-
Title
-
Eng
Exploring Environmental Volunteer Motivations: Two Case Studies in Thurston County
-
Date
-
2015
-
Creator
-
Eng
Skill, Elizabeth
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
EXPLORING ENVIRONMENTAL VOLUNTEER
MOTIVATIONS: TWO CASE STUDIES IN
THURSTON COUNTY
By
Elizabeth Skill
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
September 2015
© 2015 by Elizabeth Skill. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Elizabeth Skill
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Kathleen Saul, MA, MES
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Environmental Volunteer Motivations: Two Case Studies in Thurston County
Elizabeth Skill
Environmental volunteers offer important contributions to communities, organizations,
and agencies. They play a vital role in educating the public on local environmental
concerns as well as provide necessary support to agencies, such as land management
agencies, and to organizations that work towards environmental preservation,
conservation, and education. Some agencies rely solely on environmental volunteers to
accomplish their goals. Thus, we need to understand volunteer motivations in efforts to
recruit new volunteers and retain current volunteer involvement. This study surveyed a
total of 136 volunteers of two environmental organizations in Thurston County: Stream
Team and Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Using a functional approach, I applied a
volunteer function inventory to assess volunteer motivations. I found that the strongest
motivator for most participants was a desire to help the environment. Other strongly
ranked motivators included learning (this can refer a desire to learn various different
things such as local flora and fauna or one may want to gain knowledge about data
collection) and contributing to or connecting with the community. In addition,
sociodemographic data was collected to look for associations between demographics and
motivations. Because a majority of the volunteers were white, educated, and not
affiliated with military, those demographics could not be investigated. However,
associations were tested between age and motivational responses as well as gender and
motivational; responses. It was found that volunteers in their 40’s or below or
significantly more likely to choose career advancement motivations to volunteer over
older volunteers (X^2 = 4.15, p<0.05). It was also found that women are more likely to
choose learning as a motivator (X^2 = 4.15, p<0.05). These findings, along with other
trends identified and information collected, can equip these two organizations with
information about their volunteer population that can be used to create programs to target
specific populations or motivators of their volunteers. In addition, these results
contribute to the overall study of environmental volunteer motivations by showing
consistency among trends as well as providing new insight about environmental
volunteers.
Table of Contents
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………...vi
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….vii
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………….1
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………....6
Chapter 3: Methods………………………………………………………………..19
Chapter 4: Results & Discussion…………………………………………………. 23
Chapter 5: Conclusion …………………………………………………………….47
Appendices
Appendix A: Complete Survey……………………………………………………53
Appendix B: Example of VFI Items and Means………………………………….59
List of Figures
Figure 2.3.1 Volunteer Functions Inventory Items for Clary et al……………………10
Figure 2.3.2 Volunteer Motivation Categories with Mean Scores…………….……...15
Figure 4.2.1. Population by Gender………………………………………………..….25
Figure 4.2.2. Population by Age………………………………………..….……...…..26
Figure 4.2.3. Population by Retirement………………………………….……............29
Figure 4.5.1 Mosaic Plot………………………………………………………………38
Figure 4.5.2 Participants Who Volunteer with Other Organizations of Any Kind……39
Figure 4.5.3 Retired vs. Volunteer Depending on Time……………………..………..42
V
List of Tables
Table 2.3.1 An Evolution of Volunteer Functions Inventory in Environmental Volunteer
Motivation Studies ……………………………………………………………..11
Table 4.21. Population by Race………………………………. ……………………….27
Table 4.2.2. Population by Education…………………………………………………..27
Table 4.2.3. Population by Household Income……………………………………...….28
Table 4.2.4 Population by Military Affiliation……………………………………..…..30
Table 4.2.5 Population by City……………………………………………………...….30
Table 4.2.6 Population by Time Lived in City………………………………………....30
Table 4.3.1 Stream Team Volunteer Motivations………………………………………32
Table 4.3.2 Nisqually Reach Nature Center Volunteer Motivations………………..….34
Table 4.3.3 Ranked Motivational Responses from Bruyere & Rappe and Jacobson
et al……………….……………………………………………………………...35
Table 4.5.1 Population by Time Spent as a Volunteer………………………………….36
Table 4.5.2 Stream Team Volunteers: Number of Events Attended in the Last 12
Months……………………………………………………………………….….37
Table 4.5.3 Other Organizations That Participants Volunteer With………………..…..39
Table 4.5.4 Volunteer Preference in Working with a Project Leader…………………..40
Table 4.5.5 Volunteer Decisions Based on Time and Activities……………………….41
Table 4.5.6 Top Activity Responses from Stream Team Volunteers………………..…43
Table 4.5.7 Top Four Activities of Interest for NRNC Volunteer…………...…..……..43
Table 4.6.1 Self Perceived Importance of Role…………………………………….…..44
VI
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Kathleen Saul, my thesis advisor, for her never ending support and
encouragement as well as excellent feedback. Thanks to the folks at Stream Team and
the Nisqually Reach Nature Center for allowing me to work with them and for their help
in collecting data. Thank you Michelle Stevie from Stream Team for helping to make this
happen through your initial contact and communication and continued support. Thank
you Terence Lee from the Nisqually Reach Nature Center for interest and patience with
this project. To the MES graduating cohort of 2015 – thank you for being in the boat
with me! And finally, to my friends and family, thank you for all your love and support
throughout this process.
VII
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Volunteer History
Volunteerism has been a part of the history of the United States since pioneers
started their westward migrations (Warta, 2009). Many historians believe that
volunteerism began during these journeys because colonists needed to develop support
systems to promote success as they faced many challenges including crop production and
building homes and structures; most noted are volunteer armies who fought against
British soldiers (Rosenburg, 2013; “History of British Colonial America,” n.d.). Another
example of the development of volunteerism during the 18th century is one of the first
volunteer firehouses, founded by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736 (Cohen,
2012).
The 19th century proved to be a time of great development for volunteerism and
charitable organizations; many volunteers were motivated through church and religious
activities as part of the Great Awakening (a religious transformation and revival in
America during the 18th and 19th centuries). The development of volunteerism during
this century built the foundation for many new organizations that developed during the
20th century, such as environmental volunteering (but also including Rotary Club, Lions
Club, and volunteer organizations supporting servicemen and civilians during World War
II) (Rosenburg, 2013). It did so by providing a precedent for establishing and structuring
formal volunteer organizations. The Young Male Christian Association (YMCA) is a
notable example of a formal association established during the mid-19th century; the
YMCA currently reports having 600,000 active volunteers (“Organizational Profile,”
2015).
1
Environmental volunteerism, which took root in the 19th century, experienced
much growth during the 20th century, including involvements such as the increase of
conservation volunteer initiatives. For example, the Appalachian Trail, a wilderness trail
along the Appalachian Ridge to be built and maintained by volunteers, was first proposed
in 1921 (Chapman, n.d.). The growth of volunteerism coincided with a conservation
movement that took place during the late 19th century and early 20th century resulting in
the creation of the Forest Reserve Act (allowed for the President to set aside forested area
that was on public domain), and the Sierra Club (a club founded by John Muir devoted to
protecting our wilderness and wildlife), as well as the United States Forest Service and
the National Park Service. The environmental movement of the 1960’s and 70’s also
contributed to the growth of various environmental volunteer initiatives (“All About
Environmental Movements,” 2012). Earth day, for example, began on April 22nd, 1970
and involves volunteer commitment to demonstrate and work towards a healthy and
sustainable environment; Earth Day is now a global event celebrated in over 180
countries (“Earth Day: The History of a Movement, n.d.). In 2013, it was reported that
62.6 million adults volunteered for some type of organization (“Volunteering in
America,” 2013). The topics in this thesis that explore volunteerism will primarily focus
on environmental volunteerism as my research explores environmental volunteer
motivations which will be further explored in subsequent sections.
1.2 Importance of Environmental Volunteerism
It is important to understand environmental volunteerism as it plays an important
role in our communities and with various agencies to which many of us benefit from, use,
or associate with in some way. Environmental volunteers provide benefits to many
2
including personal benefits gained by volunteers, benefits to our communities, and
benefits to those organizations just mentioned that rely on the work and dedication of the
volunteers to accomplish their missions. The environment has certainly benefited from
the work of environmental volunteers through restoration and conservation efforts, trail
maintenance, invasive plant species removal, and other similar efforts.
Volunteers themselves often benefit from volunteering, whether it’s having fun,
getting outdoors in nature, developing personal growth, obtaining personal satisfaction,
or meeting new people. For example, one study suggests that volunteer work from
students has beneficial effects on their academic development as well as personal
development both during their schooling and after (Cress and Sax; 1998). In addition,
communities often benefit from environmental volunteer involvement. Land managers
and conservation organizations, for example, have volunteers who educate the public on
management and conservation issues and decisions (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
Environmental volunteers often educate the public on local issues and expand public
awareness of local environmental concerns. Incorporating the help of volunteers is a vital
strategy in educating the public. A more informed public can make more
environmentally friendly decisions; likewise, volunteers themselves may learn more
environmentally friendly behavior as a result of their involvement. In addition, some
organizations provide family-friendly events and give community members an
opportunity to establish a connection with and play a contributing role towards their
community.
Environmental volunteers also contribute to scientific research and have allowed
for environmental improvements to be made that may have otherwise not have happened.
3
“The environmental movement would not exist without the help of thousands of
dedicated volunteers. “Both public and private environmental organizations rely on
unpaid volunteers to further the cause of protecting and helping the imperiled natural
environment” (Ryan, Kaplan, & Grese, 2001, p. 629). According to Bruyere & Rappe,
limited budgets of land management agencies such as the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
coupled with increasing uses of their resources by visitors, contribute to an increasing
dependence on volunteers (2007). Trends have continued to show that federal land
management agencies experience declining budgets and this trend is expected to continue
(Bruyere & Rappe, 2007; Propst, 2003; Cordell & Betz, 2000). Participation in outdoor
recreation places greater demands on our natural environments (Bets, 1999; Cole, 1996).
These circumstances create a heavier reliance on volunteers to support natural resource
and land management agencies.
The work of environmental volunteers is very important as is the understanding of
volunteer motivations in efforts to improve an organization’s ability to recruit and retain
volunteers. However, there is a lack of study concerning environmental volunteer
motivations (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007; Ryan et al., 2001). Managers need to be mindful
of volunteer motivations when developing programs and activities so they can offer
opportunities for volunteers to satisfy their motivations and maintain their role volunteers
(Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
1.3 My Research
I have conducted a case study of two organizations in Thurston County that rely
on volunteers to carry out their mission and work: Stream Team and Nisqually Reach
4
Nature Center. Both of these organizations are active in conservation and outdoor-based
activities, and as Bruyere & Rappe note, “minimal research exists concerning the
motivations, recruitment and retention of volunteers specifically for conservation and
outdoor-based organizations” (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007, p. 503). This research will
contribute towards filling that research gap.
Indeed, the purpose of this research is to further identify and evaluate the
motivations of those who volunteer with these two out-door based, educational and
conservation oriented organizations in Thurston County, Washington. This study will
provide a better understanding of the volunteers involved and identify ways to support
volunteer recruitment and retention.
Following this introduction will be a review of the literature relevant to this
research. After a review of the pertinent literature, my methodology for this study will be
discussed. Then I present my results along with an integrated discussion of them.
Finally, I will conclude this thesis with a brief summary of key findings as well as closing
remarks.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will examine various definitions of terms relevant to this research as
well as introduce and explore the concept of the functional approach and the volunteer
functions inventory (VFI). Furthermore, this chapter will review methodologies used in
similar studies and will discuss similarities and differences among these studies. It will
conclude by addressing areas in the research that may warrant further investigation.
2.2 Definitions
As previously mentioned, only a limited number of articles speak to
environmental volunteer motivations, and even fewer specifically look at outdoor based
conservation oriented organizations. As a result, I have also reviewed articles exploring
volunteer motivations related to citizen science programs, environmental stewardship
programs, and other general volunteer motivation studies.
Because this chapter explores articles relating to environmental stewards and
citizen scientists, it is important to understand the differences and similarities between
these categories of volunteers. While there are various definitions offered for each of
them, most of the definitions share common key words and themes. An environmental
volunteer can be involved in a wide range of activities including monitoring, restoration,
and educational work. A citizen scientist partners with scientists with the aim of
collecting scientific data; they work on “projects in which volunteers partner with
scientists to answer real-world questions” (“Defining Citizen Science,” 2015). Citizen
scientists can be involved in various types of volunteer work; they need not be specific to
the environmental sector. However, many citizen science initiatives are environmentally
6
related and the articles explored later in this chapter that pertain to citizen science do
explore environmental citizen science programs. Thus, whenever I refer to citizen
science in this thesis, it can be assumed that the reference is environmentally related. It is
important to note that a citizen scientist is considered an environmental volunteer but an
environmental volunteer may not always be considered a citizen scientist; one has to
actively be involved in the scientific process to be considered a citizen scientist.
An environmental steward takes responsibility for protecting our environment;
environmental stewardship is “the act of taking responsibility for the well-being of the
environment and taking action to restore or protect that well-being” (“Stewardship,”
2015). Although there are various definitions offered for the term environmental
steward, they all the share the theme of having a responsible relationship with the
environment. Articles relating to environmental stewardship motivations are also
relevant to this study since environmental stewards who volunteer their time are
considered environmental volunteers. One can think of the term “environmental
volunteer” as an umbrella term under which both citizen scientists and environmental
stewards can fall.
2.3 Methodologies
This section discusses methods used to explore environmental volunteer
motivations to offer the reader greater insight into the approaches taken in other studies
as well as to give the reader a better understanding of the choices I made regarding
methodology for this particular research project. My primary focus will be on the
functional approach and the volunteer functions inventory, as this was the most
frequently used method among the research.
7
2.3.1 Functional Approach and Volunteer Functions Inventory
A functional approach has been employed in several studies investigating
volunteer motivations. As Bruyere & Rappe note, “a recurring approach with in the
psychological and environmental disciplines for studying individual behavior such as
volunteerism is the functional approach” (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007, p. 505). This
approach, introduced by Daniel Katz in 1960, is a “motivational perspective that
investigates the personal and social processes that initiate, direct and sustain action”
(Bruyere & Rappe, 2007, p.505). The principle concept behind the functional approach
is that although people perform the same actions, their motivations may be different.
This is an important concept to consider when investigating environmental volunteer
motivations because sustained participation depends on satisfying each volunteer’s
motivations (Clary & Snyder, 1999; Bruyere & Rappe, 2007; Katz, 1960). Similarly, the
reasons for volunteering initially may differ from the motives that keep people
volunteering (King & Lynch, 1998).
To apply the functional approach to assess the motivations of volunteers, Clary
and others identified six motivational functions, together known as the voluntary
functions inventory (VFI) (Clary et al., 1998). Note that while the VFI captures
volunteer motivations in general and is not specific to environmental volunteers, it can be
useful in helping why people participate in environmental organizations. The six
categories of the VFI are values, understanding, social, career, protective, and
enhancement. Definitions as they pertain to this study are as follows:
Values: The opportunity that volunteers are often provided to express
their values. In this study it is mentioned that this refers specifically to the
8
opportunity for volunteers to express their values related to “altruistic and
humanitarian concerns for others” (Clary et al, 1998, p. 1517).
Understanding: The prospect of learning and experiencing new things.
Social: The motivations of volunteers that relate to socializing with others
whether it’s an opportunity to meet new people or engage in an activity
with a friend.
Career: The opportunity to obtain career related benefits is another
function that may be served from volunteering.
Protective: Protecting the ego and giving volunteers a chance to relieve
guilt or escape negative feelings. For example, one may volunteer to those
less fortunate to relive guilt for living a more fortunate life.
Enhancement: The chance to enhance one’s ego. For example, one may
volunteer to enhance personal growth or obtain personal satisfaction.
(Clary et al., 1998).
To apply these functions in assessing volunteer motivations, Clare et al gave
volunteers a number of statements (items) and asked them to rate their level of
importance using a 7-point Likert rating scale (see figure 2.3.1) As you can see, each
item in the scale is associated with its respective function. The mean ratings were then
calculated to determine the strongest motivators.
9
Figure 2.3.1 Volunteer Functions Inventory Items for Clary et al.
Three years after the initial Clary et al study, Ryan et al. (2001) adapted the
volunteer function inventory and modified it to be more applicable for predicting
volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programs. These authors kept
“social” and “understanding” (although they changed the term to “learning”) and
removed “values,” “career,” “protective,” and “enhancement.” Instead, they added
“environment,” “reflection,” “project organization,” “feeling of doing something useful,”
and “making decisions about projects” (Ryan et al., 2001). These authors describe
“reflection” as “having a chance to reflect” or “feeling peace of mind” (2001).
10
Similarly, another six years later, Bruyere & Rappe adapted the functional
approach to identify the motivations of environmental volunteers and applied their own
modifications. This new VFI was subsequently used by Jacobson, Carlton, & Monroe
(2012) to explore volunteer motivations and satisfactions at a Florida Natural Resource
Agency. Similar to Clary et al., Bruyere & Rappe identified “learning,” “career,” and
“social” as functions of motivation. In addition, following Ryan et al., Bruyere & Rappe
also identified “environment” and “project organization” (2007). The following table
(Table 2.3.1) offers a visual aid to observe the evolution of the volunteer functions
inventory in environmental volunteer motivation studies. In addition, the functions were
listed in order from strongest to weakest as identified by its associated study for the last
three columns. Environment ranked as strong motivator for all three studies, and learning
ranked as a fairly strong motivator whereas functions such as social and career do not
rank highly as strong motivators.
Table 2.3.1 An Evolution of Volunteer Functions Inventory in Environmental Volunteer Motivation
Studies
(Clary et al.,
1998)
Values
Understandin
g
Social
Career
Protective
Enhancement
(Ryan et al., 2001) *
Feeling of doing something
useful
Environment
(Bruyere &
Rappe, 2007) *
Environment
(Jacobson et al.,
2012) *
Environment
User
Learning
Learning
Project organization
Social
Values & Esteem
Learn
Social
Reflection
Project
organization
Career
User
Values & Esteem
Project
organization
Social
Making decisions about
projects
Career
* The functions in these column are listed in order from strongest to weakest motivator as identified in their
associated studies.
11
Because Bruyere & Rappe modified the VFI and because Jacobson et al. and I
used this VFI in our studies, I am offering a definition for each of these functions as they
pertain to both the Jacobson et al study and my own to ensure that the reader understands
what each function means.
Help the environment: This refers to a desire to help the environment or
an expressed concern for the environment. The expressed concern can be
held at a local scale for a specific issue, or it can be a broad concern
towards global or general environmental matters. For example, a
volunteer may be motivated to do the work that he or she does because of
a concern held towards a local environmental or ecological concern such
as stormwater pollution if that is a serious matter in one’s community
(Jacobson et al., 2012; Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
Learning: Similar to “understanding” introduced by Clary et al., this
refers to a desire to learn; this may refer to environmental knowledge or
other information. For example, some may volunteer to gain knowledge
about local flora and fauna or other local plant and animal species while
others may volunteer to learn about community events (Jacobson et al.,
2012; Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
Social: As with the “social” function identified by Clary et al., this
function refers to social benefits such as hanging out with friends and
meeting new people (Jacobson et al., 2012; Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
Career: Like the “career” function identified by Clary et al., this refers to
a desire to gain career experience or experience that can be added to one’s
12
resume. Some volunteers may devote their time in order to gain skills for
a resume and/or career advancement which may include networking or
making contacts that may help career/job advancement. In addition, a
volunteer may devote his or her time to explore possible career options
(Jacobson et al., 2012; Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
User: This function refers to a motivation where volunteers are willing to
donate their time when their work improves an area that they use for
recreation. This can include invasive plant species removal for clearing
trails that a volunteer may use recreationally. Or, for example, a
fisherman may participate in salmon stewardship projects in hopes of
protecting future salmon runs (Jacobson et al., 2012; Bruyere & Rappe,
2007).
Values and esteem: This function represents the motivation of a volunteer
to live closely to their values. One may choose to volunteer because it
provides an opportunity to put a value into action. For example, one may
value family activities and chose to join organizations that allow the
family participate together because it gives them an opportunity to express
that value. Or, similar to the “enhancement” function identified by Clary
et al., this may serve to improve one’s self esteem (Jacobson et al., 2012;
Bruyere & Rappe, 2007)
Project organization: This refers to a motivation to be part of a wellorganized program (Jacobson et al., 2012; Bruyere & Rappe, 2007).
13
The following figure (Figure 2.3.2) comes from Jacobson et al., showing all the
functions and their associated items which volunteers were asked to rate from 1
(strongly unimportant) to 7 (strongly important). Although Bruyere & Rappe
identified this set of functions and created the items associated with them, the
findings from this research will be compared to this figure, since it includes the
mean values obtained from their study.
14
Figure 2.3.2 Volunteer Motivation Categories with Mean Scores
15
If you refer back to table 2.3.1, you can see that “environment” was identified
somewhere in the top three motivators in all three studies (Ryan et al., 2001; Bruyere &
Rappe, 2007; and Jacobson et al., 2012). “Learn” was found somewhere in the top three
for both Ryan et al. and Bruyere & Rappe’s study and falls fourth in Jacobson et al.
“Career” came in last for both Jacobson et al. and Bruyere & Rappe’s study (keeping in
mind that the functions listed for Clary et al. where not identified in any order). This
dimension was among the lowest motivators and was typically a factor for younger
volunteers (Clary et al., 1998; Jacobson et al., 2012). Based on these results, I expected to
find that “career” will be identified as a weak, not a strong, motivator for most of the
volunteers of Stream Team and the Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Similarly, I expected
that those who identify “career” as a strong motivator will likely to be younger in age.
2.3.2 Other Inquiries
In addition to applying the VFI, Bruyere & Rappe asked an open-ended question
in their research: “What is the most important reason that you volunteer for an outdoor
organization?” (2007). After coding the responses into themes related to the seven
identified categories, a new theme of “getting outside” emerged, representing 18% of the
themes identified from open-ended responses (Bruyere & Rappe, 2007). Although this
theme was mentioned as a potential new category, it was not used in Jacobson et al. study
(2012).
Although Jacobson et al. did not gather qualitative data, the authors did obtain
sociodemographic information to examine whether volunteer motivations varied by
volunteer characteristics. In addition, these authors sought to explore if programmatic
factors contributed to volunteer satisfaction in efforts to gain a better understanding about
16
if and how these volunteers’ motivations were being satisfied. They found that most of
the volunteers were Caucasian (95%), male (57%), between the ages of 40-64 (63%),
were employed part time (58%), and had some form of college degree (62%) (2012).
In addition, when testing for associations between demographics and volunteer
motivations, they found “women had significantly higher average scores than males in
motivations based on helping the environment, career, learning, and values and esteem
categories” (Jacobson et al., 2012, p. 64). General research on volunteerism implies
that the motivations of volunteers differ by gender, with women often reporting stronger
motivations (Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996; Fletcher & Major, 2004). I expected similar
results in my study of volunteers in Thurston County.
2.4 Research on Volunteer
Studies suggest that environmental volunteer motivations or reasons for
volunteering may change from the initial stages, when people first join organizations, and
their continued involvement (Rotman et al., 2014; Ryan et al. 2001). Additionally,
volunteers are often motivated by more than one reason (Ryan et al., 2001).
Jacobson et al. found that social benefits were stronger motivators for long term
volunteers (2012). This is important to consider this when exploring volunteer retention.
Although “environment” is often the strongest or one of the strongest motivators, “social”
may be important for those volunteers who continue their involvement. It may be that
volunteers are committed to long term engagement because they seek an opportunity to
develop personal relationships or build on existing relationships as they continue to
volunteer over longer periods of time. Additionally, Ryan et al suggest that volunteer
activities play a role in volunteer involvement and commitment. They note that more
17
proactive activities, like stream restoration tasks, develop stronger commitment of
volunteers; these opportunities offer volunteers a chance to see tangible results or develop
an attachment with the area they are working in (Ryan et al., 2001). This research
suggests that what motivates the newer volunteers at Stream Team and the Nisqually
Reach Nature Center may differ from the factors that motivate the long time volunteers.
2.5 Limitations
Many of these studies incorporated an online survey; this creates the potential to
leave out certain portions of the study population. As Jacobson et al noted, these nonrespondents are likely to be poor, less educated, or elderly (2012). Another limitation
that specifically impacts the volunteer functions inventory is that a person’s motivation
may not fall into one of the predetermined categories. On the other hand, a motivation
may fall into more than one category. For example, although a volunteer may identify a
concern for the environment as a motivator, that volunteer may also be acting upon that
concern because he or she is living closely to their values. Without follow-up interviews,
there is no way to know how a person responded in such cases.
18
Chapter 3: Methods
3.1 Introduction
As will be discussed further in the sections that follow, I chose to survey the
volunteers of two volunteer organizations in Thurston County as case studies for
evaluating volunteer motivations: Stream Team and the Nisqually Reach Nature Center
(NRNC). I employed an online survey method, SurveyMonkey, to create and administer
my survey. The link to the survey was sent out via email by both of these organizations
to their volunteer database as it was discussed and determined that this would be the best
method for reaching the most participants. A follow-up reminder email was sent out
three weeks after the initial emails were sent. In addition, Stream Team advertised the
link to the survey in their paper copy newsletter. After a total of six weeks, the survey
link closed and the data was collected.
I collected volunteer demographics as well as data on motivational responses to
look for associations among sociodemographic and motivational responses; a list of the
survey questions can be found in Appendix A. In addition, Stream Team administered an
online survey to their volunteers in 2011 with various questions relevant to this research;
this data will be considered when discussing results.
3.2 The Organizations
I chose Stream Team and the NRNC because of their similarities in goals and
volunteer activities and opportunities. The goals of both of these organizations involve
education, restoration, and conservation. Stream Team, for example, has the motto:
Educate Protect Restore, and their mission involves protecting and enhancing “the water
resources, associated habitats, and wildlife of Thurston County through citizen education
19
and action” (“About Stream Team,” 2013). Nisqually Reach Nature Center “promotes
the understanding, appreciation, and preservation of the Nisqually estuarine ecosystem
and its integral role in the local environment, history, and culture, through interpretation,
education, and research (Nisqually Reach Nature Center, n.d.) Both of these
organizations offer volunteer activities that include data collection (citizen science
opportunities) as well as educational programs that can both educate volunteers or allow
volunteers to educate the public. Thus, on paper, these organizations appear similar in
terms of goals and volunteer activities. In the context of this study, this begs the
question: Are the volunteers and their motivations similar? One would assume that
volunteer demographics and motivations are similar; my data collection will help shed
light on this.
3.3 Survey Development
The survey administered to members of both organizations consisted of the same
base questions, plus organization-specific questions regarding outreach and activity
interests. A question about how volunteers initially heard about the volunteer
opportunities and how they continue to communicate with the organization was also
included for both organizations, although specific details of the question were different
since the organization had different ways to recruit and keep their volunteers engaged. In
addition, some of the questions chosen for the Stream Team survey were copied directly
from their previous 2011 survey to allow for cross comparisons; those questions were not
included on the NRNC survey. The survey was divided into three distinct sections:
volunteer motivations, volunteer background, habits & preferences, and volunteer
demographics
20
To identify volunteer motivations, I chose to explore this topic with three
different modes of questioning to identify consistency between responses, or lack thereof:
open ended, Likert statements, and “single most” statements, which will further be
explained.
1. Open Ended Question
The very first question of the survey was an open ended question: “What
motivates you to volunteer?” I asked this first because I wanted to capture the
volunteers’ unbiased response to the question. I did not want the material of the survey
to play a role in how they scoped their response to this question – I was looking for
volunteers’ initial reply to this question. After collecting responses, I coded them into
motivational categories using key words and phrases such as “learn”, “help the
environment”, “career”, and “meet new people”. Many answers were coded into more
than one motivational category. When added up, the percentages will equal more than
100% because many responses fell into more than one category. For example, one
response was “care for local environment, work with like-minded people.” This response
would fall into the both “environment” and “socializing” motivational categories.
2. Likert Statements (Functional Approach)
A motivation scale consisting of 35 items, adapted from Bruyere & Rappe (2007),
was used to rank motivational categories. Volunteers responded to these items by
choosing one of the following: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly
agree; there was no order to how these items were listed. Each item corresponded to a
specific motivational category, i.e. “career,” etc. However, as mentioned earlier, I also
included items to rank motivation levels for “outdoors” and community”. These two
21
categories have not been used as functions in a volunteer functions inventory in previous
studies on environmental volunteer motivations that employed this type of functional
approach. Bruyere & Rappe noted that “outdoors” was identified as a strong motivator in
their open-ended responses; because of this I decided to add three of my own items to
represent this category: “have fun outdoors,” “observe nature,” and “do something
outside.” To represent community, I added “to connect to my community” and “to give
back to my community” as items. Again, all items were randomly displayed within this
section of the survey. From the five point scale, I collected averages for each item and
then, after matching each item to its own motivational category, calculated final averages
for each category (see Appendix B for an example).
In addition to the items used to identify the strength of specific motivators, I
asked four statements inquiring into volunteer preference and used the same five point
scale as previously mentioned: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly
agree. I merged the first two responses together and the last two responses together. For
example, all responses indicating a strongly disagree or disagree were clumped together
and considered a “disagree” response while all agree and strongly agree responses were
considered an “agree” response for the purpose of calculated percentages.
3. “Single Most” Statements
In this section of the survey I offered single statements representing each
motivational category and asked the volunteers to identify their single strongest and
single weakest motivator.
A series of demographic questions were asked included items related to age,
gender, household income, education, military, and race. The age, race, and household
22
income questions were all modeled after the 2010 and 2013 census for the purpose of
comparing the survey data to county data. Outreach questions were constructed as per
suggestions from organization representatives. A military affiliation question was
constructed as desired by representatives of Stream Team.
3.4 Deleted Responses
Out of 101 responses from Stream Team volunteers, three were deleted. Two
were deleted because for the very first question, the open ended question asking
volunteers what motivates them to volunteer, these responders indicated that they have
not yet volunteered. One of them offered no subsequent responses and another continued
to answer the questions. A third responder’s answers were deleted from the data set due
to “silly” responses that led me to believe that the responder did not take the survey
seriously. For example, this person’s response to the first question about what motivates
them to volunteer was “lust, aggression, and boredom.” There were 36 respondents for
the Nisqually Reach Nature Center volunteer survey and no responses were deleted.
3.5 Data Analysis
I used Microsoft Excel and JMP to manage my data as well as perform statistical
analyses. I used Chi-square to test for associations among various sociodemographic and
responses and motivational response. This was, however, only performed on data from
Stream Team as there was not a large enough sample size from NRNC to apply a chisquared analyses; this will be discussed further in the following chapter.
23
Chapter 4: Results & Discussion
4.1 Introduction
This chapter integrates both results and discussion for Stream Team and for
NRNC data. The demographics will be presented and discussed first, followed by
motivational responses, and volunteer habit and preference information. This chapter
will conclude with a final discussion examining key similarities and differences among
these results as well as limitations of this study and suggestion for future studies.
There were 36 respondents from NRNC and 101 from Stream Team but, as
previously mentioned in the methods chapter, three have been deleted.
4.2 Demographic Results
For some of demographic data explored in this section, I have included data from
the Thurston County census for comparison purposes and to reveal any groups that are
being underrepresented in the volunteer populations of these two organizations. For the
purposes of recruitment, this may be valuable information to a project or organization
manager as it may shed light on areas in which an organization may like to extend or
improve outreach methods.
*Note: The gender and age sections that follow include Stream Team’s 2011 survey data
for comparisons.
24
GENDER
Figure 4.2.1. Population by Gender
As these graphs indicate, the majority of the volunteer population for both
organizations is female. These data are not consistent with Jacobson et al., (who sought
to link sociodemographic information to motivators) who noted surveying a 57% male
population. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that women volunteer at
higher rates than men (about 58% women, 42% men) (2014). Even so, the 2010 census
noted the female population for Thurston County was 51.3% (U.S. Bureau of Census
2010), suggesting both Stream Team and NRNC have an opportunity to target the male
population in new recruitment efforts.
25
AGE
In the survey, I asked volunteers to denote their age in increments of five years.
However, I have grouped the data into decades for the purposes of comparing with the
previous 2011 Stream Team survey data. In addition, the Stream Team 2015 survey and
the NRNC survey denoted age ranges in the 70’s and 80’s; this age specific information
was not available for Stream Team 2011 survey data -- the highest age increment noted
was “60+”.
Figure 4.2.2. Population by Age
Figure 4.2.2 shows that for both organizations, the largest age group 60 to 69
years old. In addition, for both organizations, the majority of the population is in a 50 or
older age group. This information is consistent with existing literature (Jacobson et al.,
2012).
26
RACE
Table 4.21. Population by Race
Stream Team
American Indian and
Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
White
4.1%
2.1%
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
91.8%
NRNC
American Indian and
Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
White
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
97.1%
Thurston County
(U.S. Bureau of
Census 2013)
American Indian and
Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African
American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
White
1.7%
5.5%
3.3%
8.1%
0.9%
83.4%
Most of the volunteers for both Stream Team and Nisqually Reach Nature Center
and white, aligning with county census data. Again, these results match with volunteer
demographics from the existing literature. Both of these organizations have an
opportunity to reach out to different racial/ethnic populations and perhaps this may
require more directed outreach methods.
EDUCATION
Table 4.2.2. Population by Education
Stream Team
Less than high school degree
High school degree or equivalent
(e.g., GED)
Some college but no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor degree
Graduate degree
Doctoral degree
Other
0.0%
0.0%
7.6%
6.5%
41.3%
32.6%
7.6%
4.4%
NRNC
Less than high school degree
High school degree or equivalent (e.g.,
GED)
Some college but no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor degree
Graduate degree
Doctoral degree
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
45.5%
42.4%
0.0%
3.0%
27
Stream Team volunteers revealed that 88% of the population who responded to
the survey had some type of college degree. Another 8% indicated that they had some
college but no degree. NRNC volunteers revealed that 97% of the population who
responded had some type of college degree. Census data reveals that 32.3% of the
population in Thurston County has a bachelor’s degree or higher; this percentage is
calculated from people of age 25 years or older (“State & County Quick Facts,” 2013). It
appears that most of who chose to volunteer with these types of organizations are welleducated. This is consistent with Jacobson et al. who noted that the respondents of their
study were better educated than the general population of their study area (2012). This is
also consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics which notes that there are higher rates
of volunteers with college degrees than without (“Volunteering in the United States,”
2014).
INCOME
Table 4.2.3. Population by Household Income
Stream Team
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
NRNC
8.6%
2.5%
9.9%
8.6%
16.1%
21.0%
14.8%
13.6%
1.2%
3.7%
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
7.7%
3.9%
7.7%
7.7%
15.4%
11.5%
11.5%
26.9%
0.0%
7.7%
Thurston County (U.S. Bureau
of Census 2013)
Less than $10,000
4.0%
$10,000 to $14,999
2.0%
$15,000 to $24,999
5.7%
$25,000 to $34,999
6.4%
$35,000 to $49,999
11.2%
$50,000 to $74,999
21.5%
$75,000 to $99,999
18.2%
$100,000 to $149,999
20.3%
$150,000 to $199,999
6.5%
$200,000 or more
4.2%
Although there are varying responses for income, the majority of the volunteers
report a household income of $50,000 or more per year; this is concurrent with county
28
census data. This may associate with the fact that many of the volunteers are educated
and are thus more likely to earn these rates of income.
RETIRED
Figure 4.2.3. Population by Retirement
Over half of NRNC’s volunteer population consider themselves retired while
about a third of Stream Team’s volunteer population considered themselves retired (See
Figure 4.2.3). Jacobson et al. (2012) noted a 29% retired population in their study; these
organizations appear to have a fairly high percentage of retired population. The high
percentage of retirees may play a role in producing results that differ from those from
Jacobson et al., particularly in motivational responses.
29
MILITARY
Table 4.2.4 Population by Military Affiliation
Stream Team
Non-military
Retired military
Veteran
Active duty military
No, but I am an active duty military
spouse or child
NRNC
Non-military
84.1
%
2.3%
11.4
%
0.0%
2.3%
Retired military
Veteran
Active duty military
No, but I am an active duty military
spouse or child
93.1
%
3.5%
0.0%
3.5%
0.0%
In general, there is little military affiliation among the volunteer populations for
both organizations. I found no environmental volunteer motivation studies that inquired
into military affiliation. Perhaps, as with other racial groups, this may be an opportunity
for these organizations to reach out to a specific demographic.
CITY
Table 4.2.5 Population by City
Stream Team
Olympia
Lacey
Tumwater
Yelm
Tenino
Bucoda
Unincorporated Thurston County
Other
54.8%
11.8%
2.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
12.9%
17.2%
NRNC
Olympia
Lacey
Tumwater
Yelm
Tenino
Bucoda
Unincorporated Thurston County
Other
42.4%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.2%
33.3%
TIME LIVED IN THURSTON COUNTY
Table 4.2.6 Population by Time Lived in City
Stream Team
NRNC
0-2 years
21.3%
0-2 years
3-5 years
6.4%
3-5 years
6-8 years
7.5%
6-8 years
8+ years
55.3%
8+ years
Not applicable 9.6%
Not applicable
12.1%
6.1%
6.1%
57.6%
18.2%
30
Most of the volunteers for both organizations have lived in Thurston County for
eight years or more. This seems intuitive -- one would expect those who have spent more
time living in the County would have a stronger connection or feel more of a desire to
contribute to their home area. However, the second largest group (other than the “not
applicable” category) was volunteers who have lived in Thurston County for two years or
less. It is possible that the majority of volunteers are those who have lived in the county
for a long period of time and have established a role with these organizations, and those
who are new to this area and are seeking explore opportunities or establish a role within
the community. Finding a way to motivate these very different groups can be
challenging.
4.3 Motivations
As previously discussed, I explored volunteer motivations with three separate
methods of questioning. An open ended question “What motivates you to volunteer?”
was asked first. Then, the volunteers were asked to rank their level of agreement to a
series of items relating to motivational functions. Finally, the volunteers identified their
single strongest and weakest motivator. This was done to detect internal consistencies, or
lack thereof, among motivational responses. Table 4.3.1 below represents the three top
responses for each method of inquiry. The percentages represent the percent of
population that chose that motivator. The open-ended responses equal more than 100%
because many responses fell into more than one category.
31
Table 4.3.1 Stream Team Volunteer Motivations
Stream Team: Motivations
Open ended responses
Environment 46.8%
Community 25.5%
Learn 21.3%
Social 20.2%
Outdoors 14.9%
Career 6.4%
Kids 6.4%
Support efforts of organization
4.3%
Values 4.3%
New to area 2.1%
Mean Likert Scores (1
least important to 5 most
important)
Environment 4.6
Outdoors 4.1
Learn 4.0
Community 3.8
Values and Esteem 3.7
User 3.6
Project organization 3.2
Social 3.1
Career 2.0
Single strongest motivator
Environment 40.2%
Learn 28.9%
Community 15.5%
Values 7.2%
User 2.1%
Outdoors 2.1%
New to area (if applicable)
2.1%
Career 1.0%
Project organization 1.9%
Socialize 0.0%
Survey respondents identified a concern or care for the environment as the
number one motivator for all three modes of inquiry. Similarly, a desire to learn appears
somewhere in the top three responses in all three as well, and “community” is found in
two. This reveals consistency in volunteers’ responses about their motivations. There
are, however, examples of inconsistencies. Most notably, social was eighth in the Likert
scale rating and last in the “choose one” rating yet ranked fourth in the open-ended
questions. A fifth of the population mentioned some form of socializing when answering
to what motivates them to volunteer. The discrepancy may lie with how I coded the
open-ended responses, in what I decided should fall under the “social” category. Or, it
may be that volunteers chose not to rank social items high when prompted as they may
feel pressured to maintain the notion of volunteering as a selfless act.
Although most of the responses were easily placed into one or more known
motivational categories (which concurs with the suggestion that volunteers are motivated
by more than one function), it is important to note that how I interpreted the responses
32
plays a role in the data that is represented; this process was done at my discretion but
based on my understandings of the organizations and their missions. For example, one
response was “…love the outdoors.” This could be interpreted as a response that should
fall into the “get outdoors” category indicated that he participates in these outdoor
volunteer opportunities because he loves to be outdoors. However, it could have also
meant that because he loves the outdoors, he chooses to volunteer with an organization
whose main goals are to protect outdoor areas. In this case, I placed the response in the
“get outdoors” category. “My interest in Low Impact Development stuck my interest in
the program” could have been related to the “environment” but because the survey
respondent did not explicitly link it to the environment, it was placed it into the “other”
category.
As the open-ended responses in Bruyere & Rappe’s study suggest, “outdoors” is
identified as a strong motivational function. Because outdoor ranked high with the
functional approach, I think future studies should investigate this notion to determine if
“outdoors” is a more plausible function for the VFI than other, lower ranked functions
such as “organized program.” It would also be interesting to examine the link between
those who volunteer with outdoor activities with their rating of volunteering, to better
evaluate the strength if this motivator.
33
Table 4.3.2 Nisqually Reach Nature Center Volunteer Motivations
NRNC: Motivations
Open ended responses
Environment 38.9%
Learn 19.4%
Personal Satisfaction 19.4%
Social 16.7%
Career 16.7%
Support efforts of organization
13.9%
Community 8.3%
Teach 8.3%
Outdoors 5.6%
Mean Likert Scores (1
least important to 5 most
important)
Environment 4.4
Community 3.7
Learn 3.6
Outdoors 3.6
Values and Esteem 3.5
User 3.3
Social 3.1
Project organization 3.1
Career 2.0
Single strongest motivator
Learn 31.4%
Environment 25.7%
Community 25.7%
Career 14.3%
Outdoors 2.9%
User 0.0%
Values 0.0%
Project Organization 0.0%
Socialize 0.0%
New to area (if applicable)
0.0%
NRNC has an older population and a larger retired population, yet “career” is a strong
motivator for this population, primarily among the younger respondents. This organization seems
to primarily have older volunteers and younger volunteers seeking career opportunities. Is this
organization hitting a “middle crowd” or “family crowds”? That could be a target population for
future outreach activities.
The “single strongest motivator” column reveals important information not just on what
volunteers identify as their strongest motivator but also because it offers insight into what are not
indicated is strongest motivators for any volunteer. Functions such as “user,” “project
organization,” and “social” are not identified as the strongest motivator for any volunteer. I find
that results for “social” surprising as almost 17% of the respondents mentioned social motives in
their open-ended response. It could be that for many volunteers, socializing is an additional
benefit gained from participation but is not the strongest motivator for volunteering.
Table 4.3.3 (below) represents the mean Likert scores from both Bruyere & Rappe and
Jacobson et al. Compared with the results from Stream Team and NRNC, one can see that
“helping the environment” and “learning” are strong motivators. However, “values and esteem”
34
as well as “user” are both functions that rated between fourth and sixth place for Stream Team
and NRNC, while for Bruyere & Rappe and Jacobson et al. these functions were rated in second
to fourth place. This difference is likely due to the fact that “outdoors” and “community” to my
survey were added and scored higher than both “user” and “values and esteem.”
Table 4.3.3 Ranked Motivational Responses from Bruyere & Rappe and Jacobson et al.
Mean
Mean
Bruyere & Rappe (2007)
Jacobson et al., 2012
Likert
Likert
Scores
Scores
Help the environment
6.11
Help the environment
6.29
User
4.96
Learning
5.23
Values and esteem
4.96
User
5.03
Learning
4.91
Values and esteem
5.02
Social
4.88
Project organization
4.80
Project organization
4.59
Social
4.79
Career
2.82
Career
3.36
4.4 Chi-squared
There were no Chi-squared analyses performed with NRNC data because the
sample size was less than 50 (n = 36) and therefore when calculating observed figures the
observed cells would have a frequency less than five, making a Chi-square analysis less
reliable. Thus, the following Chi-square discussions relate to Stream Team Data only.
To look for associations between gender and motivational responses, I used a Chisquared method with volunteers’ responses indicating their single strongest motivation. I
found a statistically significant association between women and identifying “learn” as
their strongest motivator over men (X^2 = 4.15, p<0.05). This result is consistent with a
similar study performed by Jacobson et al. (2012). A Chi-square method was also used
to look for associations between age and motivational responses. A statistically
significant association was found between volunteers in their 40’s or below and
identifying “career” as a motivation (X^2=4.93, p<0.05). Likewise, this result is also
35
consistent with existing literature which suggests that career motivations are more
prevalent among younger volunteers (Katz, 1960; Jacobson, 2012). No Chi-square
analyses were performed for other demographics as they were dominated by one
characteristic. For example, because almost all of the volunteers identified as white,
there is no point in looking for associations between race and motivations; the same holds
true for education and military affiliation.
4.5 Volunteer Background & Habits
How long have you volunteered for this organization?
Table 4.5.1 Population by Time Spent as a Volunteer
Stream Team
Less than 1 year
1 to 3 years
4 to 10 years
10+ years
Not sure
36.2%
34.0%
17.0%
6.4%
6.4%
NRNC
Less than 1 year
1 to 3 years
4 to 10 years
10+ years
Not sure
33.3%
36.4%
15.2%
12.1%
3.0%
Going into this research, I assumed that the majority of those who took the time to
respond to the survey would be those who were long term volunteers and already
committed to these organizations. However, a third or more of the sample responding
have been volunteers for less than a year. Likewise, a little over a third of the samples
from both organizations indicated that they have been volunteering for 1 to 3 years. This
can be helpful information as much of this survey data represents new volunteers or those
beginning to establish their role with these organizations, and may be useful for making
decisions that relate to their expectations or interests to promote retention. However,
although it sheds light on why these “newer” volunteers are motivated to contribute, it
leaves a gap in insights for reoccurring volunteers. If I had as much data on volunteers
who have been showing a steady commitment to these organizations, I could gain deeper
36
insights into volunteer retention and those motives that keep volunteers coming back. It
is clear that “environment” is a strong motivator for most of these volunteers (long-term
and short-term included), and, as Jacobson et al. note in their study, dedicated volunteers
are more strongly motivated by “social” functions (2012). It is a bit surprising to see low
a low ranking for social motivations. It is important to keep in mind that the motives that
influence a person to volunteer initially may differ from those that keep them involved.
In the past 12 months, how many Stream Team activities have you attended?
Table 4.5.2 Stream Team Volunteers: Number of Events Attended in the Last 12 Months
Number of events
attended
0
1
2 to 5
6 to 10
10+
1.2%
19.5%
60.9%
13.8%
4.6%
* This question was not given to NRNC volunteers
Figure 4.5.1 below displays a mosaic plot that examines the relationship between
how long one has volunteered with Stream Team (x-axis) and how many events they
attend per year (y-axis). The assumption is that those who are long-term, committed
volunteers are likely to attend more activities than newer volunteers.
37
Figure 4.5.1 Mosaic Plot Examining the Relationship Between How Long One Has Volunteered
and How Many Activities They Participate in. (Note that the items are not in sequential order)
The largest percentage (per group) that chose 10 or more events was those
volunteers who have been volunteering for 10 or more years. There was a fairly even
distribution of “2 to 5” activities per year among the rest of the groups. However, given
the small population count in the data set it is important to note that the overall “picture”
being represented is not highly accurate; very small differences in responses can appear
to have large impacts on how the data is represented.
38
Do you volunteer other places?
Figure 4.5.2 Participants Who Volunteer with Other Organizations of Any Kind
Many of these participants volunteer elsewhere. The table below represents the type of
organizations and the percentage of respondents that indicated volunteering with them.
Table 4.5.3 Other Organizations That Participants Volunteer With
Stream Team
NRNC
Civic (Rotary, Lions, etc.)
9.8% Civic (Rotary, Lions, etc.)
Religious
12.2% Religious
Environmental
57.3% Environmental
Citizen Science
25.6% Citizen Science
Community/Government (advisory
18.3% Community/Government (advisory
committees, etc)
committees, etc)
School (PTA, classroom, etc.)
14.6% School (PTA, classroom, etc.)
Social Justice (CYA, Food Bank,)
13.4% Social Justice (CYA, Food Bank,)
Other (please specify)
37.8% Other (please specify)
9.4%
28.1%
46.9%
28.1%
28.1%
12.5%
25.0%
21.9%
Although “environment” was indicated as the main type of organization others
volunteer with, many of the respondents volunteer with non-environmental organizations
as well. This makes me curious to know what really motivates these respondents to
volunteer; what truly separates volunteers from non-volunteers. These results make me
question this because although “environment” is the strongest motivator among the
39
respondents, many of them are volunteering with non-environmental organizations. It
may not be just the environmental aspect of Stream Team or NRNC that draws them to
volunteer. “Learning” is also a strong motivator among these respondents; perhaps they
are continuing to fulfil their desire to learn about other places or new subject matter?
I believe these results point to a limitation of the functional approach; the
volunteer functions inventory may identify themes in volunteer motivations, but it does
not delve into the psychology of individual behavior. For example, the inventory may
identify a group of people who share a concern for the environment and value community
connection and choose to volunteer. Yet, there are others who share a concern for the
environment and hold community values yet do not volunteer. Why? Although I feel
this really gets at the heart of volunteer motivations, it is a very difficult question to
answer; there may be so many variables that come into play when a person does or does
not develop volunteering behavior. For example, upbringing may play a role (i.e. parents
who volunteer, children involved in scout troops, etc.) as well as the availability one has
to volunteer. If one is not able to satisfy their needs outside of volunteering, such as
securing shelter, safety, education, income, food, etc. they may not be able to volunteer
despite their shared concern for the environment or desire to learn etc. (this may
contribute to why many of the volunteers are educated and generating moderate to high
income; their needs are met and they may spend time volunteering).
Table 4.5.4 Volunteer Preference in Working with a Project Leader
Stream Team
Yes
No
Doesn't matter
NRNC
38.5%
1.0%
60.4%
Yes
No
Doesn't matter
25.7%
2.9%
71.4%
40
Jacobson et al. noted that volunteers who received training had significantly
higher satisfaction ratings (2012). Training often involved working closely with project
leaders. This question was an attempt to determine how much of the population prefers
working with a project leader so that organization managers can meet those satisfactions
and improve retention rates for volunteers. As you can see from Table 4.5.4, for most
volunteers it does not matter if they work with a project leader or not. However, a strong
portion of the respondents (26% - 38%) indicate that they do prefer a project leader. It is
important for these organizations to continue to offer activates that involve co-working
with project leaders to satisfy the needs of this group of volunteers.
The table below represents the level that volunteers agree to two statements relating to
volunteer decisions.
Table 4.5.5 Volunteer Decisions Based on Time and Activities
Stream
Team
NRNC
Disagree Neutral
I volunteer, depending on
time
I volunteer, depending on
the activity
Agree
Disagree Neutral
Agree
3.1%
7.3%
89.6%
2.8%
13.9%
83.3%
0.0%
6.3%
93.7%
5.6%
13.9%
80.5%
It appears that both time and activity play an important role for respondents when
making decisions about volunteering. As a project manager, it is important to be aware
of the importance of these two factors so as to have a better understanding of what
influences their volunteers’ decisions. For example, if an organization is aware of how
important time is for a volunteer when deciding to participate, the organization may offer
activities on different days of the week, at different times, and of different durations to
allow more options for volunteers to fit activities into their schedules.
41
Because time is such an important factor to volunteers I was curious to see if
those who considered themselves retired disagreed or voted neutral to the statement
“depending on time” (this analysis was not done with NRNC data due to a low frequency
of responses). However, there was no significant difference among the responses
between retired and non-retired respondents. Although, more non-retired folks strongly
agreed with that statement while more retired respondents merely agreed with the
statement (vs strongly agreed) as indicated by the figure below.
Figure 4.5.3 Retired vs. Volunteer Depending on Time
As with time, it is also important to note how activity plays an important role
when a volunteer is determining to participate. This information allows project managers
to offer diverse activities that satisfy the desires of their volunteers. Additionally, as
Ryan et al. note, activity plays a role in volunteer retention; specifically, volunteers who
42
participate more proactive type of activities are more likely to develop a level of
commitment (2001). The table below shows the top three responses from Stream Team
volunteers for activities to which they were not interested, interested, already do, and plan
on doing.
Table 4.5.6 Top Activity Responses from Stream Team Volunteers
Top 3 "not
interested"
Assist at festivals and
fairs
Family-friendly events
Watershed bus tours
Top 3 "interested"
Top 3 "already do"
Top 3 "will do"
Beach and nature walks
Workshop + classes
Planting trees
Habitat and wildlife
monitoring
Marine creature Monday
Planting trees
Watershed bus
tours
Educating the
public
Educating the public
I highlighted the watershed bus tour because it ranked both in “not interested” and
“will do.” I also highlighted planting trees and educating the public because these ranked
in both “already do” and “will do” which indicates volunteer commitment towards what
they’ve already been doing. It appears that these volunteers want to get out and do
something physical or hands-on. This concurs with the suggestion offered from Ryan et
al. that volunteers who participate in more proactive activities are more likely to develop
commitment, as illustrated here as these volunteers indicate that they plan to continue
their involvement. Table 4.5.7 below, represents the top four activities of interest as
indicated by NRNC volunteers.
Table 4.5.7 Top Four Activities of Interest for NRNC Volunteer
NRNC: Top 4 activities of interest
Pigeon guillemot surveys
71.9%
Forage fish surveys
40.6%
Citizen stewardship committee
34.4%
Other education programs
34.4%
43
As with Stream Team respondents, it appears that NRNC volunteers also like to get out
and do something active, as in the case of their pigeon guillemot and forage fish surveys.
4.6 Other Considerations
Table 4.6.1 (below) reveals that most volunteers of both organizations agree that
the organizations’ mission and work are valuable. Yet, many feel neutral or even
disagree that their role with these organizations is important. It is great that volunteers
relate to the importance of these organizations’ mission and work as that plays a role in
their motivations relating to the environment. However, it just as important
thatvolunteers agree that their role is important; if they understand that their efforts are
necessary to help these organizations achieve their goals, this may increase their level of
motivation to continue participating (retention) or participate in more activities
(frequency).
*I looked for associations between ages and if one agreed or felt neutral about the importance of their role
with Stream Team in efforts to identify a population that may feel neutral about their importance.
However, there were no significant differences among age groups and their level of agreement.
Table 4.6.1 Self Perceived Importance of Role
Stream
Team
My role in this organization is
important
This organization’s mission and work
are valuable
NRNC
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree Neutral Agree
10.6%
33.0%
56.4%
12.1%
51.5%
36.4%
0.0%
2.1%
97.9%
0.0%
2.9%
97.1%
Outreach
To gain greater insight into volunteer recruitment I asked volunteers where they
first heard about volunteer opportunities with Stream Team and Nisqually Reach Nature
Center. For Stream Team respondents, most volunteers (43%) initially heard about
44
volunteer opportunities through Stream Team’s newsletter. The next largest group (22%)
chose “other” and filled in various responses as to how they initially heard about
volunteer opportunities; the third largest group (13%) indicated “friend or family.”
Although some items written in the “other” category should have been placed into a
predetermined option, many of the written responses were varied. Other options
available for respondents to choose were website, social media, newspaper, radio, blogs,
etc.
Most volunteers for Nisqually Reach Nature Center (55%) chose the “other”
category when answering this question and the written responses they filled in were quite
varied. Similar to Stream Team respondents, the second largest group indicated “friend
or family” for how they initially heard about volunteer opportunities with the third largest
group (9%) choosing the organization’s website.
Here lies an opportunity for both of these organizations to improve recruitment
methods. Because most of NRNC volunteers initially heard about opportunities through random
places, this reveals that there is not a strong recruitment method taking place. NRNC should
focus efforts on reaching out to the public, particularly the underserved groups mentioned earlier.
Similarly, a large group of volunteers from both organizations became aware of opportunities
through family and friends. Although it is good that volunteers are sharing their experiences with
family and friends, it also indicates a lack of more direct outreach methods. To improve
recruitment efforts, I feel that attention should be spent on developing outreach methods.
An awesome note!
Sixty percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that participating in
Stream Team’s programs has changed their behavior outside of Stream Team programs
45
(i.e. lawn care practices, picking up dog poop, taking car to commercial car wash,
landscaping w/ native plants, etc.)! Similarly, 37% of NRNC respondents agreed that
participating in Nisqually Reach Nature Center activities has changed their behavior
outside of the activities! This is important to note as it represents the benefits that these
programs offer and the importance of better understanding volunteer motivations for the
purposes of recruitment and retention.
4.7 Limitations of study
Because this was a case study using two different organizations, the results are not
widely generalizable, although they still contribute to the overall picture of volunteer
motivations. Similarly, the sample size should be considered, especially in the case of
the Nisqually Reach Nature Center survey. However, I do feel they were strong enough
to represent the volunteer populations of these two organizations. On that note, however,
it is important to point out that the limitation of not having information about nonrespondents may be more limiting than the sample size. These non-respondents may
provide very similar answers compared the responding sample, or it could be that their
responses are quite varied.
Using an online service to collect data also creates a limitation by leaving out
those volunteers who are not as active with the internet. It is assumed that this population
would likely to be older or lower income volunteers (Jacobson et al., 2012).
Additionally, because this survey was sent via email, those volunteers who have not
provided emails to these organizations were excluded from the study.
Additionally, as noted and disused in the literature review, a limitation of the
functional approach is that some motivations may not fall into one of the volunteer
46
functions inventory or a motivation may fall into more than one category. I believe
another limitation associated with this method is that a volunteer’s interpretation of the
items (Likert statements) used to rank motivators may be different than how the
researcher interprets them. For example, to help rank the “learning” motivational
function, Bruyere & Rappe developed the item “to observe nature.” To a volunteer,
observing nature may not be considered a learning activity.
47
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The results gathered from this study benefit Stream Team and the Nisqually
Reach Nature Center (NRNC) by gathering a greater insight into volunteer motivations,
habits, and preferences. In addition, this research adds to the broader field of
environmental volunteer motivation studies by confirming existing trends and offering
further insight into environmental volunteer demographics and motivations. The
following section is designated to suggestions to the organizations that participated in this
study and is followed by a section allocated to suggestions for future environmental
volunteer motivation studies.
5.1 Suggestions for Stream Team and Nisqually Reach Nature Center
Volunteers of NRNC heard about volunteer opportunities from a variety of places.
While 15% chose the listed categories of Nisqually Reach Nature Center website and
social media, 55% wrote something in the “other” category, and 30% indicated that they
heard about NRNC through family and friends. Because NRNC relies solely on
volunteers to accomplish their mission, is it imperative that recruitment and outreach
methods be developed that move beyond their current outreach methods.
Because helping the “environment” is identified as a strong motivator, and
because the survey indicated that at least half of the volunteers tended not to see their role
in the organization as important, project leaders should be more overt in expressing to
volunteers the value of their work and the contributions they make to the environment.
Some activities may not appear to supply a direct contribution towards the environment,
such as working a booth during an event, but the work is still relevant and does contribute
to the mission and goals of the organization which are, in part, meant to improve the
48
environment. Without the efforts of the volunteers, the organizational missions could not
be accomplished. Thus, it is very important for these organizations to make an effort in
expressing the importance of the work that the volunteer are doing in efforts to retain
volunteers and increase participation in activities.
5.2 Suggestions for Future Studies
For future studies seeking to explore environmental volunteer motivations that
will utilize a similar voluntary functions inventory approach, I recommend adding
“community” as a motivational function because it received high scores from both
volunteer populations surveyed in both open ended responses and the calculated means of
the VFI. Community involvement or a connection to the community is missing in many
of the research articles relating to environmental volunteer motivations. Future studies
may test this motivator and see if “community” remains a strong motivator for
environmental volunteers; this can be useful information for program managers who want
to develop activities that attract or retain volunteer participation. If “community”
continues to be a strong motivator for a population of volunteers, perhaps organizations
may want to create events that directly contribute to the community as the same time they
benefit the environment (such as tree plantings in local parks) or allow volunteers to
establish a role or develop a relationship with their communities.
In addition, in exploring these reoccurring questions among the literature (i.e.
what motivates environmental volunteers? How can retention efforts be improved?), I
feel open ended questions can lead to valuable insight. Although this method is not
always feasible due to time and resource constraints, I feel if it were an option for
49
researchers, this qualitative data could lead to greater insights into why individuals chose
to continue their involvement with volunteer organizations.
I now turn to a couple of things I would do different next time, or would
recommend for future studies. First, I would delve more specifically into volunteer job
hours. I only inquired into if a volunteer was retired or not but because time was shown
to be an important factor to these respondents when deciding to volunteer. I would like to
look for associations between full-time and part-time workers and the number of
activities in which they typically participate. Additionally, I would inquire about
volunteer rewards, specifically recognition, and look for associations between recognition
and retention (i.e. is there an association between volunteers who receive recognition and
their continued participation?). No satisfaction or recognition questions were asked in
my survey, and these are inquiries that can help answer questions about volunteer
retention.
Environmental volunteers continue to contribute to communities and play
important roles with environmental organizations and agencies. Their benefits are
widespread both directly and indirectly to the public and to the environment. It is
important to continue research into the motivations of environmental volunteers to gain
greater insight into how these motivations can be satisfied so that these volunteers will
continue their involvement and contributions.
50
References
Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2012). Motivational functionalism and urban conservation
stewardship: implications for volunteer involvement. Conservation Letters, 5(6), 470477.
Bang, H., & Ross, S. D. (2009). Volunteer motivation and satisfaction. Journal of Venue and
Event Management, 1(1), 61-77.
Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Zammit, C. (2011). Assessing Environmental Stewardship
Motivation. Environment and Behavior, 43(6), 776-788.
Bruyere, B., & Rappe, S. (2007). Identifying the Motivations of Environmental Volunteers.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 503-516.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Volunteering in the United States, 2014. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
Chapman, A. E. (n.d.). American Conservation in the Twentieth Century. Retrieved from:
http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/massachusetts_conservation/American_Conservation_in
_the_Twentieth_Century.html
Clary, E. G., Ridge, R. D., Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., Copeland, J., Haugen, J., & Miene, P.
(1998). Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional
Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-1530.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a
national survey. Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.
Cohen, J. (2012, May 23). Roster from Ben Franklin’s Fire Department Found. Retrieved
from: http://www.history.com/news/roster-from-ben-franklins-fire-department-found
Corporation for National & Community Service. (n.d.). Volunteering in America. Retrieved
from: http://www.nationalservice.gov/impact-our-nation/research-andreports/volunteering-in-america
Earth Day Network. (n.d.). Earth Day: The History of a Movement. Retrieved from:
http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history-movement
Fletcher, T., & Major, D. (2004). Medical students’ motivations to volunteer: An examination
of the nature of gender differences. Sex Roles, 51(1/2), 109–114.
Heiken, S. (2012, October 18). All about Environmental Movements and Their Impact on
Volunteering Abroad. Retrieved from:
https://www.volunteerglobal.com/blogs/stephanie-heiken/all-about-environmentalmovements-and-their-impact-volunteering-abroad
51
History World. (n.d.). History of British Colonial America. Retrieved from:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=jbg
Hobbs, S. J., & White, P. C. (2012). Motivations and barriers in relation to community
participation in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(6), 364373.
Houle, B. J., Sagarin, B. J., & Kaplan, M. F. (2005). A Functional Approach to
Volunteerism: Do Volunteer Motives Predict Task Preference?. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 27(4), 337-344.
Jackson, C., Østerlund, C., Crowston, K., Mugar, G., & Hassman, K. D. (2014). Motivations
for sustained participation in citizen science: Case studies on the role of talk. In 17th
ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing.
Jacobson, S. K., Carlton, J. S., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Motivation and Satisfaction of
Volunteers at a Florida Natural Resource Agency. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 30(1), 51-67.
Measham, T. G., & Barnett, G. B. (2008). Environmental Volunteering: Motivations, Modes,
and Outcomes. Australian Geographer, 39(4), 537-552.
Muskoka Watershed Council. (2015). Stewardship. Retrieved from:
http://issuu.com/72926/docs/stewardship_final1
Nisqually Reach Nature Center. (n.d.). Our Mission. Retrieved from:
http://www.nisquallyestuary.org/
O'Brien, L., Townsend, M., & Ebden, M. (2008). Environmental volunteering, motivations,
barriers, benefits. Retrieved from:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Env_Volunteering_Summary_Report.pdf/%24FILE/E
nv_Volunteering_Summary_Report.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Pillemer, K., Wagenet, L., Goldman, D., Bushway, L., & Meador, R. (2009). Environmental
volunteering in later life: Benefits and barriers. Generations,33(4), 58-63.
Rosenburg, S. (2013, April 18). Volunteering: History of an American Value. Retrieved
from: http://blogs.volunteermatch.org/engagingvolunteers/2013/04/18/volunteeringhistory-of-an-american-value/
Rotman, D., Hammock, J., Preece, J., Hansen, D., Boston, C., Bowser, A., & He, Y. (2014).
Motivations Affecting Initial and Long-Term Participation in Citizen Science Projects
in Three Countries. In iConference 2014 Proceedings (p. 110–124).
52
Ryan, R. L., Kaplan, R., & Grese, R. E. (2001). Predicting Volunteer Commitment in
Environmental Stewardship Programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 44(5), 629-648.
Stream Team. (2013). About Stream Team. Retrieved from:
http://www.streamteam.info/about/
The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2015). Defining Citizen Science. Retrieved from:
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/about/definition
The United States Census Bureau. (2010). American Fact Finder. Retrieved from:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkm
k
The United States Census Bureau. (2015). State & County Quick Facts: Thurston County,
Washington. Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53067.html
The Young Men’s Christian Association. (2015). Organizational Profile. Retrieved from:
http://www.ymca.net/organizational-profile
Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, and
human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture.
Warta, T. (2015). History of Volunteerism in America. Retrieved from:
http://charity.lovetoknow.com/History_of_Volunteerism_in_America
53
Appendix A: Complete Survey
SECTION A: VOLUNTEER MOTIVATION
What motivates you to volunteer your time with this organization? (fill in)
On a scale of 1 to 5, please rank the importance of each of these factors in explaining
why you choose to volunteer. 1 indicating the least important and 5 indicating the
most important.
Protect natural areas from disappearing
Concern for the environment
Observe nature
Ensure future of natural areas that I use for my enjoyment
Learn about plants of this area
Do something outside
Feel peace of mind
Be part of a well-organized program
To express my values through my work
Allow me to work on an area where I visit for recreation (i.e. trails, parks, etc.)
Meet new people
Feel needed
See familiar faces
To enhance my skills set or resume
To share information with the public in an official capacity
I was/am new to the area (if applicable)
Make contacts that might help my career goals
Experience will look good on a resume
Learn about the environment
Give back to the community
Be around others who also share similar interests
Fulfill community service or student hours
Try new things
Work with a good leader
Have fun outdoors
Help preserve natural areas for future generations
Work with friends
Be part of an established organization
Feel better about myself
Enrich my future recreation experiences
Learn about the animals of this area
Help me succeed in a chosen profession
To be connected to my community
To live closely to my values
To actively do something positive for the environment
54
I volunteer, depending on time
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
I volunteer, depending on the activity
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
My role with this organization is important
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
This organization’s mission and work are valuable
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
Participating in Nisqually Reach Nature Center has changed my behavior outside of
the activities. (I.e. making more environmentally conscious decisions, improved
conservation ethic, etc.)
*This question was specific to NRNC volunteers
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
Participating in Stream Team programs has changed my behavior outside of stream
team programs. (i.e. lawn care practices, picking up dog poop, taking car to
commercial car wash, landscaping w/ native plants, etc.)
*This question was specific to Stream Team volunteers
strongly disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly agree
When participating in an activity, do you prefer to work with a project leader?
Yes No
Doesn’t matter
Out of the following list, identify your single strongest motivator
Gain experience for career/resume
Contribute to my community
Learn (about the environment, community, plants, animals, etc…)
Socialize with others
Help the environment
Improve a recreational area or park that you use. (This can include places for
walking/hiking, picnics, wildlife/bird watching, kayaking, etc.)
Get outdoors
Express your values
Be part of a well-organized project
New to the area (if applicable)
Out of the following list, identify the one that motivates you the least?
Gain experience for career/resume
Contribute to my community
Learn (about the environment, community, plants, animals, etc…)
Socialize with others
Help the environment
55
Improve a recreational area or park that you use. (This can include places for
walking/hiking, picnics, wildlife/bird watching, kayaking, etc.)
Get outdoors
Express your values
Be part of a well-organized project
New to the area (if applicable)
SECTION B: VOLUNTEER BACKGROUND, HABITS, & PREFERENCES
Have you ever participated in a tree planting, stewarding, outreach, or monitoring
event with Stream Team? (These activities may include macroinvertebrate
monitoring, amphibian monitoring, forage fish monitoring, salmon stewarding,
stormwater stewarding, tree planting, maintenance and watering of plants, and
invasive species removal.)
*This question was specific to Stream Team volunteers
Yes
No
Have you ever participated in the forage fish, pigeon guillemot, or visitor use survey
activities?
*This question was specific to NRNC volunteers
Yes No
How long have you been volunteering with this organization?
Less than one year
1 to 3 years 4 to 10 years 10+ years
Not sure
In the last 12 months, how many Stream Team events have you attended? (Events
include plantings, classes, workshops, field trips, speakers, etc.)
*This question was specific to Stream Team volunteers
0
1
2-5
6-10
10+
Which Stream Team activities interest you?
*This question was specific to Stream Team volunteers
interested
not interested
already do will do in
2015
Planting trees
Removing invasive species
Educating the public
Workshops & classes
Habitat & wildlife monitoring
Family-friendly events
Watershed bus tours
Beach & nature Walks
56
Marine Creature Monday
Assist at Festivals & Fairs
Other (please specify)
Which Nisqually Reach Nature Center volunteer activities interest you?
*This question was specific to NRNC volunteers
Staffing the center
Forage fish surveys
Tabling at outreach events
Pigeon guillemot surveys
Visitor use surveys
Eye on Nature
Fundraising
Grants
Anderson Island summer camp
Newsletter
Summer camp
JBLM summer camp
Website updating
Social media updating
Diving
Aquarium maintenance
Specimen collection
Citizen Stewardship committee
Other education programs
Other (write in)
How did you first hear about volunteer opportunities with Stream Team?
*This question was specific to Stream Team volunteers
Stream Team Newsletter (electronic copy)
Stream Team Newsletter (paper copy)
Stream Team e-mail
Friend or family member
Stream Team website
Social Media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Etc…)
Flyer or poster
Newspaper, radio, blog
Other (write in)
Which of the following do you use to continue to be engaged with Stream Team
volunteer opportunities? (check all that apply)
*This question was specific to Stream Team volunteers
Stream Team newsletter (electronic copy)
Stream Team newsletter (paper copy)
Stream Team bimonthly emails
Read Stream Team Facebook posts
Check the Stream Team calendar on the Stream Team website
Friend or family member
Flyer or poster
Newspaper, radio, blog
City or county agency
Other (please specify)
How did you first hear about volunteer opportunities with Nisqually Reach Nature
Center?
*This question was specific to NRNC volunteers
Social Media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Etc...)
57
Nisqually Reach Nature Center website (nisquallyestuary.org)
Friend or family member
Flyer or poster
Newspaper, radio, blog
Other (write in)
Which of the following do you use to continue to be engaged with Nisqually Reach
Nature Center volunteer opportunities? (check all that apply)
*This question was specific to NRNC volunteers
Social Media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Etc...)
Nisqually Reach Nature Center website (nisquallyestuary.org)
Friend or family member
Flyer or poster
Newspaper, radio, blog
Other (write in)
Do you volunteer with other organizations of any kind?
Yes No
If so, what types (check all that apply)
*Civic (Rotary, Lions, etc.)
*Religious
*Environmental
*Citizen Science (This may involve monitoring, data collecting, data analyzing, or other
research related
tasks)
*Community/Government (advisory committees, etc)
*School (PTA, classroom, etc.)
*Social Justice (CYA, Food Bank,)
*Other (fill in)
If so, how did you hear about them? (fill in)
SECTION C: VOLUNTEER DEMOGRAPHICS
AGE
What is your age?
15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years
44 years
45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years
74 years
75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over
35 to 39 years
65 to 69 years
40 to
70 to
58
RACE
What is your race? (check all that apply)
White
Asian
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Other Race_____________
RETIREMENT STATUS
Do you consider yourself retired?
Yes No
FAMILY INCOME
What is your approximate family household income and benefits?
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more
GENDER
What is your gender?
Male Female
Decline to answer
Write in_______
EDUCATION
What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you
have received?
Some high school
Graduated high school Some college (no degree)
Associates degree
Bachelor’s degree Master’s Degree
Doctoral degree
LOCATION
What city do you live?
Olympia Lacey Tumwater
County
Other____________
Yelm
Tenino
How long have you lived in Thurston County?
0-2 years 3-5 years 6-8 years 8+ years
Bucoda
Unincorporated Thurston
Not applicable
MILITARY
Have you ever served in any branch of the United States military?
Non-military
Retired military
Veteran
Active duty military
No, but I am an active duty military spouse or child
59
Appendix B: Example of FVI Items and Means
1 (least important
ENVIRONMENT
To actively do something positive for the environment
0
Help preserve natural areas for future generations
0
Protect natural areas from disappearing
0
Concern for the environment
0
SOCIAL
Be around others who also share similar interests
1
See familiar faces
20
Meet new people
8
Work with friends
16
EXPERIENCE
Experience will look good on a resume
66
Help me succeed in a chosen profession
58
To enhance my skills set or resume
45
Make contacts that might help my career goals
56
LEARN
Learn about the environment
0
Learn about the animals of this area
6
Learn about plants of this area
2
OUTDOORS
Have fun outdoors
1
Do something outside
2
Observe nature
1
COMMUNITY
To be connected to my community
7
Give back to the community
3
Project Organization
Be part of an established organization
16
Be part of a well-organized program
7
VALUES
To express my values through my work
15
To live closely to my values
6
USER AREA
13
Allow me to work on an area where I visit for recreati
1
Ensure future of natural areas that I use for my enjoym
Enrich my future recreation experiences
14
2
3
1
3
1
3
3
9
5
6
11
30
21
21
21
34
37
34
13
14
15
17
8
9
14
13
7
11
6
12
12
20
6
8
1
26
21
8
13
5
18
16
17
12
33
32
10
3
22
17
10
4
18
32
9
26
4 5 (most important)Average Total average
4.6
20
75
4.71
17
70
4.56
20
73
4.67
19
72
4.60
3.0
39
28
3.82
12
4
2.50
25
8
3.04
19
9
2.84
2.0
6
6
1.72
10
7
1.92
18
8
2.29
8
6
1.91
4.0
34
46
4.20
33
37
3.85
35
36
3.98
4.1
35
29
3.88
34
35
3.92
30
58
4.46
3.8
35
26
3.61
34
42
4.07
3.2
21
12
2.96
26
23
3.46
3.7
27
25
3.37
31
42
4.01
3.6
23
21
3.29
28
57
4.37
27
12
3.05
60
Skill_EMESthesis2015.pdf