Introduction - rareplanet.org · Web viewWhile many of the campaign images focused on the impacts of wildland fires, such as the campaign poster and billboards, they did not directly

FINAL REPORT: GUAM SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS CAMPAIGN

ELAINA TODD, GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMNOVEMBER 17, 2010

Final Report: Guam Southern Watersheds Campaign

Table of ContentsIntroduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Theory of Change formula......................................................................................................................................................................................6

1.2 Theory of Change Narrative and Results.................................................................................................................................................................7

2. Site Background...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Site Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Action Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29

3. Review of Project Planning Phase...........................................................................................................................................................................39

3.1 Concept Model..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

3.2 Threat Ranking...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

3.3 Factor Chains........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45

3.4 Results Chain........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46

4. Campaign Development......................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

4.1 Creative briefs and Audience personas.................................................................................................................................................................49

4.1 AUDIENCE PERSONAS........................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

a. Audience persona: Hunter Adult - Tomas Rivera, 30, from Agat....................................................................................................................52

b. Audience Persona: Hunter youth – Grace Chargualaf, 15 from Merizo.........................................................................................................53

c. Audience Persona: General Community Adult- Maria Cruz, 47, Santa Rita....................................................................................................54

d. Audience Persona: General Community Youth- Zavier Quinata, 14, Umatac.................................................................................................54

e. Explanation for FLAGSHIP SPECIES..................................................................................................................................................................55

4.2 Messaging Framework: moving from SMART Objectives to key messages...........................................................................................................56

4.3 Campaign Work Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................. 58

4.4 Slogan and Logo Process.......................................................................................................................................................................................63

4.5 Critical Analysis of Campaign Development..........................................................................................................................................................64

5. Campaign Activities................................................................................................................................................................................................. 68

5.1 Campaign’s Smart Objectives for Knowledge (K), Attitude (A), and Interpersonal Communications (IC) and Results for each objective............68

a. Knowledge...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70

b. Attitude........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71

c. Interpersonal Communication........................................................................................................................................................................71

5.2 Campaign Activities............................................................................................................................................................................................... 73

d. Table 3: Printed Materials Activity Tracking....................................................................................................................................................73

e. Table 4: Community Outreach Activity Tracking.............................................................................................................................................79

f. Table 5: Mass Media Activity Tracking............................................................................................................................................................92

5.3 Exposure to Pride campaign activities..................................................................................................................................................................95

5.4 Critical Analysis of Social Marketing.....................................................................................................................................................................97

6. Campaign Results.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 101

6.1 Methods of Determining Results..................................................................................................................................................................101

a. Pre- and Post-Campaign Quantitative Survey...............................................................................................................................................101

Table 1: Background information on the pre- and post-campaign surveys..........................................................................................................102

b. Comparability of two surveys.......................................................................................................................................................................103

Table 2: Independent Variables to Assess Comparability of Pre- and Post-Campaign Surveys: Southern Respondents Only..............................103

Table: Screening for potential bias due to AGE differences in pre and post campaign survey.............................................................................106

c. Qualitative Research.....................................................................................................................................................................................106

6.2 Barrier Removal............................................................................................................................................................................................ 107

Management Options...................................................................................................................................................................................107

a. BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN Details:.................................................................................................................................................................108

b. SMART objectives and results for the Barrier Removal stage of the ToC......................................................................................................110

c. Barrier Removal Activities.............................................................................................................................................................................111

d. Critical analysis of Barrier Removal...............................................................................................................................................................113

6.3 Behavior Change........................................................................................................................................................................................... 116

a. SMART objectives......................................................................................................................................................................................... 116

b. Non-Survey Results.......................................................................................................................................................................................118

c. Critical Analysis of Behavior Change.............................................................................................................................................................119

6.4 Threat Reduction and Conservation Results.................................................................................................................................................121

a. SMART objectives......................................................................................................................................................................................... 121

b. Monitoring activities.....................................................................................................................................................................................123

c. “Other” Results............................................................................................................................................................................................. 126

d. Critical Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................................. 127

7. Critical Analysis..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128

7.1 Summary of Capacity Built..................................................................................................................................................................................128

7.2 Constituency....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133

7.3 Barrier Removal and Behavior Change...............................................................................................................................................................140

7.4 Threat Reduction and Conservation Results.......................................................................................................................................................146

8. Follow-up concept note and COWP......................................................................................................................................................................148

9. Appendices........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 161

Introduction

The Campaign Manager for this project is Elaina Todd, a Special Project Coordinator with the Guam Coastal Management Program. Elaina has lived in Guam since 1991. Having grown up in Guam she is very familiar with the threats to Guam’s coral reefs. She received her Bachelor’s degree in biology from University of Guam, much of her coursework being focused on Guam’s ecology and natural resources. She has been a partner to Guam’s resource agencies for the last 5 years through her previous position as the education coordinator for UnderWater World aquarium. As a member of the Guam Environmental Education Committee she has been a part of numerous community conservation initiatives and events and a liaison with many community groups. Elaina has been actively involved in coral reef conservation for the last 10 years. She has spearheaded several community outreach initiatives from beach clean-ups to developing free educational outreach programs for Guam’s schools.

She is passionate and dedicated to the conservation of Guam’s coral reefs through community involvement and education.

During the last year, Elaina has coordinated all of the campaign activities including outreach displays at village fiestas, presentations for local stakeholder groups, coordinated production of campaign materials, a 5K Run/Walk & Learn and coordination of the hunter Expos as part of the campaign barrier removal plan. She has worked with Mayors offices and key user groups to try to further understand the needs of the community and to develop campaign activities that address those needs.

1. Executive Summary 1.1 Theory of Change formula

K + A + IC + BR BC TR CR

Indication of results

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay

fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of

3.03% to 8.03%.

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay temporary monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 4. 34% to

9.34%.

By October 2010, the number of vegetation fires

recorded in Guam per year will decrease by 50%

from 1759 to 880.

By October 2012, the turbidity level of the water

on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will decrease 20% from

2.6 NTU to 1.9 NTU.

Hunters stop using fire for

hunting.

Community reports

wildland fires and uses fire responsibly.

Hunters are provided with sustainable

hunting training clinics and deer baiting tools

as alternative to burning.

Community members are provided with

responsible fire use guidelines and

trainings.

Social marketing campaign increases

discussion among community

members and hunters about

wildland fires and prevention.


attitude that wildland fires

must be prevented and those starting wildland fires prosecuted.


awareness of the destructiveness of wildland fires

and teaches responsible fire use practices to southern hunters and community

members.

51% increase in general community members and a 255% increase in hunters who disagree that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam’s reefs.

40% increase in number of hunters who agree that those starting wildland fires should be prosecuted.

126% increase in general community members who have spoken with someone about wildland fires in the past 6 months.

75 hunters attended hunter training Expos and given deer attractants.

Data still being collected for behavior change. Hunter use of deer attractants to be monitored over hunting season and results available in March 2011.

Fire data being collected through 2010 and will be analyzed at the end of the year.

Turbidity monitoring ongoing; data will be analyzed and assessed in 2012.

Coral cover being monitored in fixed and random sites annually. Data will be analyzed in 2015.

1.2 Theory of Change Narrative and Results

Narrative

To eliminate the threat of sedimentation on Guam’s diverse coral reefs, wildland fires caused by illegal hunting in Southern Guam must be prevented. Key target groups (Southern Hunters and General Community members) will be informed that preventing wildland fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property and natural resources. Hunters will be given sustainable hunting trainings and deer attractants to use as an alternative to burning, and the community will be asked to report wildland fires and adopt responsible fire use practices. There will be a decrease in the number of fires, and a reduction in the amount of sediment on the reef. The campaign will be deemed successful if the number of vegetation fires decreases by 50% (from 1759 [average 2005-2009] to 880) by December 2010 and if percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

Results

Significant changes were measured in knowledge and attitude during the campaign. There was an increase in respondents who disagreed that wildland fires were not a serious threat to Guam’s reefs. In the beginning of the campaign, it was noted that this level was low, and many of the campaign activities focused on increasing this knowledge with information about the impacts of fires on Guam’s watersheds. There was also a change in respondents agreeing that wildland fires must be prevented, and that those starting wildland fires must be prosecuted. Survey results showed that there was also an increase in respondents who had spoken with someone about wildland fires in the past 6 months. Campaign activities and materials were distributed throughout southern Guam in an effort to create more dialogue about fires. However, other factors may have contributed to this increase. In 2010, during the campaign, Guam experienced the worst drought it has had in 12 years, resulting in extremely dry conditions and more severe fires.

While many of the campaign images focused on the impacts of wildland fires, such as the campaign poster and billboards, they did not directly state that fires were caused by people and that Guam had a very low occurrence of natural fires. The campaign display game addressed this as did the community and school presentations, but it may have been advantageous to include this messaging into more campaign materials, which will be done in the follow up work.

Our barrier removal strategy was targeted to the hunting community and consisted of conducting three hunter Expos, focusing on hunter safety, the impacts of fires on watersheds and using deer attractants as an alternative to fire to attract deer while hunting. 75 hunters attended the Expos and received campaign materials and attractants. Data is not yet available on use of the deer attractants, but will be monitored during the hunting season (October 2010-March2011). The hunting Expos were well received by the participants, and three additional Expos will be held in other villages per the request of the hunters. Additional attractants will be distributed

throughout the season to continue providing alternatives and building the relationship with the hunting community of southern Guam. A Hunting Festival will be held at the end of the season to celebrate the uses of the attractants and further promote the need for fire prevention.

This is one key component in the behavior change of the hunters, but other things need to be addressed such as the lack of enforcement by not only the conservation officers, but also by the fire department and the attorney general’s office. The community petition that will be started later this year will seek stricter enforcement and prosecution of wildland arson laws. Additionally, community based groups should be established to address village specific ways to prevent fires. Aside from enforcement of non-compliance, there needs to be more knowledge and accessibility of alternatives to fire use. Threat reduction and conservation results will continue to be monitored over the next several years.

It appears that the community is moving in the right direction for behavior change. Follow up activities will continue to spread the campaign messages and develop constituencies in southern communities. Additional work needs to be done to not only prevent fires, but also to restore the watersheds to achieve a reduction in sedimentation on Guam’s reefs.

2. Site Background

2.1 Site Summary

Important information, sources and contacts used in the preparation of this document

The following available written resources were used to gather initial data and background:

AVAILABLE WRITTEN RESOURCESMaps

Topographic Southern Municipalities Southern Watersheds

Scientific and other Studies The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Guam; Burdick et al. 2008 Fire, erosion, and sedimentation in the Asan-Piti watershed and War in the Pacific; Minton, D. 2005.

Prior, current strategic plans Guam Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, Guam Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources. 2006 Guam Coastal Management Program Section 309 Assessment and Strategy January 2006

Other Territory of Guam 2004 Fire Assessment, Guam Forestry & Soil Resources Division Final Report, Fire Prevention and Education Team, Guam Forestry & Soil Resources Division Natural Resources Atlas of Southern Guam- Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western

Pacific

The following groups provided key inputs into the site summary through one-on-one conversations either in person or on the phone.

KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPSi WORKING AT SITE?

Government DepartmentsGuam Coastal Management Program, BSPGuam Department of Agriculture: Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources Forestry & Soil Resources Division Law Enforcement DivisionUSDA Natural Resource Conservation ServiceGuam Fire Department

Resource UsersSouthern Hunters Southern Community members Farmers GroupsSoil & Water Conservation Board

NGO’sGuam Environmental Education Partners, Inc. The Nature Conservancy

Other Youth organizations Mayors offices University of Guam Water and Energy Resource Institute (WERI)

YES

YESYESYESYES

Abstract

The U.S. territory of Guam is located at in the Pacific Ocean at 13°28’N, 144°45’E, or approximately 3,300 miles West of Hawaii, 1,500 miles East of the Philippines and 1,550 miles South of Japan (http://www.guam-online.com/). It is the southernmost island in the Mariana archipelago and is the largest island in Micronesia with an area of 210 square miles (or approximately 560 km2). Guam’s beautiful coral reef ecosystems are home to

over 400 species of coral, making it one of the most diverse US jurisdictions. They are an integral part of Guam’s culture and economy. The health of Guam’s reefs has decline over the last few decades and they face the threats of land based sources of pollution (sedimentation & run-off); Overfishing; Lack of public awareness; Recreational use and misuse; Climate change/coral bleaching/disease; and development and population increase. Local agencies have partnered together to tackle these threats and increase public awareness of the importance of Guam’s coral reefs and the need to protect them. Wildfires being started by illegal hunters have decimated the vegetation in the upland areas resulting in the formation of badlands and severe erosion into the watersheds. Sedimentation caused by this upland erosion is of most concern. Through public engagement, it is hoped that the threat of sedimentation can be decreased to improve water quality, and help conserve Guam’s precious coral reef ecosystems.

Site Summary

Description of Physical SiteDefinition of Site

The U.S. territory of Guam is located in the Pacific Ocean at 13°28’N, 144°45’E, or approximately 3,300 miles West of Hawaii, 1,500 miles East of the Philippines and 1,550 miles South of Japan (http://www.guam-online.com/). It is the southernmost island in the Mariana archipelago and is the largest island in Micronesia with an area of 210 square miles (or approximately 560 km2).

The northern part of the island is a forested coralline limestone plateau. The northern areas have more intact forest but need management actions such as ungulate control and out planting to enhance the quality of the habitat. The southern half of the island is primarily volcanic with large areas of highly erodible lateritic soils. Vegetation in the south is characterized by grasslands, ravine forests and wetlands (Fosberg 1960). A variety of reefs are represented on Guam, patch reefs, submerged reefs, offshore banks, and barrier reefs, and a fringing coral reef surrounds most of the island, except in areas where bays exist that provide access to small rivers and streams that run down from the hills into the Pacific Ocean and Philippine Sea. Additionally there are approximately 70 ha of mangroves. (GCWCS)

Terrestrial Ecosystem types (IUCN) IUCN 1.5 Subtropical/Tropical DryIUCN 1.6 Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland

IUCN 2.1 Savanna – DryIUCN 3.5 Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical DryIUCN 4.5 Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical DryIUCN 7.1 CavesIUCN 12.1 Rocky ShorelineIUCN 12.2 Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc.IUCN 13.1 Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore IslandsIUCN 14.2 Artificial/Terrestrial – Pastureland

Marine Ecosystem types (IUCN) IUCN 9.1 Pelagic IUCN 9.2 Sub-tidal Rock and Rocky ReefIUCN 9.8 Coral ReefIUCN 9.9 Seagrass (submerged)

Physical Region

The northern portion of the island is a limestone plateau, rising nearly 200 meters above sea level in some places, which overlies rock or volcanic origin (Burdick et al 2008). The southern half of the island is old weathered volcanic material with a cap of limestone most prominent of the Mt. Lamlam-Alifan ridge. The highest point of the island is Mt. Lamlam, in the south, an elevation of 406 m. The grasslands and ravine forests characterizes the vegetation in the south. (GCWCS)

The entire island of Guam has been designated, both locally and federally, as a coastal zone. Guam is divided into 19 watersheds in the southern half of the island. The northern Guam sub watershed was defined as an area that has no clearly define drainage was, composed of a shallow soil layer or permeable limestone with little or no runoff. This is the location of the northern aquifer (GCWCS).

The climate is characterized as tropical marine. The weather is generally warm and humid with little seasonal temperature variation. The mean high temperature is 86°F (30 °C) and mean low is 74°F (23 °C) with an average annual rainfall of 96 inches (2,439 mm). The dry season runs from December through June. During the dry season, humidity is relatively low and the island experiences northeasterly trade winds (GCWCS). The remaining months constitute the rainy season. During the wet season, humidity is high and weak southerly or southeasterly winds occur. The highest risk of typhoons is during October and November although typhoons can and do occur at anytime during the year. Humidity ranges from 65-90% (Burdick et al 2008).

Infrastructure around Site

Southern Guam is divided into 10 municipalities: Asan-Maina, Piti, Agat, Santa Rita, Umatac, Merizo, Inarajan, Talofofo, Yona, Ordot-Chalan Pago, and parts of Mangilao (for watershed mapping).

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Site

Site/Park History

Given its strategic location in the Pacific, Guam has had an interesting history. Guam’s original inhabitants, the ancient Chamorro people are believed to have been a seafaring people who arrived in Guam on outrigger canoes from Southeast Asia. Over nearly 600 years Guam has been occupied by many of the world’s expanding nations. The Spanish Era (1565-1898); the American Period (1898-1941), the Japanese Occupation (1941-1944), and Liberation and US Territorial Status which occurred in 1944 and is still the status today. http://www.guam-online.com/history/history.htm.

Land Use/Land Tenure

In Guam’s traditional systems, land was owned by familial clans as a corporate group. During the reoccupation by the US military, almost half of the island was taken by the American government. These acts dispossessed many Chamorros, who had few assets other than their ancestral lands (will add reference later). The US Congress later established private ownership of land. A lottery regulated by the Chamorro Land Trust gives Chamorros the opportunity to own property on Guam.

http://www.guam-online.com/history/history.htm


Anderson Air force base in the north and US Naval Base in the south comprise the nearly one third of the island owned today by the US Federal Government. The Government of Guam owns another on third in the form of parks, recreational and conservational areas. The remaining third is owned privately either by foreign or native born landowners. (Cheryl’s summary, need source).

Main Livelihoods and Incomes

Data from the 2000 Guam census outlines the main industries and livelihoods of the people of Guam. The next census is expected to be conducted in 2010.

Subject Number PercentOCCUPATION Employed civilian population 16 years and over 57,053 100.0Management, professional and related occupations 15,852 27.8Service occupations 12,654 22.2Sales and office occupations 16,027 28.1Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 212 0.4Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 6,771 11.9Production, transportation and material moving occupations 5,537 9.7INDUSTRY Employed civilian population 16 years and over 57,053 100.0Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 296 0.5Construction 5,532 9.7Manufacturing 1,155 2.0Wholesale trade 1,948 3.4Retail trade 7,558 13.2Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4,319 7.6Information 1,540 2.7Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and leasing 3,053 5.4Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and Waste management services 4,277 7.5Educational, health, and social services 8,412 14.7

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and Food services 10,278 18.0Other services (except public administration) 2,158 3.8Public administration 6,527 11.4Subject Number PercentINCOME IN 1999 Households 38,769 100.0Less than $2,500 3,110 8.0$2,500 to $4,999 698 1.8$5,000 to $9,999 1,768 4.6$10,000 to $14,999 2,128 5.5$15,000 to $24,999 4,758 12.3$25,000 to $34,999 4,842 12.5$35,000 to $49,999 6,357 16.4$50,000 to $74,999 7,175 18.5$75,000 to $99,999 3,982 10.3$100,000 or more 3,951 10.2Median household income (dollars) 39,317 -Mean household income (dollars) 49,617 -

Site population and neighbors

Guam of today is a truly cosmopolitan community with a unique culture, the core of which is the ancient Chamorro heavily influenced by the Spanish occupation and the Catholic Church. Strong American influence is also evident in the celebration of many public holidays, the form of Government and the pride in being U.S. that is displayed by the populace. Guam’s culture has also been influenced and enriched by the Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Micronesian immigrants each group of whom have added their unique contributions. The present population of Guam, 2006, is approximately 171,000 of whom roughly 37% are Chamorro, 26% Filipino, 11% other Pacific Islander with the remaining 26% primarily Caucasian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese, all of whom bring their cultural heritage and customs and contribute to Guam 's unique culture and appeal. (http://www.guam-online.com/history/history.htm)

Guam is the most heavily populated island in Micronesia, with an estimated population in 2007 of about 173,500 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau predicted the population growth rate to steadily decrease over the next 50 years, but this estimate did not take into account the planned movement of roughly 26,000 additional military personnel and dependents to Guam by 2014 (Helber, Hassert and Fee Planners, 2006). Such an influx, coupled with associated migration to Guam by those seeking economic gain from the expansion, would increase


the existing population by up to 38% in less than 10 years, potentially pushing the total population to over 230,000 (Guam Civilian Military Task Force, 2007).

The following populations are based on the 2000 Decennial Census (http://www.census.gov/census2000/guam.html) : Agana Heights (5200), Agat (5656), Asan-Maina (2090), Barrigada (8652) Chalan-Pago-Ordot (5923), Dededo (42980), Hagatna (1100), Inarajan (3052), Mangilao (13313), Merizo (2163), Mongmong-Toto-Maite (5845), Piti (1666), Santa Rita (7500), Sinajana (2853), Talofofo (3215), Tamuning (18012), Umatac (887), Yigo (19474), Yona (6484)

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households 38,769Family households (families) 32,367With own children under 18 years 19,678Married-couple families 22,693With own children under 18 years 13,964Female householder, no husband present 6,284With own children under 18 years 3,753Nonfamily households 6,402Householder living alone 5,082Householder 65 years and over 659Households with individuals under 18 years 23,346Households with individuals 65 years and over 6,247Average household size 3.89Average family size 4.27Population 25 years and over 83,281Less than 9th grade 7,8439th to 12th grade, no diploma 11,862High school graduate (includes equivalency) 26,544Some college, no degree 16,611Associate degree 3,787Bachelor’s degree 12,774Graduate or professional degree 3,860Percent high school graduate or higher 76.3Percent bachelor’s degree or higher 20.0

Main Factors Affecting the Site

http://www.census.gov/census2000/guam.html

Known Threats to Local Biodiversity Based on the IUCN list, Guam is facing several threats including: Habitat loss/Degradation (IUCN 1.4), Harvesting (IUCN 3.1), Pollution (IUCN 6.3), Natural Disasters (IUCN 7.2), Human disturbance (IUCN 10.5). Guam’s reefs are facing the threats of: Land based sources of pollution, sedimentation, run-off; Overfishing; Lack of public awareness; Recreational use and misuse; Climate change/coral bleaching/disease; and development and population increase (DOD) with the upcoming military build-up (Burdick et al 2008).

From the 2008 Status of the Coral Reefs Report (Burdick et al 2008):

“Sedimentation of nearshore habitats, primarily a result of severe upland erosion, continues to be one of the most significant threats to Guam’s reefs. Sedimentation is most prevalent in southern Guam, where steep slopes, underlying volcanic rock, barren areas and areas with compromised vegetation contribute large quantities of the mostly lateritic, clay-like soils to coastal waters. According to one estimate, the sediment yield of unvegetated “badlands” is more than 20 times that of ravine forests (243 tons/acre/yr versus 12 tons/acre/yr), while savannah grasslands, which also cover large areas of southern Guam, produce more than 2.5 times as much sediment as ravine forests (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, NRCS, 1995). The excess sediment flows into coastal waters, where it combines with organic matter in sea water to form “marine snow,” falling to the seafloor and smothering corals and other sessile organisms. Sediment, along with excess nutrients and freshwater, can also interfere with or inhibit coral gamete production, release, and viability, and larval survival, settlement and recruitment. While it is generally held that Guam’s southern reefs have evolved under a regime characterized by a larger sediment loads than at northern reefs, an increase in destructive anthropogenic activities, including wildland arson, clearing and grading of forested land, inappropriate road construction methods and recreational off-road vehicle use, as well as grazing by feral ungulates, have accelerated rates of sedimentation and appear to have exceeded the sediment tolerance of coral communities in these areas,

resulting in highly degraded reef systems. In Fouha Bay, for example, more than 100 coral species were found along transects in the southern part of the bay in 1978, but less than 50 were found in 2003, demonstrating a significant loss in species richness”.

“Wildfires set by poachers are believed to be the main cause of badlands development and persistence (Minton, 2005). Despite being illegal, intentionally-set fires continue to burn vast areas of southern Guam. According to figures from the Department of Agriculture’s Forestry and Soil Resources Division (FSRD), an average of over 700 fires have been reported annually between 1979 and 2006, burning over 46.5 ha (115,000 acres) during this period (Figure 15.9* Will include this figure, need to get from source). The devastating effects of illegally-set wildfires in southern Guam are exacerbated by the drought-like conditions associated with El Niño events.”

“Other threats: Recreational Use & Misuse: The number of visitors to Guam grew from 1.16 million visitors in 2004 to 1.21 million in 2006, indicating continued growth after a 10-year low of approximately 910,000 in 2003 (Guam Visitors Bureau, 2006). SCUBA diving, snorkeling and related activities continue to be very popular for both tourists and residents. According to a recent coral reef economic valuation study conducted on Guam, an estimated 300,000 dives are performed on Guam each year (van Beukering et al., 2007). Official Pacific Association of Dive Industry statistics cited in this study indicate that around 6,000 open water certifications were provided in 2004; the number of certifications provided by other organizations is not known. The number of divers and snorkelers visiting Guam’s reefs will likely increase significantly with the additional military personnel, their dependents and others associated with the military expansion. Overuse and misuse of certain high-profile reef areas for recreational activities continues to be a concern.”

“Coastal Development & Runoff: Although most development between 2004 and 2007 has involved residential or other small-scale construction, several major development projects have started recently or are planned for the near future to accommodate the growing tourism sector and planned military expansion. Development associated with the incoming military personnel, their dependents, and support staff, such as construction of military facilities and off-base housing developments and road-building activities, has the potential to negatively impact coastal water quality.” No formal storm water regulations have been developed or adopted and there is poor enforcement on pollution prevention programs. “The primary pollutants to most waters around Guam – and specifically to recreational beaches – are microbial organisms, petroleum hydrocarbons and sediment. “ A 2005 National Park Service study found that sedimentation rates in Asan Bay were among the highest in the literature. The extremely elevated rate of sediment collection is sufficient to raise serious concerns about the long term health and survival of Guam’s reefs (Minton 2005). Furthermore, Minton states that prior to anthropogenic influences, Guam’s environment was unfavorable to fire ignition. In fact, is it is the human induced fires which may be aiding in spreading the savanna grassland vegetation which are tolerant to and promote further burning. “The presence of savanna vegetation instead of forest may also be contributing to elevated soil loss, as erosion in savanna areas may be 100x times higher than in scrub forest” (Minton, 2005).

Conservation Issues

Biodiversity of SiteUnder natural conditions, Guam hosted a rich diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species. Over 100 species of birds have been documented on the island including migrant, wetland, seabird, grassland, and forest birds (Reichel and Glass 1991, Engbring and Fritts 1988*). Three native mammals were also known to Guam, including the Marianas fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), little Marianas fruit bat (Pteropus tokudae) and Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Emballonura semicaudata rotensis), although the Marianas fruit bat is the only extant species. There are six native reptiles, five skink species, and one gecko species that are still found in the wild. Several native tree snail species still exist in low numbers on Guam. Two species of snails, Samoana fragilis and Partula radiolata, have been on the candidate list of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 1973*) for more than 10 years and currently do not receive federal protection. Guam has more than 320 native plant species of which six deserve greater attention, but unfortunately only one, Serianthes nelsonii, is eligible for funding under the ESA. (GCWCS)

Guam’s coral reef ecosystems are home to over 5100 species of marine organisms, including over 1,000 near shore fish species and over 300 species of scleractinian coral (Burdick et al 2008). It is the closest US jurisdiction to The Coral Triangle- the global epicenter of marine species diversity and one of the top priorities for marine conservation. This magnificent region of the ocean covers an area of 5.7 million km2 and contains more than one-third of all the world's coral reefs. According to the journal Micronesica, over 403 scleractinian (stony) & hydrozoan coral species, representing 21 families and 108 genera are found in the Mariana Islands. In addition, over 120 species of non-scleractinian anthozoans (includes anemones and soft corals) were reported (Randall 2003). This amount of diversity is even more significant if one looks at one particular genus. For example, in Guam, over 30 species of the genus Acropora have been reported. Comparatively, for the entire Caribbean only 60 coral species, in total, have been reported. This gives a distinct picture of the scale of the diversity of Guam’s coral reefs, and the need to protect them. Several endemic species of fish have been reported from the Marianas such as the Yellow Crowned Butterfly fish (Chaetodon flavocorinatus) reported from Guam and Saipan, and the Guam Damsel Chaetodon guamenis. (Meyers, 1999*).

Guam has over 550 terrestrial species including 26 endemic species. Guam has 143 species listed on the IUCN Red Data list. The status of these species was evaluated by BirdLife International, Mollusc Specialist Group, and Chiroptera Specialist Group – the official Red List Authority for birds, mollusks and bats for the IUCN.

Conservation History

The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), established in 1994, is a partnership among governments, civil society and organizations seeking to stop and reverse the global degradation of coral reefs and related ecosystems. In 1997, the Government of Guam adopted a Guam Coral Reef Initiative to establish a policy development mechanism for the protection of Guam's coral reefs. Through this initiative, Guam has established 5

http://www.guam.gov/

Local Action Strategies (LAS) to address specific threats to Guam’s coral reefs described further in current conservation programs. It is through this program that sedimentation was identified as a major threat to Guam’s coral reefs, and funding has been provided to address this threat through support of this campaign.

In addition to the CRI, Guam is a part of the Micronesia Challenge, a commitment by the Chief Executives of the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the U.S. Territory of Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to effectively conserve at least 30% of the near-shore marine and 20% of the terrestrial resources across Micronesia by the year 2020. The MC is an important overarching project in Guam, combining the efforts of local resource managers & current management projects into an effective movement for conservation, and garnering support as part of a larger commitment throughout Micronesia. Many of the areas to be conserved in this challenge are located in Guam’s watersheds, the focal areas of the campaign. Additionally, many of the key volunteers for this project will be MC interns who can provide technical assistance as well as recruit manpower for campaign projects.

Guam Marine Preserves: On 16 May 1997, Public Law 24-21 was implemented creating 5 marine preserves-- the Pati Point Preserve, the Tumon Bay Preserve, the Piti Bomb Holes Preserve, the Sasa Bay Preserve, and the Achang Reef Flat Preserve. The Piti Bomb Holes are a part of the sedimentation monitoring for this project as it is at the base of the Piti/Asan watershed. These areas constitute the majority of the coastline protected under the MC. The marine preserves are part of the Fisheries Management LAS under the Coral Reef Initiative and contribute to the overarching goals of the Micronesia Challenge.

In addition to these protected areas, Guam has several established other conservation areas including the Anao Conservation Area, Cotal Conservation Area, Balonos Conservation Area, Federal Conservation Areas: Haputo Ecological Reserve Area , Orote Point Ecological Reserve, National Park Service: War in the Pacific National Historic Parks (see conservation areas map, appendix *). Of particular interest are the War in the Pacific sites as they fall within one of the proposed monitoring areas for the campaign, and are a part of the Asan/Piti watershed.

Another restoration project is being done in the Piti/Asan watershed. The restoration is being run by the Guam Coastal Management Program & Department of Agriculture- Includes Masso River Reservoir restoration project and “green” restoration of a public park using best management practices. As a part of this restoration The Nature Conservancy has sponsored a Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Workshop with several agencies and stakeholders in the community. Based on the first few iterations of the CAP process, Sedimentation/Runoff was identified as one of the key threats to the corals in this watershed. Key projects include: 1) assessment of the existing conditions and the development of a plan to improve the area including restoration of existing structures, a drainage map on tributary areas and storm water runoff; 2) alternatives for storm water management and preferred storm water management plan, and recommendations on infrastructure improvements and; 3) design improvements including a small parking lot, proper lighting, paver walkways, and proper drainage. This campaign will work closely with the CAP coordinator to overlap efforts where possible with regards to sedimentation reduction and community education.

Another important project in southern Guam which is anticipated to begin in 2009 is the Sella Bay Mitigation. The United States Navy will be extending Kilo Wharf (located in Apra Harbor) approximately 400 feet. Approximately 3.28 acres of coral reef will be dredged and 14.88 additional acres may be degraded due to dredging-related sediments. As compensatory mitigation, the United States Navy has agreed to implement a 4.5

million dollar Restoration Plan for Sella Bay Watershed. The plan was prepared by the Guam Department of Agriculture and Guam Environmental Protection Agency. The goals set forth for this mitigation project by the Division are: (1) Improved reef condition/health as a result of restored hydrologic flows and reduced sediment and other non-point-source pollution from the watershed, and (2) Adaptive management for native forest and savannah restoration, by (a) passive restoration eliminating barriers to recovery and (b) active restoration of native forest and savannah species. Approximately 500 acres in the Sella watershed will be reforested with native vegetation in order to improve water quality and restore a healthy coral reef at Sella and Bay. The habitats and species at Sella Bay are similar to those at Kilo Wharf. The governor of Guam signed this mitigation agreement on 05 June 2008. To assure successful mitigation at Sella, aggressive erosion control and fire prevention practices, long term assurances that the land will remain as forest, control of feral ungulate populations, effective enforcement, and a comprehensive monitoring are necessary. This is an unprecedented project by DoD, the first off-site mitigation, and is an important pilot program for future mitigation efforts. This is another project which will be very integral to the Rare campaign providing a partner for community engagement and barrier removal.

The Guam Coral Reef Monitoring Group will kick off in 2009. The group will be comprised of individuals from several local and federal agencies/institutions recently developed an island-wide coral reef monitoring strategy that includes the long-term monitoring of several high-priority sites and capacity building within the local government and university to ensure the strategy’s success. This comprehensive monitoring program will provide data about a number of important measures of coral reef ecosystem health, including various parameters for water quality, benthic habitat, and associated biological communities. Monitoring these variables will allow resource managers to evaluate the effectiveness of specific management strategies and serve as an early warning system for identifying changes in reef health. The success of the monitoring program has become even more critical with the impending military expansion, which will require a robust, quantitative approach to monitoring the impacts of the direct and indirect stressors associated with the expansion and for assessing the effectiveness of mitigation activities in improving reef health, such as large-scale watershed restoration in southern Guam. (This is a key project for the campaign as we will utilize this group as part of our conservation result assessment.)

Other Conservation Partners:

Department of Agriculture: Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources – Jay Gutierrez 671-735-3980; Forestry and Soil Resources Division- Justin Santos 671-735-3949; Guam Environmental Protection Agency- Mike Gawel 671-475-1646; The Nature Conservancy- Trina Leberer [email protected], National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Coral Reef Conservation Program- Kacky Andrews [email protected], Coastal Zone Management- Bill Millhouser [email protected], Fisheries- Gerry Davis [email protected]; Guam Visitors’ Bureau- Doris Ada 671-646-5278;

Guam Environmental Education Partners’ Incorporated- Adrienne Lorizel [email protected]; Mayors’ Council- Pido Terlaje 671-475-6940; I-Recycle- Peggy Denney 671-483-9415; Guam Historic Preservation- Patrick Lujan 671-475-6294; Department of Public Works- Lawrence Perez 671-646-3131University of Guam Marine Lab- Peter Schupp -971-735-2175Water & Energy Research Institue (WERI)- Dr. Gary Denton 671-735-2685Guam Community College- Elvie Tyler [email protected] National Park Service- War in the Pacific National Historical Park- Mark Capone 671-477-7278; Natural Resource Conservation Service- Jocelyn Bamba 671-472-7490; Marine Mania- Linda Tatreau [email protected]

Previous Conservation Education Campaigns (CEC)

Through the various partners, and groups such as the Guam Environmental Education Committee, many conservation education initiatives have taken place, or will soon be taken place on Guam including: Arson-prevention- limited-term (one year) arson campaign coordinator was hired (Justin Santos) at the Department of Agriculture to deal with arson in Guam’s Southern Watersheds, through the Guam Coral Reef Initiative Management grant. Justin will be a major partner in this campaign providing insight to his experiences with arson prevention and introducing barrier removal partners.

The Guam Year of the Reef campaign was conducted throughout 2008 and hosted several events for both youth and adults promoting Guam’s coral reefs and ending off with a grand finale event, encouraging participants to take action to protect Guam’s reefs and other natural resources. The GYOR was funded by several grants from NOAA and NFWF and was supported through the GCMP. Other campaigns which have been very successful include the Guardians of the Reef, a program funded through the GCMP in which local high school students develop coral reef lessons which are taught in partnering 3rd grade classes around the island. As the program embarks on its third year preliminary surveys have shown it to be very successful in increasing knowledge of the importance of Guam’s reefs and the threats to them. Another youth program funded by GCMP is a youth driven watershed puppet show (may be GREAT for the campaign). Thus far it has been used at several events such as Earth Day and the kids Eco Expo, and has been an instrumental tool used by Marine Mania, a local environmental group. The Guam EPA is also working to develop a community outreach group focused on watershed awareness. The coordinator for this program is a part of the initial campaign stakeholder meeting as she will be a great partner throughout the campaign.

One final ongoing campaign is the "Go Native! - Prutehi I Islan Guahan" Rare Pride Campaign led by Campaign manager Cheryl Calaustro through the DAWR. Cheryl’s project hopes to create areas where the Guam rail (ko’ko’) can be reintroduced and reduce the numbers of invasive/predatory species on Guam and possibly establish new areas for native species reintroduction on both mainland and off-shore islands, such as Cocos Island.

This campaign has laid the groundwork for working with local communities and several of the groups she has worked with will be involved in this campaign. She will act as a mentor campaign CM and will be a great partner for the current campaign through her lead agency.

In 2003, the USFS Region 5, State and Private Forestry, assisted the Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and Soil Resources with the arson problem in Southern Guam. A full copy of the report is listed in the appendix. The tasks of the project were: (1) to establish contact with cooperators working on the coral reef effects issue to provide background on the wildland arson fire problem; (2) promote partners to carry messages; (3) develop a photo essay telling the story of arson’s effects on watersheds and the subsequent effects on the social and economic sectors; (4) develop a conceptual theater slide and poster campaign ideas and examples; (5) write two news releases highlighting the problem, the effects and what people can do to help; (6) draft concepts for PSAs that may be used on radio or television. While the project accomplished each of its goals, arson and wildland fire continued to be a problem in Guam. It indicated that the team did not have the funding or staffing to complete a full campaign, but that one was much needed. Among the key recommendations of the report for a future arson prevention campaign: to create a Guam Fire Cooperators group unified to present messages and garner support for the fire service in Guam, include a fire representative on the coral reef coordination committee, increase law enforcement and game wardens, continue use of the media and other sources to spread messages focused on culture, statistics, and history, and to develop a three year interagency & interdisciplinary campaign. This Rare pride campaign will encompass all of those recommendations and continue where the project left off. Using the tools of social marketing and targeted messaging based on qualitative and quantitative research, a specific and focused campaign can achieve the conservation result.

Conservation Legislation

As a territory of the United States, Guam has an elected Governor who oversees control of the island along with local legislative and judicial branches in the forms of an elected senator and supreme court system that oversee policy making. The natural resources are managed local government agencies. (see table next page)

Of the existing legislation that are most important are the Organic Act, Guam’s overarching legislation creating our executive and legislative branches and outlining regulations of what agencies have authority over what resources. Several laws have been passed with specific information as to what these agencies are.

Guam’s Hunting rules and regulations (Chapter 11: Article 2) state “§11117. The use of fire or artificial light of any kind as an aid to the taking of game is prohibited.” However it is very difficult for the conservation officers to enforce this regulation because there is no follow through in prosecution. Illegal hunters are arrested, booked and released, but their cases never make it to trial, and aside from the arrest and confiscation of any gear, there is no follow through. According to the officers, the courts are understaffed and do not see this misdemeanor as a serious crime. The Law Enforcement Division has drafted a citation program which would empower officers to issue tickets to offenders (which if not paid would be a higher offense), but it has not yet been approved by the Attorney General. This draft has been with the office for several years, and has become a point of aggravation for these officers. A full copy of the hunting regulations is provided in the appendix.

The Guam Fire Department has encountered similar problems. Fires are allowed on Guam, provided they comply with the Rules and Regulations as set forth by the Department of Environmental Regulation (Chapter 17-5), or that a special permit has been issued by the department. There is no mechanism set in place to fine individuals for these violations, unless they are impeding the work of the firefighters (Chapter 72), and this is also considered a misdemeanor. The officers are often left finding the same individuals violating regulations, and are not able to hold them accountable other than to issue verbal warnings, or to charge them with a misdemeanor that will more often than not never make it to court. GFD has also developed a citation program that is in draft form with the Attorney General’s office awaiting review and approval (and has been there for several years). The passing of this would allow them to more efficiently enforce the Rules and Regulations.

Level of Tourism

The main industry in Guam is tourism. Guam’s reef resources are both economically and culturally important, providing numerous goods and services for the residents of Guam, including cultural and traditional use, tourism, recreation, fisheries, and shoreline and infrastructure protection. A recent economic valuation study estimated that the coral reef resources of Guam are valued at approximately $127 million per year. Tourism is Guam’s main industry, and with an average of one million people visiting each year, $94.6 million dollars are brought in each year because of clean beaches and beautiful reefs. On a local level, of 400 households surveyed, 92% said that they utilized the beaches in some way whether they swim or not, 45% said they use the reefs regularly to fish for food, and 44% said they enjoyed snorkeling. Clean, clear, and safe water were considered to be among the most important recreational amenities (van Beukering et al., 2007).

Park/Protected Area Management

Park Management OverviewThe main protected areas are shown in the figure. Of particular interest are the areas in Southern Guam. There are three marine preserves which are enforced by the Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Officers, where no catch is allowed with the exception of special seasonal cultural take (permit issued seasonally). The terrestrial conservation areas are managed areas of no development and limited to no take of any terrestrial species (by permit only) but management and enforcement are limited.

Sasa Bay Marine Preserve………………………..………287 ha

Achang Reef Flat Preserve………………………………. 485 haPiti Bomb Holes Preserve………………………………… 362 haMasso River Reservoir Conservation Area............67 haBolanos Conservation Area…………………………….. 365 haCotal Conservation Area …………………………………. 268 haWar in the Pacific National Historical Parks (V)...374 ha (779 ha including water and coral reef areas)Guam Territorial Seashore Park (V)...................3,645 ha (not shown)

(6,135 ha including reef and coastal waters)- limited development Areas from: Pacific Areas Biodiversity Forum: www.pbif.org

Stakeholders in Protected Area ManagementMarine Preserves- Department of AgricultureGuam Conservation Areas- Department of Agriculture & USNavy (where overlap occurs)Navy Ecological Reserve- US NavyRitidian National Wildlife Refuge- US Fish & Wildlife War in the Pacific NHP- National Park Service

http://www.pbif.org/

2.2 Action Plan

ACTION PLAN FOR HUNTERS (SPLIT INTO STAGES OF THEORY OF CHANGE)

ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (1 of 7)

ACTION PLAN MONITORING PLAN

Goals Results needed

Key (SMART) Metric Method Baseline Target Results

objectives

Conservation result goal

improved coral size class structure, indicated by an increase in branching corals.

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay temporary monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 4. 34% to 9.34%.

% coral cover

monitoring by transect and video transect surveys done annually by NPS.

3.03% average coral cover in 15 monitoring sites.

4.34% average coral cover in random sites.

5 % increase I average coral cover

Data is being collected annually by NPS and will be monitored.





objectives

Threat reduction goals:

reduce number of wildland fires in Southern Guam;

By December 2010, the number of responses to vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease from 1759 (annual average from GFD reports 2005-2009) to 880 (a 50% decrease).

By October 2010, the average number of responses per month to vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease from 139 (annual average from GFD reports 2005-2009) to an average of 70 responses between February 2010 and October 2010 (a 50% decrease).

number of fires reported/recorded

data collected by Guam Fire Department: average number of vegetation fires from 2005-2009 = 1759.

Average 1759 responses per year

880 fires per year in 2010 (50% decrease)440 fires per year in 2011 (75% decrease)

Data is being collected monthly and will be available at the end of December 2010

reduce amount of sediment load at near shore reefs in Southern Guam

By October 2012, the turbidity level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will decrease from 2.6 NTU to 1.9 NTU (a 20 % decrease).

total suspended solids (turbidity); may be different with NPS;

additional baseline data being collected by PACIOOS

bi annual testing by NPS;

PACIOOS monitoring probe in Cetti Bay

2.6 NTU in rainy season

Baseline data being collected.

decrease in total suspended solids by 20% by 2011; and by 40% by 2015*

Data will be monitored and results will be assessed in 2012.



Goals Results needed Key (SMART) Metric Method Baseline Target Results

objectives

Behavior Change

Hunters stop setting wildland fires to burn vegetation, which encourages new growth which in turn attracts and lures out the deer that they hunt.

By September 2010, the number of Hunters who "use fire for hunting" will decrease from 16% to 11% (a 5 percentage point decrease; N=43.

number of fires reported/recorded;

(14A: In the past 12 months, have you started a fire for any reason) 14B: if yes, please indicate the purpose of your fire.

also can use secondary anonymous hunter survey with direct question: have you used fire for hunting?

data analysis of both surveys and fires reported

16% who use fire for hunting will decrease from 16% to 11% (5 percentage points; N=43)

8%





objectives

Barrier Removal goal

provide hunters with deer baiting tools as an alternative to burning and sustainable hunting training

By October 2010, 20% of registered Hunters will have attended the sustainable hunting presentation run by conservation officers (DAWR). (600 hunters * .20 = 120 hunters)

number of hunters who attend trainings;

hunter survey;

number of baiting tools given out;

take requests for second year;

focused conversations

n/a 20% of registered Southern Youth hunters will have attended sustainable hunting presentations;

75partici-pants





objectives

Interpersonal Communication goals

hunters talk to each other about using bait instead of burning.

By October 2010, hunters will have spoken with anyone about using deer attractants? (baseline data will be collected during post campaign survey) n=79

Q30: in the past 12 months, have you talked to anyone about deer attractants?

hunter survey & analysis

n/a Collect baseline data

37%

hunters talk to someone about wildland fires

By September 2010, 50 % of Hunters will have "spoken with someone about wildland fires in the past 6 months" (a 11 percentage point increase from 39%; N=46).

Q28: in the past 12 months, have you talked to anyone about wildland fires?

KAP survey analysis

39% increase number of hunters who have spoken with someone by 11 percentage points

56%

ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN HUNTERS (6 of7)




objectives

Attitude goals hunters feel that individuals starting wildland fires should be prosecuted

By September 2010, 80% of Hunters will agree that individuals starting wildland fires should be prosecuted (a 13 percentage point increase from from 57%; N=46).

Q26C: Individuals starting wildland fires should be prosecuted;

KAP survey analysis

57% increase in the number of hunters who answer strongly agree or agree by 13 percentage points

80%



Goals Results needed Key (SMART)

objectives

Metric Method Baseline Target Results

Knowledge goals

hunters disagree or strongly disagree that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs

By September 2010, 35% of Hunters will disagree that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs (a 15 percentage point increase from 20% N=46) (as measured in Q26A).

Q26 A: wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs; responses: strongly disagree and disagree

KAP survey analysis

20% increase in number of hunters who answer strongly disagree and disagree by 15 percentage points

71%

ACTION PLAN FOR SOUTHERN COMMUNITY (SPLIT INTO STAGES OF THEORY OF CHANGE)ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHERN GENERAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS (NON-HUNTERS)


Goals Results needed Key (SMART) Metric Method Baseline Target Result

Objectives

Conservation Result goal:

improved coral size class structure, indicated by an increase in branching corals.



% coral cover

monitoring by transect and video transect surveys done annually by NPS.

3.03% average coral cover in 15 monitoring sites.

4.34% average coral cover in random sites.

5 % increase I average coral cover

Data is being collected annually by NPS and will be monitored.

ACTION PLAN FOR REACHING SOUTHER GENERAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS (NON-HUNTERS)



Key (SMART) Metric Method Baseline Target Result

Objectives

Threat reduction

reduce number of

By December 2010, the number of responses to

number of fires reported/recorded

data collected by Guam Fire

Average 1759

880 fires per year in 2010

Data is being collected

goals: wildland fires in Southern Guam;

vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease from 1759 (annual average from GFD reports 2005-2009) to 880 (a 50% decrease).


Department: average number of vegetation fires from 2005-2009 = 1670.

responses (50% decrease)440 fires per year in 2011 (75% decrease)

monthly and will be available at the end of December 2010

reduce amount of sediment load at near shore reefs in Southern Guam

By October 2012, the turbidity level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will decrease from 2.6 NTU to 1.9 NTU (a 20 % decrease).

total suspended solids (turbidity); may be different with NPS;

additional baseline data being collected by PACIOOS

bi annual testing by NPS;

PACIOOS monitoring probe in Cetti Bay

2.6 NTU in rainy season

Baseline data being collected.

decrease in total suspended solids by 20% by 2011; and by 40% by 2015*

Data will be monitored and results will be assessed in 2012.




Objectives

Behavior Change

community reports wildland arson

By September 2010, the number of Southern Residents who do not hunt who have "never considered reporting wildland arson" will decrease from 78% to 60% (-18 percentage points N=134).

KAP survey question 16: in the past 6 months I have never reported wildland arson

KAP survey analysis

78% A 18 pp decrease in never reported wildland arson

47%




Objectives

Barrier Removal goal

establish a fire hotline and call center to make it easier for community members to report wildland fires, including arson.

By September 2010, 76% of Southern Residents who do not hunt will find it "easy to report wildland fires" to authorities (a 10 percentage point increase from 66%; N=237).

KAP survey question 27A: Tell me whether you would find it easy or difficult to report wildland fires to authorities…

KAP survey analysis

66% 10 pp increase in those who find it easy to report fires

66%




Objectives

Interpersonal Communication goals

community members talk to someone about wildland fires

By September 2010, 25 % of Southern Residents who do not hunt will have spoken with someone about wildland fires in the past 6 months (a 10 percentage point increase from 15%; N=237).

Q28: in the past 12 months, have you talked to anyone about wildland fires.

KAP survey analysis

15% 10 pp increase

34%




Objectives

Attitude goals community members will agree and strongly disagree that wildland fires do not need to be prevented

By September 2010, 90%of Southern Residents who do not hunt will "disagree" AND "strongly disagree" that "wildland fires do not need to be prevented" (a 12 percentage point increase from 73% N=237.)

survey questions 26D: Wildland fires do not need to be prevented

KAP survey analysis

73% 12 pp increase

79%




Objectives

Knowledge goals community members disagree or strongly disagree that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs

By September 2010, 55% of Southern Residents who do not hunt will "disagree" AND "strongly disagree" that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs (a 12 percentage point increase from 43% N=237) (as measured in Q26A).

Q26 A: wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs; responses: strongly disagree and disagree

KAP survey analysis

43% 12 pp increase

65%

3. Review of Project Planning Phase

3.1 Concept ModelThe April 2009 stakeholder meeting brought together 12 participants who met to create a Concept Model which identified threats to Guam’s watersheds as well as the contributing factors to those threats. The project’s scope (Guam Watersheds) was divided into 3 main targets for conservation: Upland terrestrial habitats, rivers and reefs. Participants were asked if they agreed with these targets, and it was decide that “ground water” needed to be added as a target.

These four targets were placed on a “sticky wall” (a tool used for meetings allowing components to be moved around during discussions) and participants were then split into three groups and asked to identify the direct threats to these targets (or those threats having an immediate effect on the target). After all threats had been identified by each group, a consensus activity was conducted to group threats by theme, and then to name the groups, thus identifying the major direct threats.

Once direct threats were placed on the wall, connections were made to link the threats with the conservation targets which they threatened. Much lively discussion occurred to create consensus on these links. Participants were then asked to identify the indirect threats (or contributing factors) contributing to each of the direct threats, and to link those to direct threats and to each other, creating links or chains. The final result was a model or map of threats affecting Guam’s Watersheds.

Notes:

(1) Although there were only a small number of participants in comparison to the number invited, a good initial concept model was created (see figure below). All of the participants were from resource agencies or scientific backgrounds, so while the model was a good representation of the perceptions of these participants, community input was lacking.

(2) One challenge that arose from this meeting was that the scope at this time was “Guam Watersheds” encompassing both the north and south of Guam. Because of the unique geography of the island, the watersheds in the north and south are very different. The threats to northern watersheds may not necessarily be the same as the threats to southern watersheds. This created some challenges in trying to categorize threats to a general scope and create a comprehensive concept model. After the meeting, all of the information generated was inputted into Miradi.

Miradi is being developed to assist conservation practitioners going through the adaptive management process outlined in the conservation Measures Partnership's Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (www.miradi.org).

After conducting background research, conducting directed conversations, and analyzing survey results, some changes were made to the original concept model to include new information and strategies. However, some the following components remain the same:

The primary target, reefs, has been selected from the four targets identified in the original concept model. The direct threats to the reefs remain the same (sedimentation & erosion)

The major changes include:

The indirect threats have been isolated to fires for the focus of the campaign Scope has been narrowed to Southern Guam Watersheds Strategies have been identified to address audiences and behaviors contributing factors to the fires

Contributing Factors/Indirect Threats [orange boxes] Direct Threats [red boxes] Targets [green circles]

http://www.miradi.org/

3.2 Threat Ranking

Using the Initial Concept Model developed at the key stakeholder meeting, Miradi software was used to provisionally rank the direct threats that they identifiedii. This ranking served to:

1) Identify highest ranked “target” 2) Identify the highest ranked threat impacting this “target”

Miradi software automatically captures the targets from the Concept Model displaying them along the “X” axis with the direct threats aligned on the Y axis. Scope, Severity & IrreversibilityEach threat is ranked by Scope, Severity and Irreversibility against each target using the following scoring guide:

Illustration A shows the final Threat Ranking. Illustration B shows the process of threat ranking using Miradi. Note that the summary ranking by “target” shows rivers and reefs to be the most critically threatened targets, scoring “High”, with the threat of sedimentation and erosion (on these targets) ranking as “High” (see Illustration C on next page).

KEY TO THREAT CRITERIA (Based on Miradi definitions)A: SCOPE (Area)

4 = Very High: The threat is likely to be very widespread across all or much of your site.

3 = High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, and affect conservation targets at many locations at your site.

2 = Medium: The threat is likely to be localized in its scope, and affect the conservation target at some of the target’s locations at the site.

1 = Low: The threat is likely to be very localized in its scope, and affect the conservation target at a limited portion of the target’s location at the site.

B: SEVERITY – The level of damage to the conservation target that can reasonably be expected under current circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing situation).

4 = Very High: The threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site.

3 = High: The threat is likely to seriously degrade the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site.

2 = Medium: The threat is likely to moderately degrade the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site.

1 = Low: The threat is likely to only slightly impair the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site.

C: IRREVERSIBILITY – The importance of taking immediate action to counter the threat.

4 = Very High: The effects of the direct threat are not reversible (e.g., wetlands converted to a shopping center).

3 = High: The effects of the direct threat are reversible, but not practically affordable (e.g., wetland converted to agriculture).

2 = Medium: The effects of the direct threat are reversible with a reasonable commitment of resources (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland).

1 = Low: The effects of the direct threat are easily reversible at relatively low cost (e.g., off-road vehicles trespassing in wetland).

ILLUSTRATION A ILLUSTRATION B

The stakeholders identified sedimentation and pollution as major threats to the watersheds as a whole. The campaign manager conducted a formal threat ranking analysis (see Illustration C) and found that sedimentation and erosion was ranked as the highest threat to the watershed, specifically a “high” threat to the Reefs and Rivers. This threat ranking was shared with two additional stakeholder groups, the Southern Soil and Water Conservation Board, and the members of the Northern Soil and Water Conservation group (mostly farmers).

While stakeholders in the south agreed that sediment was indeed the most important threat in the south, the northern group felt that pollution was a much greater threat to northern watersheds. At this time, taking information from the stakeholder meeting, the threat ranking, and focused conversations with local experts, it was decided that the scope of the campaign would be narrowed to southern Guam watersheds.

Illustration C- FINAL THREAT RANKING

3.3 Factor Chains “Sedimentation & erosion” was determined to be the most critical threat to the watershed, as supported by both the stakeholder meetings and the threat ranking. The next step taken was to identify the factors that contribute to that threat and needed to be addressed to protect the targets. “Sedimentation & erosion” and all of its associated contributing factors were isolated, creating a “factor chain”.

This factor chain will help in planning the campaign, developing a barrier removal strategy and monitoring plan that will have a measureable effect on the conservation target. Three more simplified factor chains can be created from the diagram above, and items can be clarified and made more specific as to their connection to the direct threat and targets.

Factor Chain for Arson

The final factor chain shows that wildland fires are being caused by hunters, who either for a need for money or a need for food use fire to hunt, destroying vegetation and causing sedimentation and erosion. This behavior has been identified as the major contributor to wildland fires which are the major contributing factor to sedimentation and erosion in Southern Guam. This factor chain identifies the indirect threat that will be addressed in the Pride campaign and the tree major contributing factors (lack of awareness/apathy; need for money/food from hunters; lack of enforcement) which need to be addressed.

3.4 Results ChainIt is now generally recognized that before adopting a new behavior a person moves through a series of stages. These stages are: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, validation, action, and maintenance. Not all individuals in a target segment will be in the same stage of behavior change, so activities and messages need to reach all groups, in all different stages of behavior change. <Rare>

Understanding the steps in our results chain has also helped narrow down our preliminary objectives for each target audience before we begin collecting data.

Preliminary Objectives for Target Audiences

The factor chains were then changed into results that needed to occur for each stage and were aligned with the stages of behavior change to create results “chains.”Based on the results chain, the following objectives have been identified for Hunters:

- Increase awareness among hunters of the effects of wildfire on the watershed and the threats it poses to the community.- Hunters will believe that wildfires are destructive and have negative consequences. - Hunters will discuss risks and threats associated with wildfire and the benefits of using alternatives to burning.- Hunters will know how to use bait to attract deer instead of fire.- Hunters will attend sustainable hunting training.

Based on the results chain, the following objectives have been identified for Community Members:- Increase awareness within community of the effects wildfires on their watersheds.- Community members will believe that wildfires are harming their watersheds and reefs.- Community members will discuss ways to report wildland fires through the fire hotline.- Community members will practice responsible fire use.

Based on the results chain, the following objectives have been identified for Policy Makers:- Increase awareness among policy makers that current laws and lack of support impede enforcement of conservation regulations and

prosecution those starting fires.- Policy makers will believe that regulations need revision and department needs more support.- Policy makers will discuss new citations program and ways to support conservation officers and fire department.- Policy makers will approve citation program sand provide support to enable Conservation Officers and Fire Department officials to

prosecute fire violations.

Policy makers were identified as a target audience in the results chains, but the campaign will not target them directly. There is not survey data for the policy makers, and influencing this audience will be important not to change their behavior, but to get them to support several barrier removal goals. They have been included in the results chains to show the need to engage them, but will be considered partners and not an audience. These objectives will be accomplished through some of the campaign activities targeted to the other audiences (petitions, community meetings, etc.) to push through policies that will support the Increased Law Enforcement barrier removal.

4. Campaign Development

4.1 Creative briefs and Audience personas

Problem Statement: Conservation issue and campaign goal(s)

Guam’s diverse coral reefs are home to hundreds of species of marine life. These reef ecosystems are being destroyed by sedimentation from upland watersheds caused by a destruction of native forests by wildland fires. These fires are believed to be started by hunters using arson and personal fires (land clearing, burning of trash and excess vegetation) going out of control.

A Rare Pride campaign is launching in Southern Guam with the goal of preventing wildland fires in Southern Guam, reducing destruction of vegetation and sedimentation, and thus protecting coral reefs.

The specific goals for this target audience:Community members will report wildland fires by calling a free anonymous fire hotline. Community members will also help prevent new fires by using responsible fire use practices.

Target Audience: Southern Guam Residents (general community members & hunters):This audience spans all age groups, inclusive of youth and adults. A majority of homes have children living in them. Over 86% of all respondents were Catholic.

Most trusted sources for this community are manamko (elders), friends/family members, and local mayors. Preferred media was split, but a common preference of I94 as a local radio station, and the Pacific Daily News as a printed media were shown.

Some quantitative data: (percentages are averages of all separate target audiences)

27% disagree that wildland fires are a not serious threat to Guam’s coral reefs

45% think that wildland fires are naturally occurring, and people burning trash, hunters, and farmers were the top 3 choices for other ways wildland fires are started.

63% of people felt that those starting wildland fires should be prosecuted

Only 57% disagreed that wildland fires did not need to be prevented.

78% had started a fire in the last 12 months (top 3 reasons: BBQs, burning trash, burning excess vegetation)

50% of community responded that in the last 12 months, they had never considered reporting wildland arson.

Desired Action: What do we want target audience to do?

Residents will report wildland fires and use responsible fire practices to prevent wildland fires.

Barriers to Action: What might prevent the audience from taking the desired action?

Community members: Do not have a easy and safe way to report fires Do not feel it is their responsibility to report fires Do not feel that laws are adequately enforced Are not aware of responsible fire use practices Very nice list of barriers.

Benefit-Exchange/Reward: What reward(s) should the message promise the consumer?

Knowing that they are responsible residents concerned with the well being of their community and resources:

Reduce damage to private property Reduce destruction of native forests Reduce erosion & sedimentation of upland areas Protect clean water resources Reduce flooding Protect coral reef ecosystems

Messaging Strategy: I, a southern community member, will report wildland fires and be responsible when using fire in my home, because I am concerned for the well being of my community, and in providing resources for future generations.

See below for revised strategy.Support: How can the promise Reports show that wildland fires are a threat to Guam’s native

be made credible? forests Reports show that wildland fires can cause damage to private

property Scientific data shows that sedimentation is one of the major

threats to Guam’s coral reef ecosystems, as well as a major cause of river flooding

Scientific data shows that sediment clogs rivers, causing disruption of water flow and flooding

Quantitative data indicates that residents feel that fires are a threat to Guam’s watersheds

Image: What image should distinguish the action?

Stewardship/Ownership Caring Concerned for the availability of resources for future

generations Reporting fires is the responsible thing to do Doing your part to protect our resources

Openings: What communication openings and vehicles should be used?

When they are listening to the radio When they are shopping When they are at fiestas/social events When they are reading the newspaper When they are driving When they are at home When they are at church

Mandatories: What are some creative, message and/or campaign elements that MUST be included in creative execution?

Wildland fires must be prevented It IS your responsibility Fires are destructive Image of fiddler crab (flagship species) Logos of funding agencies (where applicable)

Campaign Materials: What materials do we want the creative team to produce?

Posters Stickers Brochures T-shirts Hats

Koosies Reusable shopping bags Car ashtrays Are there any specific items that hunters use?

Additional materials will be provided to target a second audience of hunters:

11% of youth hunters and 21% of adult hunters surveyed indicated that they had used fire while hunting in the last 12 months. 44% of youth hunters and 68% of adult hunters have never considered reporting wildland arson Using fire for hunting is not sustainable Fires provide a short term reward but create a long term debt by damaging the whole ecosystem Non destructive bait can be used instead to achieve same result Hunters who hunt without using fire will feel that they are conscientious and responsible, thinking of the good of the whole community and

the future of their families.

4.1 AUDIENCE PERSONAS The following audiences personas attempt to provide a vivid picture of the target audience. They were used in messaging development and aim to help understand the needs, wants, worries, and hopes of the target audiences, as well as their thoughts on key campaign threats and behaviors. These are fictional composites drawn from information gathered in qualitative and quantitative research and from general understanding of the target audiences.

a. Audience persona: Hunter Adult - Tomas Rivera, 30, from AgatIt all started a few weeks ago when my pare’ Juan was kicking back with me at the house. We were having a few beers and telling stories, and he brought over the most delicious deer kelaguen for chessa. I asked him how he got deer, since it was August, and the season wasn’t till October. Da lai’, he got mad at first and was telling me he had it frozen since last season. I was like, Par, that deer was freshest of the fresh. And I know even though we both hunt up at Andersen during extended special season, that’s long gone too. Hafa dude? What’s the catch. So he told me him and his good friend Josh were out hunting last weekend. He said that Josh had a cousin who worked for the conservation officers and that when they would go out, he would call him just to check up and see where they were patrolling that night, because there are usually only one or two units out per night. After they found out they were in the clear, they’d go out to Josh’s uncle’s land down in Inarajan and they’d wait. He said the first few weekends they tried their best, but they couldn’t catch anything, and they’d wait around all night. Josh got kind of impatient and decided to take matters into his own hands. He took out some gas from his car, and spilled it on a lighter and took some newspaper from his car.

My Par was like, dude like freaking out at first, but then Josh said not to worry, said his family has been burning there for generations, and that’s why they had good crops because the fire was good for the land. So they set the fire, but then they split, Josh said they’d come back next week.

Juan said when he went back, they only waited for like an hour, and then sure enough, the deer came out to the area and were nibbling on the new grass, and BAM, they got em! Each of them brought home a big deer, Josh even got a doe, I hear their meat is so tender.

At first I was like, yeah Juan, but what about the fire man? What if it gets out of control, and he said don’t worry cause a lot of Josh’s friends burn once in a while when they really need meat, and eventually the fire goes out. He said those big fires are from hikers and other people throwing their cigarette butts out the window. At first when he asked me to go, I was like, nah, I’m cool man, but then last week, my boss told me that they’re cutting back- they fired me. What am I going to do now? I got two girls, I need meat, I can sell some of the extra meat I catch for cash on the side. And plus, with Josh’s cousin, we’ll be guaranteed not to get caught- he hasn’t.

It’s Thursday afternoon. Only two more days until we can go back. I feel nervous and excited to see what we’re gonna see, just hope we stay safe. I gotta think of my girls, and my wife. I am doing this for them, but if I get arrested what would happened. I heard from the other hunters last season that one guy got arrested 4 times, but he was out by that day! And he still got his gear back because the officers couldn’t hold it, cause it was in his girlfriend’s name! Ha! These guys’ve been doing it along time, and we could really use the meat with the power bills going up, and my hours getting cut. I prayed at mass on Sunday that God would give us good luck and protect us. I feel a little guilty about burning, and cause I know this is against the law. My wife would kill me if she knew! But what are my choices? We need the deer, and we need them fast, and like Juan said, what’s the big deal if we set one little fire as long as we move around, you know? What could it really hurt? Biba Peskadot!

b. Audience Persona: Hunter youth – Grace Chargualaf, 15 from MerizoMy name is Grace and I am 15 years old and I stay in Merizo. I am pretty excited to go hunting with my dad and uncle again this weekend. I am still not really supposed to hold or fire the gun, but my dad is cool, he says that a lot of the laws out there are kinda stupid and that if I am gonna be real hunter, I have to learn to shoot to kill. He says not to worry, because even if we get caught by the conservation officers working for “the man” its not serious, and they’ll just take our gear, probably for themselves, and then let us go. See, just a stupid law taking up taxpayer dollars. We usually go out at night, down south, and depending on what we see, we use different ways of hunting. The BEST night I had was when we were hunting where my uncle Joe had burned a week before. He hunts almost twice a week and sells the meat to all of his coworkers at GPA. Man, there were SO many deer that night, munching on the grass. I got my first kill that night. My dad was said he was proud of me, said I was the best daughter a father could ask for.

I’ll never forget that night. I was so proud to, but I told my dad that I learned at school that fires were bad, they like cause the dirt to wash away or something, but my dad said that is nonsense that people who don’t understand our culture try to teach us. He said Chamorros have been burning since ever since, and that his daughter is going to learn the traditional ways of the family. Fires are natural and we are just using nature to help us out. He said a man needs to feed his family and can sell what’s left to support their need. I gave him attan baba and he said okay, a woman to. I don’t really talk about it with my other friends though, because some of them believe that crap and really think that fires are bad. Ok, shoot, speaking of friends, I gotta go meet up with my friend Cherise, we’re planning for her baby girl’s (my goddaughter) christening. Maybe I can get her a good deer for the fiesta this weekend. Esta laters.

c. Audience Persona: General Community Adult- Maria Cruz, 47, Santa RitaBuenas yan Hafa Adai. My name is Maria and I live in Santa Rita with my 3 sons and , two daughter in laws, and 6 wonderful grandchildren. Today was a bad day. We were out playing with kids this morning, and up on top of the hill we saw smoke. Not again. For the third time this month, some idiot had started a fire, and it was burning out of control. Why are people burning in dry season?! This fire was different though.. it was spreading fast, looked like it was moving down. Oh, Lord bless those families that live nearby. I hope it doesn’t hurt anyone this time. Already this season, two of my cousins have had their crops burned out, they lost everything, and Tom lost his small ranch too. And where was the fire department? Of course they didn’t even show up until it was over. I wanted to be angry with the neighbors, but honestly nai, it was Sunday, and everyone knows that you can’t call the fire department on Sunday. Shoot, I don’t even know who I would call! They should just see the fire and come, that’s their job after all. Not like they’re far away.

I remember one time many years back when my boys were still little, there was a fire by just up the ridge from our house. I tried to call someone to report it, but dai lai I kept getting forwarded and reconnected, finally I just said forget it. My husband got mad, he said that it was his second cousin who started the fire accidentally- he was trying burn some trash in his backyard and it got out of control and spread. He didn’t mean it, and my husband told me to mind my own business, not to go getting people in trouble over stupid things. It eventually burned out, after spreading and burning nearly 30 acres. I never called back since then, cause it’s not really my responsibility you know? There’s lots of people in our village, someone else can call and wait. Ay, and about that fire on the hill today… I am sure someone will call, and hopefully those fire men can come and do something to protect those homes. May the dear Lord protect them.

d. Audience Persona: General Community Youth- Zavier Quinata, 14, UmatacI was out off-roading with my friends yesterday and it was so fun! It’s really dry though, so there’s not a lot of mud, but man, those red dirt pits are great for taking the 4-wheeler. I was asking my friends if they knew why the spot we went to in Talofofo got bigger since last time we were there.. they said its cause of all the offroading, but my one friend Jesse (he’s kind of a nerd, you know) he said his teacher was telling him its cause of all the fires burning the land. He said those areas we were messing around in are called badlands. What? That’s crazy. Yeah they’re bad- bad ass! I don’t really see how fires are gonna cause all the soil to be lost, otherwise then why do farmers burn, you know? Its gotta do something good for the land.

Anyway, it started to get dark so we started heading home and we passed by these two guys, and what’s really weird, is they were starting a fire! We were just talking about that. We slowed down a little, but then we saw they had guns, and we got the hell out of there. Jesse said we should call the police or the fire department, or someone because what they were doing was illegal. I told him he better not! Those guys saw us looking at them, and we didn’t want any trouble. Plus would the police really believe a bunch of kids who were out offroading? They’d probably think we started the fire and we’d get it from our dads. He finally agreed to keep his mouth shut, and we headed home to get showered up and have some dinner.

e. Explanation for FLAGSHIP SPECIESDuring the project planning, three species were identified as potential flagship species:

Fiddler crab (Uca chlorophthalmus)- not currently listed as protected; native Guam Goby (Awaous guamensis)- not currently listed as protected; native Green Lace Shrimp (Atyoida pilipes)- not currently listed as protected; nativeEach of these animals was native to Guam and tied the concept of watersheds together (river or mangrove species). A question was asked during the pre-campaign KAP survey about which of these would best represent all of the plants and animals in the watershed. The fiddler crab was the preferred choice of a majority of respondents.

After further project development it was realized that a marine connection needed to be made to fully achieve the objectives of the campaign. A suggestion was made to use a Guam reef organism with “flame” or “fire” in the name to play on the behavior change. Two additional candidates were added in: Flame Angelfish (Centropyge loricula )- not currently listed as protected; native Flame Hawkfish (Neocirrhites armatus)- not currently listed as protected; native

Further pretesting was done with the flame angelfish, the coconut crab (Birgus latro) and the fiddler crab to see which is best received by the target audience focus groups to choose the flagship species and to see which images best relayed the key messages of the campaign. Pretesting showed that residents appreciated the marine connection and that they best understood images that included the angelfish. The Flame Angelfish was chosen as the flagship species (Frank the Flame Angel.)

It was immediately clear during the first few uses of the FSS in the campaign logo that it was a success. People understood the connectivity of the land to the sea. The only thing that perhaps could have been done differently was selecting more distinctive colors for the mascot, as people often thought he was “Nemo” based on the black and orange!

4.2 Messaging Framework: moving from SMART Objectives to key messages

The messaging strategies above were developed from the creative briefs, audience personas, and other qualitative research to assist designers, partners see a clear view of the direction of the campaign. They have been useful in showing how smart objectives were developed into key ideas. Looking at the key SMART objectives for both target audiences, a messaging strategy was developed to assist in slogan development. Key messages were then incorporated into all campaign materials and activities, using this template as a guide.

4.3 Campaign Work Plan

The following tables explain the overall campaign work plan. The first two tables will show the campaign activities and the various objectives they each meet for each target audience. It is important to be sure that campaign activities are supporting the SMART objectives of the campaign. This table assisted us in keeping track of our objectives. To achieve a well rounded social marketing campaign, it is also important that activities represent a variety of channels including community outreach, mass media, printed media, visual media, and campaign giveaways. The second table will show the campaign activities and which channels were used for each. The final table will give an overview of the campaign activities, timeline and budget.

KNOWLEDGE ATTITUDEINTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION BARRIER REMOVAL BEHAVIOR CHANGEGeneral Community General Community General Community General Community General Community

By September 2010, 55% of Southern Residents who do not

hunt will "disagree" AND "strongly disagree" that wildland fires are not a serious threat to

Guam's coral reefs (a 12 percentage point increase from

43% N=237) (as measured in Q26A).

By September 2010, 90%of Southern Residents who do not

hunt will "disagree" AND "strongly disagree" that

"wildland fires do not need to be prevented" (a 12 percentage

point increase from 73% N=237.)

By September 2010, 25 % of Southern Residents who do not

hunt will have spoken with someone about wildland fires in

the past 6 months (a 10 percentage point increase from

15%; N=237).

By September 2010, 76% of Southern Residents who do not hunt will find it "easy to report wildland fires" to authorities (a 10 percentage point increase

from 66%; N=237).

By September 2010, the number of Southern Residents who do

not hunt who have "never considered reporting wildland

arson" will decrease from 78% to 60% (-18 percentage points

N=134).

Radio interviews/in-studio specialsx x x x

Costume: Frank & Joe flame angelfish mascots xOUTREACH: School visits x x xOUTREACH: Community Campaign Presentations x X X xOUTREACH: Community Projects: Busstop painting xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Village Fiesta Displays x x x x xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Banners x x x xOUTREACH DIPSLAY: Watershed model x

GIVEAWAY: "Let's be Frank" Stickers xGIVEAWAY: Logo Sticker (7") xGIVEAWAY: Real Hunters Don't Burn StickersGIVEAWAY: campaign shirts (GCMP will purchase more) x xGIVEAWAY: Coloring Book- Mud Monster x x xGIVEAWAY: Pens (GCMP will purchase more) xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) Hats

GIVEAWAY: (hunters) coolers

GIVEAWAY: (hunters) carbiners GIVEAWAY: (hunters) binoculars (GCMP)MEDIA: Environmental News Sheet (will use MLS) x x x x xMEDIA: News Articles x X X xPoster#1: Wildland fires destroying our forest x x x xCampaign Song: Can't Burn This x xFactSheet: Guide to responisble fire use (GCMP) x x x xCampaign Billboards x x x xFire Prevention Month Kick-off 5 K Run/Walk x xGuerilla Marketing XWorking with Religions: Printing flyers/studies from the Green Bible Devotional; Forest Stewardship Training/Tree Plantings

Liberation Day FloatArt Contest (letter to schools, press release)OUTREACH: Field Trips -water & snacks

Video- PSA's

Hunting Festival

Hunter Trainings (plan est. 6/31)

Bait Stations (itemized est. 6/31)

SMART OBJECTIVES

Objectives Matrix: General Community

Full size objectives matrix can be found in Work Plan in appendix

KNOWLEDGE ATTITUDE BARRIER REMOVAL BEHAVIOR CHANGEHunters Hunters Hunters Hunters

By September 2010, 35% of Hunters will disagree that

wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs (a 15 percentage point increase from

20% N=46) (as measured in Q26A).

By September 2010, 80% of Hunters will agree that

individuals starting wildland fires should be prosecuted (an 13

percentage point increase from from 57%; N=46).

By September 2010, 50 % of Hunters will have "spoken with someone about wildland fires in

the past 6 months" (a 11 percentage point increase from

39%; N=46).

By October 2010, hunters will have spoken with anyone about using deer attractants (baseline

data will be collected during post campaign survey) n=79

By October 2010, 20% of registered Hunters will have

attended the sustainable hunting presentation run by conservation officers (DAWR). (600 hunters *

.20 = 120 hunters)

By September 2010, the number of Hunters who "use fire for

hunting" will decrease from 16% to 11% (a 5 percentage point

decrease; N=43.

Radio interviews/in-studio specialsx x x

Costume: Frank & Joe flame angelfish mascots xOUTREACH: School visits x x xOUTREACH: Community Campaign Presentations x X XOUTREACH: Community Projects: Busstop painting xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Village Fiesta Displays x x x xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Banners x x xOUTREACH DIPSLAY: Watershed model x

GIVEAWAY: "Let's be Frank" Stickers

GIVEAWAY: Logo Sticker (7") xGIVEAWAY: Real Hunters Don't Burn Stickers x xGIVEAWAY: campaign shirts (GCMP will purchase more) xGIVEAWAY: Coloring Book- Mud Monster x xGIVEAWAY: Pens (GCMP will purchase more) xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) Hats x x xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) coolers x x xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) carbiners x x xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) binoculars (GCMP) x x xMEDIA: Environmental News Sheet (will use MLS) x x xMEDIA: News Articles x XPoster#1: Wildland fires destroying our forest x xCampaign Song: Can't Burn This x xFactSheet: Guide to responisble fire use (GCMP) x xCampaign Billboards x xFire Prevention Month Kick-off 5 K Run/Walk x xGuerilla Marketing XWorking with Religions: Printing flyers/studies from the Green Bible Devotional; Forest Stewardship Training/Tree Plantings

Liberation Day FloatArt Contest (letter to schools, press release)OUTREACH: Field Trips -water & snacks

Video- PSA's

Hunting Festival

Hunter Trainings (plan est. 6/31) x x X x xBait Stations (itemized est. 6/31) x x

SMART OBJECTIVESINTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Hunters

Objectives Matrix: Hunters

Community Outreach

Visual Media Print Media Mass Media Giveaways Other

Radio interviews/in-studio specials xCostume: Frank & Joe flame angelfish mascots xOUTREACH: Outreach/school visits xOUTREACH: Community Presentations xOUTREACH: Community Projects: Busstop Painting x xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Village Fiestas xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Banners xOUTREACH DISPLAY: Watershed model xGIVEAWAY: "Let's be Frank" Stickers xGIVEAWAY: Logo Sticker (7") xGIVEAWAY: Real Hunters Don't Burn Stickers xGIVEAWAY: campaign shirts xGIVEAWAY: Coloring Book- Mud Monster xGIVEAWAY: Pens xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) Hats xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) coolers xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) carbiners xGIVEAWAY: (hunters) binoculars (GCMP) xMEDIA: Environmental News Sheet (will use MLS) x xMEDIA: News Articles x xPoster#1 xCampaign Song xFactSheet: Guide to responisble fire use (GCMP) x xCampaign Billboards xFire Prevention Month Kick-off 5 K Run/Walk xGuerilla Marketing x x xHunter Trainings (plan est. 6/31) xBait Stations (itemized est. 6/31) x

Channels

Channels Matrix

CORE GCMP In Kind BROP

UNIT COST Units $20,000.00 $9,000.00

Radio interviews/in-studio specialsCostume: Frank & Joe flame angelfish mascots 443.87$ 2 $887.74

OUTREACH: Outreach/school visitsOUTREACH: Community Presentations

OUTREACH: Community Projects: Busstop Painting 100.00$ 1 $100.00

OUTREACH DISPLAY: Village FiestasOUTREACH DISPLAY: Banners 100.00$ 2 $200.00

OUTREACH DISPLAY: Watershed model $300.00

GIVEAWAY: "Let's be Frank" Stickers 0.20$ 1000 $200.00

GIVEAWAY: Logo Sticker (7") 2.00$ 500 $1,000.00

GIVEAWAY: Real Hunters Don't Burn Stickers $1.50 200 $300.00

GIVEAWAY: campaign shirts 6.00$ 500 $3,000.00

GIVEAWAY: Coloring Book- Mud Monster 0.32$ 500 $160.00

GIVEAWAY: Pens 0.40$ 1000 $400.00

GIVEAWAY: (hunters) Hats 7.25$ 100 $725.00

GIVEAWAY: (hunters) coolers 5.81$ 200 $1,162.00

GIVEAWAY: (hunters) carbiners 1.33$ 200 $266.00

GIVEAWAY: (hunters) binoculars (GCMP) 4.35$ 200 $870.00

MEDIA: Environmental News Sheet (will use MLS) -$ $1,000.00

MEDIA: News ArticlesPoster#1 1.00$ 200 $200.00

Campaign Song 200.00$ 1 $200.00

FactSheet: Guide to responisble fire use (GCMP) 0.65$ 1000 $650.00

Campaign Billboards 800.00$ 3 $2,400.00

Fire Prevention Month Kick-off 5 K Run/Walk 2,045.01$ 1 $2,045.01

Guerilla Marketing 2.00$ 500 $1,000.00

Hunter Trainings (plan est. 6/31) $1,000.00 $500.00

Bait Stations (itemized est. 6/31) $8,209.30

Working with Religions: Printing flyers/studies from the Green Bible Devotional; Forest Stewardship Training/Tree PlantingsLiberation Day FloatArt Contest (letter to schools, press release)OUTREACH: Field Trips -water & snacksVideo- PSA's Hunting Festival

Turbidity Meter $1,000.00

Conservation Officers $60,000.00

Outreach Assistance $5,000.00

Printed Materials (for hunter training) $3,000.00

Masso Tree planting project $23,000.00

Contingency Fund $2,000.00

$15,979.75 $6,786.00 $89,300.00 $8,709.30

May

-10

Dec-

09

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Activities Overview: Budget & Timeline

4.4 Slogan and Logo Process

a. Slogan Development: the process of developing our slogan and logo started by contacting various ad agencies and asking them to create some demo work. Initially, four different organizations were contacted. The first lesson learned was that in Guam that is not the most efficient way to get the materials you want. Generally speaking, a client looks at various examples of a company’s portfolio, decides who they like best, and then contacts that company and works out a budget and timeline for the project. After nearly a month with little to no response, we decided to just go with the two companies we had heard from.

Two companies replied back to the solicitation for design samples, Adztech and Car & Card Advertising. Adzetch designed several mock-ups of logos, using the coconut crab, fiddler crab, and flame angelfish. They also came up with several campaign slogans including: Munga ma songi I tano (don’t burn the land); and Na Para I Guafi (Stop the fire). Other ideas included Puno I Guafi, which means to extinguish the fire. They created 6 different logo variations. Card & Card designed a few logos as well, using the Guam seal shape and watershed concept. All of the logos were taken to mayor’s offices and tested. Pretesting questions were used to decide which images people liked the most, which images relayed the key messages most, and which images created the most emotive responses. Overall, the Card’s logo was the best received, but people really liked the Na Para I Guafi slogan.

Adztech was disappointed their design work was not selected, and they charged a user fee for us to use the slogan, even though it was simple a Chamorro translation. To keep professional relationships, the fee was paid, but in retrospect, all aspects of the work should have been budgeted beforehand. Several iterations of the cards logo were created, including deer, houses, the crab, the

fish, and finally the logo was decided upon. It was four color for easy replication (although that was questioned by many graphics companies!) and several variations were created for use with different media.

b. The slogan, Na Para I Guafi, or “stop the fires” ties into our messaging strategy on so many ways. The overarching goal is to teach people about the impacts of fires and the need to prevent them. Paired with the image of a watershed in the logo, ending in a reef with Frank the fish, it creates the cohesive image of protecting our watersheds from the impacts of fires. The shape, colors and language instills a sense of local pride.

c. Talking with people throughout the campaign, the slogan and logo have been so well received. People love the image, especially our logo stickers. They have been seen on cars, fire trucks, books, etc. and mayor’s offices are constantly calling asking for more. People often see me now doing a public event and yell out, Na Para I Guafi.

4.5 Critical Analysis of Campaign Development

a. Reflect back on the project planning phase of your campaign and assess which steps helped develop your campaign strategy? What would you have done differently?

Throughout the planning phase, a great deal was learned not only about the target audiences, but about how things work with true grassroots outreach. In addition to stakeholder meetings and community presentations, dozens, even hundreds of focused conversations were held, some formally, some informally. It was these conversations which proved to be the most useful time spent in the planning phase. The KAP survey provided some information, but it was talking to people that revealed the needs, what people thought, what worked and didn’t work in the past, what people wanted to see in the future. Talking to mayors, farmers, hunters, store owners and just regular people really allowed a better picture to be developed about who the “Southern General Community” really was, and what it was going to take to meet their needs.

In retrospect, too many formal meetings were held. These meetings were stressful, required a lot of coordination, set a high expectation based on past meetings, and did not really get the heart of the issues. People acted and reacted very differently in a group setting with mayors and other higher ranking individuals around. The formality often created tension, challenges in keeping conversation focused, and often ended without a whole lot of insight being gained. In contrast, simply driving around getting to know people proved to be more effective at garnering genuine information, good and bad. Much more time would have spent assisting mayors with projects, volunteering with events, and building relationships with the community members.Additionally, it would have been great to be able to attend more village events and fiestas if time allowed.

b. Reflect on the work you did with creative briefs, messaging strategies, marketing mix, campaign work plan, and slogan. What do you think worked well and what could be improved upon?

The logo and slogan for the campaign are great. They incorporate local language, colors and shapes as well as the entire watershed model. There was a lot of pretesting and conversation held before deciding, including community members in the process. The images are well received, not only as attractive, which would help people to be more apt to place them on their car or in a place where they would be seen, but people also seem to get the key messages from simply looking at the image. The other issue was that while the slogan was in Chamorro, I learned that many people did not understand it right off. When we pretested the slogan, people knew what it meant. Looking back, using the mayor’s staff who are all mostly older Chamorro people may have biased the pretesting. Many of the younger people are not as familiar with the language, and it may have benefitted to have both Chamorro and English.

The process of development could have been done much better. A large amount of money was spent on slogan development (which was essentially translating a phrase into Chamorro), and the logo design was also quite costly. A more defined contract or expectations guideline would have been useful to avoid spending so much money.

d. Do you feel your initial assumptions about your target audience were accurate?

It is hard to say what the initial assumptions were. I was raised in this community, so I understood Chamorro people, or Guamanian people very well, and the local culture, but I think that for the most part I really didn’t know much about my target audiences as far as their needs and wants. I feel that many of our assumptions were validated by the research. People didn’t understand the impacts of fires on the watershed, nor did they understand that there were alternatives.

One thing I hadn’t really expected was the warmth and receptivity of the southern community. They love their villages and are more than just residents. In most cases, their families had lived there for generations and there was a very strong sense of pride in their village and in what the rest of the island perceived about their village.

Additionally we were correct in thinking that there were those stubborn individuals who refused to listen, to believe what was said, or to change we just had to work around them and focus on the rest of the willing community.

e. Do you think this was the right messaging strategy for your target audience?

There has been nearly all positive feedback from the campaign. People have been receptive; have thanked us repeatedly after each display, outreach presentation or event. After analyzing the post campaign KAP survey, it seems that the target audiences

knowledge and attitudes are shifting. Both the general community and the hunting community have become advocates for the campaign, talking to friends, recognizing the logo and working to get the messages into new places. Na Para I Guafi was the way to go, and preventing fires for the benefit of the entire community was an important message to send out.

f. Do you think you used the right mix of channels and activities for your target audience, for the community as a whole, for your culture?

While a variety of channels and activities were used, Guam is a bit of a unique situation. There are so many different campaigns happening on the island, so much mass media, so much competition for attention that we decided to take a more grassroots approach. Looking at the channels matrix, you may see that many of the activities were “outreach” and very few were mass media. We felt that to really get our messages where we needed them to go, we had to take this approach and talk to people one on one, at their level, in their villages and at their fiestas.

There could have been so many more activities. If there was more time, it would have been ideal to be at every single village fiesta. It would have been awesome to have had a display at every event, every fair, every opportunity to reach the target audience, but time and staffing limitations made that a real challenge.

It would also have been great if it wasn’t an election year as there were SO many campaign billboards, radio ads, TV ads and other things going on, it made it challenging (and expensive) to compete. It would have been great to do some video PSAs on TV or to have had some more print space to discuss fires, but with the election, it wasn’t possible. Perhaps as part of the follow up plan we would like to do more of these things.

Finally, it would have been great to do even more community projects. Spending more time in the villages doing clean-ups, painting bus stops and tutoring kids. In the end it was these activities that really built the necessary rapport with the mayors and it is those villages in which we have had the most response and active participation.

g. What changes would you make if you were to run a follow-up campaign?

Perhaps saying “changes” is not the right thing to say. I would not change anything we did really, because each step of the way and each obstacle or challenge has created a valuable learning opportunity. I think moving forward I would like to do more. As mentioned above, I would like to spend more time with each village, doing village hikes, community clean ups, tree plantings, bus stop paintings- whatever it took to get to talk to people and interact with them. These activities are very time consuming and hard to tie directly to objectives, but in our community, they are the MOST effective way to get the support of the community (and to have a captive audience to talk to!)

I would like to do more with the hunting community now that a relationship has been established. I would really like to get Agriculture involved and have more training programs for the hunters. Only three clinics were held, and most of the participants were from those villages. We need to do more clinics and in more places. One message that came out loud and clear was that this was a group within the community that had not been reached out to before. They are fishermen, land owners, voters, and could really be an asset if we focused some more time and energy on them and on teaching them and providing more alternatives not only to burning, but to being more effective stewards of their land.

h. Any other observations and reflections?

An excerpt from my RP Blog, I feel it says it all.

The entire Rare process has changed my life for sure. I have learned so much, I have met so many new people, and I feel like I have grown in so many ways. I will never look at environmental education the same way again (yes Adam, I said it- I am a convert). I will never again embark on a new project without first understanding specific goals and measures of success (man have I become annoying to work with!). I will never assume and always pretest! And let’s be honest, as useful as they are, I will forever hate surveys J If I did my own theory of change, I’d say that I have changed in every stage! My knowledge, attitudes & perceptions, communication, behavior have all shifted because of this campaign. Two years ago, I couldn’t have imagined that I would be buddies with a bunch of hunters, buying camouflage clothes, sniffing salt licks, discussing deer urine varieties and getting my firearms license! Ha! Or that I would know the issues of the hunters, the conservation officers, the fire department, the forestry department (notice the lack or MARINE anything in there!) Never did I think I would be able to name each southern mayor, know their staff, or organize a community event that didn’t involve the ocean! We’ll save the long winded version for the final report, but I am just amazed at how different life is now. As I work on my follow up plan, I see so much potential for the future. There is still so much to do. In two years I have barely finished the foundation- after November, the work will continue. I don’t know exactly what that will look like, but I can say that I feel prepared through the thousands of hours of Rare training (okay, maybe a slight exaggeration!), the experiences along the way- both the good and bad, the tremendous support I am now getting from my lead and partner agencies, and from the excitement that is brewing around town about what’s to come. Probably the biggest change for me right now is that this campaign has become about so much more than the number of fires per year, the turbidity of the water or even the health of the reef. It is about understanding people, their needs and the deficiencies in the system to meet those needs. It is about culture and respect. It is about listening to what people say (and don’t say). It is about building relationships and nurturing those relationships through honesty and communication. Thanks Margie for being the catalyst to this introspection. It is good to know that I am not the only one who is spending a little time each week to reflect and appreciate the process. To look back at where we came from, to look at where we are and to look forward and attempt to even fathom what’s to come. I highly recommend it!

5. Campaign Activities

5.1 Campaign’s Smart Objectives for Knowledge (K), Attitude (A), and Interpersonal Communications (IC) and Results for each objective.

a. GENERAL COMMUNITY (NON-HUNTERS)

ToC SMART Objectives Metric Method

Baseline (Pre-campaign)

Result (Post-campaign)

Change (in percentage points)

Chi-Square (X2) Significance

SMART Objective Attainment

Interpersonal communication GENERAL COMMUNITY

By September 2010, 25 % of Southern Residents who do not hunt will have spoken with someone about wildland fires in the past 6 months (a 10 percentage point increase from 15%; N=237).

Q28: In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about wildland fires?

KAP Survey Analysis 15 34 19 >95

significant 190

Attitude GENERAL COMMUNITY

By September 2010, 90%of Southern Residents who do not hunt will "disagree" AND "strongly disagree" that "wildland fires do not need to be prevented" (a 12 percentage point increase from 73% N=237).

Q26C: Wildland fires do not need to be prevented.

KAP Survey Analysis 73 79 6

<95 not significant

50

Attitude GENERAL COMMUNITY

By September 2010, 76% of Southern Residents who do not hunt will find it "easy to report wildland fires" to authorities (a 10 percentage point increase from 66%; N=237).

Q27A: Tell me whether you would find it easy or difficult to report wildland fires to authorities


<95not significant

0

Knowledge GENERAL COMMUNITY

By September 2010, 55% of Southern Residents who do not hunt will "disagree" AND "strongly disagree" that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs (a 12 percentage point increase from 43% N=237).

Q26A: Wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs.


significant 183

b. HUNTERSToC SMART Objectives Metric Method Baseline

(Pre-campaign)





Interpersonal communicationHUNTER

By October 2010, hunters will have spoken with anyone about using deer attractants? (baseline data will be collected during post campaign survey) n=79

Q30: in the past 12 months, have you talked to anyone about deer attractants?

KAP Survey Analysis N/A 37 N/A N/A N/A

Interpersonal communication HUNTER

By September 2010, 50 % of Hunters will have "spoken with someone about wildland fires in the past 6 months" (a 11 percentage point increase from 39%; N=46).

Q28: in the past 12 months, have you talked to anyone about wildland fires?


<95not significant

155

Attitude HUNTER

By September 2010, 80% of Hunters will agree that individuals starting wildland fires should be prosecuted (an 13 percentage point increase from 57%; N=46).

Q26C: Individuals starting wildland fires should be prosecuted


significant 177

Knowledge HUNTER

By September 2010, 35% of Hunters will disagree that wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs (a 15 percentage point increase from 20% N=46) (as measured in Q26A).

Q26A: Wildland fires are not a serious threat to Guam's coral reefs.


significant 340

b) Describe how well your campaign reached its SMART objectives. Where did you see the most significant changes? Explain why any SMART objectives were not met.

a. Knowledge

Our knowledge objectives were met and exceeded for both target audiences. We aimed to increase knowledge that fires on land are a serious threat to Guam’s coral reefs. We achieved 183% of this objective for the general community and 340% with the hunters. This was by far the most significant objective attainment in the survey. Perhaps the goals set were a bit low as the community had good baseline knowledge of this threat, but it was encouraging to see that over 50% of hunters and over 65% of the general community responded favorably in the post campaign survey. I believe that some of these percentages may be a little higher in reality, but the question was phrased in a very confusing way. It asked respondents to state to which degree they agreed or disagreed that wildland fires were not a serious threat to Guam’s reefs. We phrased the question this way to avoid “all positive responses” but in retrospect, I think the actual SMART objective questions could be a little more direct. I had several enumerators and respondents mention how confusing that particular question was. That being said, it was still a great increase in knowledge and a move in the right direction.

Question 25A asked to what degree they agreed or disagreed that wildland fires were naturally occurring. This was not a SMART objective question, but is important to the work of the campaign. Whether or not the community agrees that fires are damaging to the reefs and forests, if they believe that fires are naturally occurring, they may feel that there is nothing that can be done to stop them. This question also showed encouraging progress in the right direction with a 15pp increase in general community members and a 26 pp increase in hunters who disagreed.

b. AttitudeThe general community was asked whether they agreed or disagreed that wildland fires did not need to be prevented. Again, somehow we managed to ask another negative question for a SMART objective, which may have affected the survey results due to respondent confusion. The general community results for this question were not statistically significant and the % achieved cannot be assessed. Interestingly, the hunter data was statistically significant and showed a big shift in attitude about this question, from 44% pre campaign to 76% post campaign, a 22pp increase. While this was not a SMART objective for this target audience, it is a good indication of the shift in attitude for hunters.

The SMART objective for hunters aimed to measure their attitude towards how whether they agreed or disagreed that those starting wildland fires should be prosecuted. We achieved 177% of this objective, with 80% of hunters agreeing or strongly agreeing (a 23pp increase).

We also tried to gauge the community’s attitudes towards which threats were most important. A list of threats was presented and they were asked to indicate the top three threats to the native plants and animals in Guam’s watersheds. It was our hope that respondents would select wildland fires as one of those top threats. There were significant changes in both target audiences, with 60% of the general community (a 19pp increase) and 76% of hunters (a 31pp increase) selecting fire as one of the

most important threats. This again shows positive moment in the attitude of the community, hopefully moving them towards the validation phase, and into action.

c. Interpersonal CommunicationOur goal for interpersonal communication was simple. We wanted people to talk to each other about wildland fires, about the causes, the effects, the billboards, etc. We achieved 190% of the objective for the general community, though the data for the hunters was not statistically significant and cannot be assessed. This may be attributed to a very small sample size of this audience in the pre campaign survey.

Respondents were also asked if they had heard that there were wildland fires in Guam’s watersheds. While cannot be linked directly to interpersonal communication, it is an interesting question to look at to see if there is an increase in people hearing about fires since the pre campaign survey. The general results of all of the respondents showed an increase from 22% to 45% of people who had heard about wildland fires, indicating that there is indeed more information about fires being communicated.

While many of the campaign images focused on the impacts of wildland fires, such as the campaign poster and billboards, they did not directly state that fires were caused by people and that Guam had a very low occurrence of natural fires. The campaign display game addressed this as did the community and school presentations, but it may have been advantageous to include this messaging into more campaign materials. It may also be a good idea to do some supplemental surveys with more direct questions about these important knowledge concepts to get a more accurate representation of what people know.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?op=1&view=global&subj=100000782062459&pid=31289383&id=1521459455

5.2 Campaign ActivitiesThe following tables will explain in great detail the materials, activities, mass media, and communality outreach that was done during the campaign implementation. When available/applicable, a photo has been provided. The table also identifies the target audience(s), campaign messages that are supported, and other pertinent information such as what pretesting was done, how many materials were distributed and how/where, and what results were gathered and lessons were learned. These tables have condensed all campaign materials into one place. A larger version of this document is available in the appendix.

d. Table 3: Printed Materials Activity Tracking Name of Material & Description

Small Photo of Material Target Audience

Campaign Messages supported(include which Stage of change and SMART objective this message met)

Date design completed

Pretesting method and results

Number Distributed / Number Produced

Dates when material was distributed

Number of activities where materials were distributed (include where they were distributed: school visit, etc.)

Results (qualitative and quantitative) and lessons learned. Include how it was measured.

Logoall audiences

na para I Guafi

(stop the fires)

Mar-10 went to mayors offices; tested in office; changed design; narrowed from designs; tried deer, houses, crab, fish, etc.

n/a n/a n/a Have received numerous comments about logo- people love the shape, the colors, the design.

3/2010Slogan

n/a

all audiences na para I guafi Mar-10

went to mayors offices; tested in office; changed design; narrowed from slogans and variations n/a n/a

was well received; people like the chamorro use though there was some confusion about the meaning.

Let's be Frank Stickers

general community let's be frank Mar-10

tested at G3 fair; quizzed students, they did not understand- decided not to use/repeat. 100/100 3/2010

Charter day, school visits, G Fair

did not repeat this material- people did not understand it even though it was cute.

Car Logo Stickers

all audiences na para I guafi Mar-10

pre-tested at charter day & with mayors office; did research on colors, sizes, was most popular. 650/750

3/2010-present All activities

stickers were in high demand; saw them on many cars, a fire truck; had to reprint 250 after first 500 ran out

Giveaway Pens

see below

all audiences na para I guafi Mar-10 none 975/1000


gave away at all events; gave to partners; were good prompt to website and cheap easy giveaway.

Display Banners

all audiences

wildland fire are destroying our island: report fires call 911; it is our responsibility Jun-10

went to mayors offices- asked which colors, photos were most impactful; chose from several designs. 2

6/2010-present

use @ all activities

banners were useful for displays to attract people over; started a lot of discussions and people asked if photos were from Guam; were shocked.

Poster Setsall audiences

wildland fire are destroying our island: report fires call 911; it is our responsibility Jun-10

chose most impactful from banner images based on converstaions for banner. 40


the posters were not an effective tool; there were given to teachers and mayors offices, but no one took them at displays.

Coloring Book

all audiences (primarily for children of TAs)

wildland fire are destroying our island: report fires call 911; it is our responsibility Apr-10 none 700/700


kids loved these! They were actually designed for the EEC to include campaign messages; were a great tool to engage kids (and their parents) and to give away at school presentations.

Mascotall audiences Apr-10

pretested various FSS types for understanding impact to reefs- asked mayor's staff, students; decided on fish. 2

4/2010-present n/a

mascot was cool, though very difficult to use when I was alone. Was nice as a static display to attract people and for photo ops.

T-shirt all audiences

na para I guafi: for our forest, for our land, for our sea

Mar-10 tested various designs with coworkers and friends; colors were selected based on input from

450/500 3/2010-present

All displays I have seen the shirts all over the place. People like to colors and images; only one left are

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=213646&id=100000782062459



community members.

youth sizes. May reprint more.

Fire Brochure

all audiences

responsible fire use; alternatives to burning; report wildland fires Mar-10

did several iterations but did not pretest with community- ran by fire department, forestry, Cos 500/1000


these were a good tool for engaging partners and for providing more in depth info. Unfortunately, half were lost to the fire department. Would like to get more to put at mayors offices.

Display Game

all audiences

wildland fire are destroying our island: report fires call 911; it is our responsibility Mar-10

tested at charter day and G3 fair; revised questions and method. 1

3/2010-present n/a

this was the best tool of the whole campaign. Fun, informative, good manned or not. Hard to measure, but was the most effective tool for K&A.

Watershed model

all audiences Apr-10

tested mock up at charter day and found to be useful. 1

4/2010-present n/a

Also very useful for visual illustration of sedimentation and it attracted people to the table. Live moss hard to maintain but really cool!

Coolers huntersI don't burn, na para I guafi Aug-10

asked Cos/hunters which of 10 items they would prefer. 135/200

9/2010 _ 10/3/2010

hunter Expos & 5K

WELL RECEIVED. Hunters loved them, said they would be useful. Was hard to only give one.

Hats hunters I don't burn Aug-10


9/2010 _ 10/3/2010

hunter Expos & 5K

Again, had to fight off the hunters. They loved these hats and have already seen 3 hunters wearing them.

carabiners

hunters na para I guafi Aug-10


9/2010 _ 10/3/2010

hunter Expos & 5K

these may have been better for GC, hunters were not quite as interested in them, but a good prompt.

Binoculars hunters na para I guafi Aug-10


9/2010 _ 10/3/2010

hunter Expos & 5K

This was a great combo of safety and messaging. Will have to see with hunter surveys.

5K shirtsall audiences Sep-10 none 130/300 10/3/2010 5K

people loved the shirts. Saw 10 of them day after the run! Have lots of extras and will use for future giveaways.

Billboardsall audiences

wildland fire are destroying our island: report fires call 911; it is our responsibility Aug-10

tested when tested banners 3

8/2010-present

Heard lots of good feedback from mayors, hunters, and friends. Survey results showed that ____ of community saw billboards.. Not sure how accurate that is.

hunter stickers hunters

real hunters don't burn Sep-10

requested by hunters 50/300

9/2010-present

these are exsisting stickers but we repreinted and branded them.

e. Table 4: Community Outreach Activity Tracking

Type of Activity & Description

Small Photo of Activity

Target Audience

Campaign messages supported (include which Stage of change and SMART objective this message met)


Number of activities conducted and date(s) of Activity

Location of Activity

Number of people attended


Comments

Display: watershed mock-up; poster board

General Community

Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC

Not pretested- used this event to pretest the game, stickers, logo and slogan of campaign to be used for community display. Showed that sticker was well received, though people did not understand the Chamorro slogan. Game worked well, watershed mock up was useful.

3/9/2010 Charter Day- University of Guam

200 This was a pretesting event. Pretested sticker, game, watershed model, etc. Took feedback and modified items to be more useful for future displays. Decided to get a watershed model made. People asked to buy stickers!

Had display booth with brochure, stickers, watershed model mock-up, and interns. Talked to people, pretested materials- was informative and fun, though was mostly students.

Display: watershed model, Frank's Fire Trivia

none General Community

Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by

used display that was pretested ; also used this event to pretest Let's Be Frank stickers: showed that students did not understand the slogan. Also

4/13/2010

George Washington High School- G3 fair

400 Found that game was too hard to do for many participants. Survey of students after found that about 40% could name a key message, so game

students came in waves and rotated around fair for ~45 min. It was exhausting having to go

using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC

showed that game did teach students about reef damage from fires.

was simplified. Let's be Frank- only 5% understood message. Decided not to use.

over all materials with each of them for 6 hours. Worked well, but I think I will change the game to be more interactive.

Display: Watershed model, Franks Fire Trivia, brochures, stickers

General Community & Hunters

Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC,KH, KA, KIC

changed game from G3 fair and added dice as it was too challenging to answer ALL questions, so they had to answer which ever #s they rolled. Also, started working with groups instead of individuals to increase conversation.

4/24 & 4/25

Talafofo Village- Banana Festival- Ipan Beach Park

300 Great conversations with people. Seemed surprised at the answer; would leave and return with family members. Met "the fisherman" and they enjoyed the game and the campaign key messages.

new interactive display worked great! Really was able to have good conversations with people as it was more slow paced and they really got into the display. Watershed model worked wonderfully to show sediment. Frank was only a decoration as I had no assistance. Kids like him. He needs fins and eyeholes to be more effective.

Posters were not printed in time. Need them for next event. Gave out stickers & pens to adults; Frank Stickers and coloring books to kids. Met a hunter who I gave bait tools to test out (Ray), that was great.



Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Repsonsbily; Report wildlan fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC,KH, KA, KIC

n/a 5/1 & 5/2 Inarajan Fiesta- Gef Pago

200 Unfortunately, the first day was mostly wasted. The mayor told me to come from 9-4 and the major festivities did not even begin that day until 4. I probably spoke to about 25 people all day. However, I did meet up with some fisherman/activists who were very pleased to see a campaign about fires (instead of fishing). Day two was great. The day was very busy and there were lots of people of all ages. There

was even a large group of tourists (they were attracted to the display even though they couldn’t really read it). Again, game proved extremely effective at engaging people, model was useful and explaining erosion and run off, and youth LOVED the coloring books!


General Community


n/a 5/1/2010 Espiritu ni Fanihi Festival- Skinner Plaza

200 While this event was not targeted at southern residents, it was still a really great thing to participate in (and support Cheryl). Frank made his animated debut and was great, though some of the design flaws were realized. Frank needs better pants because you can see his legs (and clothing!) He needs an eye hole so the person wearing him can see/breathe. He needs some sort of fins. Will contact Brooke to make

changes on Joe first.


none General Community & Hunters

Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC,KH, KA, KIC

n/a 5/5/2010 Yona Community Center

1 epic failure - learned that I need to advertise much more (not depend on mayor's office).

No one came except the mayor's assistant who only stayed so I wouldn't be alone. There was only one major advertisement of the event in the newspaper two weeks prior. Lesson learned- if this is to be done again, much more time and energy needs to be spent promoting it around the community.

Presentation/ School Visit


Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior

n/a 5/12/2010

Agat Elementary

75 quizzed students at the end. could name main threats to reefs, causes of fires, result of sediment, who to call to report fire, and said they would tell their parents.

3 presentations with tammy jo about coral reefs, threats, fires, and calls to action

change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC




none 5/12/2010

Umatac Elementary


1 presentation for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. Talked about coral reefs, threats, fires and calls to action. Frank showed up and kids loved him!



Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation

none 5/12/2010

Merizo Elementary


did one presentation for the entire school! Talked about coral reefs, threats, fires, and calls to action; Frank made a visit and kids loved him (though they did ask where his arms were!)


to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC




none 5/18/2010

Salt Water Anglers Festival- Ypao Beach Park

150 had a few good conversations with parents, but no results gathered; was in bad place and spoke to only about 50 people.

set up display for Salt Water Anglers fair per the instruction of our agency director. It was good though we saw very few students since we were off to the side and there was a lot going on.



Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs:

none 6/12/2010 & 6/13/2010

Agat Mango Festival

1000 several people came back to thank me for the display. Had conversations with some media folks. Kids from Saturday cam Sunday wearing their shirts :)

great event, though was not in the best placement. There were tons of people in waves. Gave out shirts, people really liked display.


KGC, AGC, ICGC,KH, KA, KIC

Community Hike

General Community


none 6/19/2010

Masso River Hike- Piti Village

120 quizzed participants at the end and asked major threats to reefs/watersheds. They named fires/sediment

was a partner with EEC in this event. Talked about/showed fire and sediment to participants.

Bus stop Painting

General Community

Stop the Fires, For our Forest, For our Land, For our Sea. GCK

none 7/2/2010 Bus stop Beautification- Talofofo

5 mayor was very happy with the bus stop- of 5 we did one with the campaign theme. He asked me to come back and do 7 more!

in the future, I would have a stencil and a plan!

Parade Float: banners, mascots

General Community

Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community

None 7/21/2010

Liberation Day Float- Hagatna

5000 none this was a very uninvolved display, more to increase awareness with graphic


Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC

banner and cute mascots.

Mascot appearance & presentation

General Community


None 7/31/2010

Kids Fishing Derby- Asan Beach Park

80 all kids wanted coloring books and to take photos with frank (who they called nemo!)

showed up at the awards presentation in mascot- gave brief presentation about fires effect on reefs, and handed out coloring books.



Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can

none 8/21/2010

Kids Fest- Skinner Plaza

50 not a successful event. Gave out maybe 12 shirts, but rain ruined event.

event was poorly organized; did not have a canopy and set up outside, but then it rained

prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC

badly for the rest of the day. All participants left; flooded out.

Cleanup General Community

Na Para I Guafi Promotion- supporting Go Native Campaign; networking with southern residents to promote upcoming hunter Expos. No specific objs

none 8/28/2010

Cocos Island Cleanup- Cocos Island

50 spoke with 4 merizo residents who worked at cocos island. They had all heard about the Expos and were hoping to attend! They said they would invite a friend.

went to support Cheryl (Rare alumnus- Go Native), but also brought frank to talk about campaign with participants.



Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.

none 9/1/10 & 9/2/10

UOG Sustainability Conference- Marriott Hotel

200 Met with several people from UOG who asked about possible partnerships with UOG outreach efforts. Will wait to hear back about meetings.

had a small display mostly for professionals and potential partners to showcase campaign and meet other projects.

SMART Objs: KGC, AGC, ICGC

PowerPoint Presentation and Game



used same game as display, but in PowerPoint format.

9/15/2010

MDA Wahoo Divers Night- Outrigger Hotel

60 did quiz/game at the end! People knew the answers and asked many great questions. Had two new Facebook friends join and ask how they could help the campaign.

None

Hunter Expo Hunters Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: HK, HA, HIC,

tried out format of event at this event (for next two). Found that open discussion worked well, displays were well received, but need someone to man the registration table as not everyone signed in.

9/17/2010

Agat Hunter Expo- Agat

19 post campaign surveys show that 33% of hunters interviewed attended Expos. Doesn't say which one.; hunters requested more Expos.

presentations on hunter safety; impacts of fires to reefs, alternatives to fire, and deer attractants; it was really hot since AC was broken, but we managed.

HBR, HBCHunter Expo Hunters Wildland Fires

Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: HK, HA, HIC, HBR, HBC

none 9/22/2010

Inarajan Hunter Expo- Inarajan

29 post campaign surveys show that 33% of hunters interviewed attended Expos. Doesn't say which one.- see hunter training video for qualitative results

presentations on hunter safety; impacts of fires to reefs, alternatives to fire, and deer attractants; much better than Agat- Tammy filmed video.

Hunter Expo Hunters Wildland Fires Need to be Prevented; Wildland Fires hurt Guam's reefs; Community Members can prevent fires by using fire Responsibly; Report wildland fires - call 911; Stage of behavior change: contemplation to validation.SMART Objs: HK, HA, HIC,

none 9/29/2010

Merizo Hunter Expo- Merizo

27 post campaign surveys show that 33% of hunters interviewed attended Expos. Doesn't say which one. Asked for more trainings, game management, and are excited about festival! Offered to help plan it.

presentations on hunter safety; impacts of fires to reefs, alternatives to fire, and deer attractants; awesome participation.

HBR, HBC5K Run General

Community


none 10/3/2010

5K Run- Asan Park

170 quizzed participants at the end on fire facts. Could all name # fires, causes, effects, and ways to prevent them!

had 5K with fire facts posted along course;

f. Table 5: Mass Media Activity TrackingType of Activity & Description

Small Photo of Activity (if possible)

Target Audience Campaign messages supported(include which Stage of change and SMART objective this message met)


Medium Number of broadcasts/publishing and date(s) activity was broadcast/published

Number of people that saw/heard it


Newspaper Article (written by Tammy Jo)

none Adult General Community/Hunters

"A land with fires is a land without respect"Setting fires is not respectful Fires are set on purpose by huntersSetting fires is selfishFires must be prevented

not pretested

Pacific Daily Newspaper

3/3/2010 Circulation: 25,500

good comments on online version; got call from Erin Thompson to do story on the campaign! Also heard from teachers, said they enjoyed it.



"What's killing our corals? It's our island"Fires cause sediment which kills reefsFires are caused peopleFires must be stopped

not pretested


3/10/2010 Circulation: 25,500

good comments on online version; people seemed responsive to article.



"Help save the land and coral; use your phone"Wildland fires kill coral reefsWildland fires need to be preventedReport fires, call 911

not pretested


3/17/2010 Circulation: 25,500




"Protecting the land by protecting your home"wildland fires need to be preventedwildland fires destroy private property

not pretested


3/24/2010 Circulation: 25,500




"Na Para I Guafi, stop the fires"campaign overviewwildland fires destroy our land, forest and reefs

not pretested


3/31/2010 Circulation: 25,500

after this article I received an email from the attorney general's office saying they had read all of the articles and wanted to have a meeting to discuss stricter enforcement.

Newspaper Article (written by Erin Thompson)


"From the hills to the ocean, grass fires destroy one of the reef's biggest protectors"Fires kill trees that protect corals.Fires harm coralsFires must be prevented

not pretested


4/11/2010 Circulation: 25,500

had a gentlemen come up to me at a festival and knew all of the impacts to coral! He recited parts of the article, event technical ones.

Radio Show none Adult General Community/Hunters

Wildland fires are destroy our resources; Wildland Fires need to be prevented;

not pretested

KPRG 89.3 4/26/2010 heard back from several friends, said the show was great (only small part was about campaign) future shows will have fire sections

Newspaper Supplement (Man, Land & Sea)

Adult General Community/Hunters

Wildland fires are destroy our resources; Wildland Fires need to be prevented; wildland fires are set on purpose

not pretested


4/31/10 Circulation: 25,500

lots of great feedback from students, partners-.

Radio Show none Adult General Community/Hunters

Hunter Expo, BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN,

not pretested

K57 8/31/2010 had a woman come up to me at a display saying she heard the show, wanted more info.

MLS- Huner Expo story

none Hunter Hunter Expo, BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN,

not pretested


9/10/2010 Circulation: 25,500

had 7 calls from local hunters wanting to attend.

5.3 Exposure to Pride campaign activities

Table 6: Exposure to the Pride Campaign Activities

ACTIVITY

PRE-CAMPAIGN (% OF TARGET AUDIENCES)

POST-CAMPAIGN (% OF TARGET AUDIENCES)

GENERAL COMMUNITY

HUNTER ALL AUDIENCES GENERAL COMMUNITY

HUNTER ALL AUDIENCES

BILLBOARD: Question 31 A: Seen a billboard with information about the impact of wildland fires on Guam’s watersheds?

11 13 11 28 53 33

MASCOT: Question 31C: Have you seen a costumed character/mascot promoting Guam's watersheds?

6 13 7 17 16 17

POSTER: Question 31D: Seen a poster about preventing wildland fires and protecting Guam's watersheds?

21 30 23 49 70 53

Explain which activities received the most or the least amount of Exposure for your target audiences and why.

According to the table, the mascot had the least Exposure which is probably true. It was very challenging to have the mascot at many events because I usually manned the displays by myself and did not have another person to help me, so I was not able to wear it. Looking at the baseline data, 7% of the population said that they had seen a mascot before we started the campaign, which main mean that there is confusion about Frank and another mascot, or could be survey error from false positives. With only 17% of the total population saying that they had seen the mascot in the post campaign survey, it may be advantageous to get “Frank” some more mass media Exposure (perhaps a TV interview with Frank) to at least get the name out there before he appears at more events.

The billboards showed a 22pp increase, though it is hard to say how accurate that number is considering that 11% of the total population said that they saw one before the campaign had started. The billboards only went up in August, and just before the peak of campaigning for this year’s election. There were hundreds of billboards all over Guam throughout the few months the billboards were up, so they may have been lost. It will be interesting to see how this changes now that the election is over and as the other billboards come down. Our campaign billboards will be up until December 31st, and will hopefully be more impactful when they stand alone.

The poster shows a 30pp increase, with 53% of the total population saying that they have seen it. This result again concerns me because we only distributed about 50 posters. Looking at the baseline for this question, 23% of the population said that they had seen such a poster before the campaign materials were developed, so there may be other posters out there with similar messages, and it is impossible to say whether the 53% saw one of the campaign posters, or something else.

This is all of the survey data for campaign Exposure, but there is other qualitative data to support that other campaign activities had better Exposure. I will go into more detail about this in Section 5.4. When the survey was designed, we did not know what types of activities we would do and the questions were kept broad. For this reason it is difficult to figure out whether the responses are for our materials/activities or others going on as there are a lot of messaging in Guam. We did not add more questions to the survey because we felt that it was already very long, though in retrospect, a few more may have been very useful in assessing this particular section.

5.4 Critical Analysis of Social Marketing Provide a critical analysis of which of your campaign activities were the most and least effective for reaching your target

audience (give 3-5 examples for “most” and “least). This analysis should take into consideration cost of activity, amount of reach it had, and its impact on behavior change.

Most effectiveI believe the most effective activity this in this campaign was the village fiesta displays (also used at other events we were invited to). The display cost very little money to set up once the materials were purchased (>$100) and allowed one on one interaction with the target audiences, usually in their own village. The reach was limited to the number of people who attended the festival and walked around, but it allowed such a depth of conversation and interaction with the participants. In 5 minutes a group of people could answer 6 questions that encompassed every key message of the campaign, from knowledge to behavior change. Being in the southern villages allowed me to use specific examples, many of which I had photos of from recent fires. These events were very time consuming, but they were well worth it. Each person who walked away from these displays had not only a wealth of information presented in little, bite sized pieces (and played as a game so it was memorable), they also had some sort of prompt, be it a pen, a t-shirt, a coloring book or a sticker. It was difficult to measure quantitatively the impact of these displays. The only down side was that they took a considerable amount of time and energy to man for several hours, and were usually held on the weekends or in the evenings.

Another event which was a big success was the community watershed hike. While this was not a campaign specific event (was done in partnership with the EEC), we had over 120 participants show up to do this hike, even though it was not

well advertised. We had biologists present to talk about the uniqueness and value of the area, then I led a portion of the hike where I focused on threats to the watersheds, and discussed fires and their causes and effects in more detail. After the hike we received great feedback from the participants and nearly all of them signed up to hear about the next one. With more planning and strategic messaging, these could continue to be great tools for getting the key messages out while also getting the community to see the environment. Aside from the “I love my watershed” giveaways (which were paid for by GCMP and included our campaign logo and a “top tip” about composting instead of burning trash) the only real cost for the event was time and planning, as the mayor’s office provided the food and refreshments afterwards.

Similarly, the Fire Prevention Month 5K Run took an event that is very popular in Guam and made it part of the campaign. Every weekend on Guam there is anywhere from 1-5 different running/biking events and they are very well attending. The aim for the even was to partner with the Fire Department in celebrating the kick off of their Fire Prevention Month. By adding the “fire facts” to the run, we were able to get messages to participants in a fun unique way. We had a Q&A at the end and gave away prizes- and so many people stayed! This event was a bit costly, at $2,000 for 170 participants. Funds raised from the run were donated to GEEEPI to support the Guardians of the Reef program. Participants all walked away with a run t-shirt and a wealth of knowledge, many of the participants came up to me afterwards to thank me and say how much they had learned (at a 5K!) Two of the participants were firefighters, each of whom came up to me and said that there were really thankful for the event and for all of the great work we were doing with the campaign. This even could be easily repeated and be much cheaper with more partners and planning. I hope to help the fire department repeat it next year, if possible.

Two campaign materials which were very effective were the car logo stickers and the t-shirts. It can be tricky to say that materials are effective since they only contained the slogan, but these were really effective tools at getting people to participate in events, to play the game, and to promote the campaign. The logo stickers were a little expensive, at $1.80 each to produce, but I have seen then around on cars, and they look as good as the commercial stickers on other vehicles. They were well pretested and I have been asked repeatedly by mayors and other hunters to bring more to them. The shirts were also a big hit and I have seen numerous people with the campaign shirts walking around. The shirts were also a bit costly at $6.00 each, but because people get so many free shirts on Guam which they never wear, we had to make them nice so that people would want to wear them as an everyday, stylish shirt (which according to pretesting and conversations with recipients, they are).

Least Effective

Neither the “Let’s be Frank” stickers or the campaign posters were very effective. We printed a small quantity to see how they would work and then decided not to make more. The posters were inexpensive, visually appealing and were pretested with several groups who said that they felt an emotive response to the image, but no one took them from the outreach displays, and only a few of the mayors posted them up. In this case I don’t think it was the poster itself that was ineffective, but the method of distribution. More time probably could have spent “guerilla style” in spreading them to make them more effective. As mentioned in the table, the “Let’s Be Frank” stickers were a fun play on words, but people just didn’t get the point (let’s be frank about what’s causing fires). This could tie into the next least effective activity which sadly was the mascot. Frank was NOT ineffective in that he didn’t add a great fun aspect for kids and give the campaign a face; he just wasn’t very well pretested. Often children mistook him for Nemo the clownfish. I also listed the mascot here because I wasn’t able to use it nearly enough. As I mentioned above, hopefully we can spend more time in the next year with the Guardians of the Reef making a name for Frank with the southern youth (which were not highly targeted in this phase).

The fire use brochures were informative and well designed, and very cheap to produce (>$1 each) but I don’t think that they were very effective at actually getting the information to people who weren’t actively seeking it. Often at fairs and festivals, people pick up dozens of these brochures, and I am not sure that they look at them again. Part of the problem was that the fire department (our main partner on the brochures) misplaced 500 of them which they were to place with each of their stations, to be given to people applying for burning permits (and about to take action). They did not assist at all with the distribution or promotion of these brochures within their department and I feel that if they didn’t find them useful, that was a good “qualitative” indication that maybe they weren’t the best materials for this goal. I placed brochures at many of the mayor’s offices and fire stations myself, and when I would return, they were all still there, or at times they were buried under five other organizations’ brochures. I think we need to rethink the brochure and find a better way of delivering the information in a cheap and easily distributable way (and I will still like to find the 500 that are missing as well).

Which activities are you most likely to repeat in the future?

The activities that will most likely be repeated are those that had the most impact on the target audiences, as mentioned above. I personally think those that had little cost were some of the most effective and impactful on several levels. As part of my work plan for next year, I already plan to do more community watershed hikes, fiesta displays, school presentations (through Guardians of the reef) and hope to do more community beautification projects. These events gave me the opportunity to speak with people one on one, show them the threats in the field, interact with them in fun ways and get them to think critically, and created great buy in with the community leaders.

It would be great to do another series of news articles when possible to highlight the issue of fires, though it is challenging to compete with other pressing issues associated with the military build-up. Media coverage of events is always great, and generally easy to get and free! I hope to also provide assistance and encouragement for the fire department to repeat the 5K run next year for fire prevention month.

I would also like to reproduce many of the materials used if budget allows. The stickers, shirts, and pens were great tools for engaging people at the outreach displays. The coloring books were cheap and an easy way to send key messages home with kids. The hunter giveaways will be discussed in the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN section, but I would like to reproduce those for the general community as well as they are great tools for IC.

Are there any additional activities you would implement in the future?

While they are not “new”, two activities at the top of my priorities list to complete are the campaign song and guerilla marketing, both of which are pending my return. I think that these could possibly be two of the most fun and different activities in the whole work plan and I am excited to complete them and see how they go. In addition to doing more community hikes, I would like to partner more with Forestry to implement more forest stewardship events and tree plantings. I would like to continue to partner with the EEC and some of the non-profits on Guam to do more events for college students like quiz nights and contests. There are several things in my work plan that I was not able to accomplish during this year, and I would still like to try them. Working with religious groups, PSA and art contests and making an awesome float for next year’s Liberation Day parade are also on the list. Of course, as part of my follow up plan, I will also be implementing a Hunting Festival to celebrate the work of the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN at the end of the hunting season, and many of the other activities will be great to showcase at this event.

6. Campaign Results

6.1Methods of Determining Results

a. Pre- and Post-Campaign Quantitative SurveyDescribe how you implemented both your pre- and post-campaign surveys. Where did you implement your survey? Who helped to implement your survey? Where there any differences between how you conducted the pre- and post-campaign surveys?

In both the pre and post campaign survey processes, surveys were collected by enumerators interviewing respondents, then inputted and analyzed using Survey Pro®. This data will assist in assessing our success in achieving SMART objectives set during the planning phase, work done during the implementation phase of the campaign, Exposure campaign materials and in the development of the follow up plan. Several data sets can be found throughout this document and a copy of the questionnaire and all analysis tables can be found in the appendix.

In the pre campaign survey, the enumerators sampled all villages of Guam which were stratified by the total population of Guam. A total of 385 surveys were collected. In the post campaign survey, enumerators only sampled southern Guam, and villages were re-stratified based on only the Southern population. A total of 383 surveys were collected in the post campaign survey, from only southern residents. Similar enumerators were use to conduct both surveys including mayor’s office staff, high school students, college students, friends, family and colleagues. Surveys were conducted around the same time, though a shorter time period was allowed to complete post campaign surveys.

Several survey questions were removed for the post-campaign survey such as Trusted Sources, Preferred Media, and questions about activities which were not conducted during the campaign implementation. These questions are labeled red in the questionnaire. Several questions were also added to assess Exposure to new campaign activities and materials. These questions are labeled in green in the full questionnaire.

Table 1: Background information on the pre- and post-campaign surveys

VillageAdult Population Size

Survey sample size

Pre-Campaign Surveys collected

Post-Campaign Surveys collected

Agana Heights 17 0Barrigada 24 0Dededo 15 0Hagatna 1 0Mong-Mong TM 18 0Sinajana 6 0Tumon- Tamuning 12 0Yigo 9 0Piti 1666 12 5 12Asan-Maina 2090 15 3 12Ordot-Chalan Pago 5923 44 27 55Mangilao 13313 98 36 90Agat 5656 42 72 35Santa Rita 7500 55 54 47Umatac 887 7 16 7Inarajan 3052 23 14 24Merizo 2152 16 15 23Talofofo 3215 23 17 27Yona 6484 48 24 51TOTALS 51938 383 385 383Total Southern Residents 283 383

Confidence Interval

5.81 4.99

During the pre campaign survey, a sample size of 383 was determined using surveysample.com based on a total population of 154,794 (Guam 2000 census), confidence level of 95%, and confidence interval of 5. Although an appropriate sample size was collected during the pre campaign survey (385) during analysis of pre campaign data, Northern residents were filter out, leaving us with a sample size of 283, and a confidence interval of 5.81 (for southern population size- 51938). In the post campaign survey, 383 samples were collected from only southern Guam with a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 4.99.

b. Comparability of two surveys

The following table shows the comparisons of various independent variables. As mentioned above, we are only interested in data from southern Guam residents, the target audience, so all northern respondents have been filtered out of all survey data. We hoped that there will be no statistically significant differences in the pre and post campaign data sets. In instances where a significant difference is found, we must assess what sort of biases this could bring to the data analysis.

Table 2: Independent Variables to Assess Comparability of Pre- and Post-Campaign Surveys: Southern Respondents Only

Variable Pre-campaign level(%)

Post-campaign level(%)

Difference (in percentage points)


GenderMale = 58 50 -8 <95

not significantFemale = 42 50 8

Target audience groupHunters= 16 21 4

not significantGeneral Community = 85 79 -5

Age group

14 or younger= 12 2 -10

>95 significant

15 to 20= 38 34 -4

20 to 24= 11 12 1

25 to 29= 6 7 1

30 to 34= 9 10 1

35 to 39 = 6 7 2

40 to 44= 5 7 3

45 to 49= 5 9 4

50 to 54= 5 6 1

55 and older = 5 6 1

Formal education

No school = 10 4 -5

>95 significant

Primary = 9 12 3

Secondary = 57 35 -22

Some college= 15 33 18

Some trade= 3 5 2

Religion(top 4 listed)

Catholic= 88 79 -9

< 95not significant

Other Protestant= 1 3 2

None= 5 3 -2

Refused to answer= 2 5 3

Others= 4 8 4

Ethnicity (top 5 listed)

Chamorro= 72 67 -4

<95 not significant

Filipino= 15 16 1

White or Caucasian= 5 6 1

Palauan= 0 2 2

other Pacific Islander= 4 2 -2

others= 4 6 2

Employment Sector (main ones shown)

Work for wages= 31 42 11

<95not significant

Subsistence work= 10 7 -3

Student= 48 43 -5

Retired= 3 4 2

No Major Activities= 6 3 -3

Other= 2 1 0

Briefly explain how the pre- and post-campaign surveys are comparable (ex: they are equal across all independent variables) or how they are different and why they are different (ex: post-campaign survey has higher % of men than women).

The comparison a few statistically significant differences in the pre and post survey populations. As discussed above, there was a significant difference in the stratified sample sizes from each of the southern villages, but this was done intentionally as only data from the southern villages was needed. The age of the populations are different in that there are less youth post campaign than pre campaign. This difference is mainly attributed to the fact that the northern data which was filtered out of the pre campaign data contained many youth respondent. The formal education also shows a difference, which can be correlated with the differences in ages of respondents.

Campaign activities were targeted at general community and hunters of all ages, so it is not expected that age of respondent will create a bias in survey data. Several questions were analyzed using age group as a secondary filter to see if there was a significant bias created

by the difference. This table shows that there were varied differences in percentage increases of adults and youth in response to the questions, but no consistent bias is evident.

Table: Screening for potential bias due to AGE differences in pre and post campaign survey

YOUTH ADULT DIFFERENCES IN ADULT AND YOUTH (IN PP)

QUESTION: PRE POST DIFFERENCE IN PP PRE POST DIFFERENCE

IN PP

Wildland fires are naturally occurring (disagree or strongly disagree) 4 19 15 15 31 16 1

Wildland fires are not a serious threat the Guam's coral reefs (disagree or strongly disagree) 37 67 30 41 65 24 -6

In the past 6 months, have you spoken with anyone about wildland fires? (yes) 24 42 18 14 36 22 4

c. Qualitative Research If you collected qualitative research about your campaign’s activities during implementation, then please describe here how you

collected that research, including who you spoke to and what feedback you received.

Other data collected during the campaign included numbers of participants at various events, numbers of materials given out. Other informal qualitative data on campaign activities can be found in section five in the materials and activities tables.

A separate Hunter Survey was conducted throughout the campaign to try and better reach the target audience. This survey was a self-completed questionnaire that was distributed in southern Guam and at a gun/ammo shop with the hope of getting more honest responses from hunters about specific questions. A full copy of the Hunter Questionnaire can be found in the appendix. Only a very small sample size has been collected as of this time (16 hunters). However, from this small sample size, we were able to get certain information about which campaign giveaways to purchase for the expos. One question in the survey asked, other than their weapon, what the two most important things was that they brought with them hunting. 75% hunters indicated that they brought water (or a water vessel) and 50% that they brought food. We initially thought to purchase

water bottles, but after further discussions with hunters learned that those would not be useful, so we instead ordered small camouflaged coolers to keep water and food cold during long hunting trips. Other interesting data included that 63% of hunters said that they did not have a hunting license. This could indicate that our estimate for number of hunters based on the number of hunting licenses issued was too low, and that distributing tools as they purchased their licesnses was not a good strategy. We instead decided to distribute BR tools at the expos and w are working with DAWR to address this by getting permission to bring the licenses/tags to the villages with us to sell them. 88% of hunters indicated that they got their information about hunting from friends, further supporting our objective on increasing communication among hunters about fires and alternatives.

This survey data cannot be analyzed at this time for pre and post campaign data, as only baseline data has been collected, but the questionnaires will continue to be distributed throughout the hunting season (and BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN implantation phase) and can be analyzed again in March to see if there were any significant changes in responses to the various questions about behavior change, attitude and barrier removal.

6.2 Barrier Removal

Management Options: briefly explain which management option you used to help achieve behavior change for your campaign.

Several Management Options were considering during the project planning phase of the campaign. After completing a series of Barrier Removal Assessment Viability Overview (BRAVO) assessments, we initially decided to create Locally Managed Hunting Areas (LMHAs). This option would involve setting aside areas as deer feeding areas. The areas selected would be where they would have the least impact on the watershed and they would be cleared in a controlled way to reduce sedimentation. After they were cleared legumes or some other nitrogen fixing plant would be plated to attract deer to feed (similar to post burn sites). The community would be involved in the process at every step and would eventually take ownership of the areas. The option was deemed preferable because there is capacity within local agencies to do this type of project and because community involvement would be key. It is not as destructive as burning and could actually help to repair soils in degraded areas and could also act as a precursor to reforestation efforts. We hosted a meeting with the needed BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN partners. During this meeting it was decided that this

management option was not feasible within the timeframe of the campaign. The main issues were land tenure and assessing where these areas would be, cost of managing the project, enforcement and overall lack of capacity and time from the necessary partner agencies.

At the end of this meeting we brainstormed ideas to see what more feasible options could be done. Representatives from the Department of Agriculture, the Guam Fire Department, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Forestry all agreed that deer attractants would be an inexpensive option that would provide and immediate alternative to hunters. We agreed that we could also require hunters to attend a training program in order to receive the tools. More research was done, and a complete BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN was developed.

a. BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN Details:

What? The Barrier Removal strategy for Guam focuses on working with local hunters and providing an alternative to burning. Some local hunters will burn large areas of grassland/forest to force out deer. The deer are also attracted to the new growth that occurs after the burn, and this makes the deer easier to catch. The fires are devastating to Guam’s vegetation and watersheds, and create badlands which generate erosion and run off which smother adjacent coral reefs. By preventing the burning, we can protect the coral reefs from sedimentation.

Our strategy is to acquire bait stations and deer attractants which can be used to draw out deer without fire. These hunting tools will be provided to hunters free of charge after they attend a brief presentation of sustainable hunting practices, which will be conducted in their village for free, and sign a hunter’s pledge to not use fire. This strategy addresses the need for drawing out the deer, and is easier than burning. The benefits of using the bait stations outweigh the costs of the fires on the environment.

To ensure that this is the most feasible barrier removal option available the bait tools are relatively easy and cheap to make and instructions will also be distributed to allow hunters to make and sustain their own. Also feasibility is increased due to the better fit with the social marketing campaign and the other barrier removal activities. Within the time scale, taking into account the next hunting season is from October 2010 to March 2011, the barrier removal plan will be able to be implemented across all villages in the southern part of Guam (the desired target site). As a result of the Rare Pride campaign and this barrier removal strategy, there will be a decrease in the number of wildland fires, and a reduction in the amount of sediment on the reef. The campaign will be deemed successful if the average number of vegetative fires recorded per year decreases 50% from 1670 to 835 by December 2011, and an additional 50% to than 418 by December 2012. Long term

conservation result will be seen over time as the amount of sediment is reduced and percent of coral cover in monitoring sites increases. (see Campaign Action Plan for full list of SMART objectives).

The relationships that are built with the hunters will be continued throughout the year through meetings/activities and other hunter training programs may be developed. At end of the season (March 2011) a hunting festival will be held to showcase the use of their BR tools, and the benefits of sustainable hunting practices.

Who? The Guam Coastal Management Program will partner with the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) Game Management and Law Enforcement sectors. GCMP and Rare will be the main funders of this project. Distribution of supplies, coordination of training events, and establishment of reporting centers will be done together. Other partners will include the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Guam Farmers Cooperative, the Southern Soil and Water Conservation Board along with the Volunteer local mayors and the hunting community. Level of involvement of each will vary with different parts of the strategy including providing information and assisting with networking.

When? The Barrier Removal Plan will take place at the end of the social marketing campaign just prior to the beginning of the hunting season (October 2010- March 2011), though development will happen throughout the year. Testing of various bait stations will be done by southern farmers with depredation permits from February through March 2010 to see which tools or combinations of tools are most effective with Guam deer. Preliminary surveys will be also be conducted in January & February 2010 to assess which bait/tool would be preferred among hunters and gather information about general hunting preferences and behaviors to be used in developing incentives. A workshop will be scheduled for mid 2010 to train key hunter(s) to lead presentations on sustainable hunting practices which will then be conducted in southern villages in August – September 2010 before the hunting season begins. All hunters who wish to participate in the “free attractants/bait program” will have to attend this training. Actual dissemination of bait tools will be done by DAWR just prior to hunting season in September 2010, with the use beginning October 1st 2010. (Detailed timeline in BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN document).

Source of Funds External to Rare (please include any funding, staff time and expertise from sources external to Rare that will be supporting the Barrier removal strategy)

Sources of Funds Amount of Funds When they Will be Received

Any restrictions

GCMP $70,000 As needed (grant Oct. Purchases must go

09- Oct. 10) through the Government procurement process.

Division of Forestry & Soil Resources

$20,000 Already present (Seedlings to be planted in Jun/July 2010)

Must be planted in partnership with DFSR

Total Funds (external to Rare)

$90,000

Funds Request from Rare

Baiting tools $8,500 Dependant on success of grant application.

Hunter Trainings $500 Dependant on success of grant application.

Total Funds Rare $9,000

Total Funds $99,000

b. SMART objectives and results for the Barrier Removal stage of the ToC.

HUNTERSToC SMART Objectives Metric Method Baseline

(Pre-campaign)



Barrier Removal HUNTERS

By October 2010, 20% of registered Hunters will have attended the sustainable hunting

Number of participants signed into Expo

Expo sign in sheets

0 75 63%

presentation run by conservation officers (DAWR). (600 hunters * .20 = 120 hunters)

registration sheets.

Q31F: have you attended a community meeting about deer attractants

KAP Survey analysis

n/a 42

The table above shows the number of hunters who attended the three hunter Expos. A goal was set of 20% of the registered hunting community (600 in 2009). Only 63% of the SMART objective was achieved, but only 3 hunter Expos were hosted in September so we hope that in the next three Expos, to be held later this year, we will see more hunters and meet the rest of the goal. A question was also asked in the survey about whether or not one had attended a community meeting about deer attractants, and 42% of the hunters surveyed replied yes. While this was not a SMART objective, this is a great indication that there were hunters in this survey population who attended the training and received the campaigns key messages.

c. Barrier Removal ActivitiesDescribe the various Barrier Removal activities conducted during your Pride campaign with qualitative and quantitative evidence of success for those activities.

The barrier removal tools that were distributed were assorted deer attractants. We wanted to make sure that the tools we purchased actually worked in Guam, so a variety of tools were purchased and given out to local hunters with depredation permits (which allow them to hunt year round). This was a challenging part of the planning process as it was difficult to get feedback from all of the hunters. Many took the materials but did not try them right away or never responded to inquiries about the attractants. We gave a deadline for feedback so that we could be sure to order the attractants in time for the Expos. Some of the hunters responded quickly, praising the attractants and asking for more. Some did very detailed pretesting involving both captive and wild deer. All of the feedback was taken into consideration and we selected products we knew had worked well, that were easy to transport and were reasonably priced.

Three hunter Expos were held at community centers in Agat (9/17/10), Inarajan (9/22/10) and Merizo (9/29/10) in Southern Guam. Expos flyers were handed out at mayors offices, village stores, fire stations and to gun/ammo shops. Presentations about the Expos were done at the Anderson hunter safety briefings. A small story

about the Expos was published in the Pacific Daily News.

Expos started off with a presentation by Mark Aguon, conservation officer and hunter. He gave a brief overview of hunting on Guam, an overview of ethical hunting practices/regulations and hunter safety. We then went over the effects of fires on the watershed and then presented the various deer attractants along with testimonials of bait testing on Guam. The floor was then opened to questions and participants were allowed to explore the various tables with displays on commercial attractants (demos set up with information), do-it-yourself attractants and were given one deer attractant- Rut’n Apples. The other attractants were delayed in shipping so a sign up sheet was available to indicate which supplies they were interested in receiving once they arrived. At the end of the Expo, hunters were given some of the hunter targeted giveaway items including the coolers, carabiners, binoculars, hats and campaign materials including the Fire Use Brochures and the campaign stickers.

BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN BUDGET

Total from Rare: $9,000.00Total from GCMP: $999.90

BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN TOTAL BUDGET: $9,999.90

cost per unit units budgeted total actual expense

Training & Coordination

venue, food, refreshments, trainer {Mark Aguon} and any $1,500 N/A $1,500.00 $1,140.00

other misc materials*

Commercial Attractants

Sample Baiting tools n/a n/a $290.70 $290.70

Evolved Habitat Mineral Blocks- Corn/Molasses $4.99 100 $499.00 $499.00

Evolved Habitat Mineral Blocks- Apple $4.99 100 $499.00 $499.00

Tink's # 69 Doe-In-Rut Lure- 1 oz. $9.99 200 $1,998.00 $1,848.64

C'Mere Deer Shake & Take $19.99 55 $1,099.45 $1,119.43

C'Mere Deer Shake & Take (GCMP)* $22.22 45 $999.90 $999.90

Evolved Habitats Rut'n Apples $9.99 200 $1,998.00 $1,998.00

Estimated Shipping* $100.00 1 $100.00 $0.00

DIY Attractants

Local Molasses Goat Feed (50 lbs) $20.00 3 $60.00 $19.50

Minerals/supplies for homemade mineral lick $100.00 1 $100.00 $47.90

Supplies for homemade feed bucket $100.00 1 $100.00 $53.32

Other misc supplies (contingency) $100.00 1 $100.00 $0.00

Raffle Items (hunting tools) $20.00 20 $400.00 $0.00

Balance (just in case!) $255.85 $0.00

Totals: $9,999.90 $8,515.39

Balance remaining: $1,484.51

Proposed use for remaining BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN funds: Conduct three additional hunter Expos ($250- trainer fee, $150 food) - $1,200 with $284.51 for additional printing, giveaways, and incidentals

d. Critical analysis of Barrier Removal How well do you think the barrier removal strategy was implemented? What could have been done to improve the

implementation?

Overall, the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN went very well. We had a total of 75 participants. Mark Aguon was a perfect choice as the trainer, as he is well respected as both a hunter and a conservation officer. He was very well received by the hunters and did a great job balancing his roles. He shared personal stories and answered questions and was very honest and open with the participants. He will definitely be the first choice to use for the next set of Expos, and will be a key in getting the Department of Agriculture to adopt this program as part of their role.

The attractants (or descriptions thereof) were also well received. Hunters were very interested and everyone took one home. They all signed up to receive info on the other tools when they arrived, and many mentioned they would be trying their own feeders. The hunters also agreed to share their findings with me, such as what worked best, which tools they would like more of, and anything else that we could provide that would be useful in preventing future fires being started for hunting. Many also mentioned that they had a relative or friend who had not attended who they would be sharing information with, and asked me to send them info about future events so these hunters could attend.

By far the best feedback received was all of the gratitude. At each Expo nearly every hunter came up to Mark or myself and thanked us for doing this program. One gentleman said that it was surprising that such a program had never been done before, and that he hoped outreach to the hunting community would continue. They thanked us for making the trainings accessible by coming to their villages and for sharing the knowledge and attitude messages with them- many did not realize the direct impact fires had on the reefs. They also like the giveaways and said that we had done a good job selecting appropriate items- they especially liked the coolers and hats.

Several things about the implementation could have been improved. First off was the advertising. We gave flyers to the mayors offices and placed them at key places where we thought hunters would visit. In some instances, like Merizo, the mayors did a great job of promoting the event. I saw the flyers at stores within the villages. In others, like Agat, there was

virtually no support. We could have spent more time at the night market handing out flyers and perhaps tried to get some sponsors like a radio station to promote it for free. We also promoted the event at the VCO hunter training (required to do special hunts on Anderson) and did a few radio shows, and one small story in the newspaper. We did not put out a formal press release for worry of being overwhelmed or receiving negative feedback.

The next set of Expos will be better attended, simply by word of mouth. Now that we have a good core group of hunters, we can use them to relay the message to other hunters. In Inarajan, most of the people who attended had been invited by a relative or friend from the mayor’s office. The mayor also put up a sign in front of his office (on the main road) advertising the Expo, and submitted it to the village news section of the newspaper. Continuing to use these key influencers, getting more sponsors, such as a radio show or TV news program to cover the event will also increase attendance. We can take what we learned from the first set of Expos and be sure to improve and get the word out earlier for the next one.

The deer attractants did not arrive on time for the training. We only had one type of attractant to give out which was very frustrating. This was a big flaw in time management, as I wanted to wait until I had feedback on all of the attractants from the hunters who were pre-testing it. I called and emailed and was given deadlines, but they were not met, so just ordered them from the best data I had. This can be used to our advantage however, because now as the new attractants arrive, I can call the hunters and meet with them to deliver the supplies, which will allow time for discussion and feedback. We will also be using mayor’s offices as pick up points for the attractants and can use sign out sheets for monitoring of which hunters come back (and can get more qualitative data from them later).

What were the successes and challenges you faced with barrier removal?

As mentioned above, the most important success with barrier removal was building the relationship with the mayors and the hunting community. While there is still work to be done, and many more hunters to speak with, these first preliminary steps have started a work that I feel will lead to behavior change and growth with the target audience. I also feel that we have found several champions for this cause, in Mark Aguon, Ed, Ray (a hunter who assisted in pretesting the attractants), and have show the conservation officers that enforcement needs support through community outreach.

One of the most difficult parts of the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN process was getting key stakeholders to the table. Finding hunters to attend planning meetings, or even to talk to was a big challenge throughout the campaign. Even the natural resources agencies are very strained because of the current DOD plans to move to Guam. This year the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was released and all agencies were tasked with reviewing this 10,000 page document with plans for

the military relocation. The community was up in arms about it, and it was challenging to find time for people to discuss more local issues like fire as a threat when such a huge environmental threat was looming.

Another challenge is the lack of enforcement of fire laws, which will be discussed below. Many people commented on the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN saying that it was a good idea, but that they real problem was with the fire department, or the police department, or the attorney general’s office. They said that they have been reporting fires but that nothing is ever done about it, so they had stopped. To be successful in changing the behavior of hunters, we also need to look at enforcement. Do you feel your campaign included the right barrier removal strategy to achieve behavior change? If not, then what are

you thought for a more appropriate strategy?

The hunter Expos were definitely the right starting place for barrier removal. It allowed open dialogue with hunters about the issue of fires, and gave them free barrier removal tools. It started communication with the hunting community, an audience which had not really been reached out to before except in ways of enforcement. While these Expos are the right tool, there is concern about their sustainability. For the next few months, I will use the remaining BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN funds to conduct three more Expos, but in order for this strategy to be truly successful, the Department of Agriculture (DoA) needs to spearhead this initiative and make hunter trainings a part of their strategic plan. Preliminary conversations with the Director and the Chief of the Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources have been promising, and feedback from these Expos has shown them that there is a need for more programs like this. Another option may be seeking out grants and establishing a community organization with the hunters to make this program self-sustainable. Mark can train the hunters to lead the Expos, and small stipends can be paid. A meeting will be held with DoA upon completion of this program to discuss these possibilities, and this will be a large portion of the campaign follow up plan.

The hunter Expos will not accomplish the goal alone. This is one key component in the behavior change of the hunters, but other things need to be addressed such as the lack of enforcement by not only the conservation officers, but also by the fire department and the attorney general’s office. The community petition that will be started later this year will seek stricter enforcement and prosecution of wildland arson laws. Currently it is only a misdemeanor to start a wildland fire, and there has not been a single prosecution in 10 years. Now that a rapport has been established with southern communities, and they have the knowledge about fires, it is time to move to the next level of getting them to peer pressure those around them to stop setting fires. Petitions to these agencies should help move along existing draft legislation that will address some of these lack of enforcement issues.

6.3 Behavior Change

a. SMART objectives

Briefly describe your behavior change goal for your Pride campaign.

There were separate behavior change objectives for the General Community and Hunters. To be thorough, these will be discussed separately. With the General Community, our goal was to get people to report wildland fires. For the Hunters, our goal was to get hunters to stop using fire to hunt (the main cause of wildland fires).

SMART objectives and results for the Behavior Change stage of the ToC.

The first table shows the SMART objective for the General Community. The goal was to get community members to report wildland arson. In the pre campaign data, a very high percentage of the population said that they had never considered reporting wildland arson. Our SMART objective sought to decrease that number as people moved from pre-contemplation towards action.

Table: Behavior Change- General Community ToC SMART Objectives Metric Method Baseline

(Pre-campaign)%

Result (Post-campaign)%



SMART Objective Attainment%

Behavior Change GENERAL COMMUNITY

By September 2010, the number of Southern Residents who do not hunt who have "never considered reporting wildland arson" will decrease from 78% to 60% (-18 percentage points N=134).

Q16: in the past 6 months I have never considered reporting wildland arson

KAP Survey Analysis

78 47 -31 >95 significant

172

The data shows that there was a significant decrease in people who said they had never considered reporting wildland arson. This shows that people are indeed moving in the right direction. This particular type of survey question was not the most useful as many people indicated “not

relevant” so in the analysis, those responses were omitted. Further analysis of the responses was done to see if there had been and significant change in the other stages such as if more people had reported arson, but there was no statistically significant change.

Other questions in the survey support this objective. Respondents were asked, “In the past 6 months have you used fire for any reason?” There was a significant increase in the number of people who indicated that they had not used fire, from 31% in the pre campaign survey to 60% in the post campaign survey. This is deceptively encouraging statistic, as it shows that people have reduced their use of fire because there are many other factors which may have influenced this number, which will be discussed in the critical analysis, but it will be an interesting question to repeat in a later survey to see if this number continues to decrease. More qualitative data will be collected about this behavior in the follow up plan.

The next table shows the SMART objective for the Hunters. Our goal was to get hunters to stop using fire for hunting. The way this data was analyzed was by taking responses of hunters who have answered yes to the question, “In the past 6 months have you used fire for any reason…”, “If yes, please indicate the purpose of your fire.. Check all that apply”. Some simple responses such as “BBQ” and “bonfire” were included in addition to “hunting” to allow respondents to feel comfortable in answering honestly. In the pre campaign data, there were already a very small percentage of hunters who indicated that they had used fire for hunting, but we hoped to bring that number even lower.

Table: Behavior Change- Hunters

ToC SMART Objectives Metric Method Baseline (Pre-campaign)





Behavior Change HUNTERS

By September 2010, the number of Hunters who "use fire for hunting" will decrease from 16% to 11% (a 5 percentage point decrease; N=43.

(14A: In the past 12 months, have you started a fire for any reason) 14B: if yes, please indicate the purpose of your fire.

KAP Survey Analysis

16 8 -8 >95but not significant due to error overlap

160

Unfortunately, because of the small sample size in both the pre and post campaign surveys, the data for this question was not statistically significant, and thus cannot be analyzed. While this is a negative thing for data analysis, it is an encouraging thing in that there were so few respondents who indicated “yes” to using fire for hunting. However, the supplemental Hunter Survey which is being conducted will be reanalyzed at the end of the hunting season to see if there have been any significant changes in responses to fire use. Data from the fall (before the hunter Expos) will be compared with data from the end of the season to see if any changes occurred during the first hunting season with the deer attractants. Questions may also be added to ask more specific questions about fire use while hunting to generate more information. It may also be possible to ask all participants from hunter Expos to complete a survey at some point during the hunting season to see if any interesting information can be gathered.

b. Non-Survey Results Include any qualitative, anecdotal, or “other” evidence of behavior change that occurred during your Pride campaign to show results.

In the beginning of the campaign we assessed our community to be in the contemplation/validation stage. Given that the campaign implementation phase was only from about March to September, it is still too soon to fully assess behavior change. Anecdotally, conversations that occurred at campaign activities have seemed to indicate that community members are ready to enter preparation, but there are still barriers to this happening. The SMART objective for this stage only indicates one behavior for the general community which is reporting fires. We would like to see people not only report wildland fires, but use fire more responsibly. We would like to see people compost or mulch instead of burn their yard wastes and to dispose of trash properly instead of burning it. These other behavior changes are still new, and will require much more work in the area of education and barrier removal to move towards action. Some of these barrier removals will be discussed in Section c.

c. Critical Analysis of Behavior Change What accomplishments in changing behavior among your target audience did you witness during your campaign? Do you feel they

shifted from their starting stage towards action/maintenance?

Based on the survey data, it seems that people are more likely to report wildland fires, or are at least considering it. I think there is still a lot of work to do in this particular area. It is very difficult to analyze behavior change as several factors affected this particular stage of behavior change during the campaign period.

General Community: This year Guam experienced the worst drought since 1998. This affected the campaign in several ways. The island way even more dry and susceptible to fire damage than usual during the dry season, and there were many large extensive fires. Using fire data to assess behavior change is a not a good metric as the conditions were far worse than in years past. Additionally, it is hard to say if people reported more fires because of the campaign, or if there were simply more fires to report because of the dry conditions. Due to the scarcity of data about the fires, it cannot be determined if there was more use off fire resulting in the increased number of wildland fires, or if the same behavior resulted in more damage due to dryness.

Another big hindrance to measuring this objective is the lack of response to fire reports. Throughout the campaign period, community members mentioned that they had stopped reporting fires and arson because they never saw anything being done about it. Some had reported arson in their property 10 times with no response from local authorities. There were no investigations, no arrests, no prosecutions, and every year their properties were burned again.

Hunters: As mentioned above, the sample size for hunters was relatively small, and thus makes data analysis difficult. Additionally, it is unclear whether survey data will give an accurate representation of the actual behavior of using fire while hunting. This is an illegal behavior so there may be many false negatives regardless of enumerator training and question phrasing. Another factor is that the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN Expos were only completed in September, as the post-campaign survey was being conducted. While general campaign activities may have influenced hunters’ behavior, the hunting season only started in October 2010, so it is not possible to expect there to be a campaign related change in hunting behavior post BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN until hunters have actually had a chance to use the attractants.

What more do you think it needed to get your audience to the action stage, or to keep them in maintenance?

As mentioned, there are still many barriers to behavior change in the general community. The first thing that is needed is an increased response to 911 calls. After meeting with the Guam Fire Department (GFD) we decided not to set up a fire hotline, as they wanted all calls to be routed through 911. The problem is that people call in fires, but there is often no response. Even if a fire truck is dispatched to the fire, there is not much that can be done except suppression and protection of private property. There are never any repercussions for those starting the fires, and often, the fires are recurring annually. Thus aside from protecting their property, people do not feel an incentive to call 911 to report fires, because there is no follow through. This is where work with GFD and the police department are needed.

Increased enforcement of burning regulations is also needed. Some fires are started by home fires which get out of control. Community members are supposed to get a fire permit from GFD when the start any type of fire on their property. This permit is issued only when the conditions are allowable (not during dry season) and have guidelines for proper fire use to prevent wildland fires. However, there is no enforcement power with GFD. If they get a call about an illegal fire and go out to the site, all they can do is tell the person to put the fire out and revoke their permit. Again, there are no repercussions for burning a potentially dangerous fire unless damage actually

http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13137%3Awater-quality-sensor-installed-&Itemid=61

http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13137%3Awater-quality-sensor-installed-&Itemid=61

occurs. There is a draft citation program already written and approved, but GFD has not implemented it. The community petition for stricter enforcement should hopefully push them to start moving on this. GFD is short staffed, as are many agencies, but we hope that they can use this as an opportunity to reach out to the community and set up community watch programs that involve the residents in the process and create a greater accountability with local mayors and key influencers.

Aside from enforcement of non-compliance, there needs to be more knowledge and accessibility of alternatives to fire use. I’ve hear the saying that “everyone burns yard wastes.” While this is not supported by survey data, it seems true that there are always small yard fires going in the south. With Guam’s tropical climate, there is fast growth of shrubbery and jungle, and people want to get rid of the green wastes, such as branches and leaves. Fire is the cheapest, fastest way to do this. One of the activities we’d hoped to do in the villages was a series of composting displays or even setting up a community compost/mulch site. Farmers could use the byproducts on their farms, and it would reduce the need to burn. We did not have the time or support from the mayors to do this during the campaign implementation, but it is still something that we are looking into.

As mentioned in the barrier removal section, the hunter Expos and barrier removal tools were a great first step with the hunting community. However, in order for this to be a long term solution, the program needs to be sustainable. Whether agriculture adds this to their strategic plan, or a community based organization takes over, it cannot be a onetime thing. There needs to be maintained, continuous communication and adaptive management of the barrier removal plan in partnership with the hunters for it to be successful.

6.4 Threat Reduction and Conservation Results

a. SMART objectives Briefly describe your threat reduction and conservation result goals for your Pride campaign. Using your Action Plan, show the SMART objectives and results for the TR and CR stages of the ToC.

The conservation result for this campaign is improved coral reef health in southern Guam reefs. This will be measured using coral reef monitoring data over time in the campaign area. Coral reefs grow very slowly, so this section will focus on the monitoring plan that will be used to monitor reef health over time.

The main threat to these reefs is sediment from upland erosion and thus the threat reduction goal is reduced sedimentation. This will be measured through a series of proxy indicators. The main cause of this sedimentation is erosion, which is primarily caused by destruction of forests and grasslands by wildland fires, so the number of fires will be used as an intermediate indicator for a reduction in sediment. Erosion rate cannot be changed quickly as simply stopping the fires will not stop if from occurring in areas that are

already degraded. The fires destroy the vegetation that holds soil in place. After repeated fires, the soil becomes degraded and erodes. Planting of trees and restorative grasses and other soil stabilization is necessary to restore the watershed before erosion can be reduced. Water quality will be monitored over time in the campaign area to monitor change in sediment over time.

ToC SMART Objectives Metric Method Baseline (Pre-campaign)




Conservation Result



% coral cover National Park Service Benthic Habitat monitoring by transect and video transect surveys

3.03%

4.34%

Not available at this time- will be completed in 2015



Threat Reduction

By December 2010, the number of responses to vegetation fires recorded in Guam will decrease from 1759 (annual average from GFD reports 2005-2009) to 880 (a 50% decrease)


Total # Fires per year

Average # fires per month

Guam Fire Department 911 call response sheet.

1759

147

Not available at this time- will be completed in Jan 2011

96*Data only from Jan- Aug

n/a

Not available at this time- will be completed in Jan 2011

77%

http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/PACN

Threat Reduction

By October 2012, the turbidity level of the water on reefs at monitoring sites in Southern Guam will decrease from 3.6 NTU to 2.9 NTU (a 20% decrease).

Turbidity (NTU) Annual monitoring by NPS

Ongoing monitoring by PACIOOS

Rainy season: average 3.6 NTU

Baseline being collected.

Not available at this time- will be monitored over next 2 years.

n/adata not in PP

Not available at this time- will be assessed at the end of monitoring period in 2012

The data in the table above is baseline data that has been collected before or during the campaign. Results will not be available until next year of changes that occurred in fires (though these may have increased due to the massive drought). Sediment data will be collected long term and assessed though significant changes are not anticipated until watershed restoration is also done to repair the damaged land. Coral reef health also will not change drastically for several years, after fires have reduced, and sediment has been reduced from watershed restoration. This section will primarily be used to explain the monitoring plan for each indicator.

b. Monitoring activities Describe the monitoring activities implemented during your Pride campaign to measure Threat Reduction and Conservation Result.

Please include information on who conducted the monitoring, when it was done, the cost of monitoring, and future plans for monitoring (if they exist at this time).

Threat ReductionFires While we cannot compare 2010 data yet, we can use the most recent averages to try and see if there are any trends. To date, Forestry has 27 fires recorded for 2010 as of June (5/month) and GFD has 766 fires recorded as of August (96/month). So, both data sets show a positive trend towards the number of fires being reduced. This seems very odd considering the drought conditions this year, and final analysis will be done at the end of the year when more comprehensive data is available.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AverageAverage/Month

Forestry Division 1243 492 540 305 581 866 699 685 676 56

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=37981

http://www.mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12538:drought-lingers-fire-danger-remains-high&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=61

http://www.mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12538:drought-lingers-fire-danger-remains-high&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=61

Guam Fire Department 1785 1925 2145 1841 1101 1759 147

SedimentationThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System has completed the installation of the first Guam oceanographic sensor package in Cetti Bay. This sensor array has already begun taking water quality measurements including temperature, salinity, turbidity, pressure, and chlorophyll concentrations and will soon stream the data in real-time over the internet. Dr. Jason Biggs, a professor and scientist at the University of Guam Marine Lab is overseeing this project and has agreed to share the data with us as it is collected (and interpreted) which should provide great data as this is right below a very eroded area where reforestation efforts are being done. See http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13137%3Awater-quality-sensor-installed-&Itemid=61 for news story about sensor.

We also partnered with the National Park Service’s War in the Pacific National Historical Park (NPS). As part of their work, they are a part of the Pacific Island Network (PACN) Water Quality Vital Sign Monitoring and Benthic Marine Community Monitoring. The following are excerpts from the executive summaries of their monitoring protocol guidelines:

The water quality protocol will be implemented in all PACN parks. This protocol provides the methodology for addressing two monitoring questions: 1) What are the ranges and variances of the network water quality parameters

within selected water bodies? 2) What are the temporal and spatial trends of the network core water quality

parameters for individual water bodies or water resource types in each park? The first question has the objective to determine the range and spatial variance on an annual basis of temperature, pH, conductivity/salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorous (TDP), Nitrate (NO3), and chlorophyll in coastal marine waters, streams, wetlands, and a saline lake in the 11 PACN parks. The second question has the objective of determining the temporal (events, diurnal, seasonal, annual, decadal) and spatial trends, for the temperature, pH, conductivity/salinity, and dissolved oxygen in coastal marine waters, streams, and wetlands in the 11 PACN parks. This protocol employs a split panel design with eight fixed and random sites sampled quarterly along with two extended deployment sondes collecting physical parameters seasonally (wet and dry seasons) in each monitored park water resource. This design provides for the ability to provide both status and trend information. This design also statistically increases the power to detect change over time, resulting from the ability to conduct parameter corrections based on repeat analysis. In addition, the utilization of extended deployment sondes maximizes the ability to use data to conduct trend analyses. This sampling regime represents the maximum sustainable effort given current fiscal realities for the I&M water quality monitoring program only. Increased sampling is possible with more assistance from parks, in addition to partnering with other federal, state, territorial, or local water quality monitoring programs, including interested and reliable non-governmental and private organizations.

We collected some baseline data twice during the campaign. The data was collected using a YSI 6600 V2 Data Sonde. The system collected a sample every 10 seconds and then created a running average for every ten minutes for 24 hours. The GPS coordinates were 13.40017 N, 144.66510 E at the mouth of the Namo river in Agat. The results of our first sampling during dry season (1/21-1/22) showed an average turbidity of 1.56 NTU and an average salinity of 26.8ppt and the second sampling during rainy season showed an average turbidity 3.6 NTU (8/13-8/14) with an average salinity of 16.2ppt. Other than showing an increase in turbidity and decrease in salinity during rainy season, it is difficult to extrapolate anything else as there is nothing to compare them to, and they are very rough 24 hours samples. These can be used as baseline, though the numbers are already very low.

Conservation ResultIn the same partnership with the National Park Service, coral reef data will referenced. Below is another excerpt from their Monitoring Protocol: The benthic marine protocol will be implemented initially in four parks: Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park (KAHO), Kalaupapa National Historical Park (KALA), National Park of American Samoa (NPSA), and War in the Pacific National Historical Park (WAPA). The protocol addresses two monitoring questions: 1) what are the changes over time in the composition (e.g., species or assemblage) and physical structure (rugosity) of the coral reef benthos? And, 2) what are the changes over time in settlement, growth, survival, and health of target coral assemblages, species, or individuals? The first monitoring question has two objectives. The first objective is to determine long-term trends in the

abundance (percent cover of the benthic substrata) of sessile benthic marine macroinvertebrate (e.g., corals, zooanthids, octocorals, sponges, and echinoiderms) and algal (including large fleshy macroalgae, crustose coralline, and turf algae) assemblages at sites that are randomly selected on hard substratum, between 10 and 20 meters depth. The second objective is to determine trends in benthic local scale topography or rugosity at a subset of these sites. The second monitoring question has three objectives. The first is to determine trends in settlement rate of hard corals to uniform artificial surfaces at monitoring sites on the forereef between 10 and 20 meters depth. The second objective is to determine trends in growth rate and survival of randomly selected coral colonies of a common, trans-Pacific species (e.g., Pocillopora eydouxi) growing at similar depth. The last objective is to determine long-term trends in the incidence of coral disease and bleaching. The sampling frame (hard substratum between 10 to 20 meters depth) was selected for ecologic and safety reasons.A split panel sampling design will be implemented for monitoring, with thirty randomly selected sites sampled annually. Fifteen of the sites will be fixed (permanent) and revisited annually. The remaining sites will be randomly selected each year and will not be revisited. This sampling regime represents the maximum sustainable effort given current logistic and fiscal realities. Initially, this sampling design should have statistical power to have a 40% chance of detecting a 25% relative change in percent cover of the benthos. After several years, we anticipate the power will increase due to an increase in temporal replication to give an approximate power of an 80% chance to detect a 25% change. This increase in power over time will result from the ability to conduct parameter corrections because of repeated analysisThe sites being monitored in Guam are in Agat Bay, the indicator site for the campaign. There are 15 fixed sites and 15 random sites. The totals in the objectives are averages from the 15 sites. The data gathered from these studies will be referenced and interpreted to assess achievement of the objectives of sediment reduction (as indicated by water turbidity) and overall coral reef structure improvement (as indicated by an increase in the percent of branching coral in sample sites over time). The campaign will work closely with the biologists conducting the studies when analyzing data and provide support to their wherever possible. A full copy of the protocol is available from the Pacific Island I&M Network website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/PACN).As it becomes available, we will also look at data from the Guam Coastal Management Program’s Coral Monitoring Program, being led by biologist David Burdick.

One other study that is about to begin, being led by the UOG Marine Lab in partnership with the National Park Service, will measure and analyze sediment in the Asan Bay area. I have met with the staff for this project and am looking forward to seeing their analysis, as they think much of the sediment in Asan Bay is actually re-suspended sand, and not actually sediment. Project should be completed by late 2011.

c. “Other” Results Please include any other evidence of results for threat reduction or behavior change. This can include empirical data from the news or

science audience, anecdotal evidence from community members, or anything else that may show an increase or decrease achieving these goals.

These are some articles and links that are useful for the current campaign and for the next steps in conservation result. We need to stop the fires and then partner with efforts like the Cetti Bay project to start the restoration of the watersheds. A news article on Guam’s drought- the worst since 1998.http://www.mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12538:drought-lingers-fire-danger-remains-high&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=61

A story about a large mitigation project in Cetti Bay, where reforestation efforts are occurring. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=37981

d. Critical Analysis How well do you think the monitoring plan was implemented during your Pride campaign?

We did not actually set out to do a monitoring plan during the campaign. We collected some very rough baseline point data and most of the “monitoring effort” was spent research projects that could provide us with the information we needed. As will be explained, most of our monitoring data is acquired by looking at data being collected from on-going projects. It is not cohesive or strategically integrated (all sources are doing independent research), but it should be able to give a general understanding of the trends with each of the indicators over time.

What were the successes and challenges with monitoring?

Gathering fire data was the only relatively easy part of this process. Two separate metrics are available, from GFD and forestry. The data is relatively reliable and consistent, and should be able to show a trend over time. Both agencies were very helpful in sharing this data, and interested to see the results a few years from now.

It was very difficult to complete this portion of the work while implementing the campaign and BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN. I felt that the expectation of developing a comprehensive monitoring plan of the quality that Rare wanted was unrealistic for the time allotted, especially given the amount of other work that had to be done. From the beginning, GCMP was clear that it did not have the money or

capacity to do a separate monitoring plan for the project. We have an existing coral reef monitoring program, but it is in its infancy and does not yet include sites within the campaign area (though we hope it will eventually). We agreed to acquire the data from other projects and try to use that data to support our monitoring objectives.

There are many research projects happening and it was very time consuming to spend time researching, sifting through data, meeting with scientists trying to understand their particular project and how it could related to the metrics we were trying to collect, and then trying to find a way to tie it in. The importance of this task seemed disproportionate to effort it required. The type of data that we needed to make the monitoring plan “good” was very technical, outside of the expertise of the campaign manager, so time was also spent trying to understand research methods and comprehend and analyze very specific scientific data. Even with all of the data about reefs, sediment and water quality, we know that we will not see a change in these things for many years, and we cannot guarantee that these research projects will still be funded/ongoing for data at that time, or whether there will be any way to correlate these results with the work done by the campaign. For example, reducing fires is part of the solution, but it will need to be followed by watershed restoration such as reforestation and stream bank stabilization to see a reduction in sediment and then an increase in reef health).

What do you think is needed for the future of monitoring at your site?

Aside from more money, staffing and long term sustainability for the existing projects, I don’t think there is a specific ask for monitoring. There are many projects going on monitoring sedimentation, impacts of watershed mitigation projects, impacts of population growth and recreational use, climate change, reef resiliency, , etc. I think the best that can be done is to continue to monitor these projects and stay informed of key results. If a really comprehensive monitoring plan was to be developed, it would take a full time staff person, or grad student to put together the results and spend the time and energy needed to integrate the various projects into a long term plan. With the upcoming military build-up there are a lot of new projects on the horizon that will continue to provide great data. The best we can do is to continue to stay informed and communicate with the people doing the research.

7. Critical Analysis

7.1 Summary of Capacity Built How have you, your organization, and your partners changed during your Pride campaign?

I have learned a great deal during this campaign. I have learned a tremendous amount about social marketing. I have gained skills in facilitation, survey methodology, time management and adaptive management. Through my work with Rare, I gained access to a

network of resources in the conservation field from around the world. I have learned to use conservation planning tools such as Miradi and have become better at planning, multi-tasking and monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of the work being done. Our agency has also changed in this regard, incorporating key lessons learned in our social marketing workshop into our existing project such as knowing our audiences and using strategic key messages, to materials design. We found the training so successful that we have applied for funding to conduct another workshop for our partners. We have also learned that education alone is not always enough to create change, and that all factors must be taken into consideration to develop strategic effect plans for addressing issues. We use the Miradi software in our watershed Conservation Action Plan (CAP) development with TNC.

What are some lessons you learned about yourself, your organization, or working with your partners?

The most important lesson that I learned about myself was that I was not as great of a listener as I thought I was. Often when doing outreach, I would get so caught up in giving the pitch and getting my point across, which I didn’t take the time to listen to the participants. So much insight (“qualitative data”) can be gained by effectively listening to people, and asking the right questions. Often times it is the average community member, and not a scientist or resource manager, that has the creative solutions needed to tackle a problem. It is also so very necessary to pretest assumptions and materials with the community. We get so caught up in our world of conservation that we often forget to test our ideas with the target audiences, which sometimes leads to missing the mark completely. Just because we like something does not mean it will be effective. I often think back to the “ladder of inference” we learned about in the first university phase. Even though I was raised I Guam, my experiences and background are very different from that of my target audiences and I try to be sure to consider this with each decision that is made.

Another important lesson that I learned, or am learning, is that it is okay to be wrong. This may sound like a simple idea, but it was hard for me to accept that sometimes, no matter how much research you do and how sure you are of something, at times you will make the wrong choice, and that this is not always a bad thing. I am learning that this is how we adapt and work towards making things better. I was so comfortable in my previous field of work, doing marine science outreach and education, that I had grown accustomed to always being the one to share the

“right” information and generally speaking, being an “expert” in my field. Working with a new community with a whole new set of knowledge, attitudes and issues, I had to start over again which often meant making mistakes. We are taught in school that mistakes are bad (red pen slashes, deducted points) when in fact in our line of work, mistakes are just learning detours to a better understanding of what right is. I still struggle with this one as pride and my personal academic experiences lead me to always want to have the “right answer” or do the “right thing”, instead of doing the best thing I can at the time and learning from the mistakes.

I also gained a new appreciation for the value of relationships in building constituencies. Again, in my past line of work, I often saw people for a day or two, maybe a week for campers, but my audience was always changing. I had pretty good relationships with teachers I saw year after year, but I never had to work to really build relationships. Over the last two years, I have spent hours, days even, building relationships with people. I had to overcome the assumptions people made about me and those I had about them and work to build trust and friendship. While it requires a tremendous amount of time and energy to maintain these relationships, it is a powerful thing it is once you gain that respect and trust. Mayors, hunters and community members begin to open up and share and are willing to support your efforts when they know what your motives are and that they are an integral part of the process. They then seek you out when problems arise and trust you as an ally. This may be the greatest change for me in the last two years- learning that at the root of everything that we do, fun activities, budgets, objectives and timelines aside, it comes down to people, relationships and trust. I would like to believe that this has made me a better conservationist and a better educator because it has helped me to use this as the starting point for everything that I do.

Supervisor, or other 3rd party, feedback on work and/or campaign impact.

Feedback from Vangie Lujan, supervisorHow has the Pride campaign increased capacity within your organization?

The survey method will be used to assess future outreach activities effectiveness and determine what community perceptions are and ways to interact with the community to understand their concerns. The Rare campaign filled in the gap needed for the management of reforestation/mitigation efforts. Any reforestation efforts cannot be successful without addressing issues related to fire.

Within the campaign manager?

Social marketing and the survey techniques will help to support many of the tasks within the GCMP and especially for the Coral Reef Management

program. The campaign manager went through a vigorous training related to social marketing, something that we are moving more toward in the development of promotion products and messaging.

How do you personally measure success for this campaign?Understanding of fires on the coral reefs and the reduction of the incidents of fires.

Has the campaign met your objectives (if not, please state why)?Yes but more needs to be done.

What do you feel has been the greatest outcome of this campaign? Expansion of the partnership with the southern community, Exposure of the GCMP with other communities, partnerships with other agencies such as the Fire department.

What has been the weakest outcome? With limited staff, difficult to have a full time staff to work on only this campaign.....the time required to complete the Rare Campaign, the way Rare had envisioned, is not realistic for the GCMP. There are many tasks the campaign manager needed to participate in (GCMP related activities) but were unsure if Rare would agree was good use of her time. Rare needs to trust me, the supervisor, more about what activities within the agencies are appropriate and what are not appropriate.

How have you seen the community (or target audience) change since the start of the campaign?More understanding from hunters on alternatives to burning

Do you plan to include social marketing in future projects within your organization? Yes, some of the techniques will be implemented, however the length of time to implement will be reduced to what is more practical. We will hire a consultant to do the survey....takes too much time...and we need the results sooner......

Below is some feedback back from Linda Tatreau, Marine Biology teacher at George Washington High School, advisor for Marine Mania who has been a huge support to the campaign, providing volunteers for campaign events and enumerators for campaign surveys, promoting events with her students, and providing guidance, encouragement and feedback as a colleague and friend.

Na Para I Guafi

Without a doubt, the best RARE campaign I’ve experienced and the best

environmental campaign done on Guam in the 21 years I’ve been here.Combating the problem of fire in Southern Guam is a huge undertaking. Ihave watched Na Para I Guafi campaign since it was just an idea. I havewatched the campaign evolve from a plan that would take 20 years tocompletely implement to the successful plan it is today.

The problem of fire in the south and the effects to the reef has beentackled in the past and we saw great posters, pamphlets and videos. Whatis new with Na Para I Guafi is that Elaina has approached and earned thetrust of the hunters in Southern Guam. Every environmentalist on Guamagrees that the hunters are the major fire starters on island. Elaina isthe first to work directly with them; not placing blame but encouragingunderstanding.

I get goosebumps just writing this note. I am so excited about a campaignthat is going to have POSSITIVE RESULTS!!

Linda TatreauMarine Biology TeacherGeorge Washington High School, Guam

We asked the campaign intern to reflect back on their experience with the campaign.

Tito Castro, intern Spring 2010:Although I entered the campaign while it was newly established, I had tons of fun and my time in the campaign was definitely quite the learning experience. The campaign was advertised at a number of local fiestas and festivals with the hopes of reducing the number of wildfires on Guam. The resources used were amazing: fliers, a mascot costume, and even a 3D watershed model! I may not be an active member of the campaign now due to other activities

during my final year in high school but I have nothing but complete faith that the campaign would have positively affected majority of wildland fire starters on Guam.

Marquisha Camacho, intern Spring 2010:Na Para I Guafi, is a program that promotes fire awareness and wildland fire prevention. I Marquisha Camacho was one of the interns under the instruction of Elaina Todd. My experience is the program was rather phenomenal. As an intern, I was able to teach children as well as older people about the devastating effects of wildland fires. By using models such as, poster boards, brochures, 3D models and other visual aids I was able to help people understand the process of sedimentation and effects of wildland fires. I have yet to see or hear about a wildland fire down south, so I can say its quite an improvement. By being an intern, I was able to learn as well as teach about various subjects, such as sedimentation, composting, laws about fire, and statistics. My experience overall was one to describe as phenomenal.

7.2 ConstituencyCAMPAIGN DEVELOPMENT

a. Reflect back on the project planning phase of your campaign and assess which steps helped develop your campaign strategy? What would you have done differently?

Throughout the planning phase, a great deal was learned not only about the target audiences, but about how things work with true grassroots outreach. In addition to stakeholder meetings and community presentations, dozens, even hundreds of focused conversations were held, some formally, some informally. It was these conversations which proved to be the most useful time spent in the planning phase. The KAP survey provided some information, but it was talking to people that revealed the needs, what people thought, what worked and didn’t work in the past, what people wanted to see in the future. Talking to mayors, farmers, hunters, store owners and just regular people really allowed a better picture to be developed about who the “Southern General Community” really was, and what it was going to take to meet their needs.

In retrospect, too many formal meetings were held. These meetings were stressful, required a lot of coordination, set a high expectation based on past meetings, and did not really get the heart of the issues. People acted and reacted very differently in a group setting with mayors and other higher ranking individuals around. The formality often created tension, challenges in keeping conversation focused, and often ended without a whole lot of insight being gained. In contrast, simply driving around getting to know people proved to be more effective at garnering genuine information, good and bad. Much more time would have spent assisting mayors with projects, volunteering with events, and building relationships with the community members.

Additionally, it would have been great to be able to attend more village events and fiestas if time allowed.

b. Reflect on the work you did with creative briefs, messaging strategies, marketing mix, campaign work plan, and slogan. What do you think worked well and what could be improved upon?

The logo and slogan for the campaign are great. They incorporate local language, colors and shapes as well as the entire watershed model. There was a lot of pretesting and conversation held before deciding, including community members in the process. The images are well received, not only as attractive, which would help people to be more apt to place them on their car or in a place where they would be seen, but people also seem to get the key messages from simply looking at the image. The other issue was that while the slogan was in Chamorro, I learned that many people did not understand it right off. When we pretested the slogan, people knew what it meant. Looking back, using the mayor’s staff who are all mostly older Chamorro people may have biased the pretesting. Many of the younger people are not as familiar with the language, and it may have benefitted to have both Chamorro and English.

The process of development could have been done much better. A large amount of money was spent on slogan development (which was essentially translating a phrase into Chamorro), and the logo design was also quite costly. A more defined contract or expectations guideline would have been useful to avoid spending so much money.

c. Do you feel your initial assumptions about your target audience were accurate?

It is hard to say what the initial assumptions were. I was raised in this community, so I understood Chamorro people, or Guamanian people very well, and the local culture, but I think that for the most part I really didn’t know much about my target audiences as far as their needs and wants. I feel that many of our assumptions were validated by the research. People didn’t understand the impacts of fires on the watershed, nor did they understand that there were alternatives.

One thing I hadn’t really expected was the warmth and receptivity of the southern community. They love their villages and are more than just residents. In most cases, their families had lived there for generations and there was a very strong sense of pride in their village and in what the rest of the island perceived about their village.

Additionally we were correct in thinking that there were those stubborn individuals who refused to listen, to believe what was said, or to change we just had to work around them and focus on the rest of the willing community.

d. Do you think this was the right messaging strategy for your target audience? There has been nearly all positive feedback from the campaign. People have been receptive; have thanked us repeatedly after each display, outreach presentation or event. After analyzing the post campaign KAP survey, it seems that the target audiences knowledge and attitudes are shifting. Both the general community and the hunting community have become advocates for the campaign, talking to friends, recognizing the logo and working to get the messages into new places. Na Para I Guafi was the way to go, and preventing fires for the benefit of the entire community was an important message to send out.

e. Do you think you used the right mix of channels and activities for your target audience, for the community as a whole, for your culture?

While a variety of channels and activities were used, Guam is a bit of a unique situation. There are so many different campaigns happening on the island, so much mass media, so much competition for attention that we decided to take a more grassroots approach. Looking at the channels matrix, you may see that many of the activities were “outreach” and very few were mass media. We felt that to really get our messages where we needed them to go, we had to take this approach and talk to people one on one, at their level, in their villages and at their fiestas.

There could have been so many more activities. If there was more time, it would have been ideal to be at every single village fiesta. It would have been awesome to have had a display at every event, every fair, every opportunity to reach the target audience, but time and staffing limitations made that a real challenge.

It would also have been great if it wasn’t an election year as there were SO many campaign billboards, radio ads, TV ads and other things going on, it made it challenging (and expensive) to compete. It would have been great to do some video PSAs on TV or to have had some more print space to discuss fires, but with the election, it wasn’t possible. Perhaps as part of the follow up plan we would like to do more of these things.

Finally, it would have been great to do even more community projects. Spending more time in the villages doing clean-ups, painting bus stops and tutoring kids. In the end it was these activities that really built the necessary rapport with the mayors and it is those villages in which we have had the most response and active participation.

f. What changes would you make if you were to run a follow-up campaign?

Perhaps saying “changes” is not the right thing to say. I would not change anything we did really, because each step of the way and each obstacle or challenge has created a valuable learning opportunity. I think moving forward I would like to do more. As mentioned above, I would like to spend more time with each village, doing village hikes, community clean ups, tree plantings, bus stop paintings- whatever it took to get to talk to people and interact with them. These activities are very time consuming and hard to tie directly to objectives, but in our community, they are the MOST effective way to get the support of the community (and to have a captive audience to talk to!)

I would like to do more with the hunting community now that a relationship has been established. I would really like to get Agriculture involved and have more training programs for the hunters. Only three clinics were held, and most of the participants were from those villages. We need to do more clinics and in more places. One message that came out loud and clear was that this was a group within the community that had not been reached out to before. They are fishermen, land owners, voters, and could really be an asset if we focused some more time and energy on them and on teaching them and providing more alternatives not only to burning, but to being more effective stewards of their land.

g. Any other observations and reflections?

An excerpt from my RP Blog, I feel it says it all.

The entire Rare process has changed my life for sure. I have learned so much, I have met so many new people, and I feel like I have grown in so many ways. I will never look at environmental education the same way again (yes Adam, I said it- I am a convert). I will never again embark on a new project without first understanding specific goals and measures of success (man have I become annoying to work with!). I will never assume and always pretest! And let’s be honest, as useful as they are, I will forever hate surveys J If I did my own theory of change, I’d say that I have changed in every stage! My knowledge, attitudes & perceptions, communication, behavior have all shifted because of this campaign. Two years ago, I couldn’t have imagined that I would be buddies with a bunch of hunters, buying camouflage clothes, sniffing salt licks, discussing deer urine varieties and getting my firearms license! Ha! Or that I would know the issues of the hunters, the conservation officers, the fire department, the forestry department (notice the lack or MARINE anything in there!) Never did I think I would be able to name each southern mayor, know their staff, or organize a community event that didn’t involve the ocean! We’ll save the long winded version for the final report, but I am just amazed at how different life is now. As I work on my follow up plan, I see so much potential for the future. There is still so much to do. In two years I have barely finished the foundation- after November, the work will continue. I don’t know exactly what that will look like, but I can say that I feel prepared through the thousands of hours of Rare training (okay, maybe a slight exaggeration!), the experiences along the way- both the good and bad, the tremendous support I am now getting from my lead and partner agencies, and from the excitement that is brewing around town about what’s to come. Probably the biggest change for me right now is that this campaign has become about

so much more than the number of fires per year, the turbidity of the water or even the health of the reef. It is about understanding people, their needs and the deficiencies in the system to meet those needs. It is about culture and respect. It is about listening to what people say (and don’t say). It is about building relationships and nurturing those relationships through honesty and communication. Thanks Margie for being the catalyst to this introspection. It is good to know that I am not the only one who is spending a little time each week to reflect and appreciate the process. To look back at where we came from, to look at where we are and to look forward and attempt to even fathom what’s to come. I highly recommend it!

SOCIAL MARKETING Provide a critical analysis of which of your campaign activities were the most and least effective for reaching your target

audience (give 3-5 examples for “most” and “least). This analysis should take into consideration cost of activity, amount of reach it had, and its impact on behavior change.

Most effectiveI believe the most effective activity this in this campaign was the village fiesta displays (also used at other events we were invited to). The display cost very little money to set up once the materials were purchased (>$100) and allowed one on one interaction with the target audiences, usually in their own village. The reach was limited to the number of people who attended the festival and walked around, but it allowed such a depth of conversation and interaction with the participants. In 5 minutes a group of people could answer 6 questions that encompassed every key message of the campaign, from knowledge to behavior change. Being in the southern villages allowed me to use specific examples, many of which I had photos of from recent fires. These events were very time consuming, but they were well worth it. Each person who walked away from these displays had not only a wealth of information presented in little, bite sized pieces (and played as a game so it was memorable), they also had some sort of prompt, be it a pen, a t-shirt, a coloring book or a sticker. It was difficult to measure quantitatively the impact of these displays. The

only down side was that they took a considerable amount of time and energy to man for several hours, and were usually held on the weekends or in the evenings.

Another event which was a big success was the community watershed hike. While this was not a campaign specific event (was done in partnership with the EEC), we had over 120 participants show up to do this hike, even though it was not well advertised. We had biologists present to talk about the uniqueness and value of the area, then I led a portion of the hike where I focused on threats to the watersheds, and discussed fires and their causes and effects in more detail. After the hike we received great feedback from the participants and nearly all of them signed up to hear about the next one. With more planning and strategic messaging, these could continue to be great tools for getting the key messages out while also getting the community to see the environment. Aside from the “I love my watershed” giveaways (which were paid for by GCMP and included our campaign logo and a “top tip” about composting instead of burning trash) the only real cost for the event was time and planning, as the mayor’s office provided the food and refreshments afterwards.

Similarly, the Fire Prevention Month 5K Run took an event that is very popular in Guam and made it part of the campaign. Every weekend on Guam there is anywhere from 1-5 different running/biking events and they are very well attending. The aim for the even was to partner with the Fire Department in celebrating the kick off of their Fire Prevention Month. By adding the “fire facts” to the run, we were able to get messages to participants in a fun unique way. We had a Q&A at the end and gave away prizes- and so many people stayed! This event was a bit costly, at $2,000 for 170 participants. Funds raised from the run were donated to GEEEPI to support the Guardians of the Reef program. Participants all walked away with a run t-shirt and a wealth of knowledge, many of the participants came up to me afterwards to thank me and say how much they had learned (at a 5K!) Two of the participants were firefighters, each of whom came up to me and said that there were really thankful for the event and for all of the great work we were doing with the campaign. This even could be easily repeated and be much cheaper with more partners and planning. I hope to help the fire department repeat it next year, if possible.

Two campaign materials which were very effective were the car logo stickers and the t-shirts. It can be tricky to say that materials are effective since they only contained the slogan, but these were really effective tools at getting people to participate in events, to play the game, and to promote the campaign. The logo stickers were a little expensive, at $1.80 each to produce, but I have seen then around on cars, and they look as good as the commercial stickers on other vehicles. They were well pretested and I have been asked repeatedly by mayors

and other hunters to bring more to them. The shirts were also a big hit and I have seen numerous people with the campaign shirts walking around. The shirts were also a bit costly at $6.00 each, but because people get so many free shirts on Guam which they never wear, we had to make them nice so that people would want to wear them as an everyday, stylish shirt (which according to pretesting and conversations with recipients, they are).

Least Effective

Neither the “Let’s be Frank” stickers or the campaign posters were very effective. We printed a small quantity to see how they would work and then decided not to make more. The posters were inexpensive, visually appealing and were pretested with several groups who said that they felt an emotive response to the image, but no one took them from the outreach displays, and only a few of the mayors posted them up. In this case I don’t think it was the poster itself that was ineffective, but the method of distribution. More time probably could have spent “guerilla style” in spreading them to make them more effective. As mentioned in the table, the “Let’s Be Frank” stickers were a fun play on words, but people just didn’t get the point (let’s be frank about what’s causing fires). This could tie into the next least effective activity which sadly was the mascot. Frank was NOT ineffective in that he didn’t add a great fun aspect for kids and give the campaign a face; he just wasn’t very well pretested. Often children mistook him for Nemo the clownfish. I also listed the mascot here because I wasn’t able to use it nearly enough. As I mentioned above, hopefully we can spend more time in the next year with the Guardians of the Reef making a name for Frank with the southern youth (which were not highly targeted in this phase).

The fire use brochures were informative and well designed, and very cheap to produce (>$1 each) but I don’t think that they were very effective at actually getting the information to people who weren’t actively seeking it. Often at fairs and festivals, people pick up dozens of these brochures, and I am not sure that they look at them again. Part of the problem was that the fire department (our main partner on the brochures) misplaced 500 of them which they were to place with each of their stations, to be given to people applying for burning permits (and about to take action). They did not assist at all with the distribution or promotion of these brochures within their department and I feel that if they didn’t find them useful, that was a good “qualitative” indication that maybe they weren’t the best materials for this goal. I placed brochures at many of the mayor’s offices and fire stations myself, and when I would return, they were all still there, or at times they were buried under five other

organizations’ brochures. I think we need to rethink the brochure and find a better way of delivering the information in a cheap and easily distributable way (and I will still like to find the 500 that are missing as well).

Which activities are you most likely to repeat in the future?

The activities that will most likely be repeated are those that had the most impact on the target audiences, as mentioned above. I personally think those that had little cost were some of the most effective and impactful on several levels. As part of my work plan for next year, I already plan to do more community watershed hikes, fiesta displays, school presentations (through Guardians of the reef) and hope to do more community beautification projects. These events gave me the opportunity to speak with people one on one, show them the threats in the field, interact with them in fun ways and get them to think critically, and created great buy in with the community leaders.

It would be great to do another series of news articles when possible to highlight the issue of fires, though it is challenging to compete with other pressing issues associated with the military build-up. Media coverage of events is always great, and generally easy to get and free! I hope to also provide assistance and encouragement for the fire department to repeat the 5K run next year for fire prevention month.

I would also like to reproduce many of the materials used if budget allows. The stickers, shirts, and pens were great tools for engaging people at the outreach displays. The coloring books were cheap and an easy way to send key messages home with kids. The hunter giveaways will be discussed in the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN section, but I would like to reproduce those for the general community as well as they are great tools for IC.

Are there any additional activities you would implement in the future?

While they are not “new”, two activities at the top of my priorities list to complete are the campaign song and guerilla marketing, both of which are pending my return. I think that these could possibly be two of the most fun and different activities in the whole work plan and I am excited to complete them and see how they go. In addition to doing more community hikes, I would like to partner more with Forestry to implement more forest stewardship events and tree plantings. I would like to continue to partner with the EEC and some of the non-profits on Guam to do more events for college students like quiz nights and contests. There are several things in my work plan that I was not able to accomplish during this year, and I would still like to try them. Working with religious groups, PSA and art contests and making an awesome float for next year’s Liberation Day parade are also on the list. Of course, as part of my follow up plan, I will also be implementing a Hunting Festival to celebrate the work of the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN at the end of the hunting season, and many of the other activities will be great to showcase at this event.

7.3 Barrier Removal and Behavior ChangeBARRIER REMOVAL

How well do you think the barrier removal strategy was implemented? What could have been done to improve the implementation?

Overall, the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN went very well. We had a total of 75 participants. Mark Aguon was a perfect choice as the trainer, as he is well respected as both a hunter and a conservation officer. He was very well received by the hunters and did a great job balancing his roles. He shared personal stories and answered questions and was very honest and open with the participants. He will definitely be the first choice to use for the next set of Expos, and will be a key in getting the Department of Agriculture to adopt this program as part of their role.

The attractants (or descriptions thereof) were also well received. Hunters were very interested and everyone took one home. They all signed up to receive info on the other tools when they arrived, and many mentioned they would be trying their own feeders. The hunters also agreed to share their findings with me, such as what worked best, which tools they would like more of, and anything else that we could provide that would be useful in preventing future fires being started for hunting. Many also mentioned that they had a relative or friend who had not attended who they would be sharing information with, and asked me to send them info about future events so these hunters could attend.

By far the best feedback received was all of the gratitude. At each Expo nearly every hunter came up to Mark or myself and thanked us for doing this program. One gentleman said that it was surprising that such a program had never been done before, and that he hoped outreach to the hunting community would continue. They thanked us for making the trainings accessible by coming to their villages and for sharing the knowledge and

attitude messages with them- many did not realize the direct impact fires had on the reefs. They also like the giveaways and said that we had done a good job selecting appropriate items- they especially liked the coolers and hats.

Several things about the implementation could have been improved. First off was the advertising. We gave flyers to the mayors offices and placed them at key places where we thought hunters would visit. In some instances, like Merizo, the mayors did a great job of promoting the event. I saw the flyers at stores within the villages. In others, like Agat, there was virtually no support. We could have spent more time at the night market handing out flyers and perhaps tried to get some sponsors like a radio station to promote it for free. We also promoted the event at the VCO hunter training (required to do special hunts on Anderson) and did a few radio shows, and one small story in the newspaper. We did not put out a formal press release for worry of being overwhelmed or receiving negative feedback.

The next set of Expos will be better attended, simply by word of mouth. Now that we have a good core group of hunters, we can use them to relay the message to other hunters. In Inarajan, most of the people who attended had been invited by a relative or friend from the mayor’s office. The mayor also put up a sign in front of his office (on the main road) advertising the Expo, and submitted it to the village news section of the newspaper. Continuing to use these key influencers, getting more sponsors, such as a radio show or TV news program to cover the event will also increase attendance. We can take what we learned from the first set of Expos and be sure to improve and get the word out earlier for the next one.

The deer attractants did not arrive on time for the training. We only had one type of attractant to give out which was very frustrating. This was a big flaw in time management, as I wanted to wait until I had feedback on all of the attractants from the hunters who were pre-testing it. I called and emailed and was given deadlines, but they were not met, so just ordered them from the best data I had. This can be used to our advantage however, because now as the new attractants arrive, I can call the hunters and meet with them to deliver the supplies, which will allow time for discussion and feedback. We will also be using mayor’s offices as pick up points for the attractants and can use sign out sheets for monitoring of which hunters come back (and can get more qualitative data from them later).

What were the successes and challenges you faced with barrier removal?

As mentioned above, the most important success with barrier removal was building the relationship with the mayors and the hunting community. While there is still work to be done, and many more hunters to speak with, these first preliminary steps have started a work that I feel will lead to behavior change and growth with the target audience. I also feel that we have found several champions for this cause, in Mark Aguon, Ed, Ray (a hunter who assisted in pretesting the attractants), and have show the conservation officers that enforcement needs support through community outreach.

One of the most difficult parts of the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN process was getting key stakeholders to the table. Finding hunters to attend planning meetings, or even to talk to was a big challenge throughout the campaign. Even the natural resources agencies are very strained because of the current DOD plans to move to Guam. This year the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was released and all agencies were tasked with reviewing this 10,000 page document with plans for the military relocation. The community was up in arms about it, and it was challenging to find time for people to discuss more local issues like fire as a threat when such a huge environmental threat was looming.

Another challenge is the lack of enforcement of fire laws, which will be discussed below. Many people commented on the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN saying that it was a good idea, but that they real problem was with the fire department, or the police department, or the attorney general’s office. They said that they have been reporting fires but that nothing is ever done about it, so they had stopped. To be successful in changing the behavior of hunters, we also need to look at enforcement. Do you feel your campaign included the right barrier removal strategy to achieve behavior change? If not, then what are you

thought for a more appropriate strategy?

The hunter Expos were definitely the right starting place for barrier removal. It allowed open dialogue with hunters about the issue of fires, and gave them free barrier removal tools. It started communication with the hunting community, an audience which had not really been reached out to before except in ways of enforcement. While these Expos are the right tool, there is concern about their sustainability. For the next few months, I will use the remaining BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN funds to conduct three more Expos, but in order for this strategy to be truly successful, the Department of Agriculture (DoA) needs to spearhead this initiative and make hunter trainings a part of their strategic plan. Preliminary conversations with the Director and the Chief of the Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources have been promising, and feedback from these Expos has shown them that there is a need for more programs like this. Another option may be seeking out grants and establishing a community organization with the hunters to make this program self-sustainable. Mark can train the hunters to lead the Expos, and small stipends can be paid. A meeting will be held with DoA upon completion of this program to discuss these possibilities, and this will be a large portion of the campaign follow up plan.

The hunter Expos will not accomplish the goal alone. This is one key component in the behavior change of the hunters, but other things need to be addressed such as the lack of enforcement by not only the conservation officers, but also by the fire department and the attorney general’s office. The community petition that will be started later this year will seek stricter enforcement and prosecution of wildland arson laws. Currently it is only a misdemeanor to start a wildland fire, and there has not been a single prosecution in 10 years. Now that a rapport has been established with southern communities, and they have the knowledge about fires, it is time to move to the next level of getting them to peer pressure those around them to stop setting fires. Petitions to these agencies should help move along existing draft legislation that will address some of these lack of enforcement issues.

BEHAVIOR CHANGE What accomplishments in changing behavior among your target audience did you witness during your campaign? Do you feel they

shifted from their starting stage towards action/maintenance?

Based on the survey data, it seems that people are more likely to report wildland fires, or are at least considering it. I think there is still a lot of work to do in this particular area. It is very difficult to analyze behavior change as several factors affected this particular stage of behavior change during the campaign period.

General Community: This year Guam experienced the worst drought since 1998. This affected the campaign in several ways. The island way even more dry and susceptible to fire damage than usual during the dry season, and there were many large extensive fires. Using fire data to assess behavior change is a not a good metric as the conditions were far worse than in years past. Additionally, it is hard to say if people reported more fires because of the campaign, or if there were simply more fires to report because of the dry conditions. Due to the scarcity of data about the fires, it cannot be determined if there was more use off fire resulting in the increased number of wildland fires, or if the same behavior resulted in more damage due to dryness.

Another big hindrance to measuring this objective is the lack of response to fire reports. Throughout the campaign period, community members mentioned that they had stopped reporting fires and arson because they never saw anything being done about it. Some had reported arson in their property 10 times with no response from local authorities. There were no investigations, no arrests, no prosecutions, and every year their properties were burned again.

Hunters: As mentioned above, the sample size for hunters was relatively small, and thus makes data analysis difficult. Additionally, it is unclear whether survey data will give an accurate representation of the actual behavior of using fire while hunting. This is an illegal behavior so there may be many false negatives regardless of enumerator training and question phrasing. Another factor is that the BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN Expos were only completed in September, as the post-campaign survey was being conducted. While general campaign activities may have influenced hunters’ behavior, the hunting season only started in October 2010, so it is not possible to expect there to be a campaign related change in hunting behavior post BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN until hunters have actually had a chance to use the attractants.

What more do you think it needed to get your audience to the action stage, or to keep them in maintenance?

As mentioned, there are still many barriers to behavior change in the general community. The first thing that is needed is an increased response to 911 calls. After meeting with the Guam Fire Department (GFD) we decided not to set up a fire hotline, as

they wanted all calls to be routed through 911. The problem is that people call in fires, but there is often no response. Even if a fire truck is dispatched to the fire, there is not much that can be done except suppression and protection of private property. There are never any repercussions for those starting the fires, and often, the fires are recurring annually. Thus aside from protecting their property, people do not feel an incentive to call 911 to report fires, because there is no follow through. This is where work with GFD and the police department are needed.

Increased enforcement of burning regulations is also needed. Some fires are started by home fires which get out of control. Community members are supposed to get a fire permit from GFD when the start any type of fire on their property. This permit is issued only when the conditions are allowable (not during dry season) and have guidelines for proper fire use to prevent wildland fires. However, there is no enforcement power with GFD. If they get a call about an illegal fire and go out to the site, all they can do is tell the person to put the fire out and revoke their permit. Again, there are no repercussions for burning a potentially dangerous fire unless damage actually occurs. There is a draft citation program already written and approved, but GFD has not implemented it. The community petition for stricter enforcement should hopefully push them to start moving on this. GFD is short staffed, as are many agencies, but we hope that they can use this as an opportunity to reach out to the community and set up community watch programs that involve the residents in the process and create a greater accountability with local mayors and key influencers.

Aside from enforcement of non-compliance, there needs to be more knowledge and accessibility of alternatives to fire use. I’ve hear the saying that “everyone burns yard wastes.” While this is not supported by survey data, it seems true that there are always small yard fires going in the south. With Guam’s tropical climate, there is fast growth of shrubbery and jungle, and people want to get rid of the green wastes, such as branches and leaves. Fire is the cheapest, fastest way to do this. One of the activities we’d hoped to do in the villages was a series of composting displays or even setting up a community compost/mulch site. Farmers could use the byproducts on their farms, and it would reduce the need to burn. We did not have the time or support from the mayors to do this during the campaign implementation, but it is still something that we are looking into.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

As mentioned in the barrier removal section, the hunter Expos and barrier removal tools were a great first step with the hunting community. However, in order for this to be a long term solution, the program needs to be sustainable. Whether agriculture adds this to their strategic plan, or a community based organization takes over, it cannot be a onetime thing. There needs to be maintained, continuous communication and adaptive management of the barrier removal plan in partnership with the hunters for it to be successful.

7.4 Threat Reduction and Conservation Results How well do you think the monitoring plan was implemented during your Pride campaign?

We did not actually set out to do a monitoring plan during the campaign. We collected some very rough baseline point data and most of the “monitoring effort” was spent research projects that could provide us with the information we needed. As will be explained, most of our monitoring data is acquired by looking at data being collected from on-going projects. It is not cohesive or strategically integrated (all sources are doing independent research), but it should be able to give a general understanding of the trends with each of the indicators over time.

What were the successes and challenges with monitoring?

Gathering fire data was the only relatively easy part of this process. Two separate metrics are available, from GFD and forestry. The data is relatively reliable and consistent, and should be able to show a trend over time. Both agencies were very helpful in sharing this data, and interested to see the results a few years from now.

It was very difficult to complete this portion of the work while implementing the campaign and BARRIER REMOVAL PLAN. I felt that the expectation of developing a comprehensive monitoring plan of the quality that Rare wanted was unrealistic for the time allotted, especially given the amount of other work that had to be done. From the beginning, GCMP was clear that it did not have the money or capacity to do a separate monitoring plan for the project. We have an existing coral reef monitoring program, but it is in its infancy and does not yet include sites within the campaign area (though we hope it will eventually). We agreed to acquire the data from other projects and try to use that data to support our monitoring objectives.

There are many research projects happening and it was very time consuming to spend time researching, sifting through data, meeting with scientists trying to understand their particular project and how it could related to the metrics we were trying to collect, and then trying to find a way to tie it in. The importance of this task seemed disproportionate to effort it required. The type of data that we needed to make the monitoring plan “good” was very technical, outside of the expertise of the campaign manager, so time was also spent trying to understand research methods and comprehend and analyze very specific scientific data.

Even with all of the data about reefs, sediment and water quality, we know that we will not see a change in these things for many years, and we cannot guarantee that these research projects will still be funded/ongoing for data at that time, or whether there will be any way to correlate these results with the work done by the campaign. For example, reducing fires is part of the solution, but it will need to be followed by watershed restoration such as reforestation and stream bank stabilization to see a reduction in sediment and then an increase in reef health).

What do you think is needed for the future of monitoring at your site?

Aside from more money, staffing and long term sustainability for the existing projects, I don’t think there is a specific ask for monitoring. There are many projects going on monitoring sedimentation, impacts of watershed mitigation projects, impacts of population growth and recreational use, climate change, reef resiliency, , etc. I think the best that can be done is to continue to monitor these projects and stay informed of key results. If a really comprehensive monitoring plan was to be developed, it would take a full time staff person, or grad student to put together the results and spend the time and energy needed to integrate the various projects into a long term plan. With the upcoming military build-up there are a lot of new projects on the horizon that will continue to provide great data. The best we can do is to continue to stay informed and communicate with the people doing the research.

8. Follow-up concept note and COWP

Rare Alumni Fund 2010 Application Form (follow up plan)

I. General Information

1. Applicant eligibility: (Rare Alumni Fund grants in 2010 are ONLY available to Pride campaign manager alumni and in special cases, Pride partner organizations that have continued the Pride campaign if the original campaign manager has left the organization. Eligible alumni for 2010 are defined as individuals who have completed a Pride campaign. “Original Pride partner organizations” are defined as the original local partner organization that sponsored the first Pride campaign.) Are you a Pride campaign manager alumnus currently employed by the original Pride partner organization? Yes_X__ No___

Are you a Pride campaign manager alumnus currently employed by a new partner organization? Yes___ No X

If “No” to 2 questions above, are you a representative from an original Pride partner organization with a new campaign manager? (i.e. if the Pride alumnus has left the organization and a new campaign manager is implementing the proposed project) Yes___ No X

If “No” to all 3 questions above, please contact Rare Alumni Fund staff as your Application may not be eligible for this fund.

2. Applicant contact details: (The Applicant must be the project leader for the proposed project in this Application. Please enter the Pride campaign manager alumnus or Pride partner organization representative filling out this form. Pride alumni must be sponsored by a legally registered partner organization such as an NGO, local institution, government department to act on their behalf as recipient of a Rare Alumni Fund grant.)Full name: Elaina ToddTitle/Position within the organization: Special Project CoordinatorOrganization: Bureau of Statistics & Plans, Guam Coastal Management ProgramComplete mailing address: PO Box 809 Agana GU 96932Country: USATelephone: (with international codes) 671-475-4468Fax: (with international codes) n/aEmail: [email protected]

3. Partner organization contact details: (Please enter the organization that will receive and manage the grant. Organizations must be legally registered with a bank account in the organization’s name and support this Application project completely. In addition, partner organization representatives are required to sign the Rare Alumni Fund “Statement of Endorsement” in Appendix A.)

Partner organization: Guam Coastal Management ProgramComplete mailing address: PO Box 2950 Hagatna GU 96932Country: USATelephone: (with international codes) : 671-475-9666-8Fax: (with international codes) 671-475-4512Website:

Name and title of the person that will sign the agreement and will be responsible for the implementation of the grant: (the Executive Director of other high level representative with authority to take on new projects and accept grants)

Full name of partner organization signing authority: Evangeline LujanTitle/Position within the organization: Administrator, GCMPTelephone: (with international codes) 671-475-9672Email: [email protected]

4. Project summary: (not to exceed 3 sentences below)

Hunting Festival-in order to follow through with hunting clinics, a follow up festival will be held in Southern Guam to promote use of baiting tools through hunting season. Additional campaign materials, advertising and festival supplies will be purchased.

Project title: Hunting FestivalProject site name and location: Talofofo Bay, GuamTotal USD$ amount requested from Rare Alumni Fund: $5,000

(Please complete all answers below briefly, with a maximum of 1 or 2 paragraphs each.)

II. Review of Initial Pride Campaign 5. Please summarize results from your initial Pride campaign: evidence of success that shows how supportive constituencies were created in

your target site. (These are results relating to K+A+IC in your Theory of Change or “Knowledge”, “Attitude” and “Interpersonal Communication.” Provide results such as # of volunteers, # of petitions signed, # of environmental groups or clubs created.)

Materials Produced Target AudienceNumber

ProducedLogo Stickers Southern Communities 500Campaign Shirts Southern Communities 500Brochures Southern Communities 1000Campaign Pens Southern Communities 1000Campaign Billboards Southern Communities 3I Don't Burn hats Southern Hunters 100I Don't Burn coolers Southern Hunters 200I Don't Burn Carabiners Southern Hunters 200Binoculars Southern Hunters 200

Outreach Activity Target Audience Number Village Displays Southern Residents 10Frank Appearances Children 3School presentations Southern Children 4

( A full listing of campaign materials and activities is available in section 5 of the final report)

One of the main campaign activities has been setting up educational displays at southern village fiestas and events to help people understand the impact of fires on watersheds and reefs. Display consisted of a watershed model, game, and images illustrating the impacts and were set up at the Talofofo, Inarajan and Agat fiestas as well as at the Piti watershed hike and the Fanihi Festival. Additional fiestas will be attended towards the end of the year. Hundreds of people visited the display and received campaign materials and played the “Frank’s Fire Trivia” game. In addition to educating community, displays have assisted in developing good relationships with southern mayors.

A good working relationship was developed with the Guam Fire Department Chief. GFD is on board with all campaign messages and activities and has invited CM to participate in end of the year Fire Prevention Month Activities. Brochures were distributed to all southern fire stations, and shirts and campaign materials were given to firemen.

A watershed hike was hosted in the southern village of Piti with over 150 participants. Taking participants into the watershed allowed them to see the impacts of the fires first hand. Several have called or emailed asking when the next event was. There was good media coverage and partnership with various natural resource agencies and the National Park Service.

One of the most critical constituencies is with the hunters in Guam. While many have been involved in the planning and testing of baiting tools, the larger support was gathered during the BROP hunter training clinics held in September. The goals of the expos were to educate hunters of the destructive nature of fire, provide alternatives to using fire, and being to create an official hunting group for Guam. 75 hunters attended the expos and received deer attractants. Further monitoring of this group will be continued through the hunting season, with more data available in March 2011.

Our knowledge objectives were met and exceeded for both target audiences. We aimed to increase knowledge that fires on land are a serious threat to Guam’s coral reefs. We achieved 183% of this objective for the general community and 340% with the hunters.The general community was asked whether they agreed or disagreed that wildland fires did not need to be prevented. The general community results for this question were not statistically significant and the % achieved cannot be assessed. Interestingly, the hunter data was statistically significant and showed a big shift in attitude about this question, from 44% pre campaign to 76% post campaign, a 22pp increase. While this was not a SMART objective for this target audience, it is a good indication of the shift in attitude for hunters. The SMART objective for hunters aimed to measure their attitude towards how whether they agreed or disagreed that those starting wildland fires should be prosecuted. We achieved 177% of this objective, with 80% of hunters agreeing or strongly agreeing (a 23pp increase).

Our goal for interpersonal communication was simple. We wanted people to talk to each other about wildland fires, about the causes, the effects, the billboards, etc. We achieved 190% of the objective for the general community, though the data for the hunters was not statistically significant and cannot be assessed. This may be attributed to a very small sample size of this audience in the pre campaign survey.

http://coralreef.gov/las/lasfactsheets2009/


Further analysis of these objectives can be found in section 5 of the final report. 6. Please summarize conservation results from your initial Pride campaign: evidence of success that shows how were threats reduced or

mitigated. (These are results relating to “BC”, “TR” and “C” in your Theory of Change, or “Behavior Change”, “Threat Reduction” and “Conservation.” Provide results such as # of new hectares protected, # of reduced forest fires, # of new demonstration plots created.)

Currently, only baseline data has been collected. On average, 1759 wildland fires are recorded each year (from GFD fire reports 2005-2009). Turbidity data of southern rivers is currently being collected. Data from monitoring with the National Park Service showed initial results in the Agat Namo river showed less than 1.6 in January sampling NTU on and 3.6 NTU average in August sampling.

Throughout and after the campaign the number of fires and turbidity measurements will continue to be monitored in the target area, as well as the coral cover. Additionally, BC results will be assessed after the first hunting season with the deer attractants through hunter surveys and conversations.

There are several projects included in future monitoring turbidity after the campaign. GCMP is working towards getting sondes to monitor turbidity and other water quality parameters in the southern watersheds and at the western shoals area, an area down current from the southern watersheds. The Guam Environmental Protection agency has in place a Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy to monitor turbidity in southern watersheds on a rotational basis. According to the plan, data will be collected for at least 6 weeks in each season at several watersheds in the south to establish baseline data and trends in turbidity. Finally, the Sea Grant program at UOG has in place a monitor at Cetti Bay, in the target area, to monitor water quality. This data will all be available for reference for the campaign and for Rare as an intermediate indicator of long term threat reduction.

Coral cover will also continue to be monitored over the next five years by both the Natural Park Service and the GCMP monitoring program. These plans are outlined in section 6.4 of the final report..

7. Please summarize the next steps articulated in your campaign Final Report. (These are the follow-up recommendations needed to achieve conservation results after the initial Pride campaign.)

After analysis of survey and qualitative data, we believe the hunting community is and the preparation phase, with the right tools and knowledge to adopt fire free hunting practices. In order to push them to action and maintenance, we must continue to work with the hunting community. Three additional hunter expos will be held using the remaining BROP funds, and ideally, a more structured hunting organization will be established. This organization could facilitate further trainings for hunters, the acquisition of additional tools as needed, and the establishment of a hunter monitoring program. Throughout the hunting season, we will monitor and evaluate various deer attractants and other alternatives used and keep hunters involved in the process of evaluating them.

We believe the general community is in the contemplation stage, still having barriers to overcome before they can report fires and adopt some of the fire use guidelines and alternatives. The next to achieving their behavior change will be working with southern mayors to provide better accessibility to some alternatives such as village composting (or trainings), and other forms of waste management. In addition alternatives, we will push for the implementation of the fire citation program by fire department and stricter enforcement of existing fire regulations. We hope to achieve this through community pressure by preparing a community petition to the various agencies.

Community engagement and constituency must also be maintained through activities such as additional watershed hikes and outreach events in other southern villages, additional work in schools (outreach presentations), additional tree planting projects and other watershed restoration efforts driven by community members. These activities are included in our GCMP grant for 2011.

8. What progress has been made to achieve these follow-up activities since the end of the initial campaign?

The campaign just concluded in October though some core funds and barrier removal funds are still available to complete several activities. These will be outlined in the attached workplan. The first in a series of tree plantings in the Masso watershed occurred on November 13, with the next one planned for December 3rd. The GCMP and Environmental Education Committee strategies for next year include funding and support for the watershed hikes and the petition will be drafted before the end of the year.

9. Please summarize how this Application supports any of these follow-up activities.

Funding of a hunting festival would allow for a continued relationship with the hunting community and the production of more campaign materials to continue engagement of the southern communities. It would offer an opportunity for hunters who participated in the BROP to showcase their efforts, report results of any hunter monitoring programs, and continue the increase awareness within southern communities about the need to prevent fires by the hunters themselves.

III. Theory of Change for Follow-up Project

10. Draft Theory of ChangeThe next 7 (seven) pages contain a “Theory of Change” worksheet. This worksheet will help you understand and develop a Theory of Change for your Follow-up Project. If you have already developed a Theory of Change for this project through your Pride Campaign Follow-up Plan or other exercise, please insert that document here. Remember, this “Theory of Change” is for your follow-up campaign project. While you may or may not have developed a Theory of Change for your original Pride campaign, think about how the follow-up phase of your campaign can build upon your initial campaign period. What areas of your original Theory of Change still need to be addressed? Which target audiences or threats need extended focus? What new or additional target audiences or threats can be

addressed now after the achievements from your original Pride campaign? What new solutions or “barrier removal” tools can be added in the follow-up phase? For questions about how to fill out this worksheet, please contact your regional Alumni Coordinator. Rare’s goal is to help you on your path towards sustaining and expanding your Pride campaign work.

THEORY OF CHANGE: <WILDLAND FIRES, SOUTHERN GUAM>

IC+A+K BR BC TR CR

WHAT DOES A PRIDE CAMPAIGN

NEED TO COMMUNICATE?

HOW CAN WE

REMOVE BARRIERS TO

ADOPTION OF A NEW BEHAVIOR?

WHAT BEHAVIOR DO

WE WANT TO SEE CHANGE?

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL THREAT TO CONSERVATION

TARGET?

WHAT IS THE

CONSERVATION RESULT AND

TARGET?

Community members & hunters need to understand the impacts of wildland fires on the watersheds and reefs.

Provide community with fire use guidelines, stricter enforcement for fire use violations, and alternatives to attract deer for hunters.

Community members will burn responsibly, not throw out cigarette butts, and hunters will not use fire to draw out deer.

Sedimentation from upland erosion caused by vegetation destruction by fires.

Increased coral cover in southern Guam monitoring sites.

What conversations are needed to encourage people to adopt the new behavior?

Discussions of

What alternate behaviors (or actions) might be proposed?

Community: Composting, recycling, community mulching, using fire guidelines.

Which group(s) is responsible for this behavior and what evidence exists to support this identification?

Hunters are identified as the major group.

What evidence exists that this is a principal threat and that we can reduce it?

Sediment has been indentified as the primary threat to southern reefs in the 2008 Status of the Reefs Report as well as several other scientific publications.

What evidence is there that it is a high priority for biodiversity conservation?

Guam’s coral reef ecosystems are home to over 400 species of coral, making it one of the most

5 14 3 2

importance of preventing wildland fires and using fire responsibly.

What are the attitudes we want to shift for interpersonal communication to take place?

The importance of using fire responsibly and taking a proactive role to prevent future fires from taking place.

What knowledge is needed to increase awareness and help shift these attitudes?

The main causes of wildland fires, the impacts on the entire watershed and reefs

Hunters: using alternative deer attractants or bait stations.

What might be some perceived benefits to the groups if behavior change is made?

Less flooding, less water outages, clean water, healthier fish stocks, healthier reefs, less air pollution.

What might be some barriers stopping a change to desired behavior?

Access to recycling centers & mulchers, knowledge of proper fire use guidelines.

What barrier removal tools exist and how do you know they will be effective?

Fire use guideline brochures, mayor’s office community mulching/recycling efforts. For hunters: deer attractants.

What evidence exists that this group lies behind the principal threat?

Reports from fire department and forestry department (“arson related fires”).

Does baseline data exist on this group? If yes, how is this data collected (measures and metrics) and how frequently?

Very little data is available as registered hunters are often not the responsible parties. More data will be available after hunter training clinics.

What other groups might contribute to the threat?

Community members burning trash and debris illegally. This has been identified as an equally important target audience.

Does baseline data exist on this threat? If yes, how is this data collected (measures and metrics) and how frequently?

Baseline data is being collected by the national park service, though it is minimal as it is only done several times a year. A new project by the SEA Grant program is now collecting data at one point in southern Guam constantly. Data will be available online in close to real time.

What other threats impact this biodiversity target?

Global climate change & disease, recreational use & overuse, overfishing, and Department of Defense expansion and related development.

(see


las09/lasguam.pdf)

diverse US jurisdictions. They are an integral part of Guam’s culture and economy.

Does baseline data exist on its current state? If yes, how is data collected (measures and metrics) and how frequently?

Currently, data from the national park service is being used in target sites as an indicator.

What is the desired conservation result and by when? (will be updated after campaign)

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed

monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from

an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

By 2015 percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay

temporary monitoring sites will increase by 5

percentage points from an

Who will provide these tools?

Mayors, legislature, GCMP, Rare

average of 4. 34% to 9.34%.

Using the data from above, please write a narrative articulating your Draft Theory of Change. Include one sentence stating why you think it will be effective. Max 200 words:

To eliminate the threat of sedimentation on Guam’s diverse coral reefs, wildland fires caused by illegal hunting in Southern Guam must be prevented. Key target groups (Southern Hunters and General Community members) will be informed that preventing wildland fires will benefit the entire community by reducing damage to private property and natural resources. Hunters will be given sustainable hunting trainings and deer attractants to use as an alternative to burning, and the community will be asked to report wildland fires and adopt responsible fire use practices. There will be a decrease in the number of fires, and a reduction in the amount of sediment on the reef. The campaign will be deemed successful if the number of vegetation fires decreases by 50% (from 1759 [average 2005-2009] to 880) by December 2010 and if percentage coral cover in the Agat Bay fixed monitoring sites will increase by 5 percentage points from an average of 3.03% to 8.03%.

6


(Please complete all answers below briefly, with a maximum of 1 or 2 paragraphs each.)

V. Sustainability Assessment

11. What is the long-term strategy of your partner organization at this project site? (i.e. is there a long-range site management plan or strategic plan, is there educational outreach incorporated into this plan)

One of the projects administered by the Guam Coastal Management Program is Guam’s Coral Reef Initiative funds. The CRI focuses on five main Local Action Strategies (LAS), two of which are directly supported by the campaign: (1) Land Based Sources of Pollution and (2) Lack of Awareness. Through this LAS, additional community outreach and education events will be coordinated in partnership with the Guam environmental education community. In addition to staffing, additional funding has already been identified to support post-campaign community watershed projects.

12. How does this project fit within that long-term strategy?

The hunting festival is already a proposed project in the watershed outreach grant. Additional funding through this grant would allow for the festival to be conducted on a larger scale and would avail funds for things that cannot be purchased through GCMP grant funds. Other watershed outreach activities such as watershed hikes and tree plantings can be partnered with this festival to reach a larger audience and to provide opportunities for the BROP hunters to participate in various aspects, solidifying their involvement in the campaign. Additionally, having the funds from this grant will make it much easier to get local businesses to participate in the festival by providing matching funds.

13. How will the project be sustained after the period of grant implementation?

The goal for the 2011 hunting festival is to be the first of many. Ideally, this project will be the start of an annual event which provides a venue for hunters to celebrate their traditional practices and showcase the use of new products in developing more sustainable hunting practices. The success of this festival will provide media coverage and the awareness needed to source out corporate and private sponsors for future events. It will also show GCMP grantors the need for this type of event and encourage them to approve continued funding for subsequent festivals or similar events.

http://www.rareplanet.org/en/node/25487

http://www.rareplanet.org/en/campaign/campaign-effective-watershed-managementguam/blog



14. Please describe local matching funds or in-kind support for this project. (Line item budget details are requested below in “VI. Grant Request.” Please provide a brief narrative summary here such as staff, volunteers, administrative support, office space, local transportation provided by the partner organization or other funding source.)

In addition to funding the salary & support of the CM to continue work ($38,000), $60,000 has been allocated to support post-campaign community outreach watershed projects. Partnerships will be established with the SEAGrant monitoring program, and assistance will be provided by GCMP’s Coral Reef Monitoring Program to assess data collected.

*Please also include as an Appendix to this Application, “Evidence of Match Support.” Evidence can be any documentation that shows the match support is valid such as:

a letter of proposal acceptance from a foundation a letter of support from the local partner organization providing in-kind salary or local administration costs a letter of monetary support from a separate partner organization that has agreed to supply funding for this project

Please contact Rare Alumni Fund staff for further clarification.

VI. Grant Request

15. What is the total amount in US dollars (USD$) requested from the Rare Alumni Fund for the proposed project for a period of one-year only? (Rare Alumni Fund grants are available in any amount up to USD$10,000 for a one-year period, with the average grant amount ranging from USD$5,000-USD$10,000 ) USD $3,000

16. Are you requesting multiple year funding? (Applications may be submitted of up to USD$10,000 per year for up to 3 years, when accompanied by evidence of a long-term site strategy. If you do not request multi-year funding now, you may submit a new Application to the next Rare Alumni Fund year instead.) Yes ___ No X .If Yes, what is the total amount in USD$ requested for Year 2 and Year 3? (Rare Alumni Fund multi-year grants will be distributed yearly after all reporting requirements are complete and the first year results are assessed.) n/a

17. Please provide an itemized project budget in USD$. Column A: Please list items in categories, (i.e. “Campaign Supplies”) and then specific items (i.e. “1,000 posters”) underneath each main

category heading. Suggestions are inserted below, but please feel free to add/delete rows as necessary to match your specific itemized budget.

Introduction - rareplanet.org · Web viewWhile many of the campaign images focused on the impacts of wildland fires, such as the campaign poster and billboards, they did not directly

Documents