Laserfiche WebLink
assessing the current state of water-related knowledge and how well Colorado citizens are <br />prepared for future water management decisions, an assessment of that depth was beyond the <br />scope of this survey. <br />A survey invitation was sent by email to many water education organizations' listserves and <br />email lists. In addition, task force members were asked to forward the invitation to their <br />networks. One limitation of the non-probability sampling strategy used in the survey is that it <br />introduces a certain level of selection bias, that is, the initial sample contains individuals who are <br />already connected to the water community and invitations from these people assumes <br />awareness of water education to some degree. Discussion of survey results should take this <br />into account. <br />It was not the goal of the survey to reach classroom teachers across the state. Some teachers <br />did answer the survey, but the primary focus of the survey was to assess the amount and kind <br />of education efforts outside of district based curriculum. <br />Four levels of survey analysis were performed: 1) Descriptive analysis, 2) Content analysis, 3) <br />Geographical analysis, 4) Cross-comparison analysis. <br />Survey Summary Results <br />This section contains a brief discussion of major findings from the survey as a catalyst for <br />thinking, discussion, and decision-making. In no way does this discussion exhaust the <br />implications of this research. For a complete representation of survey results, please refer to <br />the companion report: "Water Education Survey & Focus Group Report: 2008 Results." <br />Respondents were asked questions about water education related: <br />• staff and volunteer resources • educational purpose • available resources <br />• service area • types of education • barriers <br />• budget • audiences reached • opportunities for growth <br />• revenue sources • content <br />Description of Respondents <br />The survey had 292 respondents in total, creating a snapshot of the water education currently <br />available in Colorado. A series of questions were designed to characterize the survey <br />respondents and assess the types of organizations providing water education, as well as the <br />geographic, financial, and topical diversity of water education in Colorado. <br />Nonprofit organizations, government agencies, businesses/industry, higher education, and <br />schools were all represented in the survey responses. The purpose of the water education <br />described ranged from information transferto behavior change. Of the respondents, more than <br />three quarters worked on a local basis, with others operating programs with a statewide scope. <br />The distribution of local educational programs was across the state, with the eastern plains, and <br />the Yampa and North Platte basins showing the lowest response rates. Although agricultural <br />interests are represented in the survey, there were a limited number of respondents from this <br />community and results may not fully represent the impact on water education from this <br />community. <br />Discussion of Findings <br />Access to Water Education <br />More than three quarters of water education providers who responded to this survey operated <br />local programs in communities and counties across the state. However, there were very few <br />respondents from the eastern plains and northwest region of the state, and, to a somewhat <br />WETF 2008 Final Report pg. 5 <br />