WETF Final ReportJuly2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

survey results, or (4) if the results merely reflect Colorado's population (according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 population estimate 24.6% of people in Colorado are under 18). These results also may highlight that adults may be reached more easily through mail and information campaigns than with person to person educational programs. The survey results indicate that many educators do not know the level of contact time with their audience, as is typically the case with publications. Service learning was in the bottom three educational types reported in four out of five budget categories. This may be due to the significant amount of contact time necessary to move learners from awareness to action through participation in a meaningful service project addressing water issues. Similarly, sessions of a half day or longerwere more rarely reported than limited time spentwith respondents'target audience. These results indicate that there may be significant opportunity to increase the quantity and quality of action-oriented programs across the state. With regard to topic, those budgets in the smallest category were the only ones where riparian/wetland and aquatic life topics were in the top three reported frequencies. This indicates that the large numbers of small budget programs are most focused on environmental issues compared to programs with larger budgets. General Water Education, Water Conservation, and Water Quality were commonly reported as covered topics across all budget categories. Watershed Management was in the top three forthe largest three budget categories. Water Quantity/Supply topics were marked by respondents at levels greater than 56% for the top three budget categories. Water Recreation, Water Treatment, and Water Rights were consistently reported at lower frequencies. These responses may suggest that basic level water information is being provided in water education programs, and few programs are addressing more specialized topics. While not every topic should be incorporated into educational programming at the same frequency, there are likely additional opportunities to add depth to the water education being covered. This lack of depth may indicate a trend in water education where complex water issues are not addressed as often as more simplistic concepts. Informational materials such as brochures, envelope stuffers, and other printed materials may build basic awareness, yet additional elements that develop appreciation, understanding, and ultimately action are necessary. To develop future leadership, stewardship, and a workforce in water resources the total dollar amount spent on water education could likely be used more effectively if fewer resources were used to support printed materials and more to conduct educational programs. Survey Weaknesses and Strengths The survey did have several weaknesses, including that limited data was collected on respondent demographics, making it difficult to stratify the responses or to verify statistical validity of the sample population. The survey was not intended to address program effectiveness. The survey did not identify who the successful educators are, where they are and does not go in depth regarding how successful organizations may be structured. The sampling design relied heavily on social networks, thus providing the potential to skew the data. Lastly, the survey was designed for many different types of educational providers to give input. However, some questions were awkward forvarious groups, such as teachers forwhomthe survey was not designed to explicitly reach. In addition, the definitions of some phrases in the questions were not always clear, leading to some unresolved questions, such as the amount of contact time spent with each respondent's audience. The strengths of the survey are many. Respondents came from a broad geographic range and diverse set of education providers. While many questions are left unanswered, such as how WETF 2008 Final Report pg. 8