2.2. Household Questionnaire
A questionnaire was delivered by hand to all households in the 18 neighbourhoods. To maximise response rate we implemented several of the methods recommended by the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al., 2009), such as the inclusion of a stamped return envelope and personalising correspondence by using a hand-addressed envelope along with a personally signed covering letter explaining the purpose of the survey. 2198 questionnaires were delivered and 533 were completed (24% response rate). There was a response bias across neighbourhoods, with the most affluent neighbourhood (R1) having a 49% response rate, compared to 14% in the least affluent neighbourhood (H3). An exploratory analysis that controlled for the effect of response rate using linear models showed that it had no significant effect on model fit, so was subsequently dropped from analyses as it indicated response rate did not affect the results.
The questionnaire was the most comprehensive survey of garden management and wildlife gardening practices to have been undertaken in a UK city. It contained 30 questions that covered main themes of: (i) garden use and management; (ii) current wildlife gardening practices and wildlife observations; and (iii) house and garden characteristics
(e.g. house type, garden size) (Appendix A). In addition, respondents were asked socio-demographic questions relating to age, presence of young children, housing tenure, length of residency, occupation and education. Respondents' level of wider environmental commitment was assessed by asking about participation in other environmental activities and membership of garden or wildlife organisations/charities. Finally, respondents were asked how important they deemed six global environmental issues by scoring them on a Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Four indices were calculated for data analysis based on questionnaire responses (Table 2). The wildlife resources index (WRI) was used as one of two response variables, and the management intensity index, environmental activity index and environmental concern index were used as explanatory variables. Ground-truthing was used to verify the accuracy of the WRI during garden ecological surveys (Goddard, 2012) and correlation between respondent-assessed WRI and that recorded by MG in a subset of 90 gardens was moderately high (rs=0.72).
为什么要为野生动物建造花园？社会和生态驱动力，动机以及在住宅景观中的生物多样性管理的障碍。
摘要：带私人花园的住宅景观是主要的覆盖城市的土地，其可持续管理最重要的，是实现弹性的城市未来。在这里，我们专注于住宅生态系统的价值，保护生物多样性和探讨影响野生动物友好花园的社会和生态因素管理。在英国的利兹市，采用分层抽样的设计——这种跨学科的研究开发和应用的混合方法的方法，包括问卷调查，在多个空间尺度的访谈和生态调查。（I）我们用两个量化措施对野生动物友好园艺的功能（野生动物资源指数）和冬季该频率鸟喂食。野生动物友好园林由园林特性的组合影响，包括管理力度，一家之主的人口统计资料，更广泛的环境活动和景观环境。居民透露了一系列动机野生动物友好园林，特别是个人的福祉和的道德责任的性质。受访者表示有责任文持邻里标准，揭示社会规范是一个相当大的障碍摄取的野生动物友好的活动，而且还提供了一个机会在那里的邻居模仿导致野生动物的做法扩散。社区驱动从事举措，教育和增强居民更好地鼓励野生动物友好园艺比自上而下的财政激励措施。 住宅景观中的生物多样性英文文献和中文翻译(3):http://www.youerw.com/fanyi/lunwen_11229.html