This report describes responses to questions from the “2020 Hunter Satisfaction” survey. The “2020 Hunter Satisfaction” survey was a tool to analyze Nebraska hunters’ perspectives on the attributes that are important to their hunting season, how hunters feel these attributes performed when afield, and how importance and performance of attributes affect their overall satisfaction. We provide information regarding the design and implementation of the survey as well as summarized responses to questions relating to demographics, participation in various hunting activities, questions pertaining to importance and performance of hunt-specific attributes, and overall satisfaction with hunting experiences. We also include statistical tests to assess differences in the between residents and non-residents, hunters who reside in a rural or urban area, and hunters who grew up in a rural or urban area. General summaries of responses, Importance grid analyses (IGA) and Penalty-Reward-Contrast analyses (PRCA) are depicted for hunters who engaged in the following hunting activities: deer, waterfowl, upland game, Spring turkey, and Fall turkey.
The stakeholders involved had several meetings to design the survey instrument that would properly meet the objectives. A web survey was used to determine the views of Nebraska hunters. Using this vehicle to collect information allows researchers to generalize results to a larger population. Email invitations were sent to a sample of hunters who purchased a hunting license, turkey permit, deer permit, Nebraska waterfowl stamp, or any combination in the 2019-2020 hunting year. Invitations were distributed on July 6, 2020. Reminder emails were sent to non-respondents on July 13 and 15, 2020. A final reminder was sent on the final day of the survey period, July 21, 2020.
The design and fielding of the survey was accomplished by the Human Dimensions Lab in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. A separate questionnaire was distributed for each type of hunting activity. Each questionnaire consisted of items pertaining to attributes affiliated with the respective type of hunting activity. For the small game questionnaire, hunters were specifically asked whether they participated in upland-game hunting (pheasant, quail, and grouse). Questionnaires included attributes that addressed the importance and actualization of experiences related to the respective type of hunting activity. All hunting activities included the following attributes: seeing the respective game type, opportunities to shoot the respective game type, harvesting the respective game type, hunting in favorable weather conditions, not seeing other hunters, no interference from other hunters, access to private land, access to public land, and hunting with other people.
Additional activity-specific attributes were included for each type of hunting experience based on existing literature on deer (Hautaluoma and Brown 1978, Hammitt et al. 1990, Gigliotti 2000, Manfredo et al. 2004, Kerr 2017, Pang 2017), waterfowl (Vaske et al. 1986, Brunke and Hunt 2007), upland-game (Hayslette et al. 2001, Frey et al. 2003), and turkey (Hazel et al. 1990, Wynveen et al. 2005, Schroeder et al. 2018) hunters. Attribute importance was measured on a five-point scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Respondents were also asked to rate how well each experienced attribute met expectations, ranging from 1 (far below expectations) to 5 (far exceeded expectations). Overall satisfaction with their hunting experience was also measured on a 5-point scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
Assessing effects of importance and performance on satisfaction involves two types of analyses. Importance Grid Analysis compares explicit rating to implicit importance ratings derived by multiple regression of overall satisfaction on attribute performance ratings (Matzler and Sauerwein 2002, Matzler et al. 2003). Originally employed by Vavra (1997), IGA was used to describe attributes as either excitement, performance, or basic typologies. However, the value of IGA for classifying attributes has since been discounted, and IGA is currently recognized for the ability to distinguish between explicit and implicit importance of attributes (Smith and Deppa 2009, Mikulić and Prebežac 2011). Explicit importance reflects a rational assessment of how one expects an attribute to affect satisfaction, while implicit importance reflects the experiential-based impact of an attribute on satisfaction. IGA delineates differences between hunters’ “expectations of an attributes’ relevancy to a desired end” (i.e., explicit importance) compared to “experiential information gained from one’s real-time encounter” (i.e., implicit importance) (Smith and Deppa 2009, Schroeder et al. 2018).
Explicit importance is calculated by taking the mean rating of each attribute importance as measured from the questionnaire. Implicit importance is derived from multiple linear regression coefficients (performance values of each attribute as the independent variables and overall satisfaction as the dependent variable). Explicit means and implicit coefficients are then plotted, and attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction.
Penalty-Reward-Contrast Analysis is described as the three-factor theory in that it identifies the following three factors to customer satisfaction: basic factors, performance factors, and excitement factors (Deng 2007, Deng et al. 2008, Kim et al. 2014). Basic factors will induce dissatisfaction if expectations with a given attribute are not met, but will not increase satisfaction if expectations are met or exceeded. Basic factors can be viewed as the minimum requirements for a product or experience. Performance factors will increase satisfaction if expectations are fulfilled or exceeded and dissatisfaction if expectations are not fulfilled. Excitement factors will increase satisfaction if delivered but do not cause dissatisfaction if they are missing. For example, the three-factory theory can be applied in the airline service industry. Safety can be viewed as a basic factor insofar as passengers expect to be safe during the flight. If safety expectations are met, then safety attributes will not induce customer dissatisfaction; nor will customers become more satisfied with their experience based on safety attributes alone. However, if passengers feel unsafe, lack of safety will induce dissatisfaction. Expediency in retrieving baggage after the flight might be viewed as a performance factor. If passengers must wait longer than expected to retrieve their baggage, they will become dissatisfied, but if they can claim their baggage more quickly than expected, passengers will be more satisfied with their experience. Quality or price of snacks and beverages during the flight may be viewed as an excitement factor. If the quality of snacks is excellent, passengers will be more satisfied, but lack of quality will not induce dissatisfaction.
Conducting the PRCA incorporates a 3-step process, which examines influence on overall satisfaction at high and low-performance levels. In step 1, a simple linear regression is performed, and significant factors (performance ratings; 1 to 5) are recoded into Penalty and Reward dummy variables. If a respondent answered that, the performance of an attribute was a “1,” their Penalty value would be a “1” and their Reward value would be a “0.” A rating of a “5” for a performance attribute would result in a Penalty value of “0” and a Reward value of “1.” A performance of rating of “2,” “3,” or “4” would result in a “0” for both Penalty and Reward values. Step 2 consists of a multiple regression with the dummy variables used, independent variables and overall satisfaction with the hunting experience as the dependent variable. The third step is classification of attributes (basic, performance, excitement, or unimportant). An attribute is considered basic if the Penalty variable is significant and the reward variable is not significant, performance if both Penalty and Reward variables are significant, and excitement if the only the Reward variable is significant. Attribute is considered unimportant if neither Penalty nor Reward variables are significant.
Questionnaires were sent to 3,007 deer hunters, 3,854 waterfowl hunters, 2,794 upland-game hunters, 2,769 Spring turkey hunters, and 2,712 Fall turkey hunters. A total of approximately 15136 questionnaires were distributed. Adjusted response rates for the individual survey questionnaires was 26%, 14%, 17%, 23%, and 20%, respectively. The overall adjusted response rate to the survey project was 20%.
There were 3007 invited to participate in the deer hunter survey; 211 were invalid email addresses, and 716 completed the survey (a response rate of 25.6%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.9 to 61.3 mins, with a mean of 10.4 mins.
The average age of the deer hunter population was 46.18 and the average age of the sample was 47.73 (t = -5.5, df = 3256.61, p = 0). In the deer hunter population; 9% of hunters were female, and 7% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 9.45, df = 1, p = 0). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 52.28 (SD = 14.19) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 46.3 (SD = 15.06). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 4.47% and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 8.25%
Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 9.53% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 39.19%.
Percentage of responses per day for the deer hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.
There were 3854 invited to participate in the waterfowl survey; 250 were invalid email addresses and 506 completed the survey (a response rate of 14%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.6 to 100.4 mins, with a mean of 9.6 mins.
The average age of the waterfowl hunter population was 43.42 and the average age of the sample was 44.11 (t = -2.75, df = 5398.76, p = 0.01). In the waterfowl hunter population 4% of hunters were female, and 4% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 4.3, df = 1, p = 0.04). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 48.8 (SD = 14.08) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 43.4 (SD = 14.27). The proportion of female hunters in the group that responded to the survey was 2.37% and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 3.88%
Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 10.63% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 35.63%.
Percentage of responses per day for the waterfowl hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.
There were 2794 invited to participate in the upland game survey 250 were invalid email addresses, and 426 completed the survey (a response rate of 16.7%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1 to 1310.5 mins, with a mean of 12.2 mins.
The average age of the upland game hunter population was 54.83 and the average age of the sample was 53.7 (t = 3.34, df = 2999.38, p = 0). In the upland game hunter population 10% of hunters were female and 6% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 48.98, df = 1, p = 0). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 55.38 (SD = 15.28) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 53.4 (SD = 18.04). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 3.29%, and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 6.38%
Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 3.13% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 44.35%, as there were 0 females who completed the survey.
Percentage of responses per day for the upland game hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.
There were 2769 invited to participate in the survey; 173 were invalid email addresses and 596 completed the survey (a response rate of 23%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.6 to 212.1 mins, with a mean of 11.1 mins.
The average age of the spring turkey hunter population was 44.1 and the average age of the sample was 44.58 (t = -1.49, df = 4037.02, p = 0.14). In the spring turkey hunter population, 7% of hunters were female and 6% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 5.89, df = 1, p = 0.02). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 48.72 (SD = 15.42) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 43.44 (SD = 15.25). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 4.7%, and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 6.4%
Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 9.29% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 22.1%.
Percentage of responses per day for the spring turkey hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.
There were 2712 invited to participate in the fall turkey survey; 189 were invalid email addresses, and 513 completed the survey (a response rate of 20.3%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.6 to 126.2 mins, with a mean of 9.9 mins.
The average age of the fall turkey hunter population was 51.22 and the average age of the sample was 51.02 (t = 0.5, df = 5938.45, p = 0.61). In the fall turkey hunter population, 5% of hunters were female and 4% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 2.6, df = 1, p = 0.11). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 55.08 (SD = 14.61) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 50.07 (SD = 16.05). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 3.12%, and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 4.37%
Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 7.96% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 24.48%.
Percentage of responses per day for the spring fall hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.
Percentage of hunting type importance responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent the stated importance of hunting the game type of the respective survey respondents (i.e. How important deer hunting is to the deer hunter sample). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deer hunting is my most important hunting activity | 85 | 52.1 | 295 | 53.8 | 380 | 53.4 |
Deer hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me | 76 | 46.6 | 245 | 44.7 | 321 | 45.1 |
Deer hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities | 2 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.1 | 8 | 1.1 |
Deer hunting is one of my least important hunting activities | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Waterfowl hunting is my most important hunting activity | 1 | 14.3 | 121 | 24.2 | 122 | 24.1 |
Waterfowl hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me | 5 | 71.4 | 276 | 55.3 | 281 | 55.5 |
Waterfowl hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities | 1 | 14.3 | 69 | 13.8 | 70 | 13.8 |
Waterfowl hunting is one of my least important hunting activities | 0 | 0.0 | 30 | 6.0 | 30 | 5.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upland Game hunting is my most important hunting activity | 52 | 39.4 | 66 | 22.6 | 118 | 27.8 |
Upland Game hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me | 58 | 43.9 | 157 | 53.8 | 215 | 50.7 |
Upland Game hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities | 15 | 11.4 | 49 | 16.8 | 64 | 15.1 |
Upland Game hunting is one of my least important hunting activities | 6 | 4.5 | 20 | 6.8 | 26 | 6.1 |
No Response | 1 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turkey hunting is my most important hunting activity | 12 | 18.2 | 42 | 8.0 | 54 | 9.1 |
Turkey hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me | 49 | 74.2 | 407 | 77.1 | 456 | 76.8 |
Turkey hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities | 4 | 6.1 | 70 | 13.3 | 74 | 12.5 |
Turkey hunting is one of my least important hunting activities | 1 | 1.5 | 9 | 1.7 | 10 | 1.7 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turkey hunting is my most important hunting activity | 20 | 18.7 | 20 | 4.9 | 40 | 7.8 |
Turkey hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me | 70 | 65.4 | 271 | 66.9 | 341 | 66.6 |
Turkey hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities | 15 | 14.0 | 92 | 22.7 | 107 | 20.9 |
Turkey hunting is one of my least important hunting activities | 2 | 1.9 | 20 | 4.9 | 22 | 4.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.4 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
Which type of hunter best describes you?
Percentage of hunt frequency responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent when survey respondents hunted their respective game type (i.e. When deer hunters hunted for deer). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hunt opening weekend only | 6 | 3.7 | 19 | 3.5 | 25 | 3.5 |
Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) | 15 | 9.2 | 81 | 14.8 | 96 | 13.5 |
Hunt occasionally throughout the season | 28 | 17.2 | 121 | 22.1 | 149 | 21.0 |
Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season | 114 | 69.9 | 326 | 59.5 | 440 | 61.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hunt opening weekend only | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.2 |
Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) | 0 | 0.0 | 18 | 3.6 | 18 | 3.6 |
Hunt occasionally throughout the season | 4 | 57.1 | 250 | 50.1 | 254 | 50.2 |
Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season | 3 | 42.9 | 223 | 44.7 | 226 | 44.7 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.4 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hunt opening weekend only | 4 | 3.0 | 7 | 2.4 | 11 | 2.6 |
Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) | 5 | 3.8 | 21 | 7.2 | 26 | 6.1 |
Hunt occasionally throughout the season | 54 | 40.9 | 159 | 54.5 | 213 | 50.2 |
Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season | 68 | 51.5 | 104 | 35.6 | 172 | 40.6 |
No Response | 1 | 0.8 | 1 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.5 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hunt opening weekend only | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 |
Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) | 5 | 7.6 | 44 | 8.3 | 49 | 8.2 |
Hunt occasionally throughout the season | 11 | 16.7 | 251 | 47.5 | 262 | 44.1 |
Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season | 50 | 75.8 | 229 | 43.4 | 279 | 47.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hunt opening weekend only | 8 | 7.5 | 4 | 1.0 | 12 | 2.3 |
Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) | 12 | 11.2 | 22 | 5.4 | 34 | 6.6 |
Hunt occasionally throughout the season | 35 | 32.7 | 235 | 58.0 | 270 | 52.7 |
Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season | 51 | 47.7 | 142 | 35.1 | 193 | 37.7 |
No Response | 1 | 0.9 | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.6 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
Which best describes how you hunt?
Percentage of hunting location responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent where survey respondents hunted their respective game type (i.e. Where deer hunters hunted for deer). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas | 56 | 34.4 | 331 | 60.4 | 387 | 54.4 |
I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt | 77 | 47.2 | 165 | 30.1 | 242 | 34.0 |
I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency | 21 | 12.9 | 28 | 5.1 | 49 | 6.9 |
I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises | 9 | 5.5 | 24 | 4.4 | 33 | 4.6 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas | 3 | 42.9 | 187 | 37.5 | 190 | 37.5 |
I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt | 2 | 28.6 | 188 | 37.7 | 190 | 37.5 |
I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency | 1 | 14.3 | 42 | 8.4 | 43 | 8.5 |
I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises | 1 | 14.3 | 80 | 16.0 | 81 | 16.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.4 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas | 25 | 18.9 | 116 | 39.7 | 141 | 33.3 |
I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt | 77 | 58.3 | 101 | 34.6 | 178 | 42.0 |
I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency | 19 | 14.4 | 37 | 12.7 | 56 | 13.2 |
I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises | 11 | 8.3 | 38 | 13.0 | 49 | 11.6 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas | 19 | 28.8 | 201 | 38.1 | 220 | 37.0 |
I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt | 29 | 43.9 | 215 | 40.7 | 244 | 41.1 |
I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency | 15 | 22.7 | 63 | 11.9 | 78 | 13.1 |
I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises | 3 | 4.5 | 49 | 9.3 | 52 | 8.8 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas | 44 | 41.1 | 167 | 41.2 | 211 | 41.2 |
I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt | 38 | 35.5 | 133 | 32.8 | 171 | 33.4 |
I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency | 16 | 15.0 | 54 | 13.3 | 70 | 13.7 |
I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises | 9 | 8.4 | 49 | 12.1 | 58 | 11.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.4 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
How often do you participate in each of the following hunting activities within the state of Nebraska?
Percentage of deer participation status responses for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 148 | 90.8 | 530 | 96.7 | 678 | 95.4 |
Participate but not every year | 14 | 8.6 | 9 | 1.6 | 23 | 3.2 |
No longer participate | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.3 |
Never | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 1.1 | 6 | 0.8 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 6 | 85.7 | 328 | 65.7 | 334 | 66.0 |
Participate but not every year | 0 | 0.0 | 63 | 12.6 | 63 | 12.5 |
No longer participate | 0 | 0.0 | 40 | 8.0 | 40 | 7.9 |
Never | 1 | 14.3 | 57 | 11.4 | 58 | 11.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 11 | 2.2 | 11 | 2.2 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 37 | 28.0 | 188 | 64.4 | 225 | 53.1 |
Participate but not every year | 10 | 7.6 | 32 | 11.0 | 42 | 9.9 |
No longer participate | 14 | 10.6 | 30 | 10.3 | 44 | 10.4 |
Never | 57 | 43.2 | 37 | 12.7 | 94 | 22.2 |
No Response | 14 | 10.6 | 5 | 1.7 | 19 | 4.5 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 31 | 47.0 | 431 | 81.6 | 462 | 77.8 |
Participate but not every year | 5 | 7.6 | 35 | 6.6 | 40 | 6.7 |
No longer participate | 5 | 7.6 | 17 | 3.2 | 22 | 3.7 |
Never | 20 | 30.3 | 40 | 7.6 | 60 | 10.1 |
No Response | 5 | 7.6 | 5 | 0.9 | 10 | 1.7 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 57 | 53.3 | 336 | 83.0 | 393 | 76.8 |
Participate but not every year | 12 | 11.2 | 23 | 5.7 | 35 | 6.8 |
No longer participate | 5 | 4.7 | 13 | 3.2 | 18 | 3.5 |
Never | 29 | 27.1 | 27 | 6.7 | 56 | 10.9 |
No Response | 4 | 3.7 | 6 | 1.5 | 10 | 2.0 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
Percentage of waterfowl participation status responses for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 22 | 13.5 | 116 | 21.2 | 138 | 19.4 |
Participate but not every year | 15 | 9.2 | 76 | 13.9 | 91 | 12.8 |
No longer participate | 23 | 14.1 | 121 | 22.1 | 144 | 20.3 |
Never | 84 | 51.5 | 205 | 37.4 | 289 | 40.6 |
No Response | 19 | 11.7 | 30 | 5.5 | 49 | 6.9 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 7 | 100 | 436 | 87.4 | 443 | 87.5 |
Participate but not every year | 0 | 0 | 48 | 9.6 | 48 | 9.5 |
No longer participate | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.2 |
Never | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 |
Total | 7 | 100 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 51 | 38.6 | 82 | 28.1 | 133 | 31.4 |
Participate but not every year | 24 | 18.2 | 52 | 17.8 | 76 | 17.9 |
No longer participate | 7 | 5.3 | 47 | 16.1 | 54 | 12.7 |
Never | 37 | 28.0 | 95 | 32.5 | 132 | 31.1 |
No Response | 13 | 9.8 | 16 | 5.5 | 29 | 6.8 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 18 | 27.3 | 220 | 41.7 | 238 | 40.1 |
Participate but not every year | 7 | 10.6 | 69 | 13.1 | 76 | 12.8 |
No longer participate | 4 | 6.1 | 76 | 14.4 | 80 | 13.5 |
Never | 32 | 48.5 | 139 | 26.3 | 171 | 28.8 |
No Response | 5 | 7.6 | 24 | 4.5 | 29 | 4.9 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 26 | 24.3 | 164 | 40.5 | 190 | 37.1 |
Participate but not every year | 14 | 13.1 | 66 | 16.3 | 80 | 15.6 |
No longer participate | 12 | 11.2 | 57 | 14.1 | 69 | 13.5 |
Never | 50 | 46.7 | 101 | 24.9 | 151 | 29.5 |
No Response | 5 | 4.7 | 17 | 4.2 | 22 | 4.3 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
Percentage of upland-game participation status responses for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 42 | 25.8 | 222 | 40.5 | 264 | 37.1 |
Participate but not every year | 20 | 12.3 | 113 | 20.6 | 133 | 18.7 |
No longer participate | 18 | 11.0 | 123 | 22.4 | 141 | 19.8 |
Never | 71 | 43.6 | 71 | 13.0 | 142 | 20.0 |
No Response | 12 | 7.4 | 19 | 3.5 | 31 | 4.4 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 6 | 85.7 | 367 | 73.5 | 373 | 73.7 |
Participate but not every year | 0 | 0.0 | 86 | 17.2 | 86 | 17.0 |
No longer participate | 0 | 0.0 | 21 | 4.2 | 21 | 4.2 |
Never | 0 | 0.0 | 20 | 4.0 | 20 | 4.0 |
No Response | 1 | 14.3 | 5 | 1.0 | 6 | 1.2 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 98 | 74.2 | 209 | 71.6 | 307 | 72.4 |
Participate but not every year | 16 | 12.1 | 37 | 12.7 | 53 | 12.5 |
No longer participate | 3 | 2.3 | 23 | 7.9 | 26 | 6.1 |
Never | 11 | 8.3 | 17 | 5.8 | 28 | 6.6 |
No Response | 4 | 3.0 | 6 | 2.1 | 10 | 2.4 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 22 | 33.3 | 329 | 62.3 | 351 | 59.1 |
Participate but not every year | 7 | 10.6 | 81 | 15.3 | 88 | 14.8 |
No longer participate | 7 | 10.6 | 53 | 10.0 | 60 | 10.1 |
Never | 26 | 39.4 | 53 | 10.0 | 79 | 13.3 |
No Response | 4 | 6.1 | 12 | 2.3 | 16 | 2.7 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 42 | 39.3 | 279 | 68.9 | 321 | 62.7 |
Participate but not every year | 16 | 15.0 | 53 | 13.1 | 69 | 13.5 |
No longer participate | 6 | 5.6 | 36 | 8.9 | 42 | 8.2 |
Never | 35 | 32.7 | 26 | 6.4 | 61 | 11.9 |
No Response | 8 | 7.5 | 11 | 2.7 | 19 | 3.7 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
Percentage of turkey participation status responses for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 41 | 25.2 | 151 | 27.6 | 192 | 27.0 |
Participate but not every year | 21 | 12.9 | 140 | 25.5 | 161 | 22.6 |
No longer participate | 13 | 8.0 | 93 | 17.0 | 106 | 14.9 |
Never | 70 | 42.9 | 138 | 25.2 | 208 | 29.3 |
No Response | 18 | 11.0 | 26 | 4.7 | 44 | 6.2 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 2 | 28.6 | 212 | 42.5 | 214 | 42.3 |
Participate but not every year | 2 | 28.6 | 114 | 22.8 | 116 | 22.9 |
No longer participate | 0 | 0.0 | 61 | 12.2 | 61 | 12.1 |
Never | 1 | 14.3 | 97 | 19.4 | 98 | 19.4 |
No Response | 2 | 28.6 | 15 | 3.0 | 17 | 3.4 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 33 | 25.0 | 84 | 28.8 | 117 | 27.6 |
Participate but not every year | 14 | 10.6 | 66 | 22.6 | 80 | 18.9 |
No longer participate | 13 | 9.8 | 49 | 16.8 | 62 | 14.6 |
Never | 59 | 44.7 | 79 | 27.1 | 138 | 32.5 |
No Response | 13 | 9.8 | 14 | 4.8 | 27 | 6.4 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 58 | 87.9 | 491 | 93.0 | 549 | 92.4 |
Participate but not every year | 3 | 4.5 | 32 | 6.1 | 35 | 5.9 |
No longer participate | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
Never | 3 | 4.5 | 1 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.7 |
No Response | 2 | 3.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 5 | 0.8 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 83 | 77.6 | 365 | 90.1 | 448 | 87.5 |
Participate but not every year | 21 | 19.6 | 37 | 9.1 | 58 | 11.3 |
No longer participate | 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 |
Never | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.4 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
Percentage of small-game participation status responses from each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 27 | 16.6 | 115 | 21.0 | 142 | 20.0 |
Participate but not every year | 18 | 11.0 | 112 | 20.4 | 130 | 18.3 |
No longer participate | 16 | 9.8 | 125 | 22.8 | 141 | 19.8 |
Never | 88 | 54.0 | 169 | 30.8 | 257 | 36.1 |
No Response | 14 | 8.6 | 27 | 4.9 | 41 | 5.8 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 3 | 42.9 | 123 | 24.6 | 126 | 24.9 |
Participate but not every year | 1 | 14.3 | 100 | 20.0 | 101 | 20.0 |
No longer participate | 0 | 0.0 | 68 | 13.6 | 68 | 13.4 |
Never | 2 | 28.6 | 192 | 38.5 | 194 | 38.3 |
No Response | 1 | 14.3 | 16 | 3.2 | 17 | 3.4 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 19 | 14.4 | 78 | 26.7 | 97 | 22.9 |
Participate but not every year | 13 | 9.8 | 49 | 16.8 | 62 | 14.6 |
No longer participate | 11 | 8.3 | 45 | 15.4 | 56 | 13.2 |
Never | 76 | 57.6 | 107 | 36.6 | 183 | 43.2 |
No Response | 13 | 9.8 | 13 | 4.5 | 26 | 6.1 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 | 424 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 13 | 19.7 | 163 | 30.9 | 176 | 29.6 |
Participate but not every year | 7 | 10.6 | 94 | 17.8 | 101 | 17.0 |
No longer participate | 6 | 9.1 | 71 | 13.4 | 77 | 13.0 |
Never | 34 | 51.5 | 175 | 33.1 | 209 | 35.2 |
No Response | 6 | 9.1 | 25 | 4.7 | 31 | 5.2 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate every year | 9 | 8.4 | 144 | 35.6 | 153 | 29.9 |
Participate but not every year | 9 | 8.4 | 76 | 18.8 | 85 | 16.6 |
No longer participate | 9 | 8.4 | 52 | 12.8 | 61 | 11.9 |
Never | 71 | 66.4 | 112 | 27.7 | 183 | 35.7 |
No Response | 9 | 8.4 | 21 | 5.2 | 30 | 5.9 |
Total | 107 | 100.0 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100.0 |
For about how many years have you participated in XXXX hunting?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of years hunting. Bars represent number of years hunting their respective game type (i.e. Number of years deer hunters have hunted for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of years hunting. Bars represent number of years hunting their respective game type (i.e. Number of years deer hunters have hunted for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
For about how many years have you participated in Deer hunting?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of years hunting Deer. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of years hunting Deer. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
For about how many years have you participated in Waterfowl hunting?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of years hunting Waterfowl. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of years hunting Waterfowl. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
For about how many years have you participated in Upland Game hunting?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of years hunting Upland Game. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of years hunting Upland Game. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
For about how many years have you participated in Spring Turkey hunting?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of years hunting Spring Turkey. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of years hunting Spring Turkey. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
For about how many years have you participated in Spring Turkey hunting?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of years hunting Fall Turkey. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of years hunting Fall Turkey. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Did you hunt XXXX during the XXXX season?
Percentage of hunter participation in the previous season for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Did you hunt Deer during the 2018 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 157 | 96.3 | 538 | 98.2 | 695 | 97.7 |
No | 6 | 3.7 | 10 | 1.8 | 16 | 2.3 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Did you hunt Waterfowl during the 2018 - 2019 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 5 | 71.4 | 392 | 78.6 | 397 | 78.5 |
No | 2 | 28.6 | 107 | 21.4 | 109 | 21.5 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Did you hunt Upland Game or Small Game in the 2018 - 2019 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 108 | 81.8 | 184 | 63 | 292 | 68.9 |
No | 24 | 18.2 | 108 | 37 | 132 | 31.1 |
Total | 132 | 100.0 | 292 | 100 | 424 | 100.0 |
Did you hunt Spring Turkey in 2019?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 62 | 93.9 | 513 | 97.2 | 575 | 96.8 |
No | 4 | 6.1 | 15 | 2.8 | 19 | 3.2 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 | 528 | 100.0 | 594 | 100.0 |
Did you hunt Fall Turkey in 2018?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 92 | 86 | 343 | 84.7 | 435 | 85 |
No | 15 | 14 | 62 | 15.3 | 77 | 15 |
Total | 107 | 100 | 405 | 100.0 | 512 | 100 |
The following is a list of experiences that may hold some importance to you as a XXXX hunter. Indicate how important you view each of the following experiences when hunting XXXX.
\(\chi^2\) = 1.69, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.25 (0.89 - 1.76), p-value = 0.19
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 64 | 40.8 | 244 | 45.4 | 308 | 44.3 |
Very important | 69 | 43.9 | 233 | 43.3 | 302 | 43.5 |
Moderately important | 21 | 13.4 | 52 | 9.7 | 73 | 10.5 |
Slightly important | 1 | 0.6 | 6 | 1.1 | 7 | 1.0 |
Not at all important | 1 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.1 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.21, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.78 (0.56 - 1.08), p-value = 0.14
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 39 | 24.8 | 119 | 22.1 | 158 | 22.7 |
Very important | 70 | 44.6 | 222 | 41.3 | 292 | 42.0 |
Moderately important | 35 | 22.3 | 167 | 31.0 | 202 | 29.1 |
Slightly important | 9 | 5.7 | 26 | 4.8 | 35 | 5.0 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
No Response | 4 | 2.5 | 2 | 0.4 | 6 | 0.9 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.07, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.96 (0.69 - 1.33), p-value = 0.79
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 33 | 21.0 | 98 | 18.2 | 131 | 18.8 |
Very important | 39 | 24.8 | 153 | 28.4 | 192 | 27.6 |
Moderately important | 61 | 38.9 | 207 | 38.5 | 268 | 38.6 |
Slightly important | 18 | 11.5 | 62 | 11.5 | 80 | 11.5 |
Not at all important | 3 | 1.9 | 12 | 2.2 | 15 | 2.2 |
No Response | 3 | 1.9 | 6 | 1.1 | 9 | 1.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 10.95, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.58 (0.42 - 0.8), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 27 | 17.2 | 57 | 10.6 | 84 | 12.1 |
Very important | 34 | 21.7 | 66 | 12.3 | 100 | 14.4 |
Moderately important | 46 | 29.3 | 189 | 35.1 | 235 | 33.8 |
Slightly important | 27 | 17.2 | 126 | 23.4 | 153 | 22.0 |
Not at all important | 22 | 14.0 | 94 | 17.5 | 116 | 16.7 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 6 | 1.1 | 7 | 1.0 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.91, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.17 (0.85 - 1.62), p-value = 0.34
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 25 | 15.9 | 105 | 19.5 | 130 | 18.7 |
Very important | 67 | 42.7 | 224 | 41.6 | 291 | 41.9 |
Moderately important | 47 | 29.9 | 153 | 28.4 | 200 | 28.8 |
Slightly important | 14 | 8.9 | 44 | 8.2 | 58 | 8.3 |
Not at all important | 3 | 1.9 | 7 | 1.3 | 10 | 1.4 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 5 | 0.9 | 6 | 0.9 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.07, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.96 (0.69 - 1.32), p-value = 0.79
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 7 | 4.5 | 21 | 3.9 | 28 | 4.0 |
Very important | 20 | 12.7 | 49 | 9.1 | 69 | 9.9 |
Moderately important | 46 | 29.3 | 168 | 31.2 | 214 | 30.8 |
Slightly important | 40 | 25.5 | 169 | 31.4 | 209 | 30.1 |
Not at all important | 43 | 27.4 | 129 | 24.0 | 172 | 24.7 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.45, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.12 (0.81 - 1.55), p-value = 0.5
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 7 | 4.5 | 21 | 3.9 | 28 | 4.0 |
Very important | 16 | 10.2 | 56 | 10.4 | 72 | 10.4 |
Moderately important | 51 | 32.5 | 182 | 33.8 | 233 | 33.5 |
Slightly important | 43 | 27.4 | 174 | 32.3 | 217 | 31.2 |
Not at all important | 39 | 24.8 | 103 | 19.1 | 142 | 20.4 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.06, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.96 (0.7 - 1.32), p-value = 0.8
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 33 | 21.0 | 108 | 20.1 | 141 | 20.3 |
Very important | 43 | 27.4 | 150 | 27.9 | 193 | 27.8 |
Moderately important | 49 | 31.2 | 170 | 31.6 | 219 | 31.5 |
Slightly important | 25 | 15.9 | 79 | 14.7 | 104 | 15.0 |
Not at all important | 6 | 3.8 | 29 | 5.4 | 35 | 5.0 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.7, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.62 - 1.21), p-value = 0.4
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 76 | 48.4 | 255 | 47.4 | 331 | 47.6 |
Very important | 53 | 33.8 | 168 | 31.2 | 221 | 31.8 |
Moderately important | 14 | 8.9 | 76 | 14.1 | 90 | 12.9 |
Slightly important | 7 | 4.5 | 32 | 5.9 | 39 | 5.6 |
Not at all important | 3 | 1.9 | 5 | 0.9 | 8 | 1.2 |
No Response | 4 | 2.5 | 2 | 0.4 | 6 | 0.9 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.35, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.37 (0.98 - 1.91), p-value = 0.07
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 61 | 38.9 | 234 | 43.5 | 295 | 42.4 |
Very important | 47 | 29.9 | 177 | 32.9 | 224 | 32.2 |
Moderately important | 25 | 15.9 | 90 | 16.7 | 115 | 16.5 |
Slightly important | 13 | 8.3 | 19 | 3.5 | 32 | 4.6 |
Not at all important | 9 | 5.7 | 14 | 2.6 | 23 | 3.3 |
No Response | 2 | 1.3 | 4 | 0.7 | 6 | 0.9 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 27.09, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.42 (0.3 - 0.59), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 60 | 38.2 | 110 | 20.4 | 170 | 24.5 |
Very important | 39 | 24.8 | 97 | 18.0 | 136 | 19.6 |
Moderately important | 22 | 14.0 | 128 | 23.8 | 150 | 21.6 |
Slightly important | 16 | 10.2 | 98 | 18.2 | 114 | 16.4 |
Not at all important | 19 | 12.1 | 101 | 18.8 | 120 | 17.3 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.7 | 5 | 0.7 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 13.43, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.4 - 0.76), p-value < 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 52 | 33.1 | 119 | 22.1 | 171 | 24.6 |
Very important | 48 | 30.6 | 147 | 27.3 | 195 | 28.1 |
Moderately important | 33 | 21.0 | 132 | 24.5 | 165 | 23.7 |
Slightly important | 15 | 9.6 | 82 | 15.2 | 97 | 14.0 |
Not at all important | 8 | 5.1 | 55 | 10.2 | 63 | 9.1 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.23, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.52 (0.28 - 8.34), p-value = 0.63
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 2 | 40 | 184 | 46.9 | 186 | 46.9 |
Very important | 2 | 40 | 166 | 42.3 | 168 | 42.3 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 35 | 8.9 | 36 | 9.1 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.3 | 5 | 1.3 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.87, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.3 (0.05 - 1.78), p-value = 0.17
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 3 | 60 | 108 | 27.6 | 111 | 28.0 |
Very important | 1 | 20 | 158 | 40.3 | 159 | 40.1 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 110 | 28.1 | 111 | 28.0 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 14 | 3.6 | 14 | 3.5 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1 (0.19 - 5.38), p-value = 1
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 20 | 53 | 13.5 | 54 | 13.6 |
Very important | 1 | 20 | 105 | 26.8 | 106 | 26.7 |
Moderately important | 2 | 40 | 170 | 43.4 | 172 | 43.3 |
Slightly important | 1 | 20 | 50 | 12.8 | 51 | 12.8 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2.6 | 10 | 2.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.0 | 4 | 1.0 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.05, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.85 (0.21 - 3.47), p-value = 0.82
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 16 | 4.1 | 16 | 4.0 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 29 | 7.4 | 29 | 7.3 |
Moderately important | 2 | 40 | 123 | 31.4 | 125 | 31.5 |
Slightly important | 3 | 60 | 131 | 33.4 | 134 | 33.8 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 92 | 23.5 | 92 | 23.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.42, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.14 - 2.71), p-value = 0.52
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 20 | 85 | 21.7 | 86 | 21.7 |
Very important | 3 | 60 | 151 | 38.5 | 154 | 38.8 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 100 | 25.5 | 101 | 25.4 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 42 | 10.7 | 42 | 10.6 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 14 | 3.6 | 14 | 3.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.06, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.18 - 3.86), p-value = 0.81
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 20 | 95 | 24.2 | 96 | 24.2 |
Very important | 3 | 60 | 177 | 45.2 | 180 | 45.3 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 88 | 22.4 | 89 | 22.4 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 23 | 5.9 | 23 | 5.8 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1.8 | 7 | 1.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.01, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.93 (0.24 - 3.68), p-value = 0.92
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 29 | 7.4 | 29 | 7.3 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 58 | 14.8 | 58 | 14.6 |
Moderately important | 3 | 60 | 114 | 29.1 | 117 | 29.5 |
Slightly important | 2 | 40 | 115 | 29.3 | 117 | 29.5 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 75 | 19.1 | 75 | 18.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.31, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.48 (0.37 - 5.85), p-value = 0.58
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 48 | 12.2 | 48 | 12.1 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 89 | 22.7 | 89 | 22.4 |
Moderately important | 4 | 80 | 135 | 34.4 | 139 | 35.0 |
Slightly important | 1 | 20 | 88 | 22.4 | 89 | 22.4 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 31 | 7.9 | 31 | 7.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.18, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.36 (0.32 - 5.72), p-value = 0.67
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 20 | 166 | 42.3 | 167 | 42.1 |
Very important | 3 | 60 | 125 | 31.9 | 128 | 32.2 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 55 | 14.0 | 56 | 14.1 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 35 | 8.9 | 35 | 8.8 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2.3 | 9 | 2.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.29 (0.27 - 6.09), p-value = 0.75
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 20 | 109 | 27.8 | 110 | 27.7 |
Very important | 2 | 40 | 139 | 35.5 | 141 | 35.5 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 84 | 21.4 | 85 | 21.4 |
Slightly important | 1 | 20 | 38 | 9.7 | 39 | 9.8 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 19 | 4.8 | 19 | 4.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.32, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.57 (0.08 - 4.04), p-value = 0.57
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 3 | 60 | 118 | 30.1 | 121 | 30.5 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 102 | 26.0 | 102 | 25.7 |
Moderately important | 0 | 0 | 98 | 25.0 | 98 | 24.7 |
Slightly important | 2 | 40 | 44 | 11.2 | 46 | 11.6 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 26 | 6.6 | 26 | 6.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.0 | 4 | 1.0 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.4, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.69 (0.33 - 8.59), p-value = 0.53
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 20 | 121 | 30.9 | 122 | 30.7 |
Very important | 2 | 40 | 143 | 36.5 | 145 | 36.5 |
Moderately important | 1 | 20 | 75 | 19.1 | 76 | 19.1 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 34 | 8.7 | 34 | 8.6 |
Not at all important | 1 | 20 | 18 | 4.6 | 19 | 4.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.13, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 2.81 (0.7 - 11.2), p-value = 0.14
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 93 | 23.7 | 93 | 23.4 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 112 | 28.6 | 112 | 28.2 |
Moderately important | 3 | 60 | 69 | 17.6 | 72 | 18.1 |
Slightly important | 1 | 20 | 56 | 14.3 | 57 | 14.4 |
Not at all important | 1 | 20 | 61 | 15.6 | 62 | 15.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.91, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.62 (0.39 - 1), p-value = 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 48 | 46.6 | 67 | 38.3 | 115 | 41.4 |
Very important | 49 | 47.6 | 83 | 47.4 | 132 | 47.5 |
Moderately important | 5 | 4.9 | 21 | 12.0 | 26 | 9.4 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 1.7 | 3 | 1.1 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.86, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.39 - 0.95), p-value = 0.03
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 32 | 31.1 | 46 | 26.3 | 78 | 28.1 |
Very important | 45 | 43.7 | 57 | 32.6 | 102 | 36.7 |
Moderately important | 25 | 24.3 | 62 | 35.4 | 87 | 31.3 |
Slightly important | 1 | 1.0 | 9 | 5.1 | 10 | 3.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.8, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.68 (0.44 - 1.07), p-value = 0.09
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 20 | 19.4 | 32 | 18.3 | 52 | 18.7 |
Very important | 29 | 28.2 | 34 | 19.4 | 63 | 22.7 |
Moderately important | 43 | 41.7 | 79 | 45.1 | 122 | 43.9 |
Slightly important | 10 | 9.7 | 26 | 14.9 | 36 | 12.9 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 1.7 | 3 | 1.1 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.88, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.52 - 1.26), p-value = 0.35
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 4 | 3.9 | 11 | 6.3 | 15 | 5.4 |
Very important | 8 | 7.8 | 9 | 5.1 | 17 | 6.1 |
Moderately important | 36 | 35.0 | 43 | 24.6 | 79 | 28.4 |
Slightly important | 28 | 27.2 | 66 | 37.7 | 94 | 33.8 |
Not at all important | 26 | 25.2 | 44 | 25.1 | 70 | 25.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 3 | 1.1 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.27, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.12 (0.72 - 1.75), p-value = 0.61
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 2 | 1.9 | 5 | 2.9 | 7 | 2.5 |
Very important | 11 | 10.7 | 15 | 8.6 | 26 | 9.4 |
Moderately important | 35 | 34.0 | 68 | 38.9 | 103 | 37.1 |
Slightly important | 32 | 31.1 | 50 | 28.6 | 82 | 29.5 |
Not at all important | 23 | 22.3 | 35 | 20.0 | 58 | 20.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.42, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.62 (0.4 - 0.97), p-value = 0.04
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 10 | 9.7 | 9 | 5.1 | 19 | 6.8 |
Very important | 17 | 16.5 | 27 | 15.4 | 44 | 15.8 |
Moderately important | 40 | 38.8 | 56 | 32.0 | 96 | 34.5 |
Slightly important | 25 | 24.3 | 48 | 27.4 | 73 | 26.3 |
Not at all important | 11 | 10.7 | 33 | 18.9 | 44 | 15.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.48, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.86 (0.55 - 1.33), p-value = 0.49
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 36 | 35.0 | 55 | 31.4 | 91 | 32.7 |
Very important | 35 | 34.0 | 59 | 33.7 | 94 | 33.8 |
Moderately important | 18 | 17.5 | 34 | 19.4 | 52 | 18.7 |
Slightly important | 10 | 9.7 | 15 | 8.6 | 25 | 9.0 |
Not at all important | 4 | 3.9 | 11 | 6.3 | 15 | 5.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.73, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.69 (0.44 - 1.07), p-value = 0.1
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 33 | 32.0 | 35 | 20.0 | 68 | 24.5 |
Very important | 32 | 31.1 | 65 | 37.1 | 97 | 34.9 |
Moderately important | 24 | 23.3 | 47 | 26.9 | 71 | 25.5 |
Slightly important | 7 | 6.8 | 21 | 12.0 | 28 | 10.1 |
Not at all important | 6 | 5.8 | 5 | 2.9 | 11 | 4.0 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 3 | 1.1 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 6.7, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.35 - 0.87), p-value = 0.01
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 47 | 45.6 | 56 | 32.0 | 103 | 37.1 |
Very important | 33 | 32.0 | 56 | 32.0 | 89 | 32.0 |
Moderately important | 15 | 14.6 | 38 | 21.7 | 53 | 19.1 |
Slightly important | 3 | 2.9 | 18 | 10.3 | 21 | 7.6 |
Not at all important | 5 | 4.9 | 6 | 3.4 | 11 | 4.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 11.94, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.46 (0.29 - 0.72), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 26 | 25.2 | 26 | 14.9 | 52 | 18.7 |
Very important | 41 | 39.8 | 52 | 29.7 | 93 | 33.5 |
Moderately important | 25 | 24.3 | 55 | 31.4 | 80 | 28.8 |
Slightly important | 7 | 6.8 | 25 | 14.3 | 32 | 11.5 |
Not at all important | 4 | 3.9 | 15 | 8.6 | 19 | 6.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 22.12, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.34 (0.21 - 0.53), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 59 | 57.3 | 54 | 30.9 | 113 | 40.6 |
Very important | 16 | 15.5 | 31 | 17.7 | 47 | 16.9 |
Moderately important | 16 | 15.5 | 31 | 17.7 | 47 | 16.9 |
Slightly important | 5 | 4.9 | 28 | 16.0 | 33 | 11.9 |
Not at all important | 7 | 6.8 | 29 | 16.6 | 36 | 12.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.74, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.43 - 1.18), p-value = 0.19
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 30 | 48.4 | 211 | 41.1 | 241 | 41.9 |
Very important | 26 | 41.9 | 224 | 43.7 | 250 | 43.5 |
Moderately important | 6 | 9.7 | 67 | 13.1 | 73 | 12.7 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0.0 | 9 | 1.8 | 9 | 1.6 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.89, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.58 (0.36 - 0.94), p-value = 0.03
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 15 | 24.2 | 95 | 18.5 | 110 | 19.1 |
Very important | 32 | 51.6 | 220 | 42.9 | 252 | 43.8 |
Moderately important | 15 | 24.2 | 162 | 31.6 | 177 | 30.8 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0.0 | 32 | 6.2 | 32 | 5.6 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 13.74, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.4 (0.25 - 0.65), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 17 | 27.4 | 66 | 12.9 | 83 | 14.4 |
Very important | 21 | 33.9 | 130 | 25.3 | 151 | 26.3 |
Moderately important | 20 | 32.3 | 238 | 46.4 | 258 | 44.9 |
Slightly important | 4 | 6.5 | 60 | 11.7 | 64 | 11.1 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 12 | 2.3 | 12 | 2.1 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 1.4 | 7 | 1.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.01, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.76 (1.07 - 2.88), p-value = 0.03
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 2 | 3.2 | 3 | 0.6 | 5 | 0.9 |
Very important | 4 | 6.5 | 36 | 7.0 | 40 | 7.0 |
Moderately important | 14 | 22.6 | 198 | 38.6 | 212 | 36.9 |
Slightly important | 17 | 27.4 | 139 | 27.1 | 156 | 27.1 |
Not at all important | 25 | 40.3 | 132 | 25.7 | 157 | 27.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 1.0 | 5 | 0.9 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.21, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.13 (0.67 - 1.89), p-value = 0.64
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 3 | 4.8 | 7 | 1.4 | 10 | 1.7 |
Very important | 1 | 1.6 | 22 | 4.3 | 23 | 4.0 |
Moderately important | 8 | 12.9 | 96 | 18.7 | 104 | 18.1 |
Slightly important | 13 | 21.0 | 92 | 17.9 | 105 | 18.3 |
Not at all important | 37 | 59.7 | 293 | 57.1 | 330 | 57.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.09, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.08 (0.66 - 1.76), p-value = 0.76
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 4 | 6.5 | 30 | 5.8 | 34 | 5.9 |
Very important | 9 | 14.5 | 53 | 10.3 | 62 | 10.8 |
Moderately important | 17 | 27.4 | 180 | 35.1 | 197 | 34.3 |
Slightly important | 13 | 21.0 | 121 | 23.6 | 134 | 23.3 |
Not at all important | 19 | 30.6 | 128 | 25.0 | 147 | 25.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.61, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.66 (0.4 - 1.1), p-value = 0.11
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 30 | 48.4 | 197 | 38.4 | 227 | 39.5 |
Very important | 24 | 38.7 | 220 | 42.9 | 244 | 42.4 |
Moderately important | 7 | 11.3 | 83 | 16.2 | 90 | 15.7 |
Slightly important | 1 | 1.6 | 12 | 2.3 | 13 | 2.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.34, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.46 - 1.22), p-value = 0.25
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 23 | 37.1 | 161 | 31.4 | 184 | 32.0 |
Very important | 28 | 45.2 | 229 | 44.6 | 257 | 44.7 |
Moderately important | 9 | 14.5 | 103 | 20.1 | 112 | 19.5 |
Slightly important | 2 | 3.2 | 12 | 2.3 | 14 | 2.4 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 1.4 | 7 | 1.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.92 (0.56 - 1.52), p-value = 0.76
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 19 | 30.6 | 107 | 20.9 | 126 | 21.9 |
Very important | 17 | 27.4 | 215 | 41.9 | 232 | 40.3 |
Moderately important | 19 | 30.6 | 128 | 25.0 | 147 | 25.6 |
Slightly important | 4 | 6.5 | 40 | 7.8 | 44 | 7.7 |
Not at all important | 3 | 4.8 | 17 | 3.3 | 20 | 3.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.0 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.05, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.05 (0.66 - 1.69), p-value = 0.83
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 6 | 9.7 | 36 | 7.0 | 42 | 7.3 |
Very important | 6 | 9.7 | 103 | 20.1 | 109 | 19.0 |
Moderately important | 32 | 51.6 | 211 | 41.1 | 243 | 42.3 |
Slightly important | 14 | 22.6 | 107 | 20.9 | 121 | 21.0 |
Not at all important | 4 | 6.5 | 52 | 10.1 | 56 | 9.7 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.49, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.85 (0.53 - 1.35), p-value = 0.48
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 12 | 19.4 | 116 | 22.6 | 128 | 22.3 |
Very important | 22 | 35.5 | 125 | 24.4 | 147 | 25.6 |
Moderately important | 20 | 32.3 | 185 | 36.1 | 205 | 35.7 |
Slightly important | 4 | 6.5 | 59 | 11.5 | 63 | 11.0 |
Not at all important | 3 | 4.8 | 21 | 4.1 | 24 | 4.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 7 | 1.4 | 8 | 1.4 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.58, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.37 - 1.02), p-value = 0.06
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 34 | 54.8 | 224 | 43.7 | 258 | 44.9 |
Very important | 19 | 30.6 | 173 | 33.7 | 192 | 33.4 |
Moderately important | 3 | 4.8 | 74 | 14.4 | 77 | 13.4 |
Slightly important | 4 | 6.5 | 22 | 4.3 | 26 | 4.5 |
Not at all important | 1 | 1.6 | 17 | 3.3 | 18 | 3.1 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.38, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.46 (0.9 - 2.37), p-value = 0.12
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 18 | 29.0 | 194 | 37.8 | 212 | 36.9 |
Very important | 20 | 32.3 | 155 | 30.2 | 175 | 30.4 |
Moderately important | 11 | 17.7 | 110 | 21.4 | 121 | 21.0 |
Slightly important | 9 | 14.5 | 33 | 6.4 | 42 | 7.3 |
Not at all important | 3 | 4.8 | 20 | 3.9 | 23 | 4.0 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.05, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.78 (0.49 - 1.25), p-value = 0.31
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 21 | 33.9 | 147 | 28.7 | 168 | 29.2 |
Very important | 14 | 22.6 | 127 | 24.8 | 141 | 24.5 |
Moderately important | 17 | 27.4 | 122 | 23.8 | 139 | 24.2 |
Slightly important | 8 | 12.9 | 63 | 12.3 | 71 | 12.3 |
Not at all important | 2 | 3.2 | 51 | 9.9 | 53 | 9.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.08 (0.67 - 1.72), p-value = 0.76
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 9 | 14.5 | 90 | 17.5 | 99 | 17.2 |
Very important | 18 | 29.0 | 133 | 25.9 | 151 | 26.3 |
Moderately important | 18 | 29.0 | 155 | 30.2 | 173 | 30.1 |
Slightly important | 10 | 16.1 | 81 | 15.8 | 91 | 15.8 |
Not at all important | 7 | 11.3 | 52 | 10.1 | 59 | 10.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.76, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.65 (0.43 - 1.01), p-value = 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 38 | 41.3 | 112 | 32.7 | 150 | 34.5 |
Very important | 38 | 41.3 | 143 | 41.7 | 181 | 41.6 |
Moderately important | 14 | 15.2 | 73 | 21.3 | 87 | 20.0 |
Slightly important | 1 | 1.1 | 8 | 2.3 | 9 | 2.1 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.9 | 3 | 0.7 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.2 | 5 | 1.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.44, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.57 - 1.32), p-value = 0.51
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 21 | 22.8 | 74 | 21.6 | 95 | 21.8 |
Very important | 35 | 38.0 | 120 | 35.0 | 155 | 35.6 |
Moderately important | 29 | 31.5 | 119 | 34.7 | 148 | 34.0 |
Slightly important | 6 | 6.5 | 21 | 6.1 | 27 | 6.2 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 1.5 | 5 | 1.1 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.2 | 5 | 1.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.07, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.68 (0.45 - 1.05), p-value = 0.08
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 11 | 12.0 | 36 | 10.5 | 47 | 10.8 |
Very important | 24 | 26.1 | 51 | 14.9 | 75 | 17.2 |
Moderately important | 30 | 32.6 | 140 | 40.8 | 170 | 39.1 |
Slightly important | 15 | 16.3 | 75 | 21.9 | 90 | 20.7 |
Not at all important | 10 | 10.9 | 38 | 11.1 | 48 | 11.0 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.9 | 5 | 1.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.81, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.34 (0.88 - 2.04), p-value = 0.18
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 1.1 | 10 | 2.9 | 11 | 2.5 |
Very important | 7 | 7.6 | 28 | 8.2 | 35 | 8.0 |
Moderately important | 28 | 30.4 | 117 | 34.1 | 145 | 33.3 |
Slightly important | 25 | 27.2 | 98 | 28.6 | 123 | 28.3 |
Not at all important | 29 | 31.5 | 85 | 24.8 | 114 | 26.2 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 5 | 1.5 | 7 | 1.6 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.15, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.09 (0.71 - 1.68), p-value = 0.7
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 2 | 2.2 | 10 | 2.9 | 12 | 2.8 |
Very important | 3 | 3.3 | 13 | 3.8 | 16 | 3.7 |
Moderately important | 19 | 20.7 | 87 | 25.4 | 106 | 24.4 |
Slightly important | 22 | 23.9 | 62 | 18.1 | 84 | 19.3 |
Not at all important | 43 | 46.7 | 165 | 48.1 | 208 | 47.8 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 6 | 1.7 | 9 | 2.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.27, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.47 - 1.1), p-value = 0.13
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 6 | 6.5 | 20 | 5.8 | 26 | 6.0 |
Very important | 16 | 17.4 | 26 | 7.6 | 42 | 9.7 |
Moderately important | 21 | 22.8 | 83 | 24.2 | 104 | 23.9 |
Slightly important | 17 | 18.5 | 91 | 26.5 | 108 | 24.8 |
Not at all important | 30 | 32.6 | 119 | 34.7 | 149 | 34.3 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 4 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.83, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.7 (0.46 - 1.06), p-value = 0.09
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 22 | 23.9 | 67 | 19.5 | 89 | 20.5 |
Very important | 36 | 39.1 | 105 | 30.6 | 141 | 32.4 |
Moderately important | 14 | 15.2 | 89 | 25.9 | 103 | 23.7 |
Slightly important | 12 | 13.0 | 40 | 11.7 | 52 | 12.0 |
Not at all important | 7 | 7.6 | 37 | 10.8 | 44 | 10.1 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 5 | 1.5 | 6 | 1.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.92, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.49 - 1.13), p-value = 0.17
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 14 | 15.2 | 47 | 13.7 | 61 | 14.0 |
Very important | 33 | 35.9 | 93 | 27.1 | 126 | 29.0 |
Moderately important | 21 | 22.8 | 99 | 28.9 | 120 | 27.6 |
Slightly important | 14 | 15.2 | 55 | 16.0 | 69 | 15.9 |
Not at all important | 9 | 9.8 | 44 | 12.8 | 53 | 12.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 5 | 1.5 | 6 | 1.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.02, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.97 (0.63 - 1.5), p-value = 0.9
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 1.1 | 5 | 1.5 | 6 | 1.4 |
Very important | 6 | 6.5 | 28 | 8.2 | 34 | 7.8 |
Moderately important | 19 | 20.7 | 57 | 16.6 | 76 | 17.5 |
Slightly important | 21 | 22.8 | 86 | 25.1 | 107 | 24.6 |
Not at all important | 42 | 45.7 | 160 | 46.6 | 202 | 46.4 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 7 | 2.0 | 10 | 2.3 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.14, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.52 - 1.21), p-value = 0.29
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 9 | 9.8 | 29 | 8.5 | 38 | 8.7 |
Very important | 23 | 25.0 | 68 | 19.8 | 91 | 20.9 |
Moderately important | 22 | 23.9 | 87 | 25.4 | 109 | 25.1 |
Slightly important | 12 | 13.0 | 65 | 19.0 | 77 | 17.7 |
Not at all important | 22 | 23.9 | 86 | 25.1 | 108 | 24.8 |
No Response | 4 | 4.3 | 8 | 2.3 | 12 | 2.8 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.19, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.1 (0.72 - 1.67), p-value = 0.66
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 5 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.8 | 25 | 5.7 |
Very important | 15 | 16.3 | 52 | 15.2 | 67 | 15.4 |
Moderately important | 27 | 29.3 | 124 | 36.2 | 151 | 34.7 |
Slightly important | 24 | 26.1 | 74 | 21.6 | 98 | 22.5 |
Not at all important | 19 | 20.7 | 70 | 20.4 | 89 | 20.5 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.9 | 5 | 1.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.04, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.42 - 0.94), p-value = 0.02
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 18 | 19.6 | 64 | 18.7 | 82 | 18.9 |
Very important | 34 | 37.0 | 80 | 23.3 | 114 | 26.2 |
Moderately important | 25 | 27.2 | 106 | 30.9 | 131 | 30.1 |
Slightly important | 13 | 14.1 | 61 | 17.8 | 74 | 17.0 |
Not at all important | 1 | 1.1 | 26 | 7.6 | 27 | 6.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 6 | 1.7 | 7 | 1.6 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.7, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.7 (0.46 - 1.07), p-value = 0.1
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 42 | 45.7 | 140 | 40.8 | 182 | 41.8 |
Very important | 32 | 34.8 | 95 | 27.7 | 127 | 29.2 |
Moderately important | 13 | 14.1 | 65 | 19.0 | 78 | 17.9 |
Slightly important | 3 | 3.3 | 24 | 7.0 | 27 | 6.2 |
Not at all important | 1 | 1.1 | 13 | 3.8 | 14 | 3.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 6 | 1.7 | 7 | 1.6 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.08, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.94 (0.63 - 1.42), p-value = 0.78
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 30 | 32.6 | 119 | 34.7 | 149 | 34.3 |
Very important | 29 | 31.5 | 96 | 28.0 | 125 | 28.7 |
Moderately important | 23 | 25.0 | 67 | 19.5 | 90 | 20.7 |
Slightly important | 5 | 5.4 | 31 | 9.0 | 36 | 8.3 |
Not at all important | 4 | 4.3 | 26 | 7.6 | 30 | 6.9 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.2 | 5 | 1.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.79, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.55 - 1.25), p-value = 0.38
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 23 | 25.0 | 95 | 27.7 | 118 | 27.1 |
Very important | 29 | 31.5 | 78 | 22.7 | 107 | 24.6 |
Moderately important | 19 | 20.7 | 74 | 21.6 | 93 | 21.4 |
Slightly important | 10 | 10.9 | 43 | 12.5 | 53 | 12.2 |
Not at all important | 8 | 8.7 | 49 | 14.3 | 57 | 13.1 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 4 | 1.2 | 7 | 1.6 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.44, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.42 - 0.97), p-value = 0.04
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 15 | 16.3 | 49 | 14.3 | 64 | 14.7 |
Very important | 29 | 31.5 | 67 | 19.5 | 96 | 22.1 |
Moderately important | 21 | 22.8 | 97 | 28.3 | 118 | 27.1 |
Slightly important | 14 | 15.2 | 70 | 20.4 | 84 | 19.3 |
Not at all important | 11 | 12.0 | 56 | 16.3 | 67 | 15.4 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 4 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Very important | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Moderately important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Moderately important | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 25 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Moderately important | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Not at all important | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moderately important | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Not at all important | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Moderately important | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Moderately important | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 100 | 2 | 66.7 | 3 | 75 |
Slightly important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely important | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 25 |
Very important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Moderately important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very important | 1 | 100 | 2 | 66.7 | 3 | 75 |
Moderately important | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slightly important | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 25 |
Not at all important | 0 | 0 | 3 | 100 | 3 | 75 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
In respect to your expectations for XXXX hunting, how would you rate each of the following aspects of your hunting experience in XXXX?
\(\chi^2\) = 4.86, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.69 (0.5 - 0.96), p-value = 0.03
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 14 | 8.9 | 32 | 5.9 | 46 | 6.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 33 | 21.0 | 97 | 18.0 | 130 | 18.7 |
Equal to expectations | 76 | 48.4 | 247 | 45.9 | 323 | 46.5 |
Below expectations | 27 | 17.2 | 123 | 22.9 | 150 | 21.6 |
Far below expectations | 7 | 4.5 | 37 | 6.9 | 44 | 6.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.68, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.76 (0.54 - 1.06), p-value = 0.1
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 14 | 8.9 | 28 | 5.2 | 42 | 6.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 30 | 19.1 | 80 | 14.9 | 110 | 15.8 |
Equal to expectations | 68 | 43.3 | 255 | 47.4 | 323 | 46.5 |
Below expectations | 32 | 20.4 | 129 | 24.0 | 161 | 23.2 |
Far below expectations | 13 | 8.3 | 42 | 7.8 | 55 | 7.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.7 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.52, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.67 (0.48 - 0.94), p-value = 0.02
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 14 | 8.9 | 23 | 4.3 | 37 | 5.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 28 | 17.8 | 76 | 14.1 | 104 | 15.0 |
Equal to expectations | 72 | 45.9 | 262 | 48.7 | 334 | 48.1 |
Below expectations | 25 | 15.9 | 106 | 19.7 | 131 | 18.8 |
Far below expectations | 16 | 10.2 | 69 | 12.8 | 85 | 12.2 |
No Response | 2 | 1.3 | 2 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 7.06, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.46 - 0.89), p-value = 0.01
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 11 | 7.0 | 13 | 2.4 | 24 | 3.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 16 | 10.2 | 39 | 7.2 | 55 | 7.9 |
Equal to expectations | 60 | 38.2 | 197 | 36.6 | 257 | 37.0 |
Below expectations | 39 | 24.8 | 158 | 29.4 | 197 | 28.3 |
Far below expectations | 28 | 17.8 | 125 | 23.2 | 153 | 22.0 |
No Response | 3 | 1.9 | 6 | 1.1 | 9 | 1.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.15, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.93 (0.66 - 1.32), p-value = 0.7
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 9 | 5.7 | 17 | 3.2 | 26 | 3.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 25 | 15.9 | 90 | 16.7 | 115 | 16.5 |
Equal to expectations | 90 | 57.3 | 314 | 58.4 | 404 | 58.1 |
Below expectations | 28 | 17.8 | 97 | 18.0 | 125 | 18.0 |
Far below expectations | 5 | 3.2 | 16 | 3.0 | 21 | 3.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.7 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.08, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.95 (0.67 - 1.35), p-value = 0.78
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 5 | 3.2 | 6 | 1.1 | 11 | 1.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 6 | 3.8 | 28 | 5.2 | 34 | 4.9 |
Equal to expectations | 87 | 55.4 | 300 | 55.8 | 387 | 55.7 |
Below expectations | 34 | 21.7 | 114 | 21.2 | 148 | 21.3 |
Far below expectations | 20 | 12.7 | 74 | 13.8 | 94 | 13.5 |
No Response | 5 | 3.2 | 16 | 3.0 | 21 | 3.0 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.94 (0.65 - 1.38), p-value = 0.76
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 4.5 | 24 | 4.5 | 31 | 4.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 27 | 17.2 | 84 | 15.6 | 111 | 16.0 |
Equal to expectations | 106 | 67.5 | 370 | 68.8 | 476 | 68.5 |
Below expectations | 10 | 6.4 | 45 | 8.4 | 55 | 7.9 |
Far below expectations | 6 | 3.8 | 11 | 2.0 | 17 | 2.4 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.7 | 5 | 0.7 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.54, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.62 - 1.24), p-value = 0.46
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 14 | 8.9 | 34 | 6.3 | 48 | 6.9 |
Exceeded expectations | 25 | 15.9 | 77 | 14.3 | 102 | 14.7 |
Equal to expectations | 86 | 54.8 | 313 | 58.2 | 399 | 57.4 |
Below expectations | 20 | 12.7 | 75 | 13.9 | 95 | 13.7 |
Far below expectations | 12 | 7.6 | 35 | 6.5 | 47 | 6.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.7 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.86, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.85 (0.61 - 1.19), p-value = 0.35
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 17 | 10.8 | 45 | 8.4 | 62 | 8.9 |
Exceeded expectations | 28 | 17.8 | 91 | 16.9 | 119 | 17.1 |
Equal to expectations | 80 | 51.0 | 281 | 52.2 | 361 | 51.9 |
Below expectations | 20 | 12.7 | 69 | 12.8 | 89 | 12.8 |
Far below expectations | 12 | 7.6 | 50 | 9.3 | 62 | 8.9 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.48, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.13 (0.8 - 1.58), p-value = 0.49
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 21 | 13.4 | 76 | 14.1 | 97 | 14.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 23 | 14.6 | 92 | 17.1 | 115 | 16.5 |
Equal to expectations | 85 | 54.1 | 284 | 52.8 | 369 | 53.1 |
Below expectations | 16 | 10.2 | 43 | 8.0 | 59 | 8.5 |
Far below expectations | 11 | 7.0 | 41 | 7.6 | 52 | 7.5 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.84, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.69 (0.48 - 1), p-value = 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 6 | 3.8 | 23 | 4.3 | 29 | 4.2 |
Exceeded expectations | 21 | 13.4 | 53 | 9.9 | 74 | 10.6 |
Equal to expectations | 108 | 68.8 | 333 | 61.9 | 441 | 63.5 |
Below expectations | 8 | 5.1 | 74 | 13.8 | 82 | 11.8 |
Far below expectations | 13 | 8.3 | 43 | 8.0 | 56 | 8.1 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 12 | 2.2 | 13 | 1.9 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.97, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.44 - 0.91), p-value = 0.01
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 17 | 10.8 | 50 | 9.3 | 67 | 9.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 36 | 22.9 | 81 | 15.1 | 117 | 16.8 |
Equal to expectations | 98 | 62.4 | 370 | 68.8 | 468 | 67.3 |
Below expectations | 3 | 1.9 | 20 | 3.7 | 23 | 3.3 |
Far below expectations | 1 | 0.6 | 10 | 1.9 | 11 | 1.6 |
No Response | 2 | 1.3 | 7 | 1.3 | 9 | 1.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.99 (0.21 - 4.67), p-value = 0.99
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 26 | 6.6 | 26 | 6.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 20 | 72 | 18.4 | 73 | 18.4 |
Equal to expectations | 3 | 60 | 189 | 48.2 | 192 | 48.4 |
Below expectations | 1 | 20 | 91 | 23.2 | 92 | 23.2 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 12 | 3.1 | 12 | 3.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.97, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 3.05 (0.64 - 14.54), p-value = 0.16
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 17 | 4.3 | 17 | 4.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 69 | 17.6 | 69 | 17.4 |
Equal to expectations | 2 | 40 | 182 | 46.4 | 184 | 46.3 |
Below expectations | 3 | 60 | 111 | 28.3 | 114 | 28.7 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 12 | 3.1 | 12 | 3.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.26, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.49 (0.32 - 6.88), p-value = 0.61
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 16 | 4.1 | 16 | 4.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 49 | 12.5 | 49 | 12.3 |
Equal to expectations | 3 | 60 | 186 | 47.4 | 189 | 47.6 |
Below expectations | 2 | 40 | 119 | 30.4 | 121 | 30.5 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 17 | 4.3 | 17 | 4.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.3 | 5 | 1.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.13, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.35 (0.26 - 6.88), p-value = 0.72
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2.3 | 9 | 2.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 31 | 7.9 | 31 | 7.8 |
Equal to expectations | 3 | 60 | 188 | 48.0 | 191 | 48.1 |
Below expectations | 1 | 20 | 118 | 30.1 | 119 | 30.0 |
Far below expectations | 1 | 20 | 43 | 11.0 | 44 | 11.1 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.08, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 2.33 (0.48 - 11.17), p-value = 0.3
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 18 | 4.6 | 18 | 4.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 50 | 12.8 | 50 | 12.6 |
Equal to expectations | 3 | 60 | 228 | 58.2 | 231 | 58.2 |
Below expectations | 2 | 40 | 78 | 19.9 | 80 | 20.2 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 14 | 3.6 | 14 | 3.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.0 | 4 | 1.0 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.71, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.95 (0.42 - 9.08), p-value = 0.4
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 56 | 14.3 | 56 | 14.1 |
Equal to expectations | 3 | 60 | 201 | 51.3 | 204 | 51.4 |
Below expectations | 2 | 40 | 98 | 25.0 | 100 | 25.2 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 14 | 3.6 | 14 | 3.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.05 (0.18 - 6.09), p-value = 0.95
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 14 | 3.6 | 14 | 3.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 47 | 12.0 | 47 | 11.8 |
Equal to expectations | 5 | 100 | 271 | 69.1 | 276 | 69.5 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 46 | 11.7 | 46 | 11.6 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2.6 | 10 | 2.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.0 | 4 | 1.0 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.37, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.11 - 3.17), p-value = 0.54
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 11 | 2.8 | 11 | 2.8 |
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 20 | 59 | 15.1 | 60 | 15.1 |
Equal to expectations | 4 | 80 | 259 | 66.1 | 263 | 66.2 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 46 | 11.7 | 46 | 11.6 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 15 | 3.8 | 15 | 3.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.04, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.44 (0.1 - 2.05), p-value = 0.31
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 24 | 6.1 | 24 | 6.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 2 | 40 | 66 | 16.8 | 68 | 17.1 |
Equal to expectations | 3 | 60 | 228 | 58.2 | 231 | 58.2 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 45 | 11.5 | 45 | 11.3 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 26 | 6.6 | 26 | 6.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.61, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.85 (0.4 - 8.6), p-value = 0.44
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 29 | 7.4 | 29 | 7.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 67 | 17.1 | 67 | 16.9 |
Equal to expectations | 4 | 80 | 222 | 56.6 | 226 | 56.9 |
Below expectations | 1 | 20 | 38 | 9.7 | 39 | 9.8 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 33 | 8.4 | 33 | 8.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.8 | 3 | 0.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.03 (0.2 - 5.38), p-value = 0.97
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 19 | 4.8 | 19 | 4.8 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 50 | 12.8 | 50 | 12.6 |
Equal to expectations | 5 | 100 | 252 | 64.3 | 257 | 64.7 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 48 | 12.2 | 48 | 12.1 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 18 | 4.6 | 18 | 4.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.3 | 5 | 1.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.31, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.65 (0.27 - 10.08), p-value = 0.58
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 40 | 10.2 | 40 | 10.1 |
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 20 | 91 | 23.2 | 92 | 23.2 |
Equal to expectations | 4 | 80 | 241 | 61.5 | 245 | 61.7 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 11 | 2.8 | 11 | 2.8 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.0 | 4 | 1.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.3 | 5 | 1.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.11, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 2.44 (0.48 - 12.37), p-value = 0.29
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 33 | 8.4 | 33 | 8.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 59 | 15.1 | 59 | 14.9 |
Equal to expectations | 4 | 80 | 243 | 62.0 | 247 | 62.2 |
Below expectations | 1 | 20 | 27 | 6.9 | 28 | 7.1 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 23 | 5.9 | 23 | 5.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1.8 | 7 | 1.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 16.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.4 (0.25 - 0.63), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 2 | 1.9 | 5 | 2.9 | 7 | 2.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 16 | 15.5 | 18 | 10.3 | 34 | 12.2 |
Equal to expectations | 55 | 53.4 | 55 | 31.4 | 110 | 39.6 |
Below expectations | 25 | 24.3 | 68 | 38.9 | 93 | 33.5 |
Far below expectations | 4 | 3.9 | 28 | 16.0 | 32 | 11.5 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 12.66, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.44 (0.28 - 0.69), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 2 | 1.9 | 3 | 1.7 | 5 | 1.8 |
Exceeded expectations | 11 | 10.7 | 15 | 8.6 | 26 | 9.4 |
Equal to expectations | 58 | 56.3 | 62 | 35.4 | 120 | 43.2 |
Below expectations | 25 | 24.3 | 66 | 37.7 | 91 | 32.7 |
Far below expectations | 6 | 5.8 | 28 | 16.0 | 34 | 12.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 13.06, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.43 (0.27 - 0.68), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 10 | 9.7 | 13 | 7.4 | 23 | 8.3 |
Equal to expectations | 56 | 54.4 | 58 | 33.1 | 114 | 41.0 |
Below expectations | 27 | 26.2 | 71 | 40.6 | 98 | 35.3 |
Far below expectations | 8 | 7.8 | 29 | 16.6 | 37 | 13.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 12.07, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.45 (18.62 - 189.62), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 1.1 |
Exceeded expectations | 6 | 5.8 | 12 | 6.9 | 18 | 6.5 |
Equal to expectations | 53 | 51.5 | 48 | 27.4 | 101 | 36.3 |
Below expectations | 27 | 26.2 | 67 | 38.3 | 94 | 33.8 |
Far below expectations | 15 | 14.6 | 45 | 25.7 | 60 | 21.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.19, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.36 - 1.15), p-value = 0.14
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 2 | 1.9 | 3 | 1.7 | 5 | 1.8 |
Exceeded expectations | 22 | 21.4 | 22 | 12.6 | 44 | 15.8 |
Equal to expectations | 74 | 71.8 | 142 | 81.1 | 216 | 77.7 |
Below expectations | 3 | 2.9 | 6 | 3.4 | 9 | 3.2 |
Far below expectations | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 1.1 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 7.22, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.49 (0.29 - 0.83), p-value = 0.01
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 4 | 3.9 | 5 | 2.9 | 9 | 3.2 |
Exceeded expectations | 28 | 27.2 | 20 | 11.4 | 48 | 17.3 |
Equal to expectations | 60 | 58.3 | 127 | 72.6 | 187 | 67.3 |
Below expectations | 8 | 7.8 | 18 | 10.3 | 26 | 9.4 |
Far below expectations | 3 | 2.9 | 4 | 2.3 | 7 | 2.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.81, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.48 - 1.31), p-value = 0.37
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 6 | 5.8 | 9 | 5.1 | 15 | 5.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 23 | 22.3 | 30 | 17.1 | 53 | 19.1 |
Equal to expectations | 62 | 60.2 | 118 | 67.4 | 180 | 64.7 |
Below expectations | 7 | 6.8 | 11 | 6.3 | 18 | 6.5 |
Far below expectations | 3 | 2.9 | 6 | 3.4 | 9 | 3.2 |
No Response | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 1.1 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 12.76, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.41 (0.25 - 0.68), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 9 | 8.7 | 4 | 2.3 | 13 | 4.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 16 | 15.5 | 24 | 13.7 | 40 | 14.4 |
Equal to expectations | 66 | 64.1 | 94 | 53.7 | 160 | 57.6 |
Below expectations | 6 | 5.8 | 31 | 17.7 | 37 | 13.3 |
Far below expectations | 4 | 3.9 | 19 | 10.9 | 23 | 8.3 |
No Response | 2 | 1.9 | 3 | 1.7 | 5 | 1.8 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.3, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.32 - 0.92), p-value = 0.02
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 5 | 4.9 | 5 | 2.9 | 10 | 3.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 15 | 14.6 | 23 | 13.1 | 38 | 13.7 |
Equal to expectations | 76 | 73.8 | 114 | 65.1 | 190 | 68.3 |
Below expectations | 5 | 4.9 | 26 | 14.9 | 31 | 11.2 |
Far below expectations | 1 | 1.0 | 6 | 3.4 | 7 | 2.5 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.75, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.57 (0.32 - 1.01), p-value = 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 6.8 | 8 | 4.6 | 15 | 5.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 16 | 15.5 | 20 | 11.4 | 36 | 12.9 |
Equal to expectations | 79 | 76.7 | 134 | 76.6 | 213 | 76.6 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 11 | 6.3 | 11 | 4.0 |
Far below expectations | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.47, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.39 - 1.03), p-value = 0.06
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 15 | 14.6 | 22 | 12.6 | 37 | 13.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 15 | 14.6 | 21 | 12.0 | 36 | 12.9 |
Equal to expectations | 67 | 65.0 | 98 | 56.0 | 165 | 59.4 |
Below expectations | 3 | 2.9 | 17 | 9.7 | 20 | 7.2 |
Far below expectations | 3 | 2.9 | 13 | 7.4 | 16 | 5.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 2.3 | 4 | 1.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 11.85, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.43 (0.27 - 0.7), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 26 | 5.1 | 33 | 5.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 14 | 22.6 | 99 | 19.3 | 113 | 19.7 |
Equal to expectations | 36 | 58.1 | 235 | 45.8 | 271 | 47.1 |
Below expectations | 4 | 6.5 | 116 | 22.6 | 120 | 20.9 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 35 | 6.8 | 35 | 6.1 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.5 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 12, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.43 (0.26 - 0.69), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 23 | 4.5 | 30 | 5.2 |
Exceeded expectations | 13 | 21.0 | 87 | 17.0 | 100 | 17.4 |
Equal to expectations | 33 | 53.2 | 227 | 44.2 | 260 | 45.2 |
Below expectations | 8 | 12.9 | 120 | 23.4 | 128 | 22.3 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 52 | 10.1 | 52 | 9.0 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 4 | 0.8 | 5 | 0.9 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 12.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.42 (0.26 - 0.69), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 9 | 14.5 | 26 | 5.1 | 35 | 6.1 |
Exceeded expectations | 8 | 12.9 | 74 | 14.4 | 82 | 14.3 |
Equal to expectations | 34 | 54.8 | 230 | 44.8 | 264 | 45.9 |
Below expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 101 | 19.7 | 108 | 18.8 |
Far below expectations | 1 | 1.6 | 78 | 15.2 | 79 | 13.7 |
No Response | 3 | 4.8 | 4 | 0.8 | 7 | 1.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.31, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.74 (0.44 - 1.24), p-value = 0.25
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 1 | 1.6 | 8 | 1.6 | 9 | 1.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 35 | 6.8 | 37 | 6.4 |
Equal to expectations | 39 | 62.9 | 262 | 51.1 | 301 | 52.3 |
Below expectations | 9 | 14.5 | 91 | 17.7 | 100 | 17.4 |
Far below expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 98 | 19.1 | 105 | 18.3 |
No Response | 4 | 6.5 | 19 | 3.7 | 23 | 4.0 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.76, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.8 (0.48 - 1.32), p-value = 0.38
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 19 | 3.7 | 19 | 3.3 |
Equal to expectations | 35 | 56.5 | 224 | 43.7 | 259 | 45.0 |
Below expectations | 10 | 16.1 | 106 | 20.7 | 116 | 20.2 |
Far below expectations | 14 | 22.6 | 141 | 27.5 | 155 | 27.0 |
No Response | 3 | 4.8 | 20 | 3.9 | 23 | 4.0 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 7.74, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.49 (0.29 - 0.81), p-value = 0.01
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 5 | 8.1 | 11 | 2.1 | 16 | 2.8 |
Exceeded expectations | 6 | 9.7 | 47 | 9.2 | 53 | 9.2 |
Equal to expectations | 35 | 56.5 | 242 | 47.2 | 277 | 48.2 |
Below expectations | 9 | 14.5 | 110 | 21.4 | 119 | 20.7 |
Far below expectations | 5 | 8.1 | 90 | 17.5 | 95 | 16.5 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 13 | 2.5 | 15 | 2.6 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.69, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.37 - 0.95), p-value = 0.03
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 9 | 14.5 | 50 | 9.7 | 59 | 10.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 13 | 21.0 | 110 | 21.4 | 123 | 21.4 |
Equal to expectations | 33 | 53.2 | 225 | 43.9 | 258 | 44.9 |
Below expectations | 5 | 8.1 | 91 | 17.7 | 96 | 16.7 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 33 | 6.4 | 33 | 5.7 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 4 | 0.8 | 6 | 1.0 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.78, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.5 - 1.3), p-value = 0.38
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 6 | 9.7 | 44 | 8.6 | 50 | 8.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 10 | 16.1 | 93 | 18.1 | 103 | 17.9 |
Equal to expectations | 31 | 50.0 | 210 | 40.9 | 241 | 41.9 |
Below expectations | 11 | 17.7 | 120 | 23.4 | 131 | 22.8 |
Far below expectations | 3 | 4.8 | 42 | 8.2 | 45 | 7.8 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 4 | 0.8 | 5 | 0.9 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.83, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.35 - 0.9), p-value = 0.02
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 4 | 6.5 | 33 | 6.4 | 37 | 6.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 12 | 19.4 | 73 | 14.2 | 85 | 14.8 |
Equal to expectations | 33 | 53.2 | 200 | 39.0 | 233 | 40.5 |
Below expectations | 8 | 12.9 | 140 | 27.3 | 148 | 25.7 |
Far below expectations | 4 | 6.5 | 61 | 11.9 | 65 | 11.3 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 6 | 1.2 | 7 | 1.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.54, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.23 (0.71 - 2.13), p-value = 0.46
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 4 | 6.5 | 29 | 5.7 | 33 | 5.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 11 | 17.7 | 110 | 21.4 | 121 | 21.0 |
Equal to expectations | 36 | 58.1 | 318 | 62.0 | 354 | 61.6 |
Below expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 46 | 9.0 | 53 | 9.2 |
Far below expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 8 | 1.6 | 10 | 1.7 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 2 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.18, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.9 (0.55 - 1.47), p-value = 0.67
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 59 | 11.5 | 66 | 11.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 14 | 22.6 | 131 | 25.5 | 145 | 25.2 |
Equal to expectations | 36 | 58.1 | 255 | 49.7 | 291 | 50.6 |
Below expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 50 | 9.7 | 52 | 9.0 |
Far below expectations | 1 | 1.6 | 15 | 2.9 | 16 | 2.8 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 3 | 0.6 | 5 | 0.9 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.1, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.92 (0.57 - 1.5), p-value = 0.75
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 9 | 14.5 | 74 | 14.4 | 83 | 14.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 14 | 22.6 | 124 | 24.2 | 138 | 24.0 |
Equal to expectations | 34 | 54.8 | 250 | 48.7 | 284 | 49.4 |
Below expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 43 | 8.4 | 45 | 7.8 |
Far below expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 18 | 3.5 | 20 | 3.5 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 4 | 0.8 | 5 | 0.9 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.22, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.13 (0.68 - 1.88), p-value = 0.64
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 64 | 12.5 | 71 | 12.3 |
Exceeded expectations | 11 | 17.7 | 106 | 20.7 | 117 | 20.3 |
Equal to expectations | 36 | 58.1 | 275 | 53.6 | 311 | 54.1 |
Below expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 37 | 7.2 | 39 | 6.8 |
Far below expectations | 5 | 8.1 | 25 | 4.9 | 30 | 5.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 6 | 1.2 | 7 | 1.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.12, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.91 (0.54 - 1.54), p-value = 0.73
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 3 | 4.8 | 32 | 6.2 | 35 | 6.1 |
Exceeded expectations | 7 | 11.3 | 65 | 12.7 | 72 | 12.5 |
Equal to expectations | 42 | 67.7 | 313 | 61.0 | 355 | 61.7 |
Below expectations | 6 | 9.7 | 52 | 10.1 | 58 | 10.1 |
Far below expectations | 2 | 3.2 | 41 | 8.0 | 43 | 7.5 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 10 | 1.9 | 12 | 2.1 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.46, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.2 (0.7 - 2.06), p-value = 0.5
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 4 | 6.5 | 52 | 10.1 | 56 | 9.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 13 | 21.0 | 93 | 18.1 | 106 | 18.4 |
Equal to expectations | 34 | 54.8 | 304 | 59.3 | 338 | 58.8 |
Below expectations | 1 | 1.6 | 25 | 4.9 | 26 | 4.5 |
Far below expectations | 8 | 12.9 | 31 | 6.0 | 39 | 6.8 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 8 | 1.6 | 10 | 1.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.73, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.65 (0.42 - 1.01), p-value = 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 12 | 13.0 | 20 | 5.8 | 32 | 7.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 15 | 16.3 | 46 | 13.4 | 61 | 14.0 |
Equal to expectations | 37 | 40.2 | 159 | 46.4 | 196 | 45.1 |
Below expectations | 21 | 22.8 | 76 | 22.2 | 97 | 22.3 |
Far below expectations | 5 | 5.4 | 35 | 10.2 | 40 | 9.2 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 7 | 2.0 | 9 | 2.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.99, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.39 - 0.94), p-value = 0.03
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 7.6 | 19 | 5.5 | 26 | 6.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 19 | 20.7 | 34 | 9.9 | 53 | 12.2 |
Equal to expectations | 31 | 33.7 | 144 | 42.0 | 175 | 40.2 |
Below expectations | 24 | 26.1 | 94 | 27.4 | 118 | 27.1 |
Far below expectations | 7 | 7.6 | 46 | 13.4 | 53 | 12.2 |
No Response | 4 | 4.3 | 6 | 1.7 | 10 | 2.3 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.02, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.03 (0.67 - 1.57), p-value = 0.9
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 1 | 1.1 | 10 | 2.9 | 11 | 2.5 |
Exceeded expectations | 7 | 7.6 | 31 | 9.0 | 38 | 8.7 |
Equal to expectations | 41 | 44.6 | 147 | 42.9 | 188 | 43.2 |
Below expectations | 27 | 29.3 | 83 | 24.2 | 110 | 25.3 |
Far below expectations | 12 | 13.0 | 60 | 17.5 | 72 | 16.6 |
No Response | 4 | 4.3 | 12 | 3.5 | 16 | 3.7 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.04, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.96 (0.62 - 1.48), p-value = 0.85
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 1 | 1.1 | 5 | 1.5 | 6 | 1.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 3 | 3.3 | 14 | 4.1 | 17 | 3.9 |
Equal to expectations | 43 | 46.7 | 158 | 46.1 | 201 | 46.2 |
Below expectations | 25 | 27.2 | 83 | 24.2 | 108 | 24.8 |
Far below expectations | 15 | 16.3 | 69 | 20.1 | 84 | 19.3 |
No Response | 5 | 5.4 | 14 | 4.1 | 19 | 4.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.06, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.95 (0.61 - 1.46), p-value = 0.8
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 1.2 | 4 | 0.9 |
Exceeded expectations | 2 | 2.2 | 9 | 2.6 | 11 | 2.5 |
Equal to expectations | 42 | 45.7 | 149 | 43.4 | 191 | 43.9 |
Below expectations | 23 | 25.0 | 84 | 24.5 | 107 | 24.6 |
Far below expectations | 19 | 20.7 | 81 | 23.6 | 100 | 23.0 |
No Response | 6 | 6.5 | 16 | 4.7 | 22 | 5.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.01, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.98 (0.64 - 1.51), p-value = 0.94
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 1 | 1.1 | 7 | 2.0 | 8 | 1.8 |
Exceeded expectations | 2 | 2.2 | 13 | 3.8 | 15 | 3.4 |
Equal to expectations | 43 | 46.7 | 149 | 43.4 | 192 | 44.1 |
Below expectations | 26 | 28.3 | 87 | 25.4 | 113 | 26.0 |
Far below expectations | 16 | 17.4 | 70 | 20.4 | 86 | 19.8 |
No Response | 4 | 4.3 | 17 | 5.0 | 21 | 4.8 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.56, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.84 (0.54 - 1.31), p-value = 0.45
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 9 | 9.8 | 18 | 5.2 | 27 | 6.2 |
Exceeded expectations | 9 | 9.8 | 37 | 10.8 | 46 | 10.6 |
Equal to expectations | 42 | 45.7 | 155 | 45.2 | 197 | 45.3 |
Below expectations | 17 | 18.5 | 88 | 25.7 | 105 | 24.1 |
Far below expectations | 12 | 13.0 | 34 | 9.9 | 46 | 10.6 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 11 | 3.2 | 14 | 3.2 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.12, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.93 (0.6 - 1.44), p-value = 0.73
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 3 | 3.3 | 12 | 3.5 | 15 | 3.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 5 | 5.4 | 27 | 7.9 | 32 | 7.4 |
Equal to expectations | 47 | 51.1 | 150 | 43.7 | 197 | 45.3 |
Below expectations | 17 | 18.5 | 96 | 28.0 | 113 | 26.0 |
Far below expectations | 15 | 16.3 | 48 | 14.0 | 63 | 14.5 |
No Response | 5 | 5.4 | 10 | 2.9 | 15 | 3.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.12, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.51 - 1.23), p-value = 0.29
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 1 | 1.1 | 6 | 1.7 | 7 | 1.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 6 | 6.5 | 14 | 4.1 | 20 | 4.6 |
Equal to expectations | 43 | 46.7 | 143 | 41.7 | 186 | 42.8 |
Below expectations | 20 | 21.7 | 94 | 27.4 | 114 | 26.2 |
Far below expectations | 18 | 19.6 | 72 | 21.0 | 90 | 20.7 |
No Response | 4 | 4.3 | 14 | 4.1 | 18 | 4.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 1.44, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.76 (0.49 - 1.19), p-value = 0.23
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 3 | 3.3 | 10 | 2.9 | 13 | 3.0 |
Exceeded expectations | 6 | 6.5 | 16 | 4.7 | 22 | 5.1 |
Equal to expectations | 43 | 46.7 | 149 | 43.4 | 192 | 44.1 |
Below expectations | 19 | 20.7 | 90 | 26.2 | 109 | 25.1 |
Far below expectations | 15 | 16.3 | 65 | 19.0 | 80 | 18.4 |
No Response | 6 | 6.5 | 13 | 3.8 | 19 | 4.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 2.17, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.7 (0.44 - 1.12), p-value = 0.14
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 4 | 4.3 | 11 | 3.2 | 15 | 3.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 20 | 21.7 | 56 | 16.3 | 76 | 17.5 |
Equal to expectations | 54 | 58.7 | 213 | 62.1 | 267 | 61.4 |
Below expectations | 6 | 6.5 | 33 | 9.6 | 39 | 9.0 |
Far below expectations | 5 | 5.4 | 21 | 6.1 | 26 | 6.0 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 9 | 2.6 | 12 | 2.8 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 3.88, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.41 - 1), p-value = 0.05
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 12 | 13.0 | 34 | 9.9 | 46 | 10.6 |
Exceeded expectations | 22 | 23.9 | 56 | 16.3 | 78 | 17.9 |
Equal to expectations | 46 | 50.0 | 191 | 55.7 | 237 | 54.5 |
Below expectations | 5 | 5.4 | 35 | 10.2 | 40 | 9.2 |
Far below expectations | 4 | 4.3 | 14 | 4.1 | 18 | 4.1 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 13 | 3.8 | 16 | 3.7 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.04, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.41 - 0.99), p-value = 0.04
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 16 | 17.4 | 38 | 11.1 | 54 | 12.4 |
Exceeded expectations | 21 | 22.8 | 62 | 18.1 | 83 | 19.1 |
Equal to expectations | 42 | 45.7 | 185 | 53.9 | 227 | 52.2 |
Below expectations | 6 | 6.5 | 35 | 10.2 | 41 | 9.4 |
Far below expectations | 4 | 4.3 | 13 | 3.8 | 17 | 3.9 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 10 | 2.9 | 13 | 3.0 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 4.17, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.4 - 0.98), p-value = 0.04
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 14 | 15.2 | 43 | 12.5 | 57 | 13.1 |
Exceeded expectations | 20 | 21.7 | 42 | 12.2 | 62 | 14.3 |
Equal to expectations | 44 | 47.8 | 193 | 56.3 | 237 | 54.5 |
Below expectations | 8 | 8.7 | 33 | 9.6 | 41 | 9.4 |
Far below expectations | 3 | 3.3 | 21 | 6.1 | 24 | 5.5 |
No Response | 3 | 3.3 | 11 | 3.2 | 14 | 3.2 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 0.37, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.55 - 1.38), p-value = 0.54
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 5 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.8 | 25 | 5.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 7 | 7.6 | 30 | 8.7 | 37 | 8.5 |
Equal to expectations | 62 | 67.4 | 200 | 58.3 | 262 | 60.2 |
Below expectations | 10 | 10.9 | 49 | 14.3 | 59 | 13.6 |
Far below expectations | 6 | 6.5 | 29 | 8.5 | 35 | 8.0 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 15 | 4.4 | 17 | 3.9 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
\(\chi^2\) = 5.67, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.57 (0.36 - 0.9), p-value = 0.02
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Far exceeded expectations | 7 | 7.6 | 31 | 9.0 | 38 | 8.7 |
Exceeded expectations | 18 | 19.6 | 35 | 10.2 | 53 | 12.2 |
Equal to expectations | 57 | 62.0 | 213 | 62.1 | 270 | 62.1 |
Below expectations | 1 | 1.1 | 32 | 9.3 | 33 | 7.6 |
Far below expectations | 4 | 4.3 | 22 | 6.4 | 26 | 6.0 |
No Response | 5 | 5.4 | 10 | 2.9 | 15 | 3.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 25 |
Equal to expectations | 0 | 0 | 3 | 100 | 3 | 75 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 25 |
Equal to expectations | 0 | 0 | 3 | 100 | 3 | 75 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 2 | 66.7 | 3 | 75 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 25 |
Equal to expectations | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Below expectations | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exceeded expectations | 1 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 25 |
Equal to expectations | 0 | 0 | 3 | 100 | 3 | 75 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exceeded expectations | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 25 |
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 2 | 66.7 | 3 | 75 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equal to expectations | 1 | 100 | 1 | 33.3 | 2 | 50 |
Far below expectations | 0 | 0 | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 50 |
Total | 1 | 100 | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 100 |
Overall, how satisfied were you with your XXXX hunting experience in XXXX?
Percentage of hunter response for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of hunter response in the NORTHWEST district for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of hunter response in the SOUTHWEST district for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of hunter response in the NORTHEAST district for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of hunter response in the SOUTHEAST district for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Overall, how satisfied were you with your Deer hunting experience in 2019?
\(\chi^2\) = 22.9, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.5 - 0.75), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 266 | 50.3 | 309 | 36.4 | 575 | 41.8 |
Somewhat satisfied | 135 | 25.5 | 274 | 32.3 | 409 | 29.7 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 48 | 9.1 | 95 | 11.2 | 143 | 10.4 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 77 | 14.6 | 138 | 16.3 | 215 | 15.6 |
Very dissatisfied | 3 | 0.6 | 30 | 3.5 | 33 | 2.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.1 |
Total | 529 | 100.0 | 848 | 100.0 | 1377 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the overall deer hunting experience by self-reported frequency of participating in deer hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 3.36, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 0.44 (0.18-1.08), p-value: 0.06
The number of birds allowed in the daily bag limit
\(\chi^2\) = 0.45, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.09 - 3.27), p-value = 0.5
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 3 | 60 | 365 | 42.6 | 368 | 42.7 |
Somewhat satisfied | 1 | 20 | 189 | 22.1 | 190 | 22.0 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 211 | 24.6 | 211 | 24.5 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 87 | 10.2 | 88 | 10.2 |
Very dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.6 | 5 | 0.6 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 857 | 100.0 | 862 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the number of birds allowed in the daily bag limit by self-reported frequency of participating in waterfowl hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 1.07, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 1.78 (0.60-5.34), p-value: 0.30
The number of days in the season daily bag limit
\(\chi^2\) = 0.03, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.19 - 3.96), p-value = 0.86
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 1 | 20 | 237 | 27.7 | 238 | 27.6 |
Somewhat satisfied | 3 | 60 | 300 | 35.0 | 303 | 35.2 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 156 | 18.2 | 156 | 18.1 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 136 | 15.9 | 137 | 15.9 |
Very dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 27 | 3.2 | 27 | 3.1 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 857 | 100.0 | 862 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the number of days in the season by self-reported frequency of participating in waterfowl hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 0.02, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 0.92 (0.33-2.56), p-value: 0.88
Quality of habitat where you hunted
\(\chi^2\) = 0.56, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.86 (0.36 - 9.58), p-value = 0.46
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 0 | 0 | 315 | 36.8 | 315 | 36.5 |
Somewhat satisfied | 3 | 60 | 225 | 26.3 | 228 | 26.5 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 240 | 28.0 | 240 | 27.8 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 68 | 7.9 | 69 | 8.0 |
Very dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0.7 | 6 | 0.7 |
No Response | 1 | 20 | 3 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 857 | 100.0 | 862 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the quality of habitat by self-reported frequency of participating in waterfowl hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 0.62, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 1.15 (0.39-3.38), p-value: 0.80
The number of public places available to hunt
\(\chi^2\) = 0.01, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.91 (0.17 - 4.85), p-value = 0.91
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 0 | 0 | 68 | 7.9 | 68 | 7.9 |
Somewhat satisfied | 2 | 40 | 134 | 15.6 | 136 | 15.8 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 322 | 37.6 | 323 | 37.5 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 232 | 27.1 | 233 | 27.0 |
Very dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 97 | 11.3 | 98 | 11.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 857 | 100.0 | 862 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the number of public places to hunt by self-reported frequency of participating in waterfowl hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 0.139, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 0.83 (0.30-2.32), p-value: 0.72
Overall, how satisfied were you with your Waterfowl hunting experience in the 2019 - 2020 season?
\(\chi^2\) = 0.01, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.91 (0.15 - 5.36), p-value = 0.91
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 1 | 20 | 100 | 11.7 | 101 | 11.7 |
Somewhat satisfied | 2 | 40 | 392 | 45.7 | 394 | 45.7 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 283 | 33.0 | 284 | 32.9 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 1 | 20 | 71 | 8.3 | 72 | 8.4 |
Very dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1.1 | 9 | 1.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.2 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 857 | 100.0 | 862 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the overall waterfowl hunting experience by self-reported frequency of participating in deer hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 0.25, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 1.32 (0.45-3.82), p-value: 0.62
Overall, how satisfied were you with your Upland Game hunting experience in the 2019 - 2020 season?
\(\chi^2\) = 269.05, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.11 (0.08 - 0.15), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 226 | 44.7 | 22 | 5.6 | 248 | 27.6 |
Somewhat satisfied | 187 | 37.0 | 50 | 12.8 | 237 | 26.4 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 15 | 3.0 | 188 | 48.0 | 203 | 22.6 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 10 | 2.0 | 76 | 19.4 | 86 | 9.6 |
Very dissatisfied | 68 | 13.4 | 55 | 14.0 | 123 | 13.7 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 |
Total | 506 | 100.0 | 392 | 100.0 | 898 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the overall upland game hunting experience by self-reported frequency of participating in upland game hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 0.42, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 1.28 (0.61-2.67), p-value: 0.51
Overall, how satisfied were you with your Spring Turkey hunting experience in 2020?
\(\chi^2\) = 8.76, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.68 (0.53 - 0.88), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 99 | 39.9 | 296 | 42.3 | 395 | 41.7 |
Somewhat satisfied | 109 | 44.0 | 148 | 21.2 | 257 | 27.1 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 34 | 13.7 | 101 | 14.4 | 135 | 14.3 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 5 | 2.0 | 88 | 12.6 | 93 | 9.8 |
Very dissatisfied | 1 | 0.4 | 62 | 8.9 | 63 | 6.7 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.4 |
Total | 248 | 100.0 | 699 | 100.0 | 947 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the overall spring turkey hunting experience by self-reported frequency of participating in turkey hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 1.82, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 1.53 (0.83-2.85), p-value: 0.18
Overall, how satisfied were you with your Fall Turkey hunting experience in 2019?
\(\chi^2\) = 23.7, Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.5 (0.37 - 0.66), p-value = 0
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 103 | 41.7 | 127 | 25.5 | 230 | 30.9 |
Somewhat satisfied | 87 | 35.2 | 192 | 38.6 | 279 | 37.4 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 38 | 15.4 | 110 | 22.1 | 148 | 19.9 |
Somewhat dissatisfied | 17 | 6.9 | 52 | 10.4 | 69 | 9.3 |
Very dissatisfied | 1 | 0.4 | 15 | 3.0 | 16 | 2.1 |
No Response | 1 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 247 | 100.0 | 498 | 100.0 | 745 | 100.0 |
Probability of response for satisfaction with the overall fall turkey hunting experience by self-reported frequency of participating in turkey hunting. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Chi-square: 0.53, Odds Ratio (95% CI): 0.80 (0.44-1.46), p-value: 0.47
Overall, how satisfied were you with your Upland Game hunting experience in the 2019 - 2020 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 32 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 32 | 25 |
Somewhat satisfied | 0 | 0 | 64 | 66.7 | 64 | 50 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 32 | 33.3 | 32 | 25 |
Total | 32 | 100 | 96 | 100.0 | 128 | 100 |
Importance Grid Analysis (IGA) compares explicit rating to implicit importance ratings derived by multiple regression of overall satisfaction on attribute performance ratings (Matzler and Sauerwein 2002, Matzler et al. 2003). Originally employed by Vavra (1997), IGA was used to describe attributes as either excitement, performance, or basic typologies. However, the value of IGA for classifying attributes has since been discounted, and IGA is currently recognized for the ability to distinguish between explicit and implicit importance of attributes (Smith and Deppa 2009, Mikulić and Prebežac 2011). Explicit importance reflects a rational assessment of how one expects an attribute to impact satisfaction, while implicit importance reflects the experiential-based impact of an attribute on satisfaction. IGA delineates differences between hunters’ “expectations of an attributes’ relevancy to a desired end” (i.e., explicit importance) compared to “experiential information gained from one’s real-time encounter” (i.e., implicit importance) (Smith and Deppa 2009, Schroeder et al. 2018).
Explicit importance is calculated by taking the mean rating of each attribute importance as measured from the questionnaire. Implicit importance is derived from multiple linear regression coefficients (performance values of each attribute as the independent variables and overall satisfaction as the dependent variable). Explicit means and implicit coefficients are then plotted, and attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction.
IGA for deer hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for RESIDENT deer hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for NON-RESIDENT deer hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for hunters who feel deer hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for hunters who feel deer hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL importnat hunting activities. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for deer hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for deer hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for deer hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for deer hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Deer, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Deer, Harvest = Harvesting Deer, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Deer, Sign = Seeing Sign of Game, Calling in Deer = Calling in Game, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for waterfowl hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for RESIDENT waterfowl hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
Non-resident waterfowl hunters were not targeted in the 2020 survey year. Therefore, too few non-residents responded to conduct IGA.
IGA for hunters who feel waterfowl hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for hunters who feel waterfowl hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL importnat hunting activities. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for waterfowl hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for waterfowl hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for waterfowl hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for waterfowl hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Waterfowl, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Waterfowl, Harvest = Harvesting Waterfowl, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Waterfowl, Calling in Birds = Calling in Waterfowl, Birds come to Decoys = Having Waterfowl Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for upland game hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for RESIDENT upland game hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for NON-RESIDENT upland game hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for hunters who feel upland game hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for hunters who feel upland game hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL importnat hunting activities. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for upland game hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for upland game hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for upland game hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for upland game hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Game Birds, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Game Birds, Harvest = Harvesting Game Birds, Harvest Bag = Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit of Game Birds, Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party, Dog = Using a Dog to Hunt
IGA for spring turkey hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for RESIDENT spring turkey hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for NON-RESIDENT spring turkey hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for hunters who feel spring turkey hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for hunters who feel spring turkey hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL importnat hunting activities. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for spring turkey hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for spring turkey hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for spring turkey hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for spring turkey hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for fall turkey hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for RESIDENT fall turkey hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for NON-RESIDENT fall turkey hunters. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for hunters who feel fall turkey hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for hunters who feel fall turkey hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL importnat hunting activities. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for fall turkey hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for fall turkey hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for fall turkey hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
IGA for fall turkey hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction. See Game = Seeing Turkeys, Opportunity to Harvest = Opportunities to Shoot Turkey, Harvest Tom = Harvesting a Tom, Harvest Jake = Harvesting a Jake, Harvest Hen = Harvesting a Bearded Hen, Trophy = Harvesting a Trophy Turkey, Gobble = Hearing Gobbling, Breaking Flocks = Breaking up Turkey flocks, Decoy = Having Turkeys Come into My Decoy(s), Weather = Hunting in Favorable Weather Conditions, NO interference = Not Being Interfered with by Other Hunters, Private = Access to Private Land for Hunting, Public = Access to Public Land for Hunting, Hunt with Others = Hunting with Other People in My Party
Penalty-Reward-Contrast Analysis (PRCA) is described as the three-factor theory in that it identifies the following three factors to customer satisfaction: basic factors, performance factors, and excitement factors (Deng 2007, Deng et al. 2008, Kim et al. 2014). Basic factors will induce dissatisfaction if expectations with a given attribute are not met, but will not increase satisfaction if expectations are met or exceeded. Basic factors can be viewed as the minimum requirements for a product or experience. Performance factors will increase satisfaction if expectations are fulfilled or exceeded and dissatisfaction if expectations are not fulfilled. Excitement factors will increase satisfaction if delivered but do not cause dissatisfaction if they are missing. For example, the three-factory theory can be applied in the airline service industry. Safety can be viewed as a basic factor insofar as passengers expect to be safe during the flight. If safety expectations are met, then safety attributes will not induce customer dissatisfaction; nor will customers become more satisfied with their experience based on safety attributes alone. However, if passengers feel unsafe, lack of safety will induce dissatisfaction. Expediency in retrieving baggage after the flight might be viewed as a performance factor. If passengers must wait longer than expected to retrieve their baggage, they will become dissatisfied, but if they can claim their baggage more quickly than expected, passengers will be more satisfied with their experience. Quality or price of snacks and beverages during the flight may be viewed as an excitement factor. If the quality of snacks is excellent, passengers will be more satisfied, but lack of quality will not induce dissatisfaction.
Conducting the PRCA incorporates a 3-step process which examines influence on overall satisfaction at high and low-performance levels. In step 1, a simple linear regression is performed, and significant factors (performance ratings (1 to 5)) are recoded into Penalty and Reward dummy variables. If a respondent answered that the performance of an attribute was a “1,” their Penalty value would be a “1” and their Reward value would be a “0.” A rating of a “5” for a performance attribute would result in a Penalty value of “0” and a Reward value of “1.” A performance of rating of “2,” “3,” or “4” would result in a “0” for both Penalty and Reward values. Step 2 consists of a multiple regression with the dummy variables used, independent variables and overall satisfaction with the hunting experience as the dependent variable. The 3rd step is classification of attributes (basic, performance, excitement, or unimportant). An attribute is considered basic if the Penalty variable is significant and the reward variable is not significant, performance if both Penalty and Reward variables are significant, and excitement if the only the Reward variable is significant. Attribute is considered unimportant if neither Penalty nor Reward variables are significant.
PRCA for deer hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for RESIDENT deer hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for NON-RESIDENT deer hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for hunters who feel deer hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for hunters who feel deer hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL important hunting activities. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for deer hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.e
PRCA for deer hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for deer hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for deer hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for waterfowl hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for RESIDENT waterfowl hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
Non-residents were not targeted for the waterfowl questionnaire.
No significant attributes were identified in the PRCA regression for waterfowl hunters who stated that waterfowl hunting was their most important hunting activity
PRCA for hunters who feel waterfowl hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL important hunting activities. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for waterfowl hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
No significant attributes were identified in the PRCA regression for waterfowl hunters who currently reside in an urban city center, downtown, or suburb
PRCA for waterfowl hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for waterfowl hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for upland game hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for RESIDENT upland game hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for NON-RESIDENT upland game hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for upland game hunters who feel upland game hunting is their MOST IMPORTANT hunting activity. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
No Reward estimate for Harvesting the Daily Bag Limit
PRCA for hunters who feel upland game hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL important hunting activities. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for upland game hunters residing in a Rural Town, Village, Farm, or Ranch. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
No estimate for harvesting the daily bag limit
PRCA for upland game hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
No estimate for harvesting the daily bag limit
PRCA for upland game hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for upland game hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for spring turkey hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for RESIDENT spring turkey hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for NON-RESIDENT spring turkey hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
There were no significant attributes for hunters who stated Spring Turkey Hunting was their most important hunting activity
PRCA for hunters who feel turkey hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL important hunting activities. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for spring turkey hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, or RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for spring turkey hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for spring turkey hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for spring turkey hunters who grew up in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for fall turkey hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for RESIDENT fall turkey hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for NON-RESIDENT fall turkey hunters. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for hunters who feel turkey hunting is the MOST important hunting activity. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for hunters who feel turkey hunting is ONE OF SEVERAL important hunting activities. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for fall turkey hunters residing in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, or RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for fall turkey hunters residing in an URBAN CITY CENTER, DOWNTOWN OR SUBURB. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for fall turkey hunters who grew up in a RURAL TOWN, VILLAGE, FARM, OR RANCH. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
PRCA for fall turkey hunters who grew up in an Urban City Center, Downtown, or Suburb. Only attributes found significant in the linear regression were included in the PRCA.
Mean number of RESIDENT days hunting on typical hunting trip. Bars represent number of days hunting their respective game type (i.e. Number of days deer hunters have hunted for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT days hunting on typical hunting trip. Bars represent number of days hunting their respective game type (i.e. Number of days deer hunters have hunted for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
About how many days did you spend hunting on a typical Deer hunting trip in Nebraska in 2019?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of days hunting deer on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of days hunting deer on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
About how many days did you spend hunting on a typical Waterfowl hunting trip in Nebraska in the 2019 - 2020 season?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of days hunting waterfowl on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of days hunting waterfowl on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
About how many days did you spend hunting on a typical Upland Game hunting trip in Nebraska in the 2019 - 2020 season?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of days hunting upland game on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of days hunting upland game on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
About how many days did you spend hunting on a typical Upland Game hunting trip in Nebraska in the 2019 - 2020 season?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of days hunting spring turkey on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of days hunting spring turkey on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
About how many days did you spend hunting on a typical Fall Turkey hunting trip in Nebraska in 2019?
Percentage of RESIDENT number of days hunting fall turkey on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of days hunting fall turkey on a typical hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of hunter response for number of hours spent hunting on a typical hunting trip. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
About how many hours did you spend actively hunting on a typical Deer hunting trip in Nebraska in 2018?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 hour | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 1.1 | 6 | 0.9 |
1 - 3 hours | 6 | 3.8 | 41 | 7.6 | 47 | 6.8 |
4 - 6 hours | 16 | 10.2 | 127 | 23.6 | 143 | 20.6 |
7 - 11 hours | 19 | 12.1 | 87 | 16.2 | 106 | 15.3 |
12 - 24 hours | 21 | 13.4 | 69 | 12.8 | 90 | 12.9 |
24 - 48 hours | 31 | 19.7 | 84 | 15.6 | 115 | 16.5 |
48 - 72 hours | 30 | 19.1 | 53 | 9.9 | 83 | 11.9 |
More than 72 hours | 34 | 21.7 | 59 | 11.0 | 93 | 13.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 12 | 2.2 | 12 | 1.7 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
About how many hours did you spend actively hunting on a typical Waterfowl hunting trip in Nebraska in the 2019 - 2020 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 hour | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 |
1 - 3 hours | 1 | 20 | 34 | 8.7 | 35 | 8.8 |
4 - 6 hours | 2 | 40 | 198 | 50.5 | 200 | 50.4 |
7 - 11 hours | 0 | 0 | 73 | 18.6 | 73 | 18.4 |
12 - 24 hours | 2 | 40 | 37 | 9.4 | 39 | 9.8 |
24 - 48 hours | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2.3 | 9 | 2.3 |
48 - 72 hours | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2.0 | 8 | 2.0 |
More than 72 hours | 0 | 0 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 11 | 2.8 | 11 | 2.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
About how many hours did you spend actively hunting on a typical Upland Game hunting trip in Nebraska in the 2019-2020 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 hour | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 4.0 | 7 | 2.5 |
1 - 3 hours | 4 | 3.9 | 33 | 18.9 | 37 | 13.3 |
4 - 6 hours | 31 | 30.1 | 79 | 45.1 | 110 | 39.6 |
7 - 11 hours | 15 | 14.6 | 25 | 14.3 | 40 | 14.4 |
12 - 24 hours | 28 | 27.2 | 11 | 6.3 | 39 | 14.0 |
24 - 48 hours | 13 | 12.6 | 7 | 4.0 | 20 | 7.2 |
48 - 72 hours | 5 | 4.9 | 5 | 2.9 | 10 | 3.6 |
More than 72 hours | 6 | 5.8 | 4 | 2.3 | 10 | 3.6 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 4 | 2.3 | 5 | 1.8 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
About how many hours did you spend actively hunting on a typical Spring Turkey hunting trip in Nebraska in 2020?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 hour | 1 | 1.6 | 5 | 1.0 | 6 | 1.0 |
1 - 3 hours | 6 | 9.7 | 77 | 15.0 | 83 | 14.4 |
4 - 6 hours | 13 | 21.0 | 196 | 38.2 | 209 | 36.3 |
7 - 11 hours | 9 | 14.5 | 89 | 17.3 | 98 | 17.0 |
12 - 24 hours | 10 | 16.1 | 60 | 11.7 | 70 | 12.2 |
24 - 48 hours | 13 | 21.0 | 35 | 6.8 | 48 | 8.3 |
48 - 72 hours | 6 | 9.7 | 19 | 3.7 | 25 | 4.3 |
More than 72 hours | 3 | 4.8 | 27 | 5.3 | 30 | 5.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 5 | 1.0 | 6 | 1.0 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
About how many hours did you spend actively hunting on a typical Fall Turkey hunting trip in Nebraska in 2019?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Less than 1 hour | 0 | 0.0 | 8 | 2.3 | 8 | 1.8 |
1 - 3 hours | 9 | 9.8 | 84 | 24.5 | 93 | 21.4 |
4 - 6 hours | 30 | 32.6 | 124 | 36.2 | 154 | 35.4 |
7 - 11 hours | 17 | 18.5 | 47 | 13.7 | 64 | 14.7 |
12 - 24 hours | 21 | 22.8 | 41 | 12.0 | 62 | 14.3 |
24 - 48 hours | 8 | 8.7 | 12 | 3.5 | 20 | 4.6 |
48 - 72 hours | 1 | 1.1 | 6 | 1.7 | 7 | 1.6 |
More than 72 hours | 6 | 6.5 | 10 | 2.9 | 16 | 3.7 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 11 | 3.2 | 11 | 2.5 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
About how many miles did you travel, one way, from your home residence to your XXXX hunting destination in Nebraska in XXXX?
Mean number of RESIDENT miles traveled on typical hunting trip. Bars represent number of miles typically traveled to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of miles deer hunters typically traveled to hunt for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT miles traveled on typical hunting trip. Bars represent number of miles typically traveled to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of miles deer hunters typically traveled to hunt for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical deer hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical deer hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical waterfowl hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical waterfowl hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical upland game hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical upland game hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical spring turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical spring turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical fall turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on a typical fall turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Mean number of RESIDENT miles traveled on furthest hunting trip. Bars represent number of miles traveled to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of miles deer hunters traveled to hunt for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT miles traveled on furthest hunting trip. Bars represent number of miles traveled to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of miles deer hunters traveled to hunt for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest deer hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest deer hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest waterfowl hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest waterfowl hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest upland game hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest upland game hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest spring turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest spring turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest fall turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of miles traveled on the furthest fall turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Nebraska county in which Deer hunts most frequently occurred
Nebraska county in which Waterfowl hunts most frequently occurred
Nebraska county in which upland game hunts most frequently occurred
Nebraska county in which Turkey hunts most frequently occurred
Nebraska county in which Turkey hunts most frequently occurred
Mean number of RESIDENT additional hunters in party. Bars represent additional number of hunters while hunting their respective game type (i.e. Number of additional hunters in party when hunting for for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT additional hunters in party. Bars represent additional number of hunters while hunting their respective game type (i.e. Number of additional hunters in party when hunting for for deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on deer hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on deer hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on waterfowl hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on waterfowl hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on upland game hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on upland game hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on spring turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on spring turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on fall turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of additional hunters in party on fall turkey hunting trip. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Mean number of RESIDENT hunting trips taken. Bars represent number of trips taken to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of deer-hunting trips deer hunters took to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT hunting trips taken. Bars represent number of trips taken to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of deer-hunting trips deer hunters took to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT number of trips taken by deer hunters. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of trips taken by deer hunters. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of trips taken by waterfowl hunters. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of trips taken by waterfowl hunters. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual response
Percentage of RESIDENT number of trips taken by upland game hunters. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of trips taken by upland game hunters. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of trips taken by spring turkey hunters. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of trips taken by spring turkey hunters. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT number of trips taken by fall turkey hunters. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT number of trips taken by fall turkey hunters. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Approximately how much did you spend on XXXX hunting expenses for each of the following categories in Nebraska in XXXX?
Mean number of RESIDENT dollars spent on lodging. Bars represent number of dollars spent on lodging to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on lodging to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent on lodging. Bars represent number of dollars spent on lodging to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on lodging to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on LODGING. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Mean number of RESIDENT dollars spent on hunting equipment. Bars represent number of dollars spent on hunting equipment to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting equipment to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent on hunting equipment. Bars represent number of dollars spent on hunting equipment to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting equipment to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on hunting equipment. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Only respondents who claimed to hunt on leased land at least some of the time are included in the Hunting Leases(s) sub-section.
Mean number of RESIDENT dollars spent on hunting leases. Bars represent number of dollars spent on hunting leases to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting leases to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent on hunting leases. Bars represent number of dollars spent on hunting leases to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting leases to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on hunting leases. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Mean number of RESIDENT dollars spent on fuel. Bars represent number of dollars spent on fuel to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on fuel to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Mean number of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent on fuel. Bars represent number of dollars spent on fuel to hunt their respective game type (i.e. Number of dollars spent by deer hunters on fuel to hunt deer). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by deer hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Deer Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by waterfowl hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Waterfowl Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by upland game hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Upland Game Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by spring turkey hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Spring Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT dollars spent by fall turkey hunters on fuel. Bars represent responses from the Fall Turkey Survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses
About what percent (%) of your 20XX Nebraska XXXX hunting trips occurred on each of the following land types?
Percentage of hunter response for percent of time spent hunting on PRIVATE LAND. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 53 | 33.8 | 46 | 8.6 | 99 | 14.2 |
25% | 6 | 3.8 | 18 | 3.3 | 24 | 3.5 |
50% | 11 | 7.0 | 24 | 4.5 | 35 | 5.0 |
75% | 11 | 7.0 | 56 | 10.4 | 67 | 9.6 |
100% | 67 | 42.7 | 387 | 71.9 | 454 | 65.3 |
No Response | 9 | 5.7 | 7 | 1.3 | 16 | 2.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 2 | 40 | 85 | 21.7 | 87 | 21.9 |
25% | 0 | 0 | 49 | 12.5 | 49 | 12.3 |
50% | 1 | 20 | 31 | 7.9 | 32 | 8.1 |
75% | 0 | 0 | 67 | 17.1 | 67 | 16.9 |
100% | 2 | 40 | 149 | 38.0 | 151 | 38.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 11 | 2.8 | 11 | 2.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 36 | 35.0 | 28 | 16.0 | 64 | 23.0 |
25% | 9 | 8.7 | 25 | 14.3 | 34 | 12.2 |
50% | 8 | 7.8 | 21 | 12.0 | 29 | 10.4 |
75% | 13 | 12.6 | 38 | 21.7 | 51 | 18.3 |
100% | 26 | 25.2 | 54 | 30.9 | 80 | 28.8 |
No Response | 11 | 10.7 | 9 | 5.1 | 20 | 7.2 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 17 | 27.4 | 69 | 13.5 | 86 | 15.0 |
25% | 3 | 4.8 | 35 | 6.8 | 38 | 6.6 |
50% | 2 | 3.2 | 42 | 8.2 | 44 | 7.7 |
75% | 8 | 12.9 | 66 | 12.9 | 74 | 12.9 |
100% | 26 | 41.9 | 289 | 56.3 | 315 | 54.8 |
No Response | 6 | 9.7 | 12 | 2.3 | 18 | 3.1 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 22 | 23.9 | 68 | 19.8 | 90 | 20.7 |
25% | 5 | 5.4 | 10 | 2.9 | 15 | 3.4 |
50% | 2 | 2.2 | 16 | 4.7 | 18 | 4.1 |
75% | 10 | 10.9 | 61 | 17.8 | 71 | 16.3 |
100% | 49 | 53.3 | 178 | 51.9 | 227 | 52.2 |
No Response | 4 | 4.3 | 10 | 2.9 | 14 | 3.2 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for percent of time spent hunting on LEASED LAND. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 98 | 62.4 | 425 | 79.0 | 523 | 75.3 |
25% | 0 | 0.0 | 9 | 1.7 | 9 | 1.3 |
50% | 8 | 5.1 | 5 | 0.9 | 13 | 1.9 |
75% | 4 | 2.5 | 5 | 0.9 | 9 | 1.3 |
100% | 29 | 18.5 | 13 | 2.4 | 42 | 6.0 |
No Response | 18 | 11.5 | 81 | 15.1 | 99 | 14.2 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 3 | 60 | 244 | 62.2 | 247 | 62.2 |
25% | 0 | 0 | 21 | 5.4 | 21 | 5.3 |
50% | 0 | 0 | 16 | 4.1 | 16 | 4.0 |
75% | 0 | 0 | 28 | 7.1 | 28 | 7.1 |
100% | 2 | 40 | 35 | 8.9 | 37 | 9.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 48 | 12.2 | 48 | 12.1 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 64 | 62.1 | 133 | 76.0 | 197 | 70.9 |
25% | 4 | 3.9 | 4 | 2.3 | 8 | 2.9 |
50% | 3 | 2.9 | 2 | 1.1 | 5 | 1.8 |
75% | 1 | 1.0 | 3 | 1.7 | 4 | 1.4 |
100% | 6 | 5.8 | 5 | 2.9 | 11 | 4.0 |
No Response | 25 | 24.3 | 28 | 16.0 | 53 | 19.1 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 40 | 64.5 | 413 | 80.5 | 453 | 78.8 |
25% | 2 | 3.2 | 5 | 1.0 | 7 | 1.2 |
50% | 2 | 3.2 | 4 | 0.8 | 6 | 1.0 |
75% | 2 | 3.2 | 8 | 1.6 | 10 | 1.7 |
100% | 10 | 16.1 | 16 | 3.1 | 26 | 4.5 |
No Response | 6 | 9.7 | 67 | 13.1 | 73 | 12.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 65 | 70.7 | 273 | 79.6 | 338 | 77.7 |
25% | 1 | 1.1 | 5 | 1.5 | 6 | 1.4 |
50% | 3 | 3.3 | 1 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.9 |
75% | 1 | 1.1 | 6 | 1.7 | 7 | 1.6 |
100% | 11 | 12.0 | 16 | 4.7 | 27 | 6.2 |
No Response | 11 | 12.0 | 42 | 12.2 | 53 | 12.2 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for percent of time spent hunting on OFW LAND. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 98 | 62.4 | 383 | 71.2 | 481 | 69.2 |
25% | 11 | 7.0 | 28 | 5.2 | 39 | 5.6 |
50% | 8 | 5.1 | 20 | 3.7 | 28 | 4.0 |
75% | 2 | 1.3 | 6 | 1.1 | 8 | 1.2 |
100% | 8 | 5.1 | 10 | 1.9 | 18 | 2.6 |
No Response | 30 | 19.1 | 91 | 16.9 | 121 | 17.4 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 5 | 100 | 228 | 58.2 | 233 | 58.7 |
25% | 0 | 0 | 56 | 14.3 | 56 | 14.1 |
50% | 0 | 0 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.0 |
75% | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2.3 | 9 | 2.3 |
100% | 0 | 0 | 28 | 7.1 | 28 | 7.1 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 51 | 13.0 | 51 | 12.8 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 45 | 43.7 | 80 | 45.7 | 125 | 45.0 |
25% | 15 | 14.6 | 40 | 22.9 | 55 | 19.8 |
50% | 11 | 10.7 | 16 | 9.1 | 27 | 9.7 |
75% | 7 | 6.8 | 4 | 2.3 | 11 | 4.0 |
100% | 7 | 6.8 | 7 | 4.0 | 14 | 5.0 |
No Response | 18 | 17.5 | 28 | 16.0 | 46 | 16.5 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 45 | 72.6 | 361 | 70.4 | 406 | 70.6 |
25% | 2 | 3.2 | 54 | 10.5 | 56 | 9.7 |
50% | 2 | 3.2 | 18 | 3.5 | 20 | 3.5 |
75% | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 1.0 | 5 | 0.9 |
100% | 1 | 1.6 | 9 | 1.8 | 10 | 1.7 |
No Response | 12 | 19.4 | 66 | 12.9 | 78 | 13.6 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 64 | 69.6 | 228 | 66.5 | 292 | 67.1 |
25% | 6 | 6.5 | 36 | 10.5 | 42 | 9.7 |
50% | 3 | 3.3 | 20 | 5.8 | 23 | 5.3 |
75% | 4 | 4.3 | 9 | 2.6 | 13 | 3.0 |
100% | 2 | 2.2 | 6 | 1.7 | 8 | 1.8 |
No Response | 13 | 14.1 | 44 | 12.8 | 57 | 13.1 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for percent of time spent hunting on PUBLIC LAND. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 78 | 49.7 | 331 | 61.5 | 409 | 58.8 |
25% | 16 | 10.2 | 72 | 13.4 | 88 | 12.7 |
50% | 13 | 8.3 | 23 | 4.3 | 36 | 5.2 |
75% | 4 | 2.5 | 17 | 3.2 | 21 | 3.0 |
100% | 25 | 15.9 | 26 | 4.8 | 51 | 7.3 |
No Response | 21 | 13.4 | 69 | 12.8 | 90 | 12.9 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 3 | 60 | 176 | 44.9 | 179 | 45.1 |
25% | 1 | 20 | 80 | 20.4 | 81 | 20.4 |
50% | 1 | 20 | 31 | 7.9 | 32 | 8.1 |
75% | 0 | 0 | 30 | 7.7 | 30 | 7.6 |
100% | 0 | 0 | 38 | 9.7 | 38 | 9.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 37 | 9.4 | 37 | 9.3 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 33 | 32.0 | 48 | 27.4 | 81 | 29.1 |
25% | 18 | 17.5 | 48 | 27.4 | 66 | 23.7 |
50% | 14 | 13.6 | 25 | 14.3 | 39 | 14.0 |
75% | 9 | 8.7 | 18 | 10.3 | 27 | 9.7 |
100% | 17 | 16.5 | 19 | 10.9 | 36 | 12.9 |
No Response | 12 | 11.7 | 17 | 9.7 | 29 | 10.4 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 33 | 53.2 | 284 | 55.4 | 317 | 55.1 |
25% | 7 | 11.3 | 69 | 13.5 | 76 | 13.2 |
50% | 3 | 4.8 | 38 | 7.4 | 41 | 7.1 |
75% | 1 | 1.6 | 31 | 6.0 | 32 | 5.6 |
100% | 11 | 17.7 | 48 | 9.4 | 59 | 10.3 |
No Response | 7 | 11.3 | 43 | 8.4 | 50 | 8.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0% | 52 | 56.5 | 181 | 52.8 | 233 | 53.6 |
25% | 9 | 9.8 | 63 | 18.4 | 72 | 16.6 |
50% | 2 | 2.2 | 19 | 5.5 | 21 | 4.8 |
75% | 3 | 3.3 | 14 | 4.1 | 17 | 3.9 |
100% | 12 | 13.0 | 32 | 9.3 | 44 | 10.1 |
No Response | 14 | 15.2 | 34 | 9.9 | 48 | 11.0 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Did you successfully harvest XXXX during the XXXX season?
Percentage of successful harvest in the previous season for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 110 | 70.1 | 294 | 54.6 | 404 | 58.1 |
No | 46 | 29.3 | 236 | 43.9 | 282 | 40.6 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 8 | 1.5 | 9 | 1.3 |
Total | 157 | 100.0 | 538 | 100.0 | 695 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 3 | 60 | 345 | 88.0 | 348 | 87.7 |
No | 2 | 40 | 37 | 9.4 | 39 | 9.8 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2.6 | 10 | 2.5 |
Total | 5 | 100 | 392 | 100.0 | 397 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 82 | 79.6 | 113 | 64.6 | 195 | 70.1 |
No | 20 | 19.4 | 54 | 30.9 | 74 | 26.6 |
No Response | 1 | 1.0 | 8 | 4.6 | 9 | 3.2 |
Total | 103 | 100.0 | 175 | 100.0 | 278 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 46 | 74.2 | 266 | 51.9 | 312 | 54.3 |
No | 14 | 22.6 | 234 | 45.6 | 248 | 43.1 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 13 | 2.5 | 15 | 2.6 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 51 | 55.4 | 144 | 42.0 | 195 | 44.8 |
No | 41 | 44.6 | 188 | 54.8 | 229 | 52.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 11 | 3.2 | 11 | 2.5 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 343 | 100.0 | 435 | 100.0 |
Did you harvest your daily bag limit of Waterfowl at least once during the 2019 - 2020 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 3 | 100 | 192 | 55.7 | 195 | 56.0 |
No | 0 | 0 | 152 | 44.1 | 152 | 43.7 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 3 | 100 | 345 | 100.0 | 348 | 100.0 |
Did you harvest your daily bag limit of Upland Game birds at least once during the 2019 - 2020 season?
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 38 | 46.3 | 37 | 32.7 | 75 | 38.5 |
No | 44 | 53.7 | 75 | 66.4 | 119 | 61.0 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.5 |
Total | 82 | 100.0 | 113 | 100.0 | 195 | 100.0 |
Percentage of residency status for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of non-residents that were ever a Nebraska resident for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of respondent sex for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Mean respondent age of RESIDENTS for each satisfaction survey. Error bars represent standard deviation.
Mean respondent age of NON-RESIDENTS for each satisfaction survey. Error bars represent standard deviation.
Percentage of RESIDENT deer hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT deer hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of RESIDENT waterfowl hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT waterfowl hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of RESIDENT upland game hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT upland game hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of RESIDENT spring turkey hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT spring turkey hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of RESIDENT fall turkey hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of NON-RESIDENT fall turkey hunter age. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Percentage of hunter response for neighborhood description. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 6 | 3.7 | 11 | 2.0 | 17 | 2.4 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 48 | 29.4 | 198 | 36.1 | 246 | 34.6 |
Rural Town or Village | 63 | 38.7 | 217 | 39.6 | 280 | 39.4 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 44 | 27.0 | 121 | 22.1 | 165 | 23.2 |
No Response | 2 | 1.2 | 1 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 0 | 0.0 | 11 | 2.2 | 11 | 2.2 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 5 | 71.4 | 191 | 38.3 | 196 | 38.7 |
Rural Town or Village | 1 | 14.3 | 196 | 39.3 | 197 | 38.9 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 1 | 14.3 | 97 | 19.4 | 98 | 19.4 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.8 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 3 | 2.8 | 3 | 1.6 | 6 | 2.1 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 58 | 53.7 | 85 | 46.2 | 143 | 49.0 |
Rural Town or Village | 30 | 27.8 | 58 | 31.5 | 88 | 30.1 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 15 | 13.9 | 37 | 20.1 | 52 | 17.8 |
No Response | 2 | 1.9 | 1 | 0.5 | 3 | 1.0 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 0 | 0.0 | 14 | 2.7 | 14 | 2.4 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 25 | 40.3 | 220 | 42.9 | 245 | 42.6 |
Rural Town or Village | 24 | 38.7 | 186 | 36.3 | 210 | 36.5 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 13 | 21.0 | 91 | 17.7 | 104 | 18.1 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 4 | 4.3 | 11 | 3.3 | 15 | 3.5 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 43 | 46.7 | 145 | 43.2 | 188 | 43.9 |
Rural Town or Village | 25 | 27.2 | 103 | 30.7 | 128 | 29.9 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 20 | 21.7 | 72 | 21.4 | 92 | 21.5 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 1.5 | 5 | 1.2 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100.0 | 428 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for childhood residence. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 3 | 1.8 | 13 | 2.4 | 16 | 2.3 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 45 | 27.6 | 129 | 23.5 | 174 | 24.5 |
Rural Town or Village | 70 | 42.9 | 217 | 39.6 | 287 | 40.4 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 44 | 27.0 | 187 | 34.1 | 231 | 32.5 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.4 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 0 | 0.0 | 14 | 2.8 | 14 | 2.8 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 2 | 28.6 | 125 | 25.1 | 127 | 25.1 |
Rural Town or Village | 5 | 71.4 | 201 | 40.3 | 206 | 40.7 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 0 | 0.0 | 155 | 31.1 | 155 | 30.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.8 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 4 | 3.7 | 5 | 2.7 | 9 | 3.1 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 47 | 43.5 | 56 | 30.4 | 103 | 35.3 |
Rural Town or Village | 32 | 29.6 | 75 | 40.8 | 107 | 36.6 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 23 | 21.3 | 45 | 24.5 | 68 | 23.3 |
No Response | 2 | 1.9 | 3 | 1.6 | 5 | 1.7 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 1 | 1.6 | 16 | 3.1 | 17 | 3.0 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 21 | 33.9 | 155 | 30.2 | 176 | 30.6 |
Rural Town or Village | 27 | 43.5 | 200 | 39.0 | 227 | 39.5 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 11 | 17.7 | 137 | 26.7 | 148 | 25.7 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 5 | 1.0 | 7 | 1.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban City Center/Downtown | 6 | 6.5 | 14 | 4.2 | 20 | 4.7 |
Urban City Suburbs/Neighborhoods | 40 | 43.5 | 109 | 32.4 | 149 | 34.8 |
Rural Town or Village | 29 | 31.5 | 136 | 40.5 | 165 | 38.6 |
Rural Farm/Ranch | 17 | 18.5 | 74 | 22.0 | 91 | 21.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.9 | 3 | 0.7 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100.0 | 428 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for number of children in household. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | 124 | 76.1 | 331 | 60.4 | 455 | 64.0 |
1 | 13 | 8.0 | 69 | 12.6 | 82 | 11.5 |
2 | 18 | 11.0 | 95 | 17.3 | 113 | 15.9 |
3 | 3 | 1.8 | 32 | 5.8 | 35 | 4.9 |
4 | 2 | 1.2 | 12 | 2.2 | 14 | 2.0 |
5 | 1 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.1 |
7 + | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.3 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 8 | 1.5 | 9 | 1.3 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | 5 | 71.4 | 320 | 64.1 | 325 | 64.2 |
1 | 1 | 14.3 | 58 | 11.6 | 59 | 11.7 |
2 | 0 | 0.0 | 80 | 16.0 | 80 | 15.8 |
3 | 0 | 0.0 | 26 | 5.2 | 26 | 5.1 |
4 | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.2 |
5 | 1 | 14.3 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 1.4 | 7 | 1.4 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | 88 | 81.5 | 121 | 65.8 | 209 | 71.6 |
1 | 10 | 9.3 | 26 | 14.1 | 36 | 12.3 |
2 | 5 | 4.6 | 20 | 10.9 | 25 | 8.6 |
3 | 4 | 3.7 | 7 | 3.8 | 11 | 3.8 |
4 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 1.6 | 3 | 1.0 |
5 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.7 |
6 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.3 |
No Response | 1 | 0.9 | 4 | 2.2 | 5 | 1.7 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | 45 | 72.6 | 317 | 61.8 | 362 | 63.0 |
1 | 4 | 6.5 | 65 | 12.7 | 69 | 12.0 |
2 | 9 | 14.5 | 79 | 15.4 | 88 | 15.3 |
3 | 1 | 1.6 | 35 | 6.8 | 36 | 6.3 |
4 | 1 | 1.6 | 12 | 2.3 | 13 | 2.3 |
5 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 |
No Response | 2 | 3.2 | 4 | 0.8 | 6 | 1.0 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | 69 | 75.0 | 236 | 70.2 | 305 | 71.3 |
1 | 9 | 9.8 | 34 | 10.1 | 43 | 10.0 |
2 | 11 | 12.0 | 43 | 12.8 | 54 | 12.6 |
3 | 1 | 1.1 | 16 | 4.8 | 17 | 4.0 |
4 | 1 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.2 | 5 | 1.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 3 | 0.9 | 4 | 0.9 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100.0 | 428 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for highest level of education. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Some High School | 2 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.1 | 8 | 1.1 |
High School Graduate | 22 | 13.5 | 66 | 12.0 | 88 | 12.4 |
Some Technical School | 9 | 5.5 | 32 | 5.8 | 41 | 5.8 |
Some College | 23 | 14.1 | 88 | 16.1 | 111 | 15.6 |
Technical Degree/Certification | 15 | 9.2 | 76 | 13.9 | 91 | 12.8 |
College Degree | 49 | 30.1 | 165 | 30.1 | 214 | 30.1 |
Some Graduate School | 10 | 6.1 | 20 | 3.6 | 30 | 4.2 |
Graduate School Degree (Masters Degree) | 20 | 12.3 | 57 | 10.4 | 77 | 10.8 |
Professional Degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., E.D.D., D.O.D., etc.) | 10 | 6.1 | 30 | 5.5 | 40 | 5.6 |
No Response | 3 | 1.8 | 8 | 1.5 | 11 | 1.5 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Some High School | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.4 |
High School Graduate | 0 | 0.0 | 62 | 12.4 | 62 | 12.3 |
Some Technical School | 0 | 0.0 | 16 | 3.2 | 16 | 3.2 |
Some College | 0 | 0.0 | 74 | 14.8 | 74 | 14.6 |
Technical Degree/Certification | 0 | 0.0 | 59 | 11.8 | 59 | 11.7 |
College Degree | 5 | 71.4 | 180 | 36.1 | 185 | 36.6 |
Some Graduate School | 1 | 14.3 | 24 | 4.8 | 25 | 4.9 |
Graduate School Degree (Masters Degree) | 1 | 14.3 | 44 | 8.8 | 45 | 8.9 |
Professional Degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., E.D.D., D.O.D., etc.) | 0 | 0.0 | 32 | 6.4 | 32 | 6.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.2 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Some High School | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.3 |
High School Graduate | 4 | 3.7 | 16 | 8.7 | 20 | 6.8 |
Some Technical School | 1 | 0.9 | 7 | 3.8 | 8 | 2.7 |
Some College | 20 | 18.5 | 38 | 20.7 | 58 | 19.9 |
Technical Degree/Certification | 8 | 7.4 | 20 | 10.9 | 28 | 9.6 |
College Degree | 39 | 36.1 | 60 | 32.6 | 99 | 33.9 |
Some Graduate School | 6 | 5.6 | 6 | 3.3 | 12 | 4.1 |
Graduate School Degree (Masters Degree) | 20 | 18.5 | 23 | 12.5 | 43 | 14.7 |
Professional Degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., E.D.D., D.O.D., etc.) | 8 | 7.4 | 11 | 6.0 | 19 | 6.5 |
No Response | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 1.1 | 4 | 1.4 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Some High School | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 |
High School Graduate | 8 | 12.9 | 44 | 8.6 | 52 | 9.0 |
Some Technical School | 1 | 1.6 | 18 | 3.5 | 19 | 3.3 |
Some College | 12 | 19.4 | 72 | 14.0 | 84 | 14.6 |
Technical Degree/Certification | 4 | 6.5 | 64 | 12.5 | 68 | 11.8 |
College Degree | 23 | 37.1 | 188 | 36.6 | 211 | 36.7 |
Some Graduate School | 2 | 3.2 | 19 | 3.7 | 21 | 3.7 |
Graduate School Degree (Masters Degree) | 5 | 8.1 | 68 | 13.3 | 73 | 12.7 |
Professional Degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., E.D.D., D.O.D., etc.) | 3 | 4.8 | 34 | 6.6 | 37 | 6.4 |
No Response | 4 | 6.5 | 3 | 0.6 | 7 | 1.2 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Some High School | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.9 | 3 | 0.7 |
High School Graduate | 12 | 13.0 | 34 | 10.1 | 46 | 10.7 |
Some Technical School | 1 | 1.1 | 12 | 3.6 | 13 | 3.0 |
Some College | 15 | 16.3 | 50 | 14.9 | 65 | 15.2 |
Technical Degree/Certification | 3 | 3.3 | 34 | 10.1 | 37 | 8.6 |
College Degree | 30 | 32.6 | 108 | 32.1 | 138 | 32.2 |
Some Graduate School | 7 | 7.6 | 20 | 6.0 | 27 | 6.3 |
Graduate School Degree (Masters Degree) | 15 | 16.3 | 47 | 14.0 | 62 | 14.5 |
Professional Degree (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., E.D.D., D.O.D., etc.) | 7 | 7.6 | 24 | 7.1 | 31 | 7.2 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 4 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100.0 | 428 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for level of income. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under $30,000 | 2 | 1.2 | 22 | 4.0 | 24 | 3.4 |
$30,000- $49,999 | 12 | 7.4 | 59 | 10.8 | 71 | 10.0 |
$50,000- $99,999 | 40 | 24.5 | 192 | 35.0 | 232 | 32.6 |
$100,000- $149,999 | 55 | 33.7 | 115 | 21.0 | 170 | 23.9 |
$150,000- $199,999 | 21 | 12.9 | 56 | 10.2 | 77 | 10.8 |
$200,000- $249,999 | 7 | 4.3 | 21 | 3.8 | 28 | 3.9 |
$250,000 or more | 16 | 9.8 | 31 | 5.7 | 47 | 6.6 |
No Response | 10 | 6.1 | 52 | 9.5 | 62 | 8.7 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under $30,000 | 0 | 0.0 | 21 | 4.2 | 21 | 4.2 |
$30,000- $49,999 | 1 | 14.3 | 41 | 8.2 | 42 | 8.3 |
$50,000- $99,999 | 2 | 28.6 | 162 | 32.5 | 164 | 32.4 |
$100,000- $149,999 | 1 | 14.3 | 128 | 25.7 | 129 | 25.5 |
$150,000- $199,999 | 2 | 28.6 | 56 | 11.2 | 58 | 11.5 |
$200,000- $249,999 | 1 | 14.3 | 24 | 4.8 | 25 | 4.9 |
$250,000 or more | 0 | 0.0 | 22 | 4.4 | 22 | 4.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 45 | 9.0 | 45 | 8.9 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under $30,000 | 2 | 1.9 | 9 | 4.9 | 11 | 3.8 |
$30,000- $49,999 | 4 | 3.7 | 11 | 6.0 | 15 | 5.1 |
$50,000- $99,999 | 18 | 16.7 | 68 | 37.0 | 86 | 29.5 |
$100,000- $149,999 | 30 | 27.8 | 56 | 30.4 | 86 | 29.5 |
$150,000- $199,999 | 17 | 15.7 | 19 | 10.3 | 36 | 12.3 |
$200,000- $249,999 | 6 | 5.6 | 2 | 1.1 | 8 | 2.7 |
$250,000 or more | 14 | 13.0 | 4 | 2.2 | 18 | 6.2 |
No Response | 17 | 15.7 | 15 | 8.2 | 32 | 11.0 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under $30,000 | 4 | 6.5 | 15 | 2.9 | 19 | 3.3 |
$30,000- $49,999 | 2 | 3.2 | 41 | 8.0 | 43 | 7.5 |
$50,000- $99,999 | 12 | 19.4 | 152 | 29.6 | 164 | 28.5 |
$100,000- $149,999 | 17 | 27.4 | 137 | 26.7 | 154 | 26.8 |
$150,000- $199,999 | 6 | 9.7 | 61 | 11.9 | 67 | 11.7 |
$200,000- $249,999 | 5 | 8.1 | 24 | 4.7 | 29 | 5.0 |
$250,000 or more | 9 | 14.5 | 40 | 7.8 | 49 | 8.5 |
No Response | 7 | 11.3 | 43 | 8.4 | 50 | 8.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under $30,000 | 2 | 2.2 | 10 | 3.0 | 12 | 2.8 |
$30,000- $49,999 | 6 | 6.5 | 22 | 6.5 | 28 | 6.5 |
$50,000- $99,999 | 22 | 23.9 | 110 | 32.7 | 132 | 30.8 |
$100,000- $149,999 | 21 | 22.8 | 90 | 26.8 | 111 | 25.9 |
$150,000- $199,999 | 11 | 12.0 | 30 | 8.9 | 41 | 9.6 |
$200,000- $249,999 | 11 | 12.0 | 18 | 5.4 | 29 | 6.8 |
$250,000 or more | 11 | 12.0 | 21 | 6.2 | 32 | 7.5 |
No Response | 8 | 8.7 | 35 | 10.4 | 43 | 10.0 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100.0 | 428 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunter response for willingness to participate in 2020 survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 146 | 89.6 | 481 | 87.8 | 627 | 88.2 |
No | 16 | 9.8 | 66 | 12.0 | 82 | 11.5 |
No Response | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.3 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 5 | 71.4 | 436 | 87.4 | 441 | 87.2 |
No | 2 | 28.6 | 60 | 12.0 | 62 | 12.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 |
Total | 7 | 100.0 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 97 | 89.8 | 158 | 85.9 | 255 | 87.3 |
No | 11 | 10.2 | 25 | 13.6 | 36 | 12.3 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.3 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 57 | 91.9 | 467 | 91.0 | 524 | 91.1 |
No | 5 | 8.1 | 42 | 8.2 | 47 | 8.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 82 | 89.1 | 309 | 92 | 391 | 91.4 |
No | 9 | 9.8 | 27 | 8 | 36 | 8.4 |
No Response | 1 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.2 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100 | 428 | 100.0 |
Have you ever participated in one of the special youth pheasant hunts during the youth pheasant, quail, and partridge season, where pheasants were released at several Wildlife Management Areas?
Percentage of hunters who participated in a special youth hunt for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 2 | 1.2 | 48 | 8.8 | 50 | 7.0 |
No | 159 | 97.5 | 498 | 90.9 | 657 | 92.4 |
No Response | 2 | 1.2 | 2 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 163 | 100.0 | 548 | 100.0 | 711 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 0 | 0 | 68 | 13.6 | 68 | 13.4 |
No | 7 | 100 | 429 | 86.0 | 436 | 86.2 |
No Response | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.4 |
Total | 7 | 100 | 499 | 100.0 | 506 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 3 | 2.8 | 18 | 9.8 | 21 | 7.2 |
No | 105 | 97.2 | 166 | 90.2 | 271 | 92.8 |
Total | 108 | 100.0 | 184 | 100.0 | 292 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 0 | 0.0 | 64 | 12.5 | 64 | 11.1 |
No | 61 | 98.4 | 446 | 86.9 | 507 | 88.2 |
No Response | 1 | 1.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.7 |
Total | 62 | 100.0 | 513 | 100.0 | 575 | 100.0 |
Response | Non-residents (N) | Non-residents (%) | Residents (N) | Residents (%) | Both Residencies (N) | Both Residencies (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | 0 | 0.0 | 35 | 10.4 | 35 | 8.2 |
No | 90 | 97.8 | 297 | 88.4 | 387 | 90.4 |
No Response | 2 | 2.2 | 4 | 1.2 | 6 | 1.4 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 | 336 | 100.0 | 428 | 100.0 |
Percentage of hunters who participated as a mentor, youth hunter, or other in past special youth hunts for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Year(s) in which hunters participated in past special youth hunts for each satisfaction survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses.
Brunke, K. D., and K. M. Hunt. 2007. Comparison of two approaches for the measurement of waterfowl hunter satisfaction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12:443–457.
Callegaro, M., K. L. Manfreda, and V. Vehovar. 2015. Nonresponse strategy. Pages 130–159 in. Web survey methodology. Research methods for social scientists, Sage, London.
Deng, W. 2007. Using a revised importance–performance analysis approach: The case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tourism Management 28:1274–1284.
Deng, W.-J., Y.-F. Kuo, and W.-C. Chen. 2008. Revised importance–performance analysis: Three-factor theory and benchmarking. The Service Industries Journal 28:37–51.
Frey, S., M. Conover, J. Borgo, and T. Messmer. 2003. Factors influencing pheasant hunter harvest and satisfaction. Human dimensions of wildlife 8:277–286.
Gigliotti, L. M. 2000. A classification scheme to better understand satisfaction of Black Hills deer hunters: The role of harvest success. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:32–51.
Hammitt, W. E., C. D. McDonald, and M. E. Patterson. 1990. Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 18:331–337.
Hautaluoma, J., and P. J. Brown. 1978. Attributes of the deer hunting experience: A cluster-analytic study. Journal of Leisure Research 10:271.
Hayslette, S. E., J. B. Armstrong, and R. E. Mirarchi. 2001. Mourning dove hunting in Alabama: Motivations, satisfactions, and sociocultural influences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:81–95.
Hazel, K. L., E. E. Langenau Jr, and R. L. Levine. 1990. Dimensions of hunting satisfaction: Multiple-satisfactions of wild turkey hunting. Leisure Sciences 12:383–393.
Kerr, G. N. 2017. Big game hunting satisfaction: A test of diminishing marginal satisfaction of harvest. Lincoln University Research Center, New Zealand.
Kim, N., Y.-J. Ahn, and B. E. Wicks. 2014. Local festival quality and the application of a revised importance–performance analysis: The case of the Jirisan Cheon-Wang Festival. Event Management 18:89–100.
Manfredo, M. J., P. J. Fix, T. L. Teel, J. Smeltzer, and R. Kahn. 2004. Assessing demand for big-game hunting opportunities: Applying the multiple-satisfaction concept. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1147–1155.
Matzler, K., and E. Sauerwein. 2002. The factor structure of customer satisfaction: An empirical test of the importance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast analysis. International journal of service industry management 13:314–332.
Matzler, K., E. Sauerwein, and K. Heischmidt. 2003. Importance-performance analysis revisited: The role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal 23:112–129.
Mikulić, J., and D. Prebežac. 2011. Rethinking the importance grid as a research tool for quality managers. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 22:993–1006.
Pang, A. 2017. Incorporating the effect of successfully bagging big game into recreational hunting: An examination of deer, moose and elk hunting. Journal of Forest Economics 28:12–17.
Schroeder, S. A., L. Cornicelli, D. C. Fulton, and S. S. Merchant. 2018. Explicit versus implicit motivations: Clarifying how experiences affect turkey hunter satisfaction using revised importance-performance, importance grid, and penalty-reward-contrast analyses. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23:1–20.
Smith, R., and B. Deppa. 2009. Two dimensions of attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Marketing 26:28–38.
Vaske, J. J., A. J. Fedler, and A. R. Graefe. 1986. Multiple determinants of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting trip. Leisure Sciences 8:149–166.
Vavra, T. G. 1997. Improving your measurement of customer satisfaction: A guide to creating, conducting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction measurement programs. ASQ quality press.
Wynveen, C. J., D. A. Cavin, B. A. Wright, and W. E. Hammitt. 2005. Determinants of a quality wild turkey hunting season. Environmental management 36:117–124.