers were likely had a more ecological view of the resource in which their fishing took place. Based upon their approach, high levels of specialization were associated with acceptance of more restrictive rules and less willingness to relax the rules and regulations of the resource. Although not specifically designed to evaluate recreation specializa tion, Futerfas (2003) study of boater attributes and manatee conservati on attitudes among Florida boaters lends insight into boater attributes that are often utilized in specialization research. Futerfas specifically found: 1. The longer a person had been a boater the more likely they were to view zone/access rules as too strict. 2. The longer a person had been a boater the more likely they were to disagree with manatee rights to exist. 3. The longer the boat length the more likely to disagree with manat ee rights to exist. 4. The higher the number of boating outings in su mmer the more likely to favor less strict access rules. 5. Boaters who had not been members of boating related organizations were more likely to agree with manatee rights to exist. 6. Boaters who had not received boating or natu re publications are more likely to favor stricter zone and access rules. 7. Boaters who had not received boating or nature publications are more likely to agree with manatee rights to exist. 8. Boaters who had ever taken a boater education cl ass were more likely to favor less strict zone/access rules. 9. Boaters who stated that the class taught some thing helpful or interesting about manatees were more likely to favor st ricter zone/access rules.

PAGE 82

82 10. Boaters who felt boating licenses should be requ ired were more likely to favor stricter zone/access rules. 11. The older the boater the more likely s/he is to favor less strict zone/access rules. 12. The higher the income, the more likely the boater is to favor less strict zone/access rules. 13. The higher the income, the less likely the boater is to agree with manatee right to exist. Futerfas findings shed light onto the environm ental attitude/behavior literature as related to recreation specialization, especially with respec t to research that has demonstrated a positive association between specialization and environm ental attitudes/behavior s (Bryan, 1977; Katz, 1981; Kauffman, 1984; Meyer, 2002; Virden & Schreyer, 1988). Her findings are also consistent with research that has found acces s-denial regulations generally unpopular among anglers (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz & Loomis 2005; Salz et al., 2001). More specifically, her findings suggest that boaters : 1) with the most boating experience tend to demonstrate the lowest support of existing rules and regulations; 2) with the most experience tend to indicate the lowest conservation attitudes; 3) express reduced support for manatee rights if exposed to boater literature or who are members of boating organizations; and 4) w ho operate longer boats tend to disagree with manatee rights. Reported Versus Actual Behavior Studies examining environmental behaviors ha ve mostly relied upon self-reports for their ease of use and cost-effectiveness in the data ga thering process and with in a wide variety of disciplines and examinations. Despite widespr ead use of the methodology, validity analysis is lacking from most of the literature, with the fe w studies specifically a ddressing the issue casting doubt on its usefulness. Hagburg (1968) formally tested the validity of questionnaire data by comparing reported and observed behavior. The aut hor distributed questionnaires to Union Leadership Program

PAGE 83

83 students as a means of assessing the number of classes each student reported attending by responding to the question How many Union Leadership Prog ram classes did you attend the first eight weeks (and second eight weeks) of this year? Actual observed attendance was obtained from attendance records kept by the instructor, with signi ficant differences found between the actual and reported number of classes attended (p<.001). His results also suggested that temporal proximity (i.e. how soon after th e eight week cycle the questionnaire was given) had little relationship to either accurate or over -reporting; however, it did decrease the incidence of under-reporting. The author concluded, The data in general, suggest that responses are in the direction of ideal norms, i.e. high attendance in an educational program in accordance with explicit expect ations (p.456). In noting discrepancies in prior energy conservation behavior research, Warriner, McDougall and Claxton (1984) submitt ed that inaccurate self-reports might be due to accident, instrument design, or social norms of behavior. They further suggested th at accurate self-reports rely on ones willingness to answ er correctly in the face of c ognitive dissonance, and that one must be given the ability to se lect the correct responses on a su rvey (i.e. clearly worded and appropriate questions and answer s). To evaluate the congruenc y between reported and actual energy-consumption behavior, the authors aske d telephone interview respondents to estimate how much money they had spen t during the past year on home fuels, and compared these estimates to utility records. Overall, self-repo rted expenditures on energy-related fuels erred in both directions between 25% a nd 29% when compared to actu al records, with households consuming large amounts of energy consistently underreporting their consumption and with higher error.

PAGE 84

84 Reported behavior is often ut ilized as a means of determin ing patient baseline and risk factors, and as a means of creating and assessing individual health care st rategies. Lichtman et al. (1992) examined the reasons behind patients inab ility to lose weight despite reporting caloric restriction. The researchers divided their sa mple into two groups, each consisting of obese subjects. The first group consisted of indivi duals with a history of diet resistance (poor expenditure of energy in the form of food calorie), while the se cond group had no history of diet resistance, thus serving as a control. The expe rimental group was instruct ed to continue their dietary plan uninterrupted for 14 days with no modifications, while their actual energy intake and expenditure (calories) was periodically measured by calorimetry and body composition procedures. The second group was given no interven tion. Their results demonstrated that there were no differences in the thermic effects of eith er food or exercise between the two groups, thus the authors rejected low energy expenditure as a f actor in self-reported diet resistance. However, group 1 subjects overreported their physical activity by an averag e of 51% while underreporting their food intake by an average of 47%. Social research has tended to rely heavily on reported attributes, attitudes and behaviors as assessed by surveys and questionnaires. Al though rarely discussed, re search results may be substantially biased from a gene ral reluctance to divulge attitude s and behaviors that may appear socially marginal. Mick (1996) conducted two separate studies to ex amine the self-report methodology in light of socially desirable re sponding (SDR) (overre porting desirable and underreporting undesirable behaviors) with respect to dark-side consumer behaviors. The first study focused on the reporting of materialism an d self-esteem by distribu ting questionnaires to mall shoppers. Materialism and compulsive buyi ng were measured via existing 18-item and 7item scales, respectively, while an existing 10 -item scale measured self-esteem. Socially

PAGE 85

85 desirable responding was assessed with a 33-item s cale which was similarly pre-existent. The findings of his first study sugge sted that materialism, compul sive buying and self-esteem were all significantly related to SDR, with SD R biasing materialism and compulsive buying downward. While the results are intriguing, th e author points out that subjects may have perceived a lack of survey anonymity, a factor which has apparently b een implicated in SDR bias. Micks (1996) second study extended the firs t by including the same variables and methodology, a more refined scale of SDR, plus three additional components of materialism: neuroticism (tendency to experience aversive emotional states (p. 112)), self-actualization and impulse buying. Additionally, the author extracted a subset of respondents for later contacting as a means of evaluating their per ceptions of anonymity, which were found to be inconsequential to both studies. Results of his second study suggest ed that materialism, compulsive buying and impulsive buying were negatively correlated with SDR measures; that is, respondents biased their scores downward in an effort to look be tter. Respondents in the second study tended to underreport their materialism, compulsive buy ing, impulsive buying and neuroticism values while concomitantly overreporting th eir self esteem and self-actua lization values, resulting in measurement contamination (p. 114). In summar y, the author submits th at despite the general debate surrounding SDR measuremen t, SDR bias is important in social research relying on questionnaires to assess attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviors. Furthe rmore, he suggests that despite its potentially profound impact on da ta integrity, little effort has b een conducted to consider how such self-report bias may influence dark side and/or prosocial behavi oral research (e.g., proenvironmental behavior).

PAGE 86

86 Summary Motorized transportation can be an important factor in animal movement and mortality (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000) with current estimates suggesting that as many as one million vertebrates are killed by vehicles daily on U. S. roads (Lowy, 2001). Similarly, motorized aquatic transportation can exact an important toll on marine life, as evidenced by the fact that vessel strikes are currently the single most important cause of manatee mortality in Florida (FWC, 206b). Despite indications that Floridas West Indian Ma natee population may be stable or increasing (OShea 1988, OSh ea & Ackerman, 1995, Runge et al., 2004), the large degree of geographic variability in the da ta (FWC, 2005) and difficulties a ssociated with manatee counts (Lefebvre et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1998; OShea, 1988) preclude claims of success. While the Upper St. Johns and Northwest subpopulations ha ve likely experienced gr owth in numbers over the past 10 years (Runge et al., 2004 ), these subpopulations are small relative to the Atlantic and Southwest populations, which ar e thought to be in decline (FWC, 2005; Runge et al., 2004, respectively). Vessel strikes currently compri se 25-30% of all manatee deaths in Florida (Ackerman et al., 1995), and as a result, Deutsch et al. (2002) suggests that a decline in manatee survival over the next 50 years is conceivable. Vessel strikes have played prominently in historical manatee popul ation declines, and a significant correlation has been found to exist between the number of register ed boats in the state and number of vessel-induced deaths (Ackerma n et al., 1995). From 1978 to present a substantial number of sanctuar ies and speed restricted areas have been added to Floridas waterways under the direction of the Federal Mana tee Recovery Plan (FMRP) as a means toward population recovery (FWC, 2005; Reynolds, 1999). Speed reduction as th e tertiary strategy within the FMRP is based on the assumption that slower vessels cause less physical harm to an animal and that reduced speeds allow both anim al and boat operator more time for avoidance

PAGE 87

87 (Laist & Shaw, 2006; OShea, 1995). Vessel sp eed reduction is facilitated by FWC-posted seasonal and permanent idle and slow speed zone s, with enforcement o ccurring through violation ticketing. However, insufficient funding, large ge ographic areas, absence of a general boater education program and the ever-increasing number of watercraft plying Fl oridas waters all act to reduce the efficacy of this approach (FWC, 2005). Recreation boating is, for some, a quintessentially Florida. There are nearly one million registered boats in Florida (Florida Vessel Title Registration System, 2006) and the state is an important marine recreation destination (Leewor th & Wiley, 2001), attracting boaters from many geographic regions. With so many vessels plying its waterways, boat use often coincides with manatee habitats in Florida. Therefore, as manatee speed zones have been demonstrated effective in reducing manatee mortality (Laist & Shaw, 2006), speed zone compliance may be crucial to a sustainable manatee population. A limited number of manatee sp eed zone compliance studies have been conducted in the state. Poor speed zone compliance has gene rally been found, with fewer than 50%-60% of boaters fully obeying posted speed regulations (see Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Shapiro, 2001; Tyson & Combs, 1999). Furthermore, these auth ors cite that between 9% and 16% of boat operators demonstrate blatantly non-compliant be havior in manatee speed zones. Confounding the issue, boat operators have indicated to ha ve some difficulty in understanding manatee speed zone delineations and/or messa ging (Confer et al., 2003; Aipan jiguly, 2000; Aipanjiguly et al., 2003). Regardless of whether boaters understand manatee zoning or not, research has generally found that operators of small vessels are less co mpliant than operators of larger watercraft (Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Shapiro, 2001; Tyson & Co mbs) and that rental, commercial, out-

PAGE 88

88 of-state registered vessels, pe rsonal watercraft and johnboats ha ve been similarly found least compliant (Shapiro, 2001). In other lines of inquiry such as Cottrell s (1993) examination of pro-environmental behavior among boaters, boat type (motorized most compliant), boa t length (longer were least compliant), years of boater experience (most e xperienced were most compliant) and years of site-specific boating experience (positively associated) were variously associated with compliant use of environmentally friendly sewage pumpout stations. Equipment a ttributes such as boat length and type and recreationist experience may be representative of the degree of specialization as initially posed by Bryan (1977) and subse quently examined by numerous authors. Recreation specialization was first proposed by Bryan (1977) to expl ore diversity among individuals engaged in a particul ar activity. Bryan submitted that specialization was a continuum of behavior from general to specific and reflecte d in ones skill level, equipment used and setting preferences with respect to a pa rticular activity. Bryans examinations lead him to infer a continuum of specialization levels refl ected in a typology of anglers (p.177): In addition, as one progresse d through the continuum, a recreationist experienced corresponding changes in attitudes toward the re source in which the activ ity takes place, the activity itself and orientation toward the manage ment of the resource. Since Bryans (1977) research, other researchers have examined a variet y of activity groups, and ha ve utilized a variety of approaches to operati onalize the construct. Among others, recreation specia lization has been utilized to explore recreationists environmental attitudes, environmental behavi ors and attitudes toward and engagement in depreciative behaviors, although approaches a nd findings differ markedly. Wellman et al. (1982) found that highly specialized canoeists di ffered little in their norms of depreciative

PAGE 89

89 behavior from other less sp ecialized canoeists, though met hodological issues limited their findings. Thapa (2000) found little evidence to suggest a positive association between specialization and attitudes or se lf-reported behaviors among forest re creationists. Contrastingly, Meyers (2002) examination of SCUBA diver behavi or demonstrated that those most specialized reported engaging in the fewest depreciative behaviors in the form of touching or otherwise disturbing marine organisms wh ile diving. Finally, Bireline (2005) determined that highly specialized birders were more likely to rely on de preciative methods of attracting birds into view than were less specialized birders. Researchers have demonstrated negative asso ciations between speci alized fisherman and attitudes toward various fishi ng regulations (Salz & Loomis, 2005). Contrastingly, others have demonstrated positive associations between the two (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al., 2001), with the notable exception that anglers, regardless of specia lization level, seem to poorly support access-denial regulations (Chipman & He lfrich, 1988; Salz et al ., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005). Nearly all of the attitudinal and behavioral st udies included in this review have relied upon participant-reported rather than researcher-obs erved data gathering t echniques. While selfreports lend simplicity and efficiency to the data collection process, various lines of inquiry have demonstrated that reliance on th is method is a limitation in research (Lichtman et al., 1992; Mick, 1996; Warriner et al., 1984).

PAGE 90

90 Table 2-1. Boater compliance criteria (Gorzelany, 1996, 1998) Compliance Any vessel in-use that was observed to maintain a speed consistent with the posted speed restriction in the sampling area, as defined by: (1) Idle Speed: 1-3 mph (1.6-4.8 km) (2) Slow Speed: 5 -7 mph (8 to 11.2 km) Technical Noncompliance Any vessel observed to be in violation of the posted speed at a sampling site as defined by: (1) transitioning to one speed category faster than the posted speed limit (2) excessive speed, but only for a rela tively short distance within the posted area (3) traveling between 4-7 mph ( 6.4-11.2 km) if in Idle Speed zone (4) traveling between 8-15 mph (12.9-24 km) if in Slow Speed zone Blatant Noncompliance A vessel transitioning at a speed greater than one speed category faster than the posted limit through a significant portion of a speed-rest ricted area, or as defined by: (1) traveling between 8-15 mph ( 12.9-24 km) if in Idle Speed zone (2) traveling greater than 15 mph (24 km) if in Slow Speed zone

PAGE 91

91 Table 2-2. Recreation Specialization: Activities Examined Figure 2-1. Theory of Reasoned Action Activity Authors Canoeing and river floating Bricker, 1998; Bricker & Kerste tter, 2000; Bryan, 1979; Hammit & McDonald, 1983; Kauffman, 1984; Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992; Schreyer & Lime, 1984; Schreyer et al. 1984; Wellman et al. 1982 Williams et al. 1990 Hiking and backpacking Bryan, 1979; Graefe et al. 1986; Vird en & Schreyer, 1988; Williams & Huffman, 1986 Rock/mountain climbing Bryan, 1979; Ewert, 1985; Merrill, 1996; Merrill & Graefe, 1998 Forest Recreation Mowen et al. 1997; Thapa, 2000; Mountaineering Dyck et al. 2003 Birdwatching Bireline, 2005; Bryan, 1979; Cole & Scott, 1999; Hvenegaard, 2002; Lee & Scott, 2004; Martin, 1997; McFarlane, 1994, 1996 Hunting Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1992; Miller & Graefe, 2000 Bridge Scott & Godbey, 1994 Boating and sailing Cottrell, 1993; Cottrell et al. 2004; Donne lly et al. 1986; Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1997 Anglers Bryan, 1977; Chipman & Helfirch, 1986; Choi et al. 1994; Ditton et al. 1992; Katz, 1981; Oh & Ditton, 2006; Salz & Loomis, 2005; Salz et al. 2001 Camping McFarlane, 2004; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992 Mountain biking Hopkin & Moore, 1995 Horseback riding Hammit et al. 1989 SCUBA diving Meyer, 2002; Thapa et al. 2005, 2006 Behavioral beliefs Attitude toward the behavior Normative beliefs Subjective norm Intention Behavior

PAGE 92

92 CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURES This chapter is divided into the following sectio ns: 1) Study sites, 2) Selection of subjects, 3) Operationalization of vari ables, 4) Data analysis, and 5) Telephone survey of nonrespondents. Study Sites This investigation took place on the St. Johns River in southwestern Volusia County, Florida. Various manatee zone compliance stud ies have demonstrated that compliance varies from site to site and with respect to zone type (i.e., slow or id le). For this study, one idle (site 1) and one slow (site 2) speed zone were sampled, both of which were chosen due to their similar situational attributes such as year-round presence of manatees and watercraft, channel width, depth, distance from zone signage and sufficiency of vessel traffic. Both sites were implemented in the early 1990s (Bill Flowers, pers. Comm..) and are located n ear Blue Spring State park in close proximity to one another (appr oximately 1409 m apart) (Figure 3-1). Situated in the eastern half of the state of Florida, Volusia County is bordered on its western edge by the St. Johns River, which flow s south to north past DeLand and Blue Spring State Park (Figure 3-1). Between the Novemb er and March, when river water drops below 68 Fahrenheit, Blue Spring becomes a vital warm wate r refuge for manatees (St. Johns River Water Management District (SJWMD), 2006). The sp ring boil and its 712meter run to the St. Johns River are designated Class III waters by the st ate, allowing recreation and providing for the maintenance of healthy fish and wildlife populat ions (SJWMD, 2006). The spring and its run are designated as critical manatee habit 1 by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with manatee count data demonstrating an increase in the number of individuals observed from 28 in 1 Critical habitat defined as an area necessary to the no rmal needs or survival of the species (USFWS, 2006).

PAGE 93

93 1978 to 130 in 2004. Besides their winter presen ce in the spring and run, manatees are found throughout the entire stretch of St Johns River in Volusia County dur ing all months of the year. Since 2000, 30 manatee deaths have been attributed to vessel strikes in Volusia County (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 2006a). The St. Johns River is important for river transportation and recr eational and commercial fishing. There are currently more than 30,000 regi stered vessels in Volusia County, representing a five percent increase in registrations since 200 2 (Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2006). In addition, boaters from other Florida counties as well as other states visit the river near Blue Spring State Park. Considerable daily use by watercraft in combination with the rivers importance in manatee conservati on has resulted in the official posting of 326 slow and idle speed zones in the county, with 92 located on th e St. Johns River (FWC, 2006b). This investigation obtained observational data from the banks of the St. Johns River for one slow speed zone and one id le speed zone (Figure 3-1). The idle speed zone, which encompassed site 1, extends approximately 804m nor th of the confluence of the St. Johns River and Blue Spring run (approximate ly 28'50.94" N, 81'22.52" W). Further, site 1 is located 18 m south of the entrance to a slow speed zone and 617m north of the confluence between the Blue Spring run and the St. Johns River. Site 1 observations were performed overlooking the water channel from east to west from a small sandy area among dense riparian vegetation. The setting allowed the researcher to blend with the surrounding elem ents while maintaining a wide view of boat traffic. The slow speed zone in which sampling site 2 was located extends approximately 603m south of the confluence between the Blue Spring run and the St. Johns River. Site 2 is located 189m south of the entrance to the idle speed zone and 792m south of confluence. Site 2 sampling was similarly pe rformed with the obser vations over the water

PAGE 94

94 channel from east to west. Access to sampling site 2 required the researcher to navigate with the use of a kayak south from the vicinity of s ite 1 to a small opening among the vegetation and trees. Once at the respective de stination, the kayak was pulled into the forest, and observations were made with the researcher almost entirely hidden from the view of boaters. Channel widths at sampling sites 1 and 2 were 89m and 84m respectively. Selection of Subjects Field observations were perfor med to establish vessel speeds at sampling sites 1 and 2, to document various vessel, situational and party size attributes, and to obtain hull registration numbers of sampled boats. Observational data collection occurred on 17 days between July 29, 2006 September 24, 2006 (see Table 3-1). Field Observations Based on a projected target population of 30,000 potential boaters within Volusia County, and the assumption that boaters from other counties do not likely use the river, a sample size of approximately 380 mail surveys were required to obtain a confidence in terval of 5% and a confidence level of 95% (Agresti & Finlay, 1997 ). A minimum sample size of approximately 1000 vessel observations was targeted, and each ve ssel that passed through a sampling site was assessed. In total, 1669 vessels were observed, of which 150 were rental vessels, and 460 were either repeat observations or vessels that possess ed missing, illegible or in valid Florida numbers. Rentals, repeat observations ( hull numbers which had already b een noted), and vessels with missing, illegible or invalid Florida registration numbers were eliminated from the pool of potential respondents. Individual boats were only assessed upon their first pass, with subse quent passes ignored. Additionally, at the conclusion of weekend observations and prior to survey mail out, hull numbers were sorted to eliminate those vessels observed during prior ou tings. Law enforcement

PAGE 95

95 and Coast Guard vessel speeds and attributes were not documented, although the presence of law enforcement vessels was noted when identified within the researchers field of view. One site was sampled each day on Saturdays and Sundays (one Friday and Monday were also sampled, the later of which was Labor Da y), with most observations conducted between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Water depth (7.9m site 1; and 8.5m site 2) and distance to speed zone signs (187m north of site 1, 189m north of site 2) were established during the first sampling event (Figure 3-1). Date, AM/PM, ambient temper ature (degrees Fahrenheit), site number, speed posting (idle or slow), day of the week, and sky conditions (clear, pa rtly cloudy, cloudy, rain) were noted for each observation (see Field Data Sheet Appendix D). Speed Calculation Within each site, speed was assessed by first ch oosing two fixed markers (usually trees) on opposite banks from observer position, and the an gle from observer to each point determined with hand held compass (Figure 3-2). Secondly, a laser range finder was utilized to determine the distance (in feet) from the obser ver to a vessel once a vessel had crossed a line-of-site to first fixed marker on the opposite bank. Once crosse d, a stopwatch count wa s initiated until the observed vessel crossed a second fixed marker, at which time the stopwatch was stopped and another distance measurement conducted. Distance traveled was calculated according to cosine law (1), and then speed (mph) determined (2): 1. a = b + c 2ac cos 2. (((a / seconds) 60) 60) / 5280 = mph Vessel speed determination was a crucial componen t of this research. Reliability data for vessel speed calculations was generated via 30 automobile observations conducted at known speeds. Speed calculations, as described above were then noted and the resultant speeds were analyzed against known automobile speeds to determine if statistical differences occurred. A

PAGE 96

96 paired t-test between known and calculated speeds found no statistical difference (t(29)=1.25, p=.221). Supporting Parameters In addition to vessel speed parameters, supportin g data were documented such as time of observation, boat type (pontoon, sail ski, johnboat, runabout, fis h, yacht/cruiser, other), boat length (less than 12 feet, 12 to 15 feet, 16 to 25 feet, 26 to 39 feet, 40 to 64 feet, 64 to 109 feet, greater than 109 feet), pa rty size, presence/absence of law enforcement within site of observer, Florida hull registration number (f or later querying), and whether or not the boat was a rental (if obvious). The distribution of observati on times are illustrated in Table 3-2 As other investigators have found that boat length may be associated with compliance, boat length data was captured by estimates made during field obser vation and by responses to the mail survey. The relationship between observe d and respondent-indica ted vessel length was investigated using Pearson-r correlation. A positi ve and significant corr elation between the two variables was found, indicating a fairly high de gree of association between observed and reported vessel length (r=.364, p<.01). Mail Survey To facilitate the mail survey the Florida boat number was noted in the field used to obtain the name and mailing address of the boat owner from the VTRS. The survey instrument was mailed on the Monday or Tuesday immediately fo llowing weekend observations. In this way, observed vessel speed and boat/boate r attributes could be matched on a 1:1 basis with the followup boater survey. It was assumed that individua ls responding to the mail survey were those observed on the water, and that they had not boa ted since being observed. Both assumptions were evaluated with the mail survey instru ment. Of the 236 surveys returned, 200 (85%)

PAGE 97

97 indicated that their last boat outing corresponded to the date that they were observed on the water, with 203 (86%) noting that they were the primary operator of the vessel. The mail survey instrument included questi ons (Appendix A) to ev aluate boater: 1) recreation specialization level, 2) vessel attribut es, 3) marine conservati on attitudes, 4) selfreported compliance behavior, 5) speed zone signage assessment, 6) operator knowledge and history, 7) TRA, and 8) demographics. The mail survey used Dillmans (2000) method to maximize response rates. Additionally, a bolded re d label was affixed to each envelope with the statement Opinions needed for waterway manage ment as a means of generating interest in participating in the survey. A total of 1059 surveys were mailed, 23 were returned as undeliverable, and 236 were returned as useable resulting in a 23% response rate. Operationalization of Variables Vessel Use and Attributes The question When did you last operate your bo at on the St. Johns River was used to determine if the participant was providing responses relative to the outing in which they were observed on the water. Additi onally, questions such as Wer e you the primary vessel operator during the trip, Where did you last operate your boat, and When did you last operate your boat on the St. Johns River helped to ascertai n whether the respondent answered the survey questions relative to obser ved boating behavior. Respondents were asked to denote the type of boat they used during their last outing as a means of determining whether certain vessel classes were more or less in violation of waterway speed limits. Respondents were given a list of ve ssel types such as Pontoon, Fish, Personal Watercraft and others (boat classes adap ted from Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004). Respondents were asked to indicate the length of the hull of the boat, since prio r research indicated that vessel length is associated with manatee speed zone compliance (Gorzelany, 1996, 2001, 2004; Tyson

PAGE 98

98 & Combs, 1999). In addition, a contingency question asked, Does this boat have a speedometer, the lack of which may help to explain vessel noncom pliance within speedrestricted areas. Recreation Specialization Recreation specialization was conceptuali zed based three dimensions: behavioral, cognitive and affective. Within each recreat ion specialization domain, several items were employed. Since the specia lization items included a mix of ordi nal, interval and ratio measures, a composite additive index was created using Z-score transformations for all specialization items. Furthermore, individual indices scores for the three domains (b ehavioral, cognitive and affective) were created utilizing Z-score tran sformations. This process has been employed by various researchers that have ut ilized the specialization construc t (see Dyck et al., 2003; Meyer, 2002; Thapa, 2000; Virden & Schreyer, 1988; Wellman et al., 1982). Behavioral Dimension The behavioral domain consisted of four items adapted from the literature (Table 3-3). The internal consistency of th e behavioral dimension items we re analyzed using Cronbachs standardized alpha. The alpha value for this di mension was .62. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a behavioral domain index. Cognitive Dimension The cognitive domain also consisted of four ite ms adapted from the literature (Table 3-3). The internal consistency of the cognitive di mension items were analyzed using Cronbachs standardized alpha. The alpha value for this di mension was .77. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a cognitive domain index.

PAGE 99

99 Affective Dimension The affective domain consisted of seven items ad apted from the literature (Table 3-3). The internal consistency of the cognitive dime nsion items were analyzed using Cronbachs standardized alpha. The alpha value for this dime nsion was .75. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create an affective domain index. Composite Recreation Specialization Index Similarly, the composite specialization index wa s tested for internal consistency for all 15 items using Cronbachs standardized alpha. Following the analysis, the composite index registered an alpha value of .81 (Table 3-3). Marine Conservation Attitudes Marine conservation attitudes we re operationalized using four items tied to a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on two conceptual domains: attitudes toward manatee conservation (2 items); and attitudes toward general marine conservation (2 items). The f our items were combined to create a composite marine conservation attitude index. Following the creation of the index, the items were subjected to a reliability analys is using Cronbachs alpha analysis The standardi zed alpha value was .80. Knowledge In addition to marine conser vation attitudinal items, several knowledge based questions with respect to manatees were asked of respondents. Recently, FWC passed a vote recommending that the manatee be downlisted in status from endangered to threatened at the state level, with much public ity and controversy surrounding the decision. In order to assess boaters knowledge of the current level of manatee listing, respondent s were asked whether manatees were officially listed in Florida as Species of special concern. Threatened,

PAGE 100

100 Endangered, or Manatees are not listed. Additionally, boater knowledge of boat speed behavior in idle and slow speed zones was a ssessed by two questions: W hen in an idle speed zone, a boater should, and When in a slow speed zone, a boater should. Correct answers for each were based on state definitions 2. Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior Two items were used to as certain boaters self-reporte d level of compliance and noncompliance with vessel speed zones. The items were based on a five point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5 = strong ly agree), and prompted responde nts to indicate their level of agreement with the statements, I fully comp lied with manatee speed zones during my most recent boating experience, and I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones during my most recent boatin g experience. The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis. Th e standardized alpha value was .66. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items we re summed to create a self-reported compliance index. Furthermore, based on a dichotomous (yes/ no) format, boaters were also asked to report if they had ever been ticketed for violating boat speed restrictions. Finally, boaters were asked to indicate the t op five reasons for non-compliance with boat speed restrictions. For this question, respondents were given 14 potential reasons, whereby five ranked responses (1=most important, 2= second mo st important, etc.) were solicited. Questions were adapted from Futerfas (2003) (Table 3-5). 2 Any vessel operating in a speed zone posted as Idle Speed No Wake must operate at the minimum speed that will maintain steerageway. Any ve ssel operating in a speed zone posted as Slow Down Minimum Wake must operate fully off plane and completely settled in water.

PAGE 101

101 Speed Zone Signage Assessment Speed zone signage assessment was operationalized using six items tied to a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5 ). The items were based on: signage assessment in manatee zones (three item s adapted from Confer et al., 2003), and general boat safety zones (three items, researcher written). Signage Assessment in Manatee Zones Signage assessment in manatee zones was operationalized based on three items (Table 36). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value was .87. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a manatee zone signage assessment index. Signage Assessment in Gen eral Boat Safety Zones Signage assessment in general boat safety z ones was operationalized based on three items (Table 3-6). The items were subjected to a reliab ility analysis using Cro nbachs alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value was .88. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a general boat safety zone signage assessment index. Composite Signage Assessment Index A composite signage assessment index was al so computed for the values of all six signage assessment items. Reliability analysis us ing Cronbachs alpha regi stered a standardized alpha of .91. Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Reasoned Action was operationalized using nine items tied to a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on three conceptual domains: attit udes, subjective norm and intention. All but two items were adapted from Aipanjiuguly (2001).

PAGE 102

102 Attitudes Attitude assessment within the TRA construc t was operationalized based on three items (Table 3-7). The items were subjected to a reliab ility analysis using Cro nbachs alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value was .63. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create an attitude index. Subjective Norm Subjective norm assessment within the TRA construct was operationalized based on three items (Table 3-7). The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value was .62. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a subjective norm index. Behavioral Intention Behavioral intention assessment within the TRA construct was accomplished based on three items (Table 3-7). The items were subj ected to a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis. The standardized alpha value wa s .76. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a behavioral intention index. Demographics There were five demographic indicators used in the survey instrument. Items assessed were gender, age, education (categories: L ess than High School, High School diploma, Attended business/technical school Some college or 2-year degree, Completed 4-year college degree, Some graduate work, and Com pleted graduate or advanced degree), and income (categories: Less than $14,999, $15,000 to $34,999, $35,000 to $49,999, $50,000 to $64,999, $65,000 to $99,999, $100,000 to $149,999, $150,000 to $199,999, and Over $200,000).

PAGE 103

103 Supplemental Items Two questions were additionally posed to res pondents. The first question, How do you feel about removing manatees from the endangered species list was coded on a five point Likert scale format (1=strongly disagree with re moving them, 2=disagree with removing them, 3=neither agree nor disagree w ith removing them, 4=agree w ith removing them, 5=strongly agree with removing them, and 6=not sure/nor response). The second question, Please check the number of times you have seen manatee wh ile boating during the past 12 months (choices: Never, to 2 times, to 4 times, to 6 times, -8 times, -10 times, Greater than 10, Not sure) was adapted from Confer et al. (2003). Telephone Survey of Non-Respondents Mail surveying is a heavily relied upon method for conducting social research; however, low response rates can be problematic. Low respons e rates in mail surveying may impart bias to a sample if non-respondents differ in characteri stic from respondents, in which case sample means may differ from those of the population of interest. Although Babbie (2004) contends that a response rate of 50% is adequate for statistic al analyses, there seems to be little consensus about an acceptable response rate for mail survey research (Dolsen & Machlis, 1991). For this particular study, a 23% response rate was achie ved. Based on a procedure used by Cottrell (1993), non-response bias was evaluated by conduc ting a telephone survey of a random sample of non-respondents based on 14 questions from the mail survey instrument (Appendix B). A systematic random sample of 40 vessel owners representing five percent (N=800, interval = 20) of all non-respondents were se lected to be surveyed by telephone between November 27 and December 5, 2006. Telephone num bers of non-respondents selected for phone surveying were procured by sear ching the Internet ba sed on the names and addresses generated for the initial survey mail out.

PAGE 104

104 Fourteen telephone numbers could not be loca ted, and as a result fourteen replacement names were randomly selected. Of these repl acements, five telephone numbers could not be located, six refused the survey for various reason s, and four numbers were never found. In an effort to contact at least 30 non-respondents, a systematic random sample of 20 additional vessel owners was conducted. Of this sample, five phone numbers were never found, two were never reached and two declined the survey. In total, 36 telephone interviews were conducted, with the sample means and distributions of questions comp ared on a per question basis with the original mail survey results. Variables examined in the phone survey anal yses included 1) number of years a boater, 2) boat type, 3) hull length, 4) self-assessed general boating skill, 5) agreement with manatees being worth saving despite regula tion, 6) agreement with boat safety zones causing too many inconveniences, 7) agreement with fully comp lying with manatee speed zones during most recent boating experience, 8) agreement with mana tee speed zones being well marked, 9) general support for Floridas boating rule s and regulations, 10) knowledge of idle sp eed zone definition, 11) ticketing history, 12) agreem ent with removing manatees from the endangered species list, 13) importance of having the freedom to get to a destination quickly while boating, and 14) intention to follow manatee speed zone restrictio ns the next time one boated. Both the question wording and response choices were identical to those of the mail survey instrument. Results of the analyses are presented in Appe ndix C. Fourteen variables were examined for distribution and/or statistic ally significant differences be tween the mail survey and phone survey results. Of those tested for significan ce, six were found to differ at the .05 level of significance. Employing an independent sample s t-test, significant differences were found between mail and phone respondents with respect to the number of years a boater (t = -2.45; p

PAGE 105

105 <.05), with mail respondents boatin g more years (mean = 26 yrs) than phone respondents (mean = 19 yrs). The median vessel length was the same for both groups (both 3.0, indicated that the boats between the length of 16f t and 25ft were the most commonly used for both respondents and non-respondents). Mail responde nts depicted themselves as having slightly higher general boating skills than telephone respondents, a lthough the difference wa s not statistically significant. Mail respondents in dicated significantly higher agreement with the statement that Manatees were worth saving de spite the need for regulations (mean 3.9) than did phone respondents (mean 3.5) (t = -2.21; p = <.05). Similarly, mail and telephone respondents differed significantly in their ag reement that Boat safety zones cau sed too many inconveniences (t = 3.6; p<.05), with mail respondents indicating mu ch higher agreement (mean = 3.2) than did telephone respondents (mean = 2.5). Both groups were very similar in their high level of agreement with fully complying with manatee sp eed zones during their la st boat outing, although the two groups differed significantly in their agreement with manatee speed zones being well marked (mean 3.0 and mean 3.5, phone and mail res pondents, respectively) (t = 2.92; p <05). Mail respondents indicated significantly great er support for Florida s boating rules and regulations (mean = 3.9) than did those intervie wed by telephone (mean = 3.5; t = 2.94; p <.05). Finally, mail respondents did not differ from te lephone respondents in agreement with their feelings toward removing manatees from the e ndangered species list; impor tance in the freedom to get to ones boating destination; or intention to follow manatee speed z one restrictions during ones next boat outing. Chi square analysis demonstrated that ma il respondents had been ticketed more often than telephone respondents (X2 = 13.49; p <.05). Boat types we re then compared between mail and phone respondents. Although chi square analysis could not be utilized due to insufficient

PAGE 106

106 expected cell frequencies, percen tages of vessel types within each category did not differ greatly between mail and phone data. Twenty-three a nd 28% were fishing vessels (mail and phone responses, respectively); 5% and 11% were john boats (mail and phone responses, respectively); 11% and 17% were yachts/cruisers (mail and phone responses, respectively); 25% and 17% were pontoons (mail and phone responses, respectively); 3% and 6% were personal watercraft (mail and phone responses, respectively); 25% and 14 % were runabouts (mail and phone responses, respectively); and about 8% were ski boats in both samples. Responses to the question when in an idle speed zone, a boater should was examined for both mail and phone respondents. Approximately four percent mail and eight percent of the phone respondents chose answer A (Travel no faster than 5 mph); 81% of mail and 72% of phone respondents chose correct answer B (Create no wake); 12% of mail and 11% of phone respondents chose C (Create minimum wake); and 3% of mail and 8% of phone respondents chose D (Not sure). A Chi-square test of independence suggests th at the proportion of mail respondents who answered this co rrectly was not signifi cantly different from the proportion of telephone respondents who answered correctly. Data Analyses Data was stored and analyzed with SPSS ve rsion 14.0, with all analys es evaluated at the .05 level of significance unless othe rwise noted. In addition to research question and hypotheses testing, the sample of boaters and key constructs were first described by frequencies and other appropriate descriptive methods. Specialization analyses were based on separate domain indices (behav ioral, cognitive and affective) as well as a composite index. Simila rly, marine conservation a ttitude analyses were based upon separate domain indices for analysis (attitudes toward manatee conservation, and attitudes toward general conser vation) and a composite index. With the exceptions noted, all

PAGE 107

107 Likert scale data generated by th e survey instrument were converted to indices for analyses; therefore, parametric statistical methods were utilized (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Unless otherwise noted, vessel speed discrepancy (observed speed minus the maximum allowable 3 speed within the zone) wa s utilized as a response variable for those anal yses relying on vessel speed. Utilizing speed discrepancie s rather than absolute speeds served to standardize the data generated within the two different zones (Idle, site 1; and Slow, site 2). Furthermore, the speed discrepancy calculation allowed a fu ll exploration of the degree to which a boater was compliant or non-compliant with boat speed restrictions. In summary, the overarching purposes of the an alyses that follow were to evaluate the relationships between observed vessel speed a nd recreation speci alization, marine conservation attitudes and self-reported compliance behavior Additionally, Theory of Reasoned Action, boat and boater attributes, and situational factors were examined as predictors of boater compliance within speed restricted mana tee conservation zones. Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing Research question one was tested using an independent samples t-test to determine if mean speed discrepancy (observed speed minus maximum allowable speed) differed between those who had been ticketed and those who had not in the past for boat speed violations. Research question two also an independent samples t-test to evaluate whether mean speed discrepancy differed between the two sampling site s (slow and idle speeds) Question three used a regression analysis to evaluate whether or not speed discrepancy was influenced by vessel party size as observed on the water. For ques tion four, one-way ANOVA was used to determine 3 Maximum allowable vessel speeds are defined by Sarasota County (2006) according to the following: Idle zone: generally not to exceed 3 mph; Slow zone: generally not to exceed 7 mph.

PAGE 108

108 if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed betwee n the categories of vesse l lengths. Similarly, for question five the mean difference in vesse l speed discrepancy between the various vessel types (pontoon, fish, personal wate rcraft, runabout, johnboat, sail, yacht/cruiser, ski, and other) was evaluated with ANOVA. Research questio n six was evaluated with one-way ANOVA to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy di ffered based on the number of times a manatee was observed while boating during the past 12 mont hs. Research question seven used Pearson r correlation analysis to examine boaters asse ssment of on-water signage on vessel speed discrepancy. Similarly, for rese arch question eight, a Pearson r correlation was used to examine the association between recreation specialization (b ehavioral, affective, cognitive, and composite specialization indices ba sed on Z-scores) and speed zone si gnage assessment (manatee speed zones, general boat safety speed zones, and com posite speed zone signage assessment indices). Finally, Research question nine was analyzed by first employing a series of Pearson r correlations between the TRA indices, after wh ich multiple regression was performed between the same TRA indices. Hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4 were testing using Pears on r correlations to determine if recreation specialization was associated with observed ve ssel speed discrepancy, self-reported compliance behavior, marine conservation att itudes, and behavioral intenti ons. Prior to hypothesis testing, responses to the recreation specia lization items were first convert ed to Z-scores. Vessel speed discrepancy (observed speed minus maximum allowa ble) was used to stan dardize the different maximum allowable speeds within the slow speed and idle speed zones. Responses to questions within the recreation specializa tion, marine conservation attit ude and behavioral intention domains were summed to create indices for hypothesis testing.

PAGE 109

109 Pearson r correlation was employed to te st Hypothesis five, which evaluated the association between the inde x self-reported compliance behavior and observed speed discrepancy. An independent samples t-test was additionally performed to determine if compliant boaters (as determined by field observa tion) differed from non-compliant boaters in their level of self-report ed compliance behavior. Hypotheses 6, 7 and 8 were tested using Pears on r correlations to evaluate the association between marine conservation attitudes, vessel speed discrepancy, behavioral intentions, and selfreported compliance behavior. Indices of marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions and self-reported compliance behavior were used for hypotheses testing. Hypotheses 9 and 10 were tested using Pearson r correlations to evaluate the associations between behavioral intentions and self-re ported compliance behavi or and vessel speed discrepancy. Indices of behavi oral intention and self-reported compliance behavior were used for hypothesis testing. Prior to performing a path analysis to test the hypothesized associa tions presented in the proposed model (Figure 1-1), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the scales used in the survey instrument. CFA was used to discern factor loading, and to determine item deletion due to cross loading on more than one factor (Pallant, 2005). As a result of the CFA analysis, number of boating-related magazi ne subscriptions and/or books, number of boating-related items, and number of boating-re lated clubs were dropped from the affective domain of the recreation specializ ation construct. Similarly, the affective domain item Boating and boating-related activities are one of the most enjoyable th ings I do, the entire behavioral domain of the recreation specializ ation construct, and I generally support Floridas boating rules and regulations from marine cons ervation attitudes were deleted due to low convergent validity.

PAGE 110

110 After model modification, a path analysis was performed to determine the predictive validity between recreation specialization, marine conservation attitudes, behavioral intentions, selfreported compliance behavior, and vessel speed discrepancy. AMOS 7.0 software was employed for both CFA and path analyses.

PAGE 111

111 Figure 3-1. St. Johns River sampling sites Idle Speed Sampling Site (Site 1) N 1000 m Blue Spring Boil Slow Speed Sampling Site (Site 2) St. Johns River

PAGE 112

112 Table 3-1. Sampling schedule and observations Date Day Zone type Vessels observed 7/29/2006 Sat Idle 146 7/30/2006 Sun Slow 122 8/12/2006 Sat Slow 148 8/13/2006 Sun Idle 78 8/18/2006 Fri Idle 13 8/19/2006 Sat Idle 65 8/20/2006 Sun Slow 127 8/26/2006 Sat Slow 71 8/27/2006 Sun Idle 79 9/2/2006 Sat Idle 88 9/3/2006 Sun Slow 145 9/4/2006 Mon Idle 109 9/9/2006 Sat Slow 84 9/16/2006 Sat Slow 137 9/17/2006 Sun Idle 87 9/23/2006 Sat Idle 78 9/24/2006 Sun Slow 87 Total 1670 Figure 3-2. Vessel speed calculation Observer Vessel travel a

PAGE 113

113 Table 3-2. Field obs ervation attributes Parameter Frequency Percent* Time 0900-0959 16 1 1000-1059 102 9 1100-1159 248 21 1200-1259 263 22 1300-1359 239 20 1400-1459 211 18 1500-1559 114 9 1600-1659 14 1 Vessel length (ft) <12 43 4 12-15 323 27 15.1-25 744 61 25.1-39 86 7 39.1-64 12 1 Vessel type Fishing 278 23 Johnboat 54 5 Yacht/cruiser 138 11 Pontoon 298 24 Personal watercraft 39 3 Runabout 299 25 Ski 92 8 Other 11 1 The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 100%

PAGE 114

114 Table 3-3. Reliability analysis for recreation specialization Recreation specialization Corrected item total correlation Alpha if item deleted Corrected item correlation Alpha if item deleted Behavioral a, 1 Individual dimensions Overall index Number of years a boater .32 .61 .47 .80 Number of days boated in past 12 months .66 .34 .53 .79 Number of days boated in Volusia County in past 12 months .52 .46 .42 .80 Number of different water bodies boated during your life .16 .71 .21 .82 Standardized item alpha .62 Cognitive b, 2 My general boating skill level .71 .49 .53 .79 My knowledge of general boating rules and regulations .62 .53 .53 .79 My knowledge of Volusia County waterway rules and regulations .31 .65 .33 .81 My comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore .43 .63 .48 .80 Standardized item alpha .77 Affective c Number of items owned which are related to boating, excluding tow vehicle 1 .40 .73 .32 .81 Total number of boating magazine subscriptions and boating-related books 1 .42 .73 .31 .81 Number of boating-related clubs 1 .24 .77 .18 .82 I find that a lot of my life is organized around boating 3 .49 .71 .40 .81 Boating and related activiti es are one of the most enjoyable things I do 3 .58 .69 .57 .79 Boating is very important to me 3 .54 .70 .49 .80 Boating says a lot about who I am 3 .60 .68 .66 .80 Standardized item alpha .75 Composite index standardized alpha = .81 1 Based on total count 2 Likert scale: 1 lowest to 10 highest 3 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 a Adapted from Donnelly et al. ( 1986), Virden & Schreyer (1988) b Adapted from McIntyre & Pigram (1992), Meyer (2002) c Adapted from Bricker & Kerstetter (2000), Donnelly et al. (1996), Hvenegaard (2000), Sutton & Ditton (2001), Virden & Schreyer (1988)

PAGE 115

115 Table 3-4. Reliability analysis for marine conservation attitudes Manatee conservation attitude Corrected item correlation Alpha if item deleted Overall index Manatees worth saving desp ite need for regulations a, 1 .62 .74 Boat speed reduction is an eff ective manatee protection strategy a, 1 .73 .67 Boat speed reduction is an effec tive general marine conservation strategy 1 .60 .75 I generally support Floridas boa ting rules and regulations 1 .50 .79 Composite index standardized alpha = .80 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 a Adapted from Aipanjiguly (2001) Table 3-5. Reasons for choosing non-compliance Reasons you may not comply Mean* a. Gets too hot when boat goes slow 2.9 b. Need to get somewhere 2.9 c. Other boats are going fast 3.1 d. Other people on my boat want to go faster 3.7 e. Its fun to go faster 3.8 f. Those I learned from never complied 5.0 g. To get out of the rain 2.4 h. I dont care about speed zones 3.1 i. Bad zone signage/cant understand 2.0 j. I dont like being told how to operate my boat 3.8 k. I dont agree with the zone 2.5 l. I know that there are no officers in the area 4.5 m. Not paying attention 2.5 n. Other (please list) lightni ng most commonly cited Number represents the mean response, with smaller means=more important

PAGE 116

116 Table 3-6. Reliability analysis for speed zone signage assessment Speed zone signage assessment Corrected item total correlation Alpha if item deleted Corrected item correlation Alpha if item deleted Signage assessment in manatee zones a, 1 Individual dimensions Overall index Manatees speed zones are well marked .79 .79 .76 .89 Manatee speed zone signs are easy to read .81 .78 .79 .89 I can always tell when Im in a manatee speed zone .68 .89 .72 .90 Standardized item alpha .87 Signage Assessment in General Boat Safety Zones 1 General boat safety speed zones are well marked .81 .78 .82 .89 General boat safety speed zone signs are easy to read .78 .82 .77 .89 I can always tell when Im in a general boat safety zone .71 .88 .59 .91 Standardized item alpha .88 Composite index standardized alpha = .91 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 a Adapted from Confer et al. (2003)

PAGE 117

117 Table 3-7. Reliability analysis for theory of reasoned action constructs TRA Corrected item total correlation Alpha if item deleted Attitudes a, 1 Having the freedom to get to my destination quickly while boating is important .34 .72 Having no threat of ticketing fo r disregarding boat speed zones is important .50 .45 Having fun while on my boat is more important than obeying boat speed zones .54 .45 Standardized item alpha .63 Subjective Norm a, 1 When boating, I want to do what my family and friends think I should do .63 .17 When boating, I want to do what ot her boaters think I should do.68 .09 When boating, I want to do what law enforcement officers think I should do .08 .87 Standardized item alpha .62 Behavioral Intentions 1 I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time I boat a .61 .73 I intend to follow general boat safe ty speed restrictions the next time I boat .65 .64 Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that will not harm the environment .61 .68 Standardized item alpha .76 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 a Items adapted from Aipanjiuguly except those noted

PAGE 118

118 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Field Observation In situ speed, vessel and operato r attributes were collected for boaters in Southwestern Volusia County, Florida during June 2006 September 2006. Of the 1670 vessel observations made, 1059 were useable after the repeat observations, rentals a nd those with missing, illegible, or unlisted vessel numbers were removed from the database. Rental vessels comprised about 12% of the total useable sample, none of which wh ere utilized for the mail survey portion of the investigation, as rental vessel ope rator names and addresses could not be queried with the Florida Vessel Title Registration System. The mean party size observed in the vessels was about three people (median=3.0), with group sizes ranging from one to fifteen persons However, most vessels (82%) had four passengers or fewer, including the operator. Mo st vessels were between 15.1-25 ft in length (60%), followed by 12-15 ft in length (30%) (Table 4-1). With respect to vessel types observed on the water, runabouts were the most common (28%), followed by fishing vessels (26%) and pontoons (16%). Of the 1059 useable vessel observations, 633 (5 9%) were observed in the idle speed, and 426 (41%) were observed in the slow speed zone s. Within the idle speed zone (maximum allowable speed = 3 mph), mean vessel speed wa s 4.22 mph (standard deviation = 1.31), with a range from 1 to 10 mph. Within the slow sp eed zone (maximum allowable speed = 7 mph), mean vessel speed was 6.42 mph (standard devi ation = 4.00 mph), with a range from 1 to 36 mph. Rental vessels (n = 150) demonstrated a mean speed discrepancy (observed speed minus posted speed limit) of .35 mph, while non-rentals (n = 909) demonstrated a .50 mph discrepancy. A one-sample t-test was performed to determine if either of these two means was significantly

PAGE 119

119 different from zero. Mean speed discrepancy for re ntals was not significantly different from zero (t (149) = 1.64; p = .102); how ever, mean non rental vessel sp eed discrepancy was found to differ significantly from zero (t (1058) = 5.67; p<.01). Positive mean discrepancies for both groups indicate that on average, both groups viol ated speed limits; however, non-rental operators violated at higher speeds, on average, than rental vessel operators. Profile of Subjects Based on the vessel observations conducted on the St. Johns River, 1059 surveys were mailed to the respective boaters. Twenty-three surveys were returned as undeliverable and 236 completed surveys were received, for a 23% response rate. There was a high degree of asso ciation between the date boaters were observed in the field and the date of their last boa t outing as indicated on the ma il survey (85%; n = 200). An insignificant independent sample t-test demons trated that the mean self-reported compliance index did not differ between respond ents who answered the survey questions with respect to the date they were observed on the water, or those w ho answered with respect to a more recent date. Consequently, respondents were analyzed as if the correspondence betw een the date boaters were observed in the field and the date of thei r last boat outing as indi cated on the mail survey matched perfectly. Furthermore, 94% (n = 205) of the respondents indicated being the primary vessel operator during their last boat outing. However, it is not possible to be absolutely certain whether the person responding to the survey was, in fact, the person observed on the water. A majority (75%) of the respondents indicated that their vessels were equipped with speedometers. The average respondent was male (90%), 52 years of age, fairly well educated with some college or a 2-year degree, with most ( 89%) having some education beyond a high school diploma. The average household income was between $65,000 to $99,000 per year, with 44 % earning $100,000 per year or more. DeLand, Fl orida was the single most cited place of

PAGE 120

120 residence (20%). In additi on to Deltona, Sanford, Apopka, a nd Orlando were also the most common Florida cities listed as the place of resi dence, all of which are within 45-minute driving distance from the sampling sites (Table 4-2). With respect to manatee sightings during th e past 12 months of boating, nearly 22% had never seen a manatee, and 35 % indicated seeing manatees betw een one and four times. Few boaters (19%) had been ticketed for speed violations while boating. Respondents belonged to few environmental organizations, with more than 78% noted to belong to none. Furthermore, 19% strongly disagreed with re moving manatees from the enda ngered species list, while 24% agreed1 with removing them. Recreation Specialization Recreation specialization was conceptuali zed based on three dimensions: behavioral, cognitive and affective. Following an examinati on of the distribution of each item within the three domains, responses were converted to Z-scor es to create individual indices and a composite specialization index for te sting of hypotheses. Behavioral Domain Four items were used for the behavioral dom ain, with mean responses presented in Table 4-3. Respondents had a mean of 25 years of boa ting experience, with 28% having boated for 10 or fewer years. Respondents had boated 47 days during the proceeding 12 months, with approximately 25% boating more than 55 times duri ng that period. On aver age, boaters operated their vessels 29 days in Volusi a County during the proceeding 12 m onths, and had boated on five different water bodies during that same period. 1 Agreed reflects the combined response s for Agreed and Strongly Agreed

PAGE 121

121 The ratio-scale data generated by the items within the behavioral domain measured different aspects of the boating experience, a nd thus generated widely varying results. For example, one person indicated being a boater for 50 years, while only boating once in the past 12 months. Another respondent indicated to have boated for 50 years, but had also boated 156 times during the past 12 months. Cognitive Domain The cognitive domain was operationalized using four items based on a likert scale format (1-10, with 10 the highest). Respon dents were asked to rate their skill level with respect to: 1) general boating skill, 2) knowledge of general bo ating rules and regulati ons, 3) knowledge of Volusia County waterways, and 4) comfort in ope rating a boat 20 or more miles offshore. The mean values for the items are illustrated in Table 4-3. Res pondents indicated a high average general boating skill level (mean = 8.5), and a hi gh average knowledge of general boating rules and regulations (mean = 8.4). More than 80% res ponded with an or to General boating skill level, and Know ledge of general boating rules and regulations. Lower mean values were demonstrated for knowledge of Volusia County waterways (mean = 6.2), and comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore (mean = 5.4). This suggests that while boaters may have a high degree of boati ng skill, some have unfamiliarity with Volusia County and offshore environments. Fifty two percent of the respondents indicated that thei r knowledge of Volusia County waterways was between and (i.e., relatively poor knowledge). Similarly, 51% of respondents rate d their comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore between and Affective Domain This domain was conceptually based on centr ality to lifestyle (3 items) and enduring involvement (4 items), with mean responses pr esented in Table 4-3. Respondents reported a

PAGE 122

122 wide range of boating magazine subscriptions and/ or boating-related boo ks currently owned (range 0-500). This had the effect of skewing th e data somewhat, as the next lowest number was 50 items (mean, including outlier = 5.6, mode, incl uding outlier = 1.0). C onsequently, the outlier (500 items) was removed for the analysis. Afte r its removal, 74 % indicated owning three, and 90% reported owning seven or fewer boating subscr iptions and/or boating -related books (mean = 3.7). Similarly, the number of boating-related items owned was varied. The distribution was highly skewed due to the presence of several ou tliers (range 0-10,000; m ean, including outlier = 120.5; mode, including outlier = 30.0). Thus, outlie rs greater than 200 boa ting-related items (10 respondents) were removed for the analysis. Afte r the removal, nearly one half (47%) indicated to own 28 items or fewer, with 19% reported to own 100 items or more (mean = 46.2 items) (Table 4-3). Sixty one percent of respondents did not belong to any boating-related clubs, while 28% reported to belong to one club. For the enduring involvement items within the affective domain, Likert-scale responses (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagr ee, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) were used. Respondents indicated strong agreement with boati ng being one of the most enjoyable activity they participated in (mean=4.6) and also for boating being very important (mean=4.5). The questions, Boating says a lot about who I am, and I find that a lot of my life is organized around boating both had lower means (mean=4.0 and 3.8, respectively). Marine Conservation Attitudes Marine conservation attitudes were conceptu ally divided into 1) manatee conservation attitudes (2 items), and 2) general marine conser vation attitudes (2 items). The four items were tied to a Likert scale format (1=Strongly Disagr ee, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree). Table 4-4 presents the distribution and means of these item s. Overall results demonstrated that respondents generally possessed positive marine conservation attitudes. More

PAGE 123

123 specifically, 71% agreed 1 that manatees were worth saving de spite the need for regulations, and a majority (81%) agreed that they supported Flor idas boating rules and regulations. Despite these high percentages, only 47% of respondents agreed that boat speed reduction was as an effective manatee conservation strategy, and fewer (42%) ag reed boat speed reduct ion was an effective general marine conservation strategy. The highest mean value (3.9) (on a five point Likert scale) was identified for the item I generally support Floridas boating rules and regula tions, while the lowest mean value (3.0) was registered for Boat speed reduction is an effec tive general marine cons ervation strategy. Additionally, respondents registered a mean of 3.2 for Boat speed reduction is an effective manatee conservation strategy. Knowledge Boater knowledge of state manatee protecti on status and Florida boa ting speed restriction definitions was assessed by three questions. Th e first question, In Florida, manatees are officially listed as, was answered correctly by only 34% of respondents, with most selecting Endangered as the incorrect choice (58%) (Table 4-5). The second ques tion, When in an idle speed zone, a boater should, offered respondent s four possible answer choices. Respondents (81%) overwhelmingly selected th e correct answer Create no wake. The third knowledge question, When in a slow speed zone, a boate r should, was similarly answered correctly, Create minimum wake, by most respondents (83%). 1 Agreed reflects the combined respon ses for Agreed and Strongly Agreed

PAGE 124

124 Non-Compliance/Compliance Behavior With respect to self-reported compliant be havior, several questi ons were assessed of respondents. About 84% agreed 1 that they fully complied with ma natee speed zones during their most recent boating experience (mean = 4.3). An overwhelming majority (92%) agreed with fully complying with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones during their most recent boating experience (mean = 4.5). Responses to Overa ll, how often do you comply with boat speed zones, garnered a very high mean score of 4.7 (out of 5), with 94% noting they complied more than half of the time, or all of the time. Fu rthermore, only 18% reported having been ticketed for violation of boat speed restrict ions. These percentages and m eans of self-reported compliance behaviors are interesting considering the majority (55%) of observed boaters failed to fully comply with vessel speed limits. With respect to lack of compliance with boa t speed restrictions, re spondents were asked to indicate the top five out of 14 reasons. Based on the responses, mean values were calculated, and smaller means represented those reasons of most importance, and larger means representing reasons of least importance. The results demons trate that poor or unclear signage was the single most important reason for lack of full complia nce (mean = 1.9). The second most important reason was to get out of the rain (mean = 2.4), while the third response was other, in which respondents were asked to list other reasons fo r not fully complying as well as ranking its importance (mean = 2.5) (Table 4-6). Lightning and bad weather were lis ted by respondents as the most common reason within the other category (n = 20). Pr oblems such as a sinking vessel or a poorly running engine were the second most commonly listed reason (n = 11). The third 1 Agreed reflects the combined respon ses for Agreed and Strongly Agreed

PAGE 125

125 reason for non-compliance within the other ca tegory was for medical emergencies (n = 9) (Table 4-7). Speed Zone Signage Assessment As the previous section noted, boaters may have difficulty reading or understanding boat speed restriction signs, and thus may not always have been aware of zone requirements. Two conceptual domains were employed to operati onalize speed zone signage assessments: 1) manatee speed zones (3 items), and 2) general bo at-safety zones (3 items). The six items were tied to a five point Likert scale format (1=Str ongly Disagree, 2=Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) (Table 4-8). Roughly 58% agreed1 that manatee speed zones were well marked, and 59% agreed that manatee signs are easy to read. Forty seven percen t agreed that they could always tell when they were in a manatee speed zone, while 48% agreed they could always tell when they were in a general boat safety zone. Fifty two percent agr eed that general boat safety speed zones are well marked, and that general boat safety sp eed zone signs are easy to read. Means for the all six zone assessment item s were close to or slightly above 3.0 or Neutral. For example, the item Manatee speed zones are well marked, resulted in the highest mean (3.5). The lowest mean was identif ied for the question I can always tell when Im in a manatee speed zone (3.1). Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Nine items tied to a five poi nt Likert scale format (1=S trongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree) were used to evaluate : 1) attitudes (3 items), 2) subjective norm (3 items), and 3) behavioral inte ntions (3 items). Fre quency distributions and means are presented in Table 4-9.

PAGE 126

126 Attitudes Approximately 41% agreed 1 that the freedom to get to one s destination quickly while boating was important. Few respondents (11%) agreed th at an absence of a threat of ticketing for disregarding boat speed zones wa s important, and a very low per centage (3%) agreed that having fun while boating was more important than obeying boat speed zones. Low means were identified for both Having fun while on my boa t is more important than obeying boat speed zones (1.7), and Having no threat of ticketi ng for disregarding boat speed zones is important (2.2). Subjective Norm About 21% agreed that when boating they wa nted to do what family and friends thought they should do, and 19% agreed that they wanted to do what other boate rs thought they should do when boating. Contrastingly, a strong majority ( 80%) agreed that they wanted to do what law enforcement officers thought they should do. Mean responses were also generated for the items that related to wanting to do what family and fr iends think they should do (2.4) and with what other boaters think they should do (2.3). Howe ver, a high mean was found with wanting to do what law enforcement officers wanted them to do (4.1). Intentions A majority of the respondent s agreed (81%) that they intended to follow manatee speed zones during their next boat outi ng. Similarly, 94% agreed that they intended to follow general boat safety speed restrictions the next time they boated; and nearly all (97%) agreed that they intended to boat in a way that would not harm the environment during their next outing. Respondents generally demonstrated a high level of agreement with inten tions to comply with 1 Agreed reflects the combined respon ses for Agreed and Strongly Agreed

PAGE 127

127 speed restrictions. For example, a high mean was identified for Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that will not harm the environment (4.5). Large mean responses were also found for intention to follow general boat safety speed zone s (4.5), as well as inten tion to follow manatee speed zones during the next outing (4.2). Results of Research Questions Tested 1. Does boat speed violation ticketing history influence speed discrepancy? An independent samples t-test was performed to determine if mean speed discrepancy 2 differed between those who had been ticketed for boat speed violations in their past, and those who had not. Only 45 respondents indicated to have been ticketed. The mean speed discrepancy did not differ significantly between those who had (m ean = 1.03, SD = 2.61) and those who had not (mean = .48, SD = 3.31) been ticketed (t (232) = -1.03; p=.30). Therefore, prior boat speed violation ticketing history did not appear to have any influe nce on boaters vessel speed through manatee conservation zones. 2. Does boater speed discrepancy differ between idle and slow speed zones? An independent samples t-test was utilized to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed between the two sampling sites (site 1, Idle speed, maximum allowable speed 3mph; and site 2, Slow speed, maximum allowable speed 7mph) A statistically significant difference in mean speed discrepancy was identified between site 1 (mean = 1.24, SD = 1.36) and site 2 (mean = -.623, SD = 3.81, t (1207) = 10.4; p<.01). The re sults suggest that vessel compliance differed on a per-site basis. 2 Speed discrepancy defined as observed vessel speed minus the maximum allowable per zone.

PAGE 128

128 3. Does party size influence speed discrepancy? A regression analysis was performed between party size and speed discrepancy. Results indicate that speed discrepancy was not influenced by party size. Party size was a poor predictor of speed discrepancy, and explaine d less than one percen t of the variability in speed discrepancy ( B = -.04). 4. Does vessel length influence speed discrepancy? A one-way ANOVA was employed to determin e if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed between the observed vessel length cat egories (<12, 12-15, 16 -25, 26-39, 40-64, >64) as documented in the field. Analysis reve aled a significant difference in speed discrepancy between vessel lengths (F = 2.62, p = .03). A Bonferroni multiple comparison was also performed to determine differences within vessel length categories. Signif icant differences were found between vessel length category two (12-15 ) and vessel length category three (16-25) (mean speed discrepancy for category one = .06, category two = .61, p< .05). Operators of longer vessel were more likely than operators of small vessels to violate speed restrictions. 5. Does vessel type influence speed discrepancy? A one-way ANOVA was utilized to determine if mean vessel speed discrepancy differed among vessel categories (pontoon, fish, persona l watercraft, runabout johnboat, sail, yacht/cruiser, ski, and other). Results identi fied that mean vessel speed discrepancy did not differ among the various vessel categories as the relationship was not statistically significant (F(7, 1208) = .89, p=.52).

PAGE 129

129 6. Does a boaters history of seeing ma natees influence speed discrepancy? A one-way ANOVA was used to determine if mean vessel sp eed discrepancy differed based on the number of times a ma natee was observed while boating during the past 12 months (Never, 1-2 times, 3-4 times, 5-6 times, 7-8 times, 9-10 times, >10 times, Not sure). Results of the analysis identified that the number of times a manatee had been observed by a boater had no influence on vessel speed discrepancy (F(7, 228) = 1.6, p=.15). 7. Does a boaters speed zone signage a ssessment influence speed discrepancy? Pearson r correlations were performed between speed zone signage assessment (manatee zone, general boat safety zones and composite signage assessment index) and vessel speed discrepancy (Table 4-10). Results indicated that vessel speed di screpancy was not significantly associated with speed zone signage assessment. Neither the manatee sign assessment index (r = .07), general boat safety speed z one index (r = -.12), nor the co mposite sign assessment index (r = -.10) were significantly associated with vessel speed discrepancy. 8. Does boaters level of recreation special ization influence speed zone signage assessment? Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), the composite specialization index, the two speed zone signage assessment indices (m anatee zone, general boat safety zones), and the composite speed zone signage assessment i ndex (Table 4-11). Results indicated that specialization level was significantly associated with speed zone signage assessment. For example, the behavioral index was negatively and significantly associated with the manatee zone signage assessment index (r = -.16, p<.05) and th e composite signage assessment index (r = -.13, p<.05). The affective specializa tion index was negatively and signi ficantly associated with the manatee zone signage assessment index (r = -.20, p<.01), general boat safety zone signage index

PAGE 130

130 (r = -.19, p<.01), and the composite signage asse ssment index (r = -.21, p<.01). Although the cognitive specialization index wa s not found to be significantly associated with any of the signage assessment indices, the composite special ization index was significantly associated with the composite zone signage assessment index (r = -.22, p<.01). Therefore, as boaters become more specialized they concomitan tly report a reduction in their assessment of boat zone signs. 9. Are the relationships between past behavior (observed and selfreport) attitudes, norms and intentions consistent with Figure 4-1 (TRA)? Based on the procedures by Alabarracin et al. (2001), the TRA model was evaluated by first employing a series of Pearson r correla tions, after which a multiple regression was performed. The composite index (self-reported co mpliance behavior, attitudes, subjective norm, and behavioral intentions) was used for each analys is. The following steps were used to evaluate this research question, with the results of the tested model shown in Figure 4-1: Correlations: Step 1: Speed discrepancy (obser ved) and behavioral intentions. Step 2: Speed discrepancy (obs erved) and subjective norms. Step 3: Speed discrepancy (observed) and attitudes. Step 4: Self-reported compliance be havior and behavioral intentions. Step 5: Self-reported complia nce behavior and attitudes. Step 6: Self-reported compliance behavior and subjective norms. Step 7: Attitudes and behavioral intentions. Step 8: Subjective norms a nd behavioral intentions. Results of the Pearson r correlati ons (Steps 1-8) suggest that pa rt of the model is consistent with TRA theory. Specifically, results indicate: Step 1: Speed discrepancy (observe d) was not significantly associated with behavioral intention. Step 2: Speed discrepancy (observed) was not significantly associated with subjective norm. Step 3: Speed discrepancy (observed) was not significantly associated with attitude. Step 4: Self-reported compliance behavior a nd behavioral intentions were significantly associated (r = .55, p<.01). Thus, an increase in self-reported compliance with speed-

PAGE 131

131 restricted zones was significantly associated w ith an increase in intention to comply with speed zones during a boaters next outing. Step 5: Self-reported compliance behavior and attitudes were significantly associated (r = .44, p<.01). An increase in self-reported co mpliance with speed-restricted zones was significantly associated with an increase in attitudes. Step 6: Self-reported compliance and subjec tive norm were not signi ficantly associated. Step 7: Attitude and behavioral intentions were significantly associated (r = .50, p<.01). An increase in attitudes was significantly associ ated with intention to comply with speed zones during a boaters next outing. Step 8: Subjective norm and be havioral intentions were not significantly associated. Multiple Regression: The multiple regression model employed attitudes, subjective norms, self-reported compliance behavior and vessel speed discrepanc y as predictor variables and behavioral intentions as the criterion variable. The co mposite attitude, subject ive norm, self-reported compliance, and behavioral intention indi ces were used for this analysis. Results of the multiple regression analysis (Table 4-12) show that the model is a significant predictor of behavioral intention (F = 41.63; p<.01). The predictor variables explain about 43% of the variability in behavioral inten tions. Results also demonstrate that self-reported compliance behavior contributes more to the predictive ability of the regression model (standardized beta = .42; p<.01) than do attitude s (standardized beta = -.37; p<.01). However, neither the subjective norm nor vessel speed disc repancy uniquely contributed to the predictive ability of the model. The TRA model presented was found partia lly consistent with TRA theory. Specifically, self-reported compliance (r = .55, p< .01) and attitudes (r = .50, p<.01) were both significantly associated with beha vioral intention to fully comply with speed zones during next boat outing. Self-reported complia nce and attitudes were also significantly associated (r = -.44,

PAGE 132

132 p<.01). Results of the multiple regression analysis demonstrate that attitudes and self-reported compliance combined to uniquely explain about 43% of the variability in behavioral intention. An examination of beta weights suggests that self-reported compliance weighted more heavily ( B = .42) than did attitudes ( B = -.37) on behavioral intentions. Results of Hypothesis Testing Recreation Specialization H1: There is a negative association between boaters specialization level and observed speed discrepancy. Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), the composite specialization index, and observed vessel speed discrepancies (Table 4-13). Results indicat ed that neither the individual specialization domain indices nor the composite specializ ation index were statistically associated with speed discrepancies. Specifi cally, the Pearson r corr elations between speed discrepancy and the behavioral index (r = -.07), affective index (r = .03), cognitive index (r = .09), and composite index (r = .03) were all very small values. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected as lack of negative associations existed between boaters specialization level and observed vessel speed discrepancies. H2: There is a positive association between bo aters specialization level and self-reported compliant behavior. Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), the composite specialization index, two self-reported compliance items, and a comp osite self-reported comp liance index (Table 414). Self-reports of compliance within manatee zones were significantly associated with the behavioral (r = -.27, p<.01), c ognitive (r = -.38, p<.01), and compos ite specializati on indices (r = -.234, p<.01), but insignificantly a ssociated with the affective i ndex. Contrastingly, only the

PAGE 133

133 cognitive index (r = -.19, p<.01) was significantly associated with self-reported compliance within general (non-manatee) boat safety speed z ones. Further, the composite index of selfreported compliance was found to be significantly related to the beha vioral (r = -.23, p<.01), cognitive (r = .34, p<.01) and the composite specialization indices (r = -.20, p<.01). Correlations between the affective dimension of the specialization construct and measures of self-reported compliance were found to be sta tistically insignificant. However, all other correlations between the specializ ation dimensions and self-repor t measures were negative and statistically significant. In gene ral, higher levels of boater specia lization were associated with a reduction in the level of self-repo rted compliance. Thus, the hypothe sis was rejected as a positive association between boater s specialization level and self-repor ted compliance did not exist. H3: There is a positive association between boaters specialization level and marine conservation attitudes Pearson r correlations were performed between the two marine conservation attitude index and the three individual (behavio ral, cognitive and affective) and composite specialization indices (Table 4-15). All corr elations between marine cons ervation attitude indices and specialization indices were ne gative and statistically signifi cant. For example, marine conservation attitudes were negatively and significan tly associated with the behavioral index (r = -.35, p<.01), the affective index (r = -.30, p<.01) the cognitive index (r = -.37, p<.01) and the composite specialization index (r = -.43, p<.01) Overall, as respondents became more specialized they concomitantly demonstrated lower marine conservation attit udes. Therefore, this hypothesis was rejected, as a posi tive association did not exist between specialization level and marine conservation attitudes.

PAGE 134

134 H4: There is a positive association between boaters specialization level and intention to fully comply with manatee speed zone restrictions. Pearson r correlations were performed between the three individual recreation specialization indices (behavioral, cognitive and affective), composite specialization index, and a composite index of behavioral intention (Table 4-16) Results identified that behavioral intention was negatively and si gnificantly associated with the behavioral (r = -.23, p<.01), cognitive (r = -.27, p<.01), and composite sp ecialization indices (r = -.17, p<.05). Findings suggest that an incr ease in boating specialization generally coincides with a decrease in intention to compl y. The hypothesis was rejected as a positive asso ciation between specialization and intention to fully comply with speed restrictions did not exist. Reported vs. Observed Compliance Behavior H5: There is a negative association between self-reported compliant behavior and observed speed discrepancy Pearson r correlations were performed between the two self-reported compliance items, the self-reported compliance composite index and obser ved vessel speed discrepancy (Table 4-17). Results identified that re ported behavior may be a poor proxy for actual behavior. For example, the correlation coefficient between observed speed discrepancy and agreement with full compliance with manatee speed zones during th e most recent outing (r = .03), as well as agreement with full compliance in general boat safety speed zones (r = -.05), were both extremely weak, and statistically insignificant. Similarly, the correlation between observed speed discrepancy and composite of both se lf-reported compliance items was weak and statistically insignifi cant (r = -.01). The hypothesis was rejected, as a negative re lationship did not exist between observed speed discrepancy and reported compliance. Resu lts of this analysis indicate that while respondents generally self-report a high level of manatee zone compliance (mean = 4.3 on a five

PAGE 135

135 point scale), and general, non-manatee zone comp liance (mean = 4.5 on a five point scale), their observed behavior suggest otherwise. As a follow up, an independent samples ttest was performed to determine if compliant 3 boaters differed from non-compliant boaters (observed) in their mean responses to the items, I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most recent boating experience, I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safe ty speed zones during my most recent boating experience, and Overall, how often do you comply with boat speed zones (Table 4-18). The mean scores for each of the compliance measur es did not differ significantly among compliant and non-compliant boaters (observed) The results further added ev idence that self-reports may poorly represent actual behavior In conclusion, hypothesis five and its ancillary hypothesis were both rejected. Marine Conservation Attitudes H6: There is a negative association betw een marine conservation attitudes and observed speed discrepancy Pearson r correlations were performed between observed vessel speed discrepancy and the marine conservation attitude index. Results id entified a weak and statistically insignificant association between observed speed discrepancy and marine conservation attitudes (r = .04). Therefore the hypothesis was rejected as a negative association between vessel speed discrepancies and marine conserva tion attitudes did not exist. H7: There is a positive association between ma rine conservation attitudes and intention to fully comply with manatee speed zone restrictions. A Pearson r correlation was performed between the marine conservati on attitude index and the behavioral intention index. Results noted a positive and statistically significant association 3 Compliant and non-compliant boaters as determined by field observations.

PAGE 136

136 between intentions to fully comply with speed re strictions and marine conservation attitudes (r = .44, p<.01). The hypothesis was accepted, as a pos itive association existed between respondents intention to fully comply with speed restrictions and marine conservation attitudes. Therefore, increases in marine conservation at titudes result in an increase in intention to fully comply with speed zones. H8: There is a positive association between marine conservation attitudes and selfreported compliance behavior. Pearson r correlations were performed betw een the marine conser vation attitude index, individual self-reported compliance items as well as the self-reported compliance composite index (Table 4-19). Results identified that marine conservation attitudes were significantly associated with self-reported compliance. Fo r example, the association between the marine conservation attitude index and the composite self-reported compliance index was positive and statistically significant (r = .27, p<.01). In fact, all the correlations were found to be positive and statistically significant. The hypothesis was accepted as a positive association existed between marine conservation attitudes and self-re ported compliance. Therefore, an increase in marine conservation attitudes results in an increase in the level of self-reported compliance. Behavioral Intentions H9: There is a positive association between in tention to fully comply with manatee speed zone restrictions and self-r eported compliance behavior. A Pearson r correlation was performed between the behavioral intention composite index and self-reported compliance comp osite index. Results identified that the behavioral intention composite index was significantly associated wi th the self-reported compliance composite index (r = .67, p<.01). The hypothesis was accepted as a positive associa tion existed between behavioral intention and self-reported compliance. An increase in intention to fully comply with

PAGE 137

137 speed restrictions during next boa t outing results in an increase in the level of self-reported compliance. H10: There is a negative association between intention to fully comply with manatee speed zone restrictions and observed speed discrepancy. A Pearson r correlation was performed betw een observed vessel speed discrepancies and the behavioral intention composite index. Resu lts identified a very weak and statistically insignificant association between the two variables (r = .09). The hypothesis was rejected as a negative association behavioral intention and observed speed discrepa ncy did not exist. Path Analysis A path analysis was employed to determ ine the predictive validity between recreation specialization, marine conservation at titudes, behavioral in tentions, self-reported compliance behavior and observed speed discrepa ncy. The proposed model was first examined through confirmatory factor analys is (CFA) to validate the indices. As a re sult of the CFA, poorly performing items were removed and the f actor loadings were all significant (p<.05) (Table 4-20). Since all factor loading values were greater than thresholds set forth by Litwin (1995), the results demonstrated convergent validity. Next, the overall model was tested and identified to be a reasonably good fit to the data as shown by the fit indices in Fi gure 4-2. For example, the X2/df ratio of 2.7 was lower than the 3.0 suggested by Kline (1998). Additionally, the Comp arative Fit Index (CFI) (.92) satisfied the .95 recommended cutoff, while the Root Mean Squa re Error of Approximati on (RMSEA) value (.09) was slightly higher than .08 cutoff as suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). The proposed model was tested by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Results of the SEM demonstrate that the fit of the model was acceptable ( X2/df ratio = 2.7; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .09). However, the hypothesized path mode l was generally found to poorly explain the

PAGE 138

138 relationships between the individu al constructs (Figure 4-2). Re sults demonstrate that recreation specialization had a strong negative influe nce on marine conservation attitudes ( B = -.57). That is, a one-unit increase in recreat ion specialization resulted in a .57 mean agreement decrease in marine conservation attitudes. Specialization was found to be a poor pr edictor of self-reported compliance behavior, behavioral intentions and observed vessel speed discrepancy. Marine conservation attitudes exhibited a strong positive influence on behavioral intentions ( B = .33), which demonstrated that for ever y unit increase in marine conservation attitudes, mean behavioral intention increased by .33. Mean self-reported compliance behavior demonstrated an increase of .63 for every unit in crease in behavioral in tentions. However, a weak influence on observed speed discrepancy was identified. The postulated theoretical model was generally weak in accounting for the rela tionships between the latent variables.

PAGE 139

139 Table 4-1. Vessel use and attr ibutes from field observations Vessel Attribute N Percentage* Vessel Length (ft) <12 43 4 12-15 316 30 15.1-25 631 60 25.1-39 63 5 39.1-64 6 1 Vessel Type Fishing 272 26 Johnboat 50 5 Yacht/cruiser 135 13 Pontoon 165 16 Personal watercraft 37 3 Runabout 297 28 Ski 92 8 Other 11 1 Party Size 1 84 7 2 426 35 3 238 20 4 246 20 5 100 8 6 57 5 7 25 2 8 16 1 9 9 1 >9 6 1 Observed Vessel Speeds Idle Zone 0-2 mph 43 6 2.01-4 mph 308 42 4.01-6 mph 307 43 6.01-8 mph 47 7 8.01-10 mph 6 1 10.01-12 mph 1 1 Observed Vessel Speeds Slow Zone 0-2 mph 5 1 2.01-4 mph 63 12 4.01-6 mph 240 49 6.01-8 mph 135 27 8.01-10 mph 23 5 10.01-12 mph 4 1 12.01-14 mph 4 1 >14 mph 20 4 *The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 100%

PAGE 140

140 Table 4-2. Socio-demographi c profile of respondents N Percentage* Gender Male 209 90 Female 24 10 Age 20-30 10 5 31-40 33 14 41-50 60 26 51-60 81 35 61-70 28 12 >70 18 8 Education Less than High School 1 0 High school diploma 24 11 Attended business/te chnical school 28 12 Some college or 2-year degree 86 38 Completed 4-year degree 46 21 Some graduate work 10 5 Completed graduate or advanced degree 29 13 Income $15,000 to $34,999 9 4 $35,000 to $49,999 14 7 $50,000 to $64,999 49 24 $65,000 to $99,999 45 22 $100,000 to $149,999 55 26 $150,000 to $199,999 13 6 Over $200,000 22 11 Top five place of residence (a ll cities in Florida)** Deland 47 20 Deltona 15 7 Sanford 13 6 Apopka 12 5 Orlando 10 4 *The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 100% **Percentages do not equal 100%

PAGE 141

141 Table 4-3. Recreati on specialization domains Behavioral 1 Mean Number of years a boater 25.2 How many days did you boat dur ing the past 12 months 46.9 How many days did you boat in Volusi a County in the past 12 months 29.2 How many different water bodies have you boated on in the past 12 months 4.5 Cognitive 2 My general boating skill level 8.5 My knowledge of general boating rules and regulations 8.4 My knowledge of Volusia County wate rway rules and regulations 6.2 My comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore 5.4 Affective How may boating magazine subscriptions and/or boating-related books do you currently own 1 3.7 Approximately how many items do you own that are directly related to boating, excluding tow vehicle 1 46.2 How many boating-related clubs do you currently belong to 1 .60 Boating and related activities are one of the most enjoyable things I do 3 4.6 Boating is very important to me 3 4.5 Boating says a lot about who I am 3 4.0 I find that a lot of my lif e is organized around boating 3 3.8 1 Ratio-scale data 2 Likert scale: 1=lo west to 10=highest 3 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5

PAGE 142

142 Table 4-4. Marine conser vation attitude items Marine conservation attitudes1** Strongly disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly agree Mean* Manatees are worth saving despite the need for regulations 5% 7.7% 16.4% 37.7% 33.6% 3.8 Boat speed reduction is an effective manatee conservation strategy 12.7 18.6 21.4 34.5 12.7 3.2 Boat speed reduction is an effective general marine conservation strategy 12.3 22.7 22.7 36.4 5.9 3.0 I generally support Floridas boating rules and regulations 2.3 5.0 11.4 56.8 24.5 3.9 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 Not sure/no response was comb ined into the Neutral category **Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding Table 4-5. Boater knowledge Response choices Knowledge Item** Travel no faster than 5 mph Create no wake* Create minimum wake Not sure When in an idle speed zone, a boater should 4.0% 81.4% 11.9% 2.6% Travel no faster than 10 mph Create no wake Create minimum wake* Not sure When in a slow speed zone, a boater should 6.8% 2.1% 83.2% 7.7% Species of special concern Threatened*Endangered Manatees are not listed In Florida, manatees are offici ally listed as 6.0% 34.3% 58.8% <1% Correct response ** Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding

PAGE 143

143 Table 4-6. Reasons for non-compliance Reasons n Mean Bad zone signage/cant understand 120 1.9 To get out of the rain 114 2.4 Other** 51 2.5 Not paying attention 96 2.5 I dont agree with the zone 81 2.6 Need to get somewhere 73 2.9 Gets too hot when boat goes slow 74 2.9 I dont care about speed zones 14 3.1 Other boats are going fast 44 3.1 Other people on my boat want to go faster 12 3.8 I dont like being told how to operate my boat 17 3.8 Its fun to go faster 22 3.8 I know that there are no officers in the area 25 4.5 Those I learned from never complied 5 5.0 Small value equals greater importance ** Summarized in Table 4-7 Table 4-7. Reasons for non-compliance (Other category) Other Frequency Lightning/bad weather 20 Problem with boat 11 Medical emergency 9 Bad signage/missing signage 6 Always comply 4 Manatees stay along banks 2 Time restrictions 1

PAGE 144

144 Table 4-8. Sign zone signage assessment Strongly disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly agree Mean* Manatee zones1** Manatee speed zones are well Marked 6.3% 19.3% 16.1% 43.5% 14.9% 3.5 Manatee speed zone signs are easy to read 8.1 18.8 14.1 44.9 14.1 3.4 I can always tell when Im in a manatee speed zone 9.9 28.3 14.6 38.2 9.0 3.1 General boat safety speed zones1** General boat safety speed zones are well marked 5.6 25.2 17.5 42.7 9.0 3.2 General boat safety speed zone signs are easy to read 5.1 23.1 20.1 40.2 11.5 3.3 I can always tell when Im in a general boat safety zone 4.3 25.8 22.3 39.9 7.7 3.2 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 *Not sure/no response was combin ed into the Neutral category ** Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding

PAGE 145

145 Table 4-9. Theory of reasoned action TRA item1** Strongly disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly agree Mean* Attitudes Having the freedom to get to my destination quickly while boating is important 11.8 18.6 28.5 31.6 9.5 3.1 Having no threat of ticketing for disregarding boat speed zones is important 30.5 39.5 19.3 6.3 4.5 2.2 Having fun while on my boat is more important than obeying boat speed zones 46.7 43.6 6.7 2.2 .9 1.7 Subjective norm When boating, I want to do what my family and friends think I should do 27.9 37.4 14.0 10.4 10.4 2.4 When boating, I want to do what other boaters think I should do 32.9 34.2 14.4 8.1 10.4 2.3 When boating, I want to do what law enforcement officers think I should do 2.7 4.4 12.4 44.4 36.0 4.1 Behavioral intentions I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time I boat 1.5 7.1 10.4 32.0 49.1 4.2 I intend to follow general boat safety speed restrictions the next time I boat 0 1.3 4.3 38.2 56.2 4.5 Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that will not harm the environment .9 .4 1.3 40.3 57.1 4.5 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 *Not sure/no response was combin ed into the Neutral category ** Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding

PAGE 146

146 Table 4-10. Zero-order correlations: vessel speed discrepancy and signage assessment Speed discrepancy Manatee zone signage assessment index General zone signage assessment index Composite zone signage assessment index Speed discrepancy Manatee zone signage assessment index -.07 General zone signage assessment index -.12 .74* Composite zone signage assessment index -.09 .94* .93* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 147

147 Table 4-11. Zero order correlations: recrea tion specialization and z one signage assessment Behavioral index Affective index Cognitive index Composite specialization index Manatee zone signage assessment index General zone signage assessment index Composite zone signage assessment index Behavioral index Affective index .31* Cognitive index .45* .39* Composite specialization index .71* .81* .78* Manatee zone signage assessment index -.16** -.19* -.13 -.44* General zone signage assessment index-.09 -.19* .02 -.32* .74* Composite zone signage assessment index -.13** -.21* -.06 -.41* .94* .93* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) **Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 148

148 Table 4-12. Regression anal ysis summary for predicti ng behavioral intention Predictor Variable B SEB B Attitudes -.23 .03 -.37* Subjective norms .001 .03 .00 Self-reported compliance behavior .57 .07 .42* Observed vessel speed discrepancy .04 .03 .07 *Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) Table 4-13. Zero-order correlations: speed discrepancy and recr eation specialization Speed discrepancy Behavioral index Affective index Cognitive index Composite specialization index Speed discrepancy Behavioral index -.08 Affective index .02 .32* Cognitive index -.07 .45* .38* Composite specialization index -.05 .70* .82* .77* *Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 149

149 Table 4-14. Zero order correlations: se lf-reported compliance and recreation specialization Self-reported compliance in manatee speed zones Self-reported compliance in general, nonmanatee speed zones Composite index of self-reported compliance Behavioral index Affective index Cognitive index Composite specialization index Self-reported compliance in manatee speed zones Self-reported complian ce in general, non-manatee speed zones .64* Composite index of self-reported compliance .91* .89* Behavioral index -.19* -.12 -.17* Affective index .03 .14** .09 .32* Cognitive index -.23* -.14** -.21* .45* .38* Composite specialization index -.14** -.02 -.09 .70* .82* .77* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) **Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 150

150 Table 4-15. Zero order correlat ions: recreation specialization an d marine conservation attitudes Behavioral index Affective index Cognitive index Composite specialization index Marine conservation attitude index Behavioral index Affective index .32* Cognitive index .45* .38* Composite specialization index .70* .82* .77* Marine conservation attitude index -.35* -.30* -.37* -.43* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 151

151 Table 4-16. Zero-order correla tions: behavioral intention and recreation specialization Behavioral intention index Behavioral index Affective index Cognitive index Composite specialization index Behavioral intention index Behavioral index -.27* Affective index .02 .32* Cognitive index -.32* .45* .38* Composite specialization index -.21** .70* .82* .77* *Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) **Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 152

152 Table 4-17. Zero order correlations: self-repo rted compliance and vessel speed discrepancy Speed discrepancy Self-reported compliance in manatee speed zones Self-reported compliance in general, nonmanatee speed zones Composite selfreported compliance index Speed discrepancy Self-reported compliance in manatee speed zones .05 Self-reported complian ce in general, non-manatee speed zones -.08 .64* Composite self-reported compliance index -.01 .91* .89* *Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) Table 4-18. Independent samples t-tests, reported compliance among compliant and noncompliant boaters Compliant (observed) Noncompliant (observed) Self-Reported Compliance Items1 Mean SD Mean SD df t* I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most recent boating experience 4.3 1.0 4.4 .95 229 -.94 I fully complied with general (nonmanatee) boat safety speed zones during my most recent boating experience 4.5 .66 4.5 .79 230 .39 Overall, how often do you comply with boat speed zones 4.7 .67 4.7 .65 232 .16 1 Likert scale: strongly disa gree=1, disagree=2, neutral= 3, agree=4, strongly agree=5 *None were significant at .05 level of significance

PAGE 153

153 Table 4-19. Zero order correlations: marine c onservation attitudes and self-reported compliance Marine conservation attitude index Self-reported compliance in manatee speed zones Self-reported compliance in general, nonmanatee speed zones Composite self-reported compliance index Marine conservation attitude index Self-reported compliance in manatee speed zones .32* Self-reported complian ce in general, nonmanatee speed zones .16** .63* Composite self-reported compliance index .27* .91* .89* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) **Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 154

154 Figure 4-1. Theory of reasoned action *Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) r=.08, B = .07 r=-.09 r=.08 r=-.44* r=.50*, B =-.37* r=.00, B =.04 Observed vessel speed discrepancy Self-reported compliance Attitudes Subjective norms Behavioral intentions r = .55 B = .42 r=.04

PAGE 155

155 Table 4-20. Factor loadi ngs and Cronbachs alpha Scale items Factor loading Affective (recreation specialization) .86 I find that a lot of my life is or ganized around boating and boatingrelated activity .91 Boating says a lot about who I am .85 Boating is very important to me .72 Cognitive (recreation sp ecialization) .81 My general boating skill level .90 My knowledge of general boating rules and regulations .80 Comfort level with operating a boat 20 or more miles offshore .60 Marine conservation attitudes .79 Boat speed reduction is an effec tive manatee protection strategy .89 Manatees are worth saving despit e the need for regulations .70 Boat speed reduction is an effec tive general marine conservation strategy .67 Behavioral intentions .82 I intend to follow general boat safety speed restrictions the next time I boat .82 Next time I boat I intend to boat in a way that twill not harm the environment .79 I intend to follow manatee speed zone restrictions the next time I boat .72 Self-reported compliance behavior .78 I fully complied with manatee speed zones during my most recent boating experience .87 I fully complied with general (non-ma natee) boat safety speed zones during my most recent boating experience .72 All significant at .05 level

PAGE 156

156 Figure 4-2. Final structural model *Beta values signifi cant at .05 level Solid lines indicate paths that were significant at the .05 level Dotted lines indicate paths that we re not significant at the .05 level .09 ,01 .05 .02 .63 ,15 .33 ,57 Recreation Specialization Marine Conservation Attitudes Behavioral Intentions Self-Reported Compliance Behavior Observed Vessel Speed Discrepancy ,17 .08 Fit Statistics X2/df = 2.7 CFI = .90 RMSEA = .90

PAGE 157

157 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to examine rela tionships between observed vessel speeds in manatee conservation zones, recreation specializ ation, marine conservation attitudes, selfreported compliance behavior, speed zone sign assessment, TRA, and vessel and operator attributes. The study was based on the paucity of research and recommendations from the literature. Summary of Procedures Selection of Subjects: Observation Data for this study were collected by on-site vessel observations and a subsequent mail survey. Vessel speeds (n=1670) with in two delineated manatee protection zones were determined using on-site measurements and tr igonometric calculation. The tw o sites were located on the St Johns River, near DeLand, Florida, with both sampled during June 2006 through September 2006. Besides vessel speed, data collected during field observations incl uded, hull registration number, vessel length, vessel type party size, presence of law enforcement, and supporting parameters such as percent cloud cover and observation time. Of the 1670 vessels observed, 1059 were useable after repeat observations, rentals and those with missing, illegible, or unlisted vessel numbers were removed from the database. Of these, 633 (59%) were observed in the idle speed zone and 426 (41%) in the slow speed zones. Within the idle speed zone (maximum allowa ble speed = 3 mph), mean vessel speed was 4.2 mph (standard deviation = 1.3), w ith a range from 1 to 10 mph. Within the slow speed zone (maximum allowable speed = 7 mph), mean ve ssel speed was 6.4 mph (standard deviation = 4.0 mph), with a range from 1 to 36 mph. Rental ve ssels (n = 150), which were analyzed separately, demonstrated a mean speed discrepancy of .35 m ph, while non-rentals (n = 909) were at .50 mph

PAGE 158

158 discrepancy. Positive mean discrepancies (observed speed minus maximum allowable 1) for both groups indicate that on average, both violated speed limits, although non -rental operators violated at higher speeds, on average than rental vessel operators. Seventy two percent of the on-site observati ons were made between the hours of 0900 and 1400, with nearly all comple ted by 1600, after which vessel traffic volume decreased considerably. Most vessels observed were betw een 15.1 and 25 ft in length (57%), followed by vessels between 12 and 15 ft in length (30%). Runabouts were the most commonly observed vessel type (28%), and fishing and pontoon vessels the second and third most common (26% and 16%, respectively). Finally, rent al vessels comprised about 12% of the total useable sample. Fifty five percent of the observed vessels were non-compliant with maximum allowable speeds within the manatee zones. Selection of Subjects: Mail Survey Based on observed hull registration numbers, boat operators were mailed a survey instrument so that 1:1 analyses could be conduc ted between observed behavior and respondents profile. Items within the survey instrument we re adapted from previous research on recreation specialization, manatee conservati on attitudes, manatee zone si gn assessment, and TRA. In addition, several questions were related to self -reported compliance behavior, ticketing history, and knowledge of idle and slow speed zone definitions. A total of 236 completed surveys were returned, representing a 23% response rate. To examin e non-response bias, a telephone survey (n=36) was also conducted betw een November 27 and December 5, 2006. There was a high degree of asso ciation between the date boaters were observed in the field and the date of their last boa t outing as indicated on the ma il survey (85%; n = 200). The 1 Idle speed estimated maximum allowable: 3 mph; Slo w speed estimated maximum allowable: 7 mph (Sarasota County, 2006).

PAGE 159

159 average respondent was male (90%), 52 years of age with some colle ge or a 2-year degree, and a 2005 annual household income of $65,000 to $99,000. More respondents were from nearby DeLand, Florida than from any othe r city (20%). Despite their year round presence near both sampling sites and within the St Johns River in general, nearly 57% reported seeing a manatee four times or fewer during the previous 12 mont hs of boating. Few res pondents (19%) reported having been ticketed for speed violations while boating. Only 22% of respondents reported belonging to an environmental organization. Respondents averaged 25 years of boating ex perience, while 12% indicated 40 years or more boating experience. On average, res pondents boated 47 days during the proceeding 12 months, with approximately 25% that noted boati ng more than 55 times during that period. On average, boaters operated thei r vessels 29 days in Volusia County, while 42% had boated 10 days or fewer during the proceed ing 12 months. Eighty two percen t indicated to have boated on six different water bodies within the previous 12 months, with 13% repor ted to have boated only on the St Johns River. The majority of respondents (90%) repor ted owning seven or fewer books and/or magazine subscriptions. About 50% said they owned 28 or fewer boating-related items, and 19% owned 100 items or more. Only 28% of re spondents belong to a boati ng. Overall, boaters believed themselves to be highly skilled and knowl edgeable, but much less so with respect to the either the specific waterway in which the study was conducted, or th eir ability to operate a vessel offshore. Operationalization of Variables Recreation specialization Recreation specialization was conceptuali zed based on three dimensions: behavioral, cognitive and affective. To a ssess the behavioral dimension of recreation specialization, four

PAGE 160

160 questions related to the number of years a boater, number of days boated in past 12 months, number of days boated in Volusia County in pa st 12 months, or number of water bodies boated during past 12 months were use d. Cronbachs alpha analysis re gistered a standardized alpha value of .67. The affective dimension of the recreation sp ecialization construct was evaluated with seven questions, three of which generated ratio s cale data, and four that generated Likert scale responses (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree). Cronbachs alpha analysis identified a standardized alpha value of 81. For the cognitive domain, four Likert scale (1 =lowest, 10=highest) items were employed to measure self-reported boating skil l, knowledge of boating rules a nd regulations, experience with Volusia County waterways, and comfort level oper ating a vessel 20 or more miles offshore. Cronbachs alpha analysis of these items iden tified a standardized alpha value of .77. A composite specialization was also calculated by adding in dividual domains indices. A Cronbachs alpha analysis for the composite specia lization index registered a standardized alpha value of .81. Following an examination of the distribution of each item within the three domains, raw responses were converted to Z-scor es to create individual indices and a composite specialization index for te sting of hypotheses. Marine conservation attitudes Marine conservation attitudes were conceptua lly divided into 1) attitudes toward manatee conservation (3 items), and 2) attitudes toward general marine conservation (3 items). The six items were tied to a Likert scale format (1=Str ongly Disagree, 2=Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree). Three manatee conservation questions measured boater agreement with manatees worth saving despite the need for regulations, manatee pr otection causing too many inconveniences, and vessel speed reduction is an effective manatee protection strategy.

PAGE 161

161 Three general marine conservation attitude items measured boater agreement with boat speed as an effective general marine conserva tion strategy, general suppo rt of Floridas boating rules and regulations, and boat sa fety speed zone causing too many inconveniences. Four items were combined to create a composite marine c onservation attitude index as two items were dropped. A Cronbachs alpha analysis for the co mposite marine conservation attitude index registered a standardi zed alpha value of .80. Knowledge Boater knowledge of state ma natee protection status and Fl orida boating speed restriction definitions were assessed by three multiple-choice questions: In Florida, manatees are officially listed as, When in an idle speed zone, a boa ter should, and When in a slow speed zone, a boater should. The correct answer choices for th e latter two questions we re based upon official state definitions of complianc e operation in each zone. Non-compliance/compliance behavior Two items were used to ascertain boaters level of self-reporte d compliance and noncompliance with vessel speed zones. The items were based on a five point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5 = strong ly agree), and prompted responde nts to indicate their level of agreement with the statements, I fully comp lied with manatee speed zones during my most recent boating experience, and I fully complied with general (non-manatee) boat safety speed zones during my most recent boatin g experience. The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis, with the standardized alpha value of .66. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items we re summed to create a self-reported compliance index. Furthermore, based on a dichotomous (yes /no) format, boaters were asked to report if they had ever been ticketed for vi olating boat speed restrictions.

PAGE 162

162 Boaters were also asked to indicate the t op five reasons for non-compliance with boat speed restrictions. For this question, respondents were given 14 potential reasons, whereby five ranked responses (1=most important, 2= second most important, etc.) were solicited. Speed zone signage assessment Speed zone signage assessment was operationalized using six items tied to a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5 ). The items were based on: signage assessment in manatee zones, and signage assessment in general boat safety zones. Signage assessment in manatee zones was operationalized based on three items: assessing how well manatee speed zones are marked, how eas y the signs are to read, and ability to tell when in a manatee speed zone. Based on reli ability analysis using Cronbachs alpha, a standardized alpha value of .87 was identified. Fo llowing reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a mana tee zone signage assessment index. Signage assessment in general boat safety zone s was operationalized based on three items, assessing how well general boat sa fety speed zones are marked, how easy the signs are to read, and ability to tell when in a general boat safety speed zone. Similarly, a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis was conducted, with a standardized alpha value of .88 identified. Following reliability analysis, the values of th e items were summed to create a general boat safety zone signage assessment index. A composite signage assessment index was also computed for the values of all six signage assessment items. Reliability analysis using Cro nbachs alpha registered a standardized alpha of .91.

PAGE 163

163 Theory of reasoned action Theory of Reasoned Action was operationalized using nine items tied to a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items were based on three conceptual domains: attitudes, subjec tive norms and behavioral intentions. Attitudes were operationalized based on three questions, relating to disregarding boat speed restrictions: Having the freedom to get to my destination quickly while boating is important, Having no threat of ticketing for disr egarding boat speed zones is important, and having fun while on my boat is more important th an obeying boat speed zones. The items were subjected to a reliability analys is using Cronbachs alpha analysis with the standardized alpha value of .63. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create an attitude index. Subjective norms within the TRA construct were operationalized based on three items, regarding perceptions of what referents want the respondent to do while boating: When boating, I want to do what family and friends think I should do, When boating, I want to do what other boaters think I should do, and When boating, I want to do what law enforcement officers think I should do. The items were subjected to a reliab ility analysis using Cro nbachs alpha analysis, with the standardized alpha value of .62. Followi ng reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a subjective norm index. Behavioral intentions within the TRA c onstruct was operationalized based on three questions regarding intention to follow ve ssel speed restrictions and boating in an environmentally responsible manner during next boat outing. The items were subjected to a reliability analysis using Cronbachs alpha analysis with the standardized alpha value registering .76. Following reliability analysis, the values of the items were summed to create a behavioral intention index.

PAGE 164

164 Summary of Findings Results of Research Questions Tested Mean speed discrepancy (observed speed minus maximum allowable) did not differ between those who had, and those who had not been ticketed for boat speed violations in the past. Mean speed discrepancy di d differ significantly between th e slow and idle speed zones, with mean vessel speed discrepancy higher in the idle speed zone than in the slow speed zone (t(1207) = 10.4; p<.01). Party size did not infl uence vessel speed discrepancy, nor did vessel type. However, mean speed discrepancy was si gnificantly higher for vessel length of between 16-25 than any of the other ca tegories (<12, 12-15 26-39, 40-64, >64 ) (F = 2.62; p<.05). A Bonferroni multiple comparison was performed to determine differences within vessel length categories, with significant di fferences found between vessel lengt h category two (12-15) and vessel length category three (16 5) (p<.05). Neither a boaters history with seeing manatees, nor their assessment of zone signage in fluenced vessel speed discrepancy. A boaters level of specialization was signi ficantly associated with zone signage assessment. An increase in recr eation specialization wa s found to be associated with a reduction in zone signage assessment (e.g., composite specialization index a nd composite signage assessment index correlati on: r = -.22; p<.01). Telephone interviews used to examine non -response bias resulted in a significant difference in the level of agreement with the st atement Manatee speed zones are well marked, with non-respondents reporting lo wer agreement (3.0 of on a Li kert scale format where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree and 5=St rongly Agree) than respondents (3.5 of 5.0) (p<.05). The results suggest that the manatee and composite signage assessment indices may have differed between respondents and non-respondents.

PAGE 165

165 Lastly, several of the TRA components were sign ificantly associated with each other. An index of self-reported compliance behavior was significantly correlated with the behavioral intention index (r = .55; p<.01) as well as the at titudes index (r = -.35; p<.01). The attitude index was also significantly and negativ ely associated with behavioral intentions (r = -.52). Next, a multiple regression was employed, with results de monstrating that self-reported compliance was a stronger predictor of behavioral intentions (standardized beta = .42; p<.01) than were attitudes (standardized beta = -.37; p<.01). Neither s ubjective norms nor vessel speed discrepancy were significant predictors of behavioral intentions. In general, the re sults partially substantiate the TRA model. Results of Hypotheses Tested Recreation specialization Recreation specialization was not found to be associated with ve ssel speed discrepancy (hence compliance), although the behavioral (r = -.19; p<.01), cognitive (r = -.23; p<.01), and the composite specialization indices (r = -.14; p<.05) were found to be significantly and negatively associated with self-reported compliance beha vior in manatee speed zones. Self-reported compliance behavior within general, non-manatee speed zones was also found to be significantly associated with the affective (r = .14; p<.05) and cognitive indices (r = -.14; p<.05), and the composite index of self-reported compliance behavior was found to be significantly and negatively related to the behavioral (r = -.17; p<.01) and cognitive indices (r = -.21; p<.01). Marine conservation attitudes we re found to be negatively and si gnificantly associated with the behavioral index (r = -.35, p<.01) the affective index (r = -.30, p<.01), the c ognitive index (r = .37, p<.01) and the composite specialization i ndex (r = -.43, p<.01). Similarly, behavioral intentions were found to be negatively and signi ficantly associated with the behavioral (r = -.23, p<.01), cognitive (r = -.27, p<.01), and composite specialization indices (r = -.17 p<.05).

PAGE 166

166 Telephone interviews conducted to examine non -response bias resulted in a significant difference in the number of years of boating ex perience, with non-respond ents reporting fewer years experience (mean =19) than respondents (mean =26) (p<.05). The results suggest that the behavioral and composite recreation specia lization indices may have differed between respondents and non-respondents. Reported vs. observed compliance behavior The statistically insignificant association be tween self-reported co mpliance behavior and observed vessel speed discrepancy suggest that self-reported compliance behavior was a poor proxy for actual (observed) boati ng behavior. Additionally, an independent samples t-test found that the mean scores for each of the complia nce measures did not differ significantly among compliant and non-compliant boaters (observed) further demonstrating that self-reported compliance behavior did not accurately reflect observed behavior. Marine conservation attitudes A weak and statistically insignificant associ ation between observed speed discrepancy and the marine conservation attitude index was found. However, results indicated a strong positive and statistically significant associ ation between behavioral intenti ons to fully comply with speed restrictions and marine conser vation attitudes (r = .44, p<.01). Similarly, the associations between the marine conservation attitude inde x and self-reported co mpliance behavior in manatee speed zones (r = .32; p<.01), general bo at safety speed zones (r = .16; p<.05) and the composite self-reported compliance behavior index (r = .27; p<.01) were found to be positive and statistically significant. Telephone interviews conducted to examine non -response bias resulted in a significant difference in the level of agreement with the statement Manatees are worth saving despite the need for regulations, with non-respondents re porting lower agreemen t (mean=3.9 on a Likert

PAGE 167

167 scale format where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Di sagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree and 5=Strongly Agree) than respondents (mean=3.5) (p<.05). A dditionally, a significant difference in the level of agreement with I generally support Flor idas boating rules and re gulations was found to exist between non-respondents (mean=3.5) and respondents (mean=3.9) (p<.05). The results suggest that the general marine conservation at titude index and composite marine conservation attitude index may have differed between respondents and non-respondents. Behavioral intentions A positive and significant association between the composite behavioral intentions index and the composite index of self-reported co mpliance behavior was found (r = .67, p<.01). Despite this finding, behavioral intentions were found to be we akly associated with observed vessel speed discrepancy. Path analysis A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validat e the scales. After dropping several poorly performing items, the results of the CFA demonstrated strong evidence of reliability and convergent validity. Despite the model being a good fit to the data the hypothesized path model was generally found to poorly explain the relationships betw een the individual constructs. Recreation specialization had a strong negative influe nce on marine conservation attitudes ( B = -.57); marine conservation attitudes exhibite d a strong positive influence on behavioral intentions ( B = .33); and behavioral intentions had a strong positive influence on self-reported compliance behavior ( B = .63). The postulated theo retical model was generally weak in accounting for the relationships between the latent variables.

PAGE 168

168 Discussion Watercraft-related impacts currently acc ount for 24% of the deaths suffered by the federally listed endangered manatee ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ) (FWC, 2006b). Although the Federal Manatee Recovery Plan (FMRP) fo cuses on reducing waterc raft-induced mortality through the use of boat speed regulatory zones, manatee deaths have increased 10% per year over the past decade (FWC, 2006b). Although manatee speed zones have been prelim inarily shown to reduce manatee mortality (Laist & Shaw, 2006), not all boaters comply with z one speed restrictions. Fifty five percent of the vessels observed in this study were non-comp liant with maximum allowable speeds in their respective zones (slow a nd idle). The results of this study are remarkably similar to other compliance studies (mostly qualit ative) that have been conduc ted in Florida (see Gorzelany, 2001, 2004; Tyson, 2001; Tyson & Combs, 1999). For example, Gorzelanys (2004) examination of the wake propagation of 26,000 ve ssels in southwest Florida found between 63% and 58% of vessel operators to be fully complia nt with posted signage in Sarasota and Lee Counties, respectively. Previous researchers ha ve found an association between vessel length and manatee zone non-compliance. For exam ple Gorzelany (2004) f ound that the relative proportion of boaters who were fully compliant with speed restrictions de creased with decreasing vessel size. Thus, operators of shorter vessels such as personal watercraft and johnboats (often less than 12 in length) were generally found to be less complia nt than operators of longer vessels such as cruisers and yachts. The pres ent study found vessels between 16 and 25 to be the least compliant boat length category, and as such the results are contrary to some prior findings. In her study of Haul over Canal, Florida boaters, Tyson (2001) also found that compliance depended on vessel length; however, contrasting Gorzelany (2005) and consistent with the present study, she found that larger vess els tended to be less compliant than vessels

PAGE 169

169 under 25 in length. The site-specific nature of boater compliance (Sha piro, 2001) may explain the apparent divergence. Incongr uities in the compliance-vessel le ngth association might also be related to channel morphology and boat density. Both factors might artificially inflate compliance levels among operators of longer vesse ls when boating in narrow, shallow or dense conditions, where maneuverability and safety necessitates slower vessel speeds. Gorzelanys (1996) boater compliance study (w hich included a mix of qualitative and quantitative speed assessment) f ound that personal watercraft a nd johnboats were less compliant of manatee speed zones than the other vessel types observed, with tw o out of every three personal watercraft sightings evaluated as blatantly non-compliant 2 at one site. Gorzelany also found considerable variability in compliance among vessel types when examined across different sites. The present study found vessel speed discrepancy (hence compliance) independent of boat type. This might be partly explained by the aforem entioned finding that non-compliance was found to be higher among vessel lengths of between 16 a nd 25 than among shorter or longer vessels. Personal watercraft and johnboats, both of whic h were found least compliant in Gorzelanys (1996) study, tended to be shorter vessels (usually less th an 15 in length). It is also worth noting that the results of the present study mirror Go rzelanys (1996) findings in that the level of compliance was found to be higher among operators of rental vessels than for operators of nonrental vessels. It is a logical assumption that those who rent ve ssels spend less time on the water than those who own their own vessels. Perhaps spending relatively less ti me boating results in a reduction in waterway familiarity and increase d caution, which is manifested in reduced boat speeds. 2 Blatantly non-compliant defined as a vessel transitioning at a speed greater than one speed category faster than the posted limit through a significant portion of a speed-restricted area, or as defined by 1) traveling between 8-15 mph if in Idle Speed zone, or 2) traveling greater than 15 m ph if in Slow Speed zone (adapted from Gorzelany, 1996, 1998).

PAGE 170

170 Gorzelany (1996) also found that boater co mpliance with respect to weekend versus weekday was significantly related to site for all sites combined, and that the presence of law enforcement resulted in the highest level of co mpliance (74%) and the lo west level of blatant non-compliant behavior (8%). On-water observa tions for the present study were conducted almost exclusively on weekends, and few offi cers were observed (43 of 1670 total vessel observations). Although weekend sampling and low fr equency of officer presence serve to limit comparisons to his 1996 study, the present research found that self-reported ticketing history for boat speed violations had no bearing on observed vessel speeds. Boater non-compliance can be considered a form of depreciative be havior. Direct and indirect management techniques have been employe d in a variety of park and managed settings to reduce unwanted visitor behaviors. Indire ct techniques such as communication designed to educate, persuade, and otherwise change behaviors have generall y been the preferred method in park settings (Hendee & Dawson, 2002; Manni ng, 1999; Roggenbuck, 1992). Although indirect techniques such as on-water signage is thought to be most cost-effective and most likely to result in enduring visitor behavioral changes (Clark, et al., 1972), the communica tion circuit often fails due to poor understanding of the communicatio n process (Absher & Bright, 2004). Knopf and Andereck (2004) recommended that to minimize the expression of unwanted behaviors, resource managers should focus on the cau ses of the depreciative behavior rather than the perpetrator, and to effectively communicate th e rules and regulations of the resource. In Florida, vessel speed reduction in manatee zone s is primarily facilitated by on-water signage meant to communicate waterway speed limits and ot her restrictions to boaters. On average, about one-third of the boaters surv eyed in this study either disa greed or strongly disagreed with manatee and general, non-manatee boat zone sign s being well marked, easy to read, and zones

PAGE 171

171 being delineated in such a way as to facilitate full unde rstanding of being in a speed-restricted zone. Although speed zone signage assessm ent was not associated with vessel speed discrepancy, the signage assessment results are similar to Florida boater signage assessments by Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) and Confer et al. (2003). Consid ering these findings, boater noncompliance might partly be described as an uni ntentional violation, which occurred as a result of a lack of knowledge or understanding of appropriate conduct (Gramman & Vander Stoep, 1987). If poor waterway sign cognition resu lts in boater non-compliance (unintentional violation), then its presence may serve as a rel easer-cue which invites increasing levels of noncompliance as the behavior becomes norma lized (Gramman & Vander Stoep, 1987). Various examinations of the validity of self-re ports as a surrogate of actual behavior have demonstrated incongruity between what peopl e report on surveys and their real behavior (Hagburg, 1968; Lichtman et al., 1992; Mick, 1 996; Warriner, et al., 1984). Along this line, Mick (1996) evaluated self-reports of purchase beha vior within the context of socially desirable response (general reluctance to divulge attitudes and behavior s that may appear socially marginal) (SDR). He concluded that SDR bias is important in social research that rely on questionnaires to assess attitudes, beliefs and/or behavi ors. Mick also acknowledged that despite its potentially profound impact on data integrity, little effort has been conducted to determine how this self-report bias may influence depreciati ve and/or prosocial behavioral research (e.g., pro-environmental behavior). This investigation examined the corres pondence between self-re ports of compliance behavior (compliance with manatee and general bo at safety zones during ones last boat outing) and level of observed compliance measured as vessel speed disc repancy. The findings support the notion that self-reports of behavior may poorly reflect actual behavior. A very weak and

PAGE 172

172 statistically insignificant associ ation was found between observed boat speeds and self-reports of compliance behavior. The results lend credence to Micks (1996) concep t of SDR. While 55% of the boaters observed in this study were not fully compliant w ith on-water speed restrictions, most self-reported a very high level of agr eement with fully complying with boat speed restrictions during their most recent boating ex perience. In fact, none strongly disagreed or disagreed with either of the self-reported comp liance behavior items. Researchers such as Warriner at al. (1984) have sugge sted that accurate self-reports rely on ones willingness to answer correctly in the face of cognitive dissonance such as, when actual behavior clashes with social norms. The high level of self-reported co mpliance behavior and th e lack of association between self-reported compliance behavior and observed behavi or suggest that boaters may provide survey responses that are deemed to be socially desirable when their actual behavior conflicts with regulations or with th eir stated attitudinal positions. Results of the path analyses suggest that behavioral intentions had a strong positive influence on self-reported compliance behavior Consequently, it is possible that boaters possessed neither the skill nor the knowledge to know when they were not in full compliance with speed restrictions. If boaters fully intende d to follow speed restrictions, but lacked the skill to do so, then non-compliance should be evaluated as a form of unskilled behavior and targeted with educational intervention (Hendee et al., 1990). The overall uncertainty of the noncompliance issue suggests that a better understand ing of the psychological attributes leading to non-compliance is warranted. TRA frames behavior in terms of attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). TRA has generally been s hown to be robust in its ability to predict or otherwise explain behavior visa-a'-vis intentions, as intentions are thought to be the single best

PAGE 173

173 predictor of behavior. Although a few studies have examined the association between past behavior, attitudes, subjective no rms, and behavioral intentions (Albarracin et al., 2001), the majority of the outdoor recreation l iterature lacks the past behavior variable in the TRA model. Given the applicability in outdoor recreation research, utiliza tion of past behaviors to predict intentions and future behaviors offers an important opportunity to further examine outdoor recreationists. The present study examined th e associations between past behavior (self-reported compliance behavior as well as observed vessel sp eed discrepancy), attitu des, subjective norms and behavioral intentions. Attitudes were found to be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions to fully comply with speed restri ctions during the next boat outing. Past behavior in the form of self-reported compliance was also found to be a strong predictor of be havioral intentions, although observed behavior (speed discrepancy, a past behavio r) was not. Subjective norms were also identified to be a poor pred ictor of behavioral intentions. Consistent with the present study, natural re source management research using the TRA has found that attitudes are often a strong predictor of behavioral in tentions. For example, Bright et al.s (1993) examination of public perceptions of a Nationa l Park Service controlled burn policy found that a change in intention to support a controlled burn policy was predicted by the level of attitude change. Bri ght et al. (1993) also found that subjective norms were a strong predictor of behavioral intentions. In contrast Aipanjiugly (2000) concluded that both attitudes and subjective norms regarding manatee conser vation were strong predic tors of behavioral intentions among Florida boaters. Along this line, a general lack of consistency regarding the predictive ability of attitudes and subjective norms on behavioral intention is exemplified in automobile driving behavior research. For example, a study by Rothe ngatter et al. (1985)

PAGE 174

174 demonstrated that attitudes explained 53% of th e variation in intention to exceed posted roadway speed limits, whereas subjective norms explained 8% of the variation. Contrastingly, Parker et al. (1992) identified that subjectiv e norms explained the majority of the variation in intention to speed on roads through built environments. Responde nts in this study portrayed themselves as practically devoid of motivation to behave how referents (family, frie nds and other boaters) wanted them to behave while boating. This lack of motivation helps explai n the poor predictive ability of subjective norms on behavioral intentions. Within the TRA, past behavior in the form of self-reported compliance was found to be a strong predictor of behavioral intentions. Ouel lette and Wood (1998) argu e that past behavior tends to predict intentions and future behavi or, although the argument is typically made with respect to behaviors that become habitual (e.g., smoking), and ther efore automatic through rehearsal. Though the role that past behavior pl ays within the TRA model seems to have gained acceptance within the contemporary psychology liter ature (Albarracin et al., 2001; Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Conner, Sheeran, Norman & Armitage, 2000) rarely has it been examined within a natural resource context. The results of the present study are consistent with Knussen, Yule, MacKenzie, and Wells (2004) who found that self-reports of past recycli ng behavior made a significant contribution to behavioral intention toward future recycling. In fact, very similar co rrelations were found to exist between past behavior and behavioral in tentions among Knussen et al.s (2004) study (r = .67) and the present study (r = .55). As a cautionary note, self-reports of be havior as a surrogate for actual behavior serve to limit the findings of each study. Additionally, recycling behavior is easily rehearsed on a daily basis, while boating be havior may not be due to the considerable time, effort and money required to transport a nd launch a vessel. Despite these limitations in

PAGE 175

175 comparisons, past behavior in the form of self -reported compliant boat operation was found to be a strong predictor of intention to follow boat spee d restrictions during future boat outings, and is thus consistent with the literature. Concomitantly, it may be logical to expect a person with positive conservation attitudes to exhibit pro-environmental behavior. Marine conservation attitudes we re found to be poorly associated with observed vessel speed discrepanc y in this study. Although the association was found to be weak, marine conservation attitudes were found to be generally high. Consequently, boaters might not consider vessel speed violations, or lack ther eof, a manifestation of their respective conservation attitudes, or boaters may exhibit compliant boating behavior only when convenient. Despite the poor association between marine co nservation attitudes and vessel speeds, the findings are consistent with other re searchers who have found similarly weak causal connections between conservation attitudes and self-reported beha vior (Tarrant & Cordell, 1997; Thapa, 2000; Theodori et al., 1998 ; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). In examining the general lack of associat ion between conservation attitudes and proenvironmental behavior, Diekmann and Preisendor fer (1992) submit that people generally find a way to offer a favorable account of their behavior, regardless of their behavior; and that people follow their environmental concern by acting consiste nt with it only in low cost situations, and when convenient. Within the context of the pr esent study, boaters may have reported that they were pro-environment (high marine conser vation attitudes) rega rdless of their boating behavior. It is also possible th at regardless of their overall de sire to comply, boaters may not have possessed the skill or knowledge to operate their vesse ls in a pro-environmental (compliant) way. In fact, boaters may have been entirely unaware that they were in violation of speed restrictions. Boater s are not typically issued ci tations based upon miles-per-hour

PAGE 176

176 violations while in idle a nd/or slow speed zones, but rather are ticketed based upon qualitative assessment of vessel speed 3 by law enforcement officers. Therefore, boaters may possess little understanding of how id le and slow speeds translate to miles-per-hour. Diekmann and Preisendorfer (1992) further s uggest that people act on environmental concern only when doing so represents little co st in terms of money, time or effort. Boaters surveyed in this study self-reported a high de gree of compliance beha vior and behavioral intention to boat in concert wi th speed restrictions during th eir next boat outing, with both attributes positively associated with marine c onservation attitudes. Self-reported compliance behavior and behavioral inten tion may be an inexpensive way of demonstrating environmental concern. Despite generally repor ting high degrees of marine cons ervation attitudes, behavioral intentions, and level of self-re ported compliance behavior, thes e did not translate to actual compliance behavior on the water. The lack of association between marine c onservation attitudes and observed compliance behavior should be interpreted with caution. Owi ng to the difficulty of assessing environmental attitudes, several attitudinal sc ales have emerged. Scale development is a complex process and there seems to be evidence that different environmental attitude scales measure different underlying constructs (Stern & Oskamp, 1987). For example, Tarrant and Cordell (1997) examined the relationships between self-reported environmental behavior and five separate environmental attitude scales. Despite thei r use of well-established scales (e.g., the New Environmental Paradigm; and the Awareness of C onsequences scales), three were found to be most strongly associated with behavior, and among those, two were significantly affected be 3 Idle Speed: The minimum speed that maintains steerage of a vessel; little or no displacement of water is from either the bow or stern; vessel remains level in the water at all times. Slow speed: The speed at which vessels are completely off plane; fully settled in the water. Some minimal water displacement at either the bow or stern (or both) may be observed. Florida Administrative Code 62N-22.

PAGE 177

177 respondent attributes. With resp ect to the present study, the use of different attitude items might have lead to substantially different results in the attitudes-behavior association. Weigel (1983) stated that the attitude-behav ior correspondence might be weak for a variety of reasons, including reliance on a poor quality attitude measure (p.262). The attitude assessment items used within the present study were not subject to the rigorous testing required to create a high quality scale. Consequently, a lack of relationship between ma rine conservation attitudes and vessel compliance might be due, in pa rt, to this lack of rigor. Recreation specialization theory was tested within the cont ext of vessel speeds, marine conservation attitudes, self-repor ted compliance behavior, and be havioral intentions. Bryan (1977) hypothesized that as an individual pr ogressed through the spec ialization continuum (novice to expert) within a specifi c activity, he or she would incr easingly accept the rules, norms and procedures of that activity and become more conservation or iented. There has existed an underlying assumption that highly specialized out door recreationists will possess a high level of concern for resource conservation. The reas oning behind this assu mption is that highly specialized recreationists may be more cognizant of their own c ontributions to environmental impacts and will thus have gr eater concern for reducing imp acts upon the resource with which their recreation depends (Bry an, 1977; Ditton et al., 1992). Findings generally suggest that as recrea tionists proceed along the specialization continuum they concomitantly report higher leve ls of environmental concern (Katz, 1981; Kaufman, 1984; Mowen et al., 1997), site-specifi c environmental concern (Mowen et al., 1997), and support for resource management rules and re gulatory procedures (D itton et al., 1992). Additionally, although support for waterway manageme nt rules and regulations in the form of fishing limits have been found among the most hi ghly specialized anglers (Chipman & Helfrich,

PAGE 178

178 1988; Oh & Ditton, 2006; Salz et al., 2001), poor s upport for access-denial regulations has also been found among anglers regardless of their leve l of specialization (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Salz et al., 2001; Salz & Loomis, 2005). Despite the advancements in recreation specia lization research, previous examinations of the theory have all relied upon se lf-reports of behavior, and none have attempted to observe recreation participants while engaged in their re spective activities. Th e present study uniquely observed recreationists while they were engaged in recreational boating. Results suggest that specialization had little to do with the manifestation (or lack thereof) of de preciative behavior in the form of non-compliant vessel operation. Results also demonstrated that higher levels of recreation sp ecialization were significantly and negatively associated with marine conserva tion attitudes. Though these results seem contrary to specialization theory, they ar e not surprising given that seve ral of the marine conservation questions either directly or i ndirectly addressed agreement with access control in the form of speed restriction as a conser vation strategy. Although it is not known how similar general boaters are to anglers in terms of their marine conservation attitudes, findings of the present study are consistent with angler research id entifying access-denial re striction to be an increasingly unpopular issue with higher levels of specialization (Salz et al., 2001). Recreation specialization theory also predicts that as spec ialization level increases, so too does dependency on that specific resource (Brya n, 1977; Ditton et al., 1992). Th erefore, dependency on the resource with increasing specia lization level might result in a reduction in marine conservation attitudes when attitudes are asse ssed with access-denial issues. Two recent studies have examined self-reports of specific depreciative behaviors as they relate to recreation specializa tion. For instance, Meyer (200 2) found that the most highly

PAGE 179

179 specialized SCUBA divers self-reported the fewest depreciat ive behaviors such as touching or standing on coral while diving. The cognitive dimension of the recreation specialization construct was found to be more useful in explai ning general diving behavior s than the behavioral dimension, a logical conclusion as skill could be expected to increase ones ability to maintain neutral buoyancy and allow a diver to avoid cora l contact. In a re-examination of this study, Thapa et al. (2006) concluded th at the behavioral domain of the recreation