Mississippi Deer Management Assistance Program Cooperators' Satisfaction with and Attitudes toward Program Success and Service Quality

We used a self-administered mail questionnaire to investigate Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) cooperators' understanding of and satisfaction with this program to identify possible improvements in the quality of educational and technical assistance. Since statewide program inception in 1983, no effort had been made to evaluate the program from a customer's perspective prior to our study. We sent questionnaires to 618 DMAP cooperators immediately after the close of the 2004-05 deer hunting season in Mississippi. We received 391 useable questionnaires. When non- deliverables (N = 57) were excluded from consideration, we achieved an effective response rate of 74.9%. Results indicated that cooperators generally understood why they collect biological samples but were less understanding of overall program goals. Cooperators were generally satisfied with their participation in DMAP and their biologist, but performance fell below expectations on some aspects of program delivery and all aspects of service de- livery. Strongest correlates for satisfaction with program and service delivery indicate that biologists need to better understand how cooperators define quality deer populations and quality deer. This most likely could be achieved with increased face-to-face interactions between biologists and coopera - tors. Increased contact between agency personnel and program cooperators could help to increase cooperators satisfaction with the program, and help to recruit new individuals or clubs into the program.

[1]  J. Absher,et al.  Alternate Measurement Approaches to Recreational Customer Satisfaction: Satisfaction-Only Versus Gap Scores , 2003 .

[2]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[3]  Craig A. Miller,et al.  Effect of Harvest Success on Hunter Attitudes Toward White-Tailed Deer Management in Pennsylvania , 2001 .

[4]  T. L. Brown,et al.  FURTHER INSIGHTS INTO THE MULTIPLE-SATISFACTIONS APPROACH FOR HUNTER MANAGEMENT , 1980 .

[5]  J. Vaske,et al.  Multiple determinants of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting trip. , 1986 .

[6]  M. E. Patterson,et al.  DETERMINANTS OF MULTIPLE SATISFACTION FOR DEER HUNTING , 1990 .

[7]  Michael R. Conover,et al.  Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management , 2001 .

[8]  Larry M. Gigliotti.  A classification scheme to better understand satisfaction of Black Hills deer hunters: The role of harvest success , 2000 .

[9]  R. Oliver.  A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions , 1980 .

[10]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality , 1991 .

[11]  William C. Black,et al.  The dimensional stability of the standards used in the disconfirmation paradigm , 2005 .

[12]  M. E. Patterson,et al.  Determinants of participant satisfaction with quality deer management. , 1996 .

[13]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. , 1988 .

[14]  J. A. Parkhurst,et al.  Interactions between deer damage, deer density, and stakeholder attitudes in Virginia , 2002 .

[15]  William J. McShea,et al.  Science and Management: Too Many Deer?@@@The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Population Management , 1998 .